Dr. James

as much right as Professor Haeckel. Croll, F.R.S., writing upon The Philosophical Basis of Evolution, says:

The figurative expression 'natural selection' is a somewhat unfortunate one, for it is apt to mislead. It has a tendency to convey the idea, and does so to many minds, that nature makes a selection. Nature does no such thing. Natural selection is simply the survival of the fittest. There is nothing in the nature of selection but this. Natural selection is better expressed by saying that it is the survival of the fittest resulting from the destruction of the unfit. Thus it is obvious that it can produce nothing. The simple destruction of that which exists would not produce that which does not exist. The conception is absurd Natural selection is not an efficient cause; it has no formative power, no positive efficiency. There must be something of the nature of an organ to begin with, however rude, simple, and elementary it may be, or else natural selection would have nothing upon which to act.'

That there is reason for Dr. Croll's protest may be inferred from Darwin's own words:

Further, we must suppose that there is a power represented by natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, always intently watching each slight variation in the transparent layers of the eye, and carefully preserving each which under varied circumstances in any way or in any degree tends to produce a distincter vision."

But a fair and typical comment upon this must always own that—

Natural selection cannot create a new organ or structure, but only preserve such variations of growth as are best adapted to the conditions of life. If the humming-bird's bill or the insect's proboscis grows longer, its better adaptation to the flowers on which it feeds may cause that form to prevail to the extinction of the shorter bill or the proboscis, but the flower does not make

1 ' pp. 127, 128.

2 Origin of Species (6th ed.), p. 146.

the bill or proboscis grow, nor cause the offspring to inherit the more favourable form.'

And when Mr. Darwin goes so far as to say:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down'; it is certainly open to any careful observer of nature to reply as Mr. Hassell does. 'Well, be it so! The knowledge of the structure of a hen's egg will enable us to demolish the whole fabric of evolution by natural selection.' 3

The attitude of Professor Haeckel is plainly enough expressed throughout his works. The following will serve as a type of the rest:

The great difference between a machine and an organism is that in the machine the regularity is due to the purposive and consciously acting will of man; whereas in the case of the organism, it is produced by unconscious natural selection without design.1

Here we have once more the marvellous suggestion that the inferior production requires intelligence to bring it about, but the superior does not! Waiving that, however, this ascription of practical omnipotence to natural selection is utterly negatived by careful scrutiny. Thus, says Mr. Syme:

The conditions of existence cannot be a vera causa of organic changes, although they constitute an important indirect factor.

' Mr. G. C. Bompas, F.G.S., F.R.G.S., &c., Trans. Vict. Inst., No. 110, P. 106.

2 Origin of Species, p. 146.

• Trans. Vict. Inst., No. 73, p. 57, which see, for the grounds of such an assertion.

♦ Wonders, p. 105.

I say indirect, for the environment is only the condition, or the occasion, not the cause of modification. It is absurd to speak of a condition as a cause. It is the organism itself which modifies itself to the conditions, not the conditions which modify the organism. It is the power of adaptation which the organism possesses which is the real factor in organic modifications.

The variations are provided for, but not by natural selection; the profitable variations are preserved, not by natural selection, but by heredity; and they are preserved because they are profitable; so that the whole process, from first to last, is carried on without the smallest assistance from natural selection.' We are therefore well warranted in saying that such a statement as we find in The Riddle, that—

Darwin's conception of the theory of selection first revealed to us the true causes of the gradual formation of species-the 'struggle for life' is the great selective divinity, which by a purely natural choice, without preconceived design, creates new forms just as selective man creates new types by an artificial choice with a definite design 3—

is alike self-contradictory and untrue. Whence it follows that the Monism which is compelled to stake its very existence upon natural selection, as a substitute for design, is hopelessly discredited.

Into detailed discussion of this matter from the standpoint of science it is manifestly impossible to enter here. No quotations from Haeckel's works are necessary to show that his monism depends on Darwinism, and Darwinism for him means natural selection. It is enough, therefore, here to meet his assertion that by its means we have now got rid

2

The Soul, a Study and an Argument, pp. xxv., 120.

p. 93. The italics are mine.

So, too, says Mr. R. B. Arnold (Scientific Fact and Metaphysical Reality, p. 355), in his critique on Haeckel's works-'Natural selection, it seems now agreed, does not in itself explain the origin and variation of species.'

of design,' with the plain avowal that it is not true. Professor Duns has abundant warrant in facts for his avowal that

The claims recently urged in behalf of the theory of natural selection as a substitute for the theory of design are not admissible, because it fails to give a satisfactory explanation of the differences among closely related organisms, of the complex phenomena of organs and functions and especially of sex, of the laws and limits of variation, of the law of reversion to type, or of the numberless adaptations implied in all these. Whereas all such fall into order and significance when traced to active intelligence, both as to origin and guidance.'

Now, there can be no doubt that, as Professor Henslow puts it, 'the reason why Darwinism is accepted by materialists and monists as the foundation of their system is because the whole process of evolution, if based on natural selection, is not reducible to any natural law. It is a mechanical haphazard system, which Huxley called a method of trial and error.' The plain object, in a word, is to oust teleology by means of mechanism plus chance. But it cannot be done. For 'mechanism,' be it ever so farreaching, does not of necessity exclude teleology, but rather confirms and emphasizes it'; whilst chance,

Professor Duns, D.D., F.R.S.E., New College, Edinburgh, President of the Royal Physical Society, Edinburgh.

2 Thus Professor Weismann says, in his Studies of Descent: 'The harmony of the universe, and of that part of it which we call organic nature, cannot be explained by chance. Mechanism and teleology do not exclude each other, but are rather in mutual agreement. Without teleology there could be no mechanism, but only a confusion of crude forces; without mechanism there could be no teleology, for how could the latter otherwise effect its purpose?' So, too, Von Hartman declared that the most complete mechanism is likewise the most completely conceivable teleology.' (See Vict. Inst. Trans. February, 1894, The Mechanical Conception of Nature, by G. Macloskie, D.Sc., LL.D.)

in the only sense in which it would rule out teleology, is, as we shall see in a moment, expressly excluded by Monists themselves. That Darwin himself never contemplated the exclusion of teleology, is abundantly manifest from his own words above quoted.1 So is there good ground for Huxley's unmistakable judgement, which deserves to be here quoted once again:

The doctrine of evolution is the most formidable opponent of all the commoner and coarser forms of teleology. But perhaps the most remarkable service to the philosophy of biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of teleology and morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both which his views offer. The teleology which supposes that the eye, such as we see it in man, or one of the higher vertebrata, was made with the precise structure it exhibits for the purpose of enabling the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its death-blow. Nevertheless it is necessary to remember that there is a wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental proposition of evolution.'

And again he says, in his Lay Sermons, that 'the apparently diverging teachings of the teleologist and the morphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis.'

93

The sentence quoted above from The Origin of Species—' always intently watching and carefully preserving '—however figurative, cannot but involve a teleology of some kind. And when on the same page we read about the Creator's works,' we see that plainly atheistic monism was far enough from his thoughts.

2 Critiques and Addresses, p. 305.

2

p. 264. To see how far the language of teleology is necessary, and may be employed in the description of natural processes, there is probably no finer specimen in print than that found in the Professor's words on p. 227 concerning the development of a tadpole: So that after watching the process hour by hour, one is almost involuntarily possessed by the notion that some more subtle aid to vision than an achromatic would show the hidden artist with his plan before him, striving with skilful manipulation to perfect his work.'