- -
- 100%
- +
It is perfectly true that Helmholtz so expressed himself (Vorträge und Reden, i. 253, etc., English Edition, "Popular Scientific Lectures," pp. 219, etc.), adding that "the eye has every possible defect that can be found in an optical instrument, and some which are peculiar to itself." These utterances are frequently quoted, but Helmholtz says a good deal more of which we do not usually hear. He observes, in the first place, that in speaking as above he did so "from the narrow but legitimate point of view of an optician." Having then enumerated all the defects in question, he continues – "In an artificial camera, all these irregularities would be exceedingly troublesome. In the eye they are not so, so little troublesome, indeed, that it was occasionally a matter of extreme difficulty to detect them." He adds that men in general not only are unaware of the existence of such defects, but can hardly be induced to credit it. Also that they "almost always affect those portions of the field of vision to which at the moment we are not directing our attention." What is still more to the point, he observes, that the defects noted are all theoretical, while the purpose of the eye is practical, and that if theoretically more perfect as an optical instrument, it would be practically less serviceable. To complain that the eye is not adapted for the special purposes of a microscope or telescope is like condemning the boats of a sea-going ship because they lack some of the qualities found in racing outriggers or Rob Roy canoes. "As concerns the adaptation of the eye to its functions, [adds Helmholtz,] this is most thorough, and is manifest in the very limitations set to its defects… A man of any sense would not chop firewood with a razor, and we may assume that any elaboration of the optical structure of the eye would have rendered it more liable to injury and slower in its development." Helmholtz therefore concludes that the eye is a product which "the wisest Wisdom may have pre-designed."
It thus comes very much to Pope's solution:
Why has not man a microscopic eye?
For this plain reason: man is not a fly, —
and in view of his subsequent admissions, Helmholtz's flourish about returning the eye to its maker looks very like theatrical clap-trap, unworthy of such a man.
131
Life of C. Darwin, ii. 234. Erasmus Darwin to C. Darwin, November 23, 1859.
132
Animal Locomotion (International Scientific Series), p. 180.
133
Origin of Laws of Nature, p. 69.
134
Lectures on Evolution (Cheap Edition), p. 37.
135
Philosophical Basis of Evolution, passim.
136
By a Final Cause is meant the predetermined result or end, towards which a work of intelligence is directed, the end being the ultimate cause of the whole act. Thus the obtaining a light is the Final Cause of striking a match: while the striking of the match is the Efficient Cause producing the light.
137
Grammar of Assent, p. 69.
138
Familiar Lectures, p. 458.
139
"On the Reception of the 'Origin of Species,':" Life of C. Darwin, ii. p. 187.
140
Nineteenth Century, No. 2. Reprinted in Lectures and Essays, p. 388 (2nd Edition).
141
Studies in the Theory of Descent, vol. ii. p. 710; vid. Edinburgh Review, October, 1902, The Rise and Influence of Darwinism.
142
Ut sup. p. 201.
143
Sic. The sense evidently requires either that the "not" should be deleted, or "prove" be substituted for "disprove" in the preceding line. This erroneous reading occurs not only in the text from which I quote, but likewise in the Critiques and Addresses, p. 307, where this passage forms part of the Professor's review of Haeckel's Natural History of Creation, under the title of The Genealogy of Animals.
144
Life and Letters, ii. 195.
145
Ibid., p. 467.
146
De Natura Deorum, ii. 4.
147
Principia, Schol. Gen.
148
Unseen Universe, p. 47.
149
Burnett Lectures, p. 327.
150
See report of his words emended by himself, Nineteenth Century and After, June, 1903.
151
Bradford, 1873.
152
Montreal, 1884.
153
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 3rd Series, vol. v. p. 138.
154
"Reception of 'Origin of Species,'" ubi sup. p. 199.
155
November 26, 1860.
156
May 22, 1860.
157
Riddle of the Universe, p. 92.
158
The Scientific Basis of Morality, by George Gore, LL.D., F.R.S., p. 31.
159
May 22, 1860.
160
Bain, De vi physica, p. 76.
161
Origin of Laws of Nature, p. 61.
162
Lord Grimthorpe, op. cit. 85.
163
Letter to the Times, June 2, 1903
164
The term Monism, invented by Wolf, originally bore a different meaning from that in which Haeckel employs it. It was used to signify equally the materialistic denial of the substantiality of mind, and the idealistic denial of the substantiality of matter. Professor Haeckel, as will be seen, maintains that mind and matter are but two names for one thing.
165
Confession of Faith of a Man of Science (English translation), p. 60.
166
Ibid., p. 10.
167
Ibid., p. 3.
168
Mind and Motion.
169
An Easy Outline of Evolution, by Dennis Hird, M.A., Principal of Ruskin Hall, Oxford, p. 184.
170
Ibid., p. 74.
171
Confession of Faith of a Man of Science, p. 51.
172
Presidential Address, Section A, British Association, Norwich, 1868.
173
"Mr. Darwin's Critics." (Critiques and Addresses, p. 283.)
174
Confession of Faith of a Man of Science, p. 19.
175
To what extremes such doctrines must logically lead is illustrated by Mr. Edmund Selous in his very interesting Bird Watching, where he casually observes, as a matter of course, that the "life-part" of a tom-tit is as important in the sum of things as Napoleon's (p. 248), and declares elsewhere, more formally (p. 335) – "Surely, a beautiful butterfly, that, for all time, charms – and raises by charming – some number of those who see it, does more good on this earth than any single man or woman, who, 'departing,' leaves no 'foot-prints on the sands of time.' Homer, for instance, has left his Iliad and Odyssey, and these have been, and still are, mighty in their effects. But let them once perish, and Homer will be caught up and overtaken by almost any bird or butterfly – even a brown one."
176
First Principles.
177
Riddle of the Universe, p. 92.
178
As to the term "Chance" which he frequently used, Mr. Darwin wrote in one place (Origin of Species, Opening passage of c. v.): "I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations – so common and multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree with those in a state of nature – had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." It is obvious, however, that this explanation only serves to show that, as we have heard him confess, Mr. Darwin was anything but a clear thinker, for it is absolutely meaningless if applied to his mention of "Chance" quoted in the text above. He could not possibly mean that the mind refuses to regard the world as the outcome of a cause whereof we know nothing, for that is just what he thinks it is. Mr. Darwin, in fact, instinctively recognized, as every man of common-sense must do, that if not due to purpose, the order of Nature is due to chance, according to the true and legitimate use of the word, and thus he commonly employed it. Occasionally however he endeavoured, following Huxley and others, to defend himself against the reproach of relying upon such a factor. —Vid. sup., c. xii.
179
Although at first Mr. Darwin appeared to restrict his system to species, very soon, as was but natural, it was extended to the production of new genera, and even of divisions of the organic kingdoms yet wider asunder. Thus – apart from the most famous instance of all, treated by Darwin himself in his Descent of Man– it is now a cardinal point with Evolutionists generally that all the higher forms of life are descended from the lowest, and that even far up the line of development, creatures apparently the most diverse have sprung from one identical ancestor. Thus amongst vertebrates it is considered certain that Birds and Reptiles are branches of the same stock, – and, still farther on, that at least all placental mammals – bats and whales, elephants and mice – trace their pedigree to some common progenitor.
180
Origin of Species, v.
181
Ibid., c. vii.
182
Ibid., c. vi.
183
"I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now some small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick." (C. Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3, 1860.)
184
It will help to understand the nature of the task thus imposed upon Natural Selection, to consider what Lord Grimthorpe writes on this subject (Origin of the Laws of Nature, p. 103):
"We take pieces of glass of different kinds and grind them to particular shapes and set them in a frame and make a telescope, which refracts rays of light so as to produce an 'image' of a very distant object near our eye, and that appears much larger when seen through another glass of proper shape. But we have never yet been able to make one that can bring all the rays from a single distant point exactly to another point without confusion. Yet there are many millions of apparently self-made machines in the world that do it perfectly; and when we cut up one of them and examine it we find that instead of our large lumps of glass melted together into a coarse kind of uniformity, this machine has been built up of an innumerable quantity of particles arranged in peculiar and complicated ways, some of which have objects that we can understand, though we cannot imitate them, and others that we do not. Moreover they are persistently alike in every machine of the same class, and again some of them persistently unlike those belonging to any other class of animals. For a long time the retina of the eye used to be called a membrane, or a kind of thin sheet. Then it was found to be a kind of brush of which the hairs vibrate under the vibration of the rays of light; and now these hairs are found by further magnification to be divided into so many parts lengthwise that a picture of them has to be as long as the picture of a striped or spotted animal to distinguish them; and instead of being simply set fast by one end like hairs in a brush, they pass through several frames or membranes; and of the use of all these pieces we know nothing. Such is the 'simplicity of nature' in that organ which next to a stomach is the commonest in all living creatures; and such is our ignorance of nature yet."
185
Ibid., c. vii.
186
Although, as bee-keepers soon discover, Mr. Darwin supposed the workmanship of bees' cells to be considerably more exact and accurate than usually is the case, – there remains quite enough of architectural merit to justify his remarks. It may even be said to increase the mystery that the insects should thus appear to strive towards an ideal, which they frequently fail to satisfy.
187
Ranunculus ficaria. It is remarkable that in the season of 1904 this plant has ripened fruit profusely in various districts in which such fruit had for many years been practically undiscoverable.
188
Origin of Species, c. xiv.
189
Descent of Man, Part I, c. i.
190
Biological Lectures and Addresses, p. 202.
191
Charles Darwin et ses précurseurs Français (1870), p. 120.
192
North British Review, June, 1867. Professor Huxley likewise declared this criticism to be of "real and permanent value." (Critiques and Addresses, 252.)
193
La vie des êtres animés, p. 102.
194
Presidential Address Geologists' Association (Proceedings, vol. v. 1875-6). Partly reprinted in Contemporary Review, February, 1877, under the title "Evolution and the Vegetable Kingdom."
195
See Appendix A. p. 280a.
196
Variation in Animals and Plants, p. 343. By H. M. Verney (International Scientific Series, 88).
197
J. W. Barclay, New Theory of Organic Evolution, p. 90.
198
Huxley, Lectures and Essays (Popular Edition), pp. 28, seq.
199
Since Professor Huxley wrote the idea has been completely discarded that these birds occupy such a place as he assigned them. The wing of Hesperornis, for example, is now declared to be an instance of degeneration from one capable of flight. None of these fowls can be considered as the progenitors of any now existing, but all as the descendants of flying ancestors of arboreal habits, whereof no trace has yet been discovered. (See Pycraft's Story of Bird Life, p. 190.)
200
Philosophical Transactions Royal Society, 1863, p. 36.
201
This point is well handled by M. Paul Janet, Final Causes, 2nd English Edition, p. 245.
202
Descent of Man, ii. 156.
203
Tablet, May 26, 1888, p. 837.
204
Lessons from Nature, p. 297.
205
Descent of Man, i. p. 57.
206
In later editions (e.g. that of 1888, i. 133) the suggestion is put in form of a question: "May not some unusually wise ape-like animal …?"
207
Origin of Species, c. vi.
208
Ibid., c. viii.
209
It is a grave aggravation of the problem, which need only be mentioned here, that the bees which make cells are neuters and have no descendants, while the queens and drones which are the progenitors of the whole race never do a stroke of work in the course of their existence.
210
Descent of Man (1st Edition), ii. 385.
211
Ibid., i. 107.
212
Ibid., ii. 386.
213
Charles Darwin et ses précurseurs Français, p. 151
214
Ibid., p. 167.
215
La vie des êtres animés, p. 161.
216
Saint-Hilaire.
217
Les Emules de Darwin, ii. p. 82.
218
North British Review, July, 1867, p. 316.
219
P. 313.
220
November 5, 1903, Journal of Botany, January, 1904, p. 32.
221
Dr. Hudson, see Nature, February 20, 1890, p. 375.
222
Origin of Species, c. xi.
223
Op. cit. p. 59.
224
History of Creation, English Edition, ii. 353.
225
The Genealogy of Animals: a Review of Haeckel's "Natürliche Schöpfungs-Geschichte." The Academy, 1869. Reprinted in Critiques and Addresses, and Darwiniana (Collected Works).
226
The Thyroid gland in the throat, the function of which is unknown, was supposed to be absolutely without use. It is found, however, that its removal entails myxoedema, a condition closely allied to cretinism.
227
"Geological Contemporaneity." (Lay Sermons, p. 206.)
228
Mr. Mivart, Types of Animal Life, p. 113.
229
Les Emules de Darwin, ii. 13.
230
Mr. Mivart, Tablet, April 21, 1888.
231
The Mexican Axolotl, the Triton Alpestris, and probably others.
232
Nature, March 24, 1892.
233
i. e. the Science of Causes.
234
Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences médicales.
235
Thus having described in detail a series of experiments as to the effects of an alteration of diet supplied to the larvæ of various hymenoptera, M. Fabre writes:
"Tout cela est bien autrement grave que les petits riens invoqués par Darwin." (Souvenirs entomologiques, 3rd Series, p. 330.)
236
Journal of Linnean Society, vol. xix.
237
Hibbert Journal, January, 1903, p. 218.
238
Revue de Philosophie, April 1, 1904.
239
Souvenirs entomologiques, 3rd Series, p. 317.
240
For some further testimonies on this head see Appendix.
241
Nature, September 10, 1891.
242
Coming of Age of the Origin of Species.
243
De opere sex dierum, ii. 10, n. 12.
244
Modern Idea of Evolution, p. 97.
245
Darwin (Origin of Species, p. 274, 6th Edition) considers it "incredible" that the same identical species should originate twice even under the very same conditions. In the following passage, Haeckel affirms such unity of origin in respect of a most remarkable species of wide-reaching affinities.
"All morphologists arrive at the firm conviction that all vertebrata, from the Amphioxus upwards to man himself, all fishes, amphibia, reptiles, birds, and mammals, descend originally from a single vertebrate ancestor, for we cannot imagine that all the different and highly complicated conditions of life which, through a long series of processes or stages of development, led to the typical formation of a vertebrate, have accidentally happened together more than once in the course of the earth's history." (Address to Munich meeting of German Association, vid. Nature, October 4, 1877.)
246
Origin of Species (6th Edition), p. 265.
247
Les Emules de Darwin, ii., 76.
248
History of Plant Life and its bearings on Theory of Evolution (1898).
249
Harebell.
250
According to the most recent system of classification, the Monopetalæ, now re-christened Sympetalae, are ranked above the Polypetalæ, the family of the Compositae being highest of all.
251
Proceedings, vol. v., p. 17, etc. (1875-6). The substance of this address appeared as an article in the Contemporary Review, February, 1877, entitled, "Evolution and the Vegetable Kingdom."
252
See Appendix B. p. 284.
253
Modern Ideas of Evolution (6th Edition), pp. 107, seq.
254
These first mammals, which were exceedingly small, are supposed by most naturalists to have been Marsupials. They would appear presently to have become extinct, no traces of them having been found in the chalk, a formation so rich in other organic remains. As Professor Marsh tells us on this subject (Nature, September 27, 1877, p. 471):
"Of the existence of Mammals before the Trias we have no evidence, either in the New or the Old World, and it is a significant fact that at essentially the same horizon in each hemisphere similar low forms of Mammals make their appearance. Although only a few incomplete specimens have been discovered, they are characteristic and well preserved, and all are apparently marsupials; the lowest mammalian group known in America, living or fossil. The American Triassic mammals are known at present only from two small lower jaws, on which has been founded the genus Dromotherium, supposed to be related to the insect-eating Myrmecobius, now living in Australia. Although the fauna of Europe have yielded other similar mammals for the Oolite, America has as yet none of this class from that formation, while from the rocks of cretaceous age, no mammals are known in any part of the world."
255
P. 118.
256
P. 105.
257
Le monde des plantes avant l'apparition de l'homme, p. 34.
258
Genesis of Species, p. 129.
259
Charles Darwin, p. 185.
260
Genesis of Species, p. 130.
261
Types of Animal Life, 149.
262
Genesis of Species, p. 132.
263
"Primeval Vegetation in its relation to the Doctrine of Natural Selection and Evolution" (Essays and Addresses, Owen's College, Manchester, p. 251).