Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

lida, Echinodermata, and Arthropoda, while the other, b, gave rise to the Polyzoa and Ascidioida, and produced the two remaining stirpes of the Vertebrata and the Mollusca."1

Many persons will agree with Mr. Huxley so far as to admit that Professor Haeckel is not destitute either of "sound knowledge," or of

[ocr errors]

great ingenuity," who yet think Mr. Huxley in error when he represents his favourite Professor as possessing these characteristics in combination. As displayed in his "speculations on Phylogeny," they appear to be not so much in combination as in opposition. Each invades the province of the other. Take away the knowledge," and you clear the field for the "ingenuity": but where "sound knowledge" is supreme, "great ingenuity" is superfluous. He who finds it "more profitable to go wrong than to stand still," may indeed display "great ingenuity," but the soundness of his "knowledge" is by no means unquestionable.

[ocr errors]

Take, for example, this very summary of "his views," as here given by Professor Huxley. What he does "view" is something not actual and real, but ideal only. He does not "prove"; he does not even assign reasons for belief; but,

1 66 Critiques and Addresses." Macmillan, 1873, pp. 314, 315.

like Mr. Darwin, he merely "conceives" a certain ideal origin of life. His Monera, at first "conceivable" only, and then "conceived," "acquired tendencies." But how did they acquire them? And how does he know that they were acquired? The only answer is, that they must have acquired them or they could never have possessed them; and they must have possessed them, or they could not have become animal Monera; and they must have become animal Monera, for without them the theory breaks down, and the existence of the animal world could be accounted for only by admitting the doctrine of a special creation. To meet the exigencies of the theory therefore, these "simple particles," so inexplicably "originated," and with "tendencies" so inexplicably "acquired," at last, and in some equally inexplicable manner, "became

animal Monera."

"At last!" By no means: this is but another beginning. Each tier of the hypothesis is constructed only by a recurrence of the same dogmatic assumptions. "Some of the animal Monera acquired a nucleus, and became amœbalike creatures." "Great ingenuity?" Undoubtedly: whatever the theory requires is forthcoming- -on paper. The transformations

are as surprising, as unaccountable,—and as unreal,—as those which ingenuity, by means of sleight of hand, brings out of a conjuror's hat. But it is only conjuring after all; and "sound knowledge" is not imposed upon by sleight of hand. These "simple particles" "originated," "acquired," "became," "were developed," "became modified," "gave rise to," and "produced," "all forms of life." How? When? How? When? Where? No such origination has ever been witnessed. No such evolution has ever been observed. No such results have ever been produced. But the theory requires them; and consequently, to meet the exigencies of the theory, here they are -on paper.

Before dismissing "Professor Haeckel's speculations on Phylogeny," there is one other point that calls for special notice. His fundamental postulates are these: "That all forms of life originally commenced as Monera, or simple particles of protoplasm; and that these Monera originated from not living matter." Yet he himself is perfectly aware that these, his fundamental postulates, are not only "not proven," but are incapable of proof. "With respect to spontaneous generation," says Mr. Huxley,' "while admitting that there is no experimental

1 "Critiques and Addresses." Macmillan, 1873, p. 304.

evidence in its favour, Professor Haeckel denies the possibility of disproving it, and points out that the assumption that it has occurred is a necessary part of the doctrine of evolution." So be it. A more complete confirmation of what has been already said on this subject it would be impossible to desire. Evolution now, of necessity, rests on "spontaneous generation:" while spontaneous generation is at best an assumption" of which its most uncompromising advocate admits that "there is no experimental evidence in its favour." So much the worse for "the doctrine of Evolution."

[ocr errors]

The position assumed by Mr. Huxley himself in reference to this subject is peculiar; so peculiar, indeed, that it had better be stated in his own words. In his Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1870), he discusses the conflicting claims of Biogenesis and Abiogenesis, in one of the ablest and most lucid expositions ever given of that problem. By the former term he denotes "the hypothesis that living matter always arises by the agency of pre-existing living matter;" the latter term denotes the contrary doctrine that living matter may be produced by matter not living.

The first distinct enunciation of the hypo

thesis that all living matter has sprung from pre-existing living matter, he traces not to our great countryman, Harvey, but to a contemporary though a junior of Harvey, and trained in the same schools, Francesco Redi. And he concludes his sketch of the progress of the doctrine, and of the successive experiments by which its truth has been established, in these words: "So much for the history of the progress of Redi's great doctrine of Biogenesis, which appears to me, with the limitations I have expressed, to be victorious along the whole line at the present day."1

His own adhesion to this "great doctrine of Biogenesis" is thus stated: "If in the present state of science the alternative is offered us,either germs can stand a greater heat than has been supposed, or the molecules of dead matter, for no valid or intelligible reason that is assigned, are able to rearrange themselves into living bodies, exactly such as can be demonstrated to be frequently produced another way, -I cannot understand how choice can be, even for a moment, doubtful.

"But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to 1 "Critiques and Addresses," p. 239.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »