Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

principal agent of Organic Evolution. The object of this work is to show that Natural Selection, thus defined, has no place in the world of nature; that if it did exist, other factors of evolution would anticipate its action in the transmutation of species now going on; and last, but not least, that we have no definite proof of its action in the early stages of Organic Evolution.

In the third place it may be remarked that this discussion is simply confined to the endeavour to discover what the actual order of nature is. That should be the object of every one who seeks to discover the truth, whether he be a scientific man or a theologian. Whatever order is proved to exist, must be accepted by the scientific man as the system of nature, and beyond that point physical science cannot go. But the theologian is left at liberty to give his reasons for believing that this order of nature is the method of God. Hence it is most desirable, in a work like this, to avoid as far as possible all argument based on theological considerations. The stage at which the discussion of this question has now arrived, justifies us in doing so; although, even now, we have to deal sometimes with objections which arose when the debate was largely dominated by theological considerations.

It is often said, or implied, that a man who is not a scientific expert has no right to venture into the regions of biological controversy, and he is sometimes characterised as "a more or less acute paper philosopher." I venture to think that such a man, if he be only acute enough, may still have his role in the world of science. With the exception of a few universal geniuses who are ready to discuss, and express authoritative opinions on, all possible topics, the necessity of a subdivision of labour has been felt in the scientific world no less than in the economical world.

Sir W. J. Dawson, speaking as the President of the British Association, at Birmingham, said :

"It is impossible for any man to keep pace with the progress of more than one limited branch of science, and it is equally impossible to find an audience of scientific men of whom anything more than a mere fraction can be expected to take an interest in any one subject."

And as in the region of experiment and observation each man may set himself to cultivate his own department, why may not some men devote themselves to the discussion of theories to that branch of science which consists in putting the right interpretation on the phenomena which have been observed and chronicled? When Mr. Galton, in considering a certain problem, referred to a mathematician to work the result from certain elements that were supplied, he took for granted the ability of the mathematician within his own sphere, and did not depreciate his part of the work because he was not an expert in physical or biological science.

But perhaps it will be said that it is impossible that the man who is not an expert in a particular branch, should understand anything about it. Nevertheless, in the address just quoted, Sir W. J. Dawson goes on to express a hope that the specialist can make himself understood:

"There is, however, some consolation in the knowledge that a speaker who is sufficiently simple for those who are advanced specialists in other departments will, of necessity, be also sufficiently simple to be understood by the general public who are specialists in nothing."

And indeed it would be strange if the proof of principles or the statement of definite and special facts could not be made intelligible, and could not be submitted to the judgment of the general public. The command to every thinker, who is not a specialist-Go to a specialist-Go to a biological

laboratory, read an elementary book on biology—is doubtless good advice; and yet a man might thus get the merest smattering of knowledge, or might easily become so absorbed in the comprehension of the details as to lose the grasp of the general idea. Who would think of demanding that the judge and the barristers and the jury should undergo an elementary course of chemistry before they took part in the trial of a reputed poisoner? They have only to weigh the testimony of professional witnesses, and to give, as far as possible, a verdict in accordance with that judgment which is a common attribute of mankind.

In conclusion, it might be said that Natural Selection has passed beyond the range of discussion, in that it has met with universal acceptance on the part of all persons competent to pass a judgment in the matter. But even in that case, discussion might still do good. Mr. John Stuart Mill says, in his Essay On Liberty:

However true an opinion may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth. This is not the way in which truth ought to be held by a rational being. This is not knowing the truth. Truth thus held is but one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words that enunciate truth."-(People's Edition. p. 20.)

The same writer goes on to say that heretical opinions are generally useful as a corrective of popular opinions.

"Popular opinions on subjects not palpable to sense are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth. They are a part of the truth; sometimes a greater, sometimes a smaller part; but exaggerated, distorted and disjoined from the truths with which they ought to be accompanied and limited. Heretical opinions, on the other hand, are generally some of these suppressed and neglected truths, bursting the bonds which kept them down, and either seeking reconciliation with the truth contained in the common opinion, or fronting it as enemies and setting themselves up with similar

exclusiveness as the whole truth. . . . Hence, even in revolutions of opinion, one part of the truth usually sets while another rises.

. . Such being the partial character of prevailing opinions, even when resting on a true foundation, every opinion which embodies somewhat of the portion of truth which the common opinion omits, ought to be considered precious, with whatever amount of error and confusion that truth may be blended.”—(Ibid. pp. 26, 27.)

When I reflect upon the fact that opposition to popular theories of the day is apt to be met with no sympathy and sometimes with slight courtesy, I feel sorely tempted to represent myself as a mere Devil's Advocate. In certain ecclesiastical circles that functionary plays, as is well known, a striking part. A great and good man is thought worthy of canonisation. But it is importantvitally important-that such distinction should not be conferred on the unworthy. And hence some one assumes the part of detractor. He tries to find out all that can be said against the individual singled out for the highest distinction. Of course he does not succeed in his attempt. Unless he is an envious cynic, who does not believe in any human goodness at all, he does not wish to succeed. It has occurred to me that I might play this part with respect to the theory of Natural Selection and its eminent supporters, and show that there is something to be said on the other side, in order that I might be refuted and that the popular theory might be duly glorified. If, in such case, the argument were weak, the failure would be forgiven, seeing there was so little to be said against the truth. If the reasons adduced seemed to be of some force it would only be understood that I was doing the system the compliment of applying to it the severest test which I was able to produce. I suppose such an effort would be described as well-meaning or as clever, according to the amount of ability which it displayed; but I should at least escape the charge of scientific heresy.

And this method is approved in scientific as well as ecclesiastical circles. The supporters of scientific theory desire that it should be doubted and discussed in order that it may be fully believed and realised. But if the discussion does not produce this result, then he who is seriously defending unpopular heresy against an accepted belief, and putting his opinion in opposition to the popular view, does not always fare well at the hands of opponents, and would sometimes do well to remember the kindly humorous warning of Oliver Wendell Holmes, when discoursing on The Stability of Science :—

"The feeble sea-birds, blinded in the storms,
On some tall lighthouse dash their little forms,
And the rude granite scatters for their pains
Those small deposits that were meant for brains.
Yet the proud fabric in the morning's sun
Stands all unconscious of the mischief done;
Still the red beacon pours its evening rays
For the lost pilot with as full a blaze,
Nay, shines, all radiance, o'er the scattered fleet
Of gulls and boobies brainless at its feet.

I tell their fate, though courtesy disclaims
To call our kind by such ungentle names;

Yet, if your rashness bid you vainly dare,
Think of their doom, ye simple, and beware!"

-(Poems. p. 109.)

And, indeed, when a man finds himself in an overwhelming minority on some important topic which has long exercised the thought of the wisest of his day and generation, it might be supposed that common modesty would compel him to mistrust his own judgment; and seeing that he is doubtless making some foolish mistake, common prudence might well suggest that he should keep his folly to himself as much as possible; and if he is a fool, at any rate, not to proclaim that fact from the house-tops. But if such a man should come to feel, not

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »