第32章
加入书架 A- A+
点击下载App,搜索"The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin",免费读到尾

  Butitwillbemorepleasantandmoreprofitabletoconsiderthosecriticisms,whichwereacknowledgedbywritersofscientificauthority,orwhichboreinternalevidenceofthegreaterorlesscompetencyand,often,ofthegoodfaith,oftheirauthors。Restrictingmysurveytoatwelvemonth,orthereabouts,afterthepublicationofthe’Origin,’IfindamongsuchcriticsLouisAgassiz(\"TheargumentspresentedbyDarwininfavorofauniversalderivationfromoneprimaryformofallthepeculiaritiesexistingnowamonglivingbeingshavenotmadetheslightestimpressiononmymind。\"

  \"UntilthefactsofNatureareshowntohavebeenmistakenbythosewhohavecollectedthem,andthattheyhaveadifferentmeaningfromthatnowgenerallyassignedtothem,Ishallthereforeconsiderthetransmutationtheoryasascientificmistake,untrueinitsfacts,unscientificinitsmethod,andmischievousinitstendency。\"——Silliman’s’Journal,’July,1860,pages143,154。Extractfromthe3rdvolumeof’ContributionstotheNaturalHistoryoftheUnitedStates。’);Murray,anexcellententomologist;

  Harvey,abotanistofconsiderablerepute;andtheauthorofanarticleinthe’EdinburghReview,’allstronglyadversetoDarwin。Pictet,thedistinguishedandwidelylearnedpaleontogistofGeneva,treatsMr。Darwinwitharespectwhichformsagratefulcontrasttothetoneofsomeoftheprecedingwriters,butconsentstogowithhimonlyaverylittleway。(\"I

  seenoseriousobjectionstotheformationofvarietiesbynaturalselectionintheexistingworld,andthat,sofarasearlierepochsareconcerned,thislawmaybeassumedtoexplaintheoriginofcloselyalliedspecies,supposingforthispurposeaverylongperiodoftime。\"

  \"Withregardtosimplevarietiesandcloselyalliedspecies,IbelievethatMr。Darwin’stheorymayexplainmanythings,andthrowagreatlightuponnumerousquestions。\"——’Surl’Originedel’Espece。ParCharlesDarwin。’

  ’ArchivesdesSc。delaBibliothequeUniverselledeGeneve,’pages242,243,Mars1860。)Ontheotherhand,Lyell,uptothattimeapillaroftheanti—transmutationists(whoregardedhim,everafterwards,asPallasAthenemayhavelookedatDian,aftertheEndymionaffair),declaredhimselfaDarwinian,thoughnotwithoutputtinginaseriouscaveat。Nevertheless,hewasatowerofstrength,andhiscourageousstandfortruthasagainstconsistency,didhiminfinitehonour。Asevolutionists,sansphrase,IdonotcalltomindamongthebiologistsmorethanAsaGray,whofoughtthebattlesplendidlyintheUnitedStates;Hooker,whowasnolessvigoroushere;thepresentSirJohnLubbockandmyself。WallacewasfarawayintheMalayArchipelago;but,apartfromhisdirectshareinthepromulgationofthetheoryofnaturalselection,noenumerationoftheinfluencesatwork,atthetimeIamspeakingof,wouldbecompletewithoutthementionofhispowerfulessay’OntheLawwhichhasregulatedtheIntroductionofNewSpecies,’whichwaspublishedin1855。Onreadingitafresh,Ihavebeenastonishedtorecollecthowsmallwastheimpressionitmade。

  InFrance,theinfluenceofEliedeBeaumontandofFlourens——theformerofwhomissaidtohave\"damnedhimselftoeverlastingfame\"byinventingthenicknameof\"lasciencemoussante\"forEvolutionism(Oneisremindedoftheeffectofanothersmallacademicepigram。Theso—calledvertebraltheoryoftheskullissaidtohavebeennippedinthebudinFrancebythewhisperofanacademiciantohisneighbour,that,inthatcase,one’sheadwasa\"vertebrepensante。\"),——tosaynothingoftheill—willofotherpowerfulmembersoftheInstitut,producedforalongtimetheeffectofaconspiracyofsilence;andmanyyearspassedbeforetheAcademyredeemeditselffromthereproachthatthenameofDarwinwasnottobefoundonthelistofitsmembers。However,anaccomplishedwriter,outoftherangeofacademicalinfluences,M。Laugel,gaveanexcellentandappreciativenoticeofthe’Origin’inthe’RevuedesDeuxMondes。’Germanytooktimetoconsider;BronnproducedaslightlyBowdlerizedtranslationofthe’Origin’;and’Kladderadatsch’cuthisjokesupontheapeoriginofman;

  butIdonotcalltomindthatanyscientificnotabilitydeclaredhimselfpubliclyin1860。(However,themanwhostandsnexttoDarwininhisinfluenceonmodernbiologists,K。E。vonBaer,wrotetome,inAugust1860,expressinghisgeneralassenttoevolutionistviews。Hisphrase,\"J’aienoncelesmemesidees……queM。Darwin\"(volumeii。)isshownbyhissubsequentwritingstomeannomorethanthis。)Noneofusdreamedthat,inthecourseofafewyears,thestrength(andperhapsImayaddtheweakness)of\"Darwinismus\"wouldhaveitsmostextensiveandmostbrilliantillustrationsinthelandoflearning。Ifaforeignermaypresumetospeculateonthecauseofthiscuriousintervalofsilence,IfancyitwasthatonemoietyoftheGermanbiologistswereorthodoxatanyprice,andtheothermoietyasdistinctlyheterodox。Thelatterwereevolutionists,apriori,already,andtheymusthavefeltthedisgustnaturaltodeductivephilosophersatbeingofferedaninductiveandexperimentalfoundationforaconvictionwhichtheyhadreachedbyashortercut。Itisundoubtedlytryingtolearnthat,thoughyourconclusionsmaybeallright,yourreasonsforthemareallwrong,or,atanyrate,insufficient。

  Onthewhole,then,thesupportersofMr。Darwin’sviewsin1860werenumericallyextremelyinsignificant。Thereisnottheslightestdoubtthat,ifageneralcounciloftheChurchscientifichadbeenheldatthattime,weshouldhavebeencondemnedbyanoverwhelmingmajority。Andthereisaslittledoubtthat,ifsuchacouncilgatherednow,thedecreewouldbeofanexactlycontrarynature。Itwouldindicatealackofsense,aswellasofmodesty,toascribetothemenofthatgenerationlesscapacityorlesshonestythantheirsuccessorspossess。What,then,arethecauseswhichledinstructedandfair—judgingmenofthatdaytoarriveatajudgmentsodifferentfromthatwhichseemsjustandfairtothosewhofollowthem?Thatisreallyoneofthemostinterestingofallquestionsconnectedwiththehistoryofscience,andIshalltrytoanswerit。IamafraidthatinordertodosoImustruntheriskofappearingegotistical。

  However,ifItellmyownstoryitisonlybecauseIknowitbetterthanthatofotherpeople。

  IthinkImusthavereadthe’Vestiges’beforeIleftEnglandin1846;but,ifIdid,thebookmadeverylittleimpressionuponme,andIwasnotbroughtintoseriouscontactwiththe’Species’questionuntilafter1850。

  Atthattime,IhadlongdonewiththePentateuchalcosmogony,whichhadbeenimpresseduponmychildishunderstandingasDivinetruth,withalltheauthorityofparentsandinstructors,andfromwhichithadcostmemanyastruggletogetfree。Butmymindwasunbiassedinrespectofanydoctrinewhichpresenteditself,ifitprofessedtobebasedonpurelyphilosophicalandscientificreasoning。Itseemedtomethen(asitdoesnow)that\"creation,\"intheordinarysenseoftheword,isperfectlyconceivable。I

  findnodifficultyinimaginingthat,atsomeformerperiod,thisuniversewasnotinexistence;andthatitmadeitsappearanceinsixdays(orinstantaneously,ifthatispreferred),inconsequenceofthevolitionofsomepre—existentBeing。Then,asnow,theso—calledaprioriargumentsagainstTheism;and,givenaDeity,againstthepossibilityofcreativeacts,appearedtometobedevoidofreasonablefoundation。Ihadnotthen,andIhavenotnow,thesmallestaprioriobjectiontoraisetotheaccountofthecreationofanimalsandplantsgivenin’ParadiseLost,’inwhichMiltonsovividlyembodiesthenaturalsenseofGenesis。Farbeitfrommetosaythatitisuntruebecauseitisimpossible。Iconfinemyselftowhatmustberegardedasamodestandreasonablerequestforsomeparticleofevidencethattheexistingspeciesofanimalsandplantsdidoriginateinthatway,asaconditionofmybeliefinastatementwhichappearstometobehighlyimprobable。

  And,bywayofbeingperfectlyfair,Ihadexactlythesameanswertogivetotheevolutionistsof1851—8。Withintheranksofthebiologists,atthattime,Imetwithnobody,exceptDr。Grant,ofUniversityCollege,whohadawordtosayforEvolution——andhisadvocacywasnotcalculatedtoadvancethecause。Outsidetheseranks,theonlypersonknowntomewhoseknowledgeandcapacitycompelledrespect,andwhowas,atthesametime,athorough—goingevolutionist,wasMr。HerbertSpencer,whoseacquaintanceI

  made,Ithink,in1852,andthenenteredintothebondsofafriendshipwhich,Iamhappytothink,hasknownnointerruption。Manyandprolongedwerethebattleswefoughtonthistopic。Butevenmyfriend’sraredialecticskillandcopiousnessofaptillustrationcouldnotdrivemefrommyagnosticposition。Itookmystandupontwogrounds:firstly,thatuptothattime,theevidenceinfavouroftransmutationwaswhollyinsufficient;andsecondly,thatnosuggestionrespectingthecausesofthetransmutationassumed,whichhadbeenmade,wasinanywayadequatetoexplainthephenomena。Lookingbackatthestateofknowledgeatthattime,Ireallydonotseethatanyotherconclusionwasjustifiable。

  InthosedaysIhadneverevenheardofTreviranus’’Biologie。’However,I

  hadstudiedLamarckattentivelyandIhadreadthe’Vestiges’withduecare;butneitherofthemaffordedmeanygoodgroundforchangingmynegativeandcriticalattitude。Asforthe’Vestiges,’Iconfessthatthebooksimplyirritatedmebytheprodigiousignoranceandthoroughlyunscientifichabitofmindmanifestedbythewriter。Ifithadanyinfluenceonmeatall,itsetmeagainstEvolution;andtheonlyreviewI

  everhavequalmsofconscienceabout,onthegroundofneedlesssavagery,isoneIwroteonthe’Vestiges’whileunderthatinfluence。

  Withrespecttothe’PhilosophieZoologique,’itisnoreproachtoLamarcktosaythatthediscussionoftheSpeciesquestioninthatwork,whatevermightbesaidforitin1809,wasmiserablybelowtheleveloftheknowledgeofhalfacenturylater。Inthatintervaloftimetheelucidationofthestructureoftheloweranimalsandplantshadgivenrisetowhollynewconceptionsoftheirrelations;histologyandembryology,inthemodernsense,hadbeencreated;physiologyhadbeenreconstituted;thefactsofdistribution,geologicalandgeographical,hadbeenprodigiouslymultipliedandreducedtoorder。Toanybiologistwhosestudieshadcarriedhimbeyondmerespecies—mongeringin1850,one—halfofLamarck’sargumentswereobsoleteandtheotherhalferroneous,ordefective,invirtueofomittingtodealwiththevariousclassesofevidencewhichhadbeenbroughttolightsincehistime。Moreoverhisonesuggestionastothecauseofthegradualmodificationofspecies——effortexcitedbychangeofconditions——was,onthefaceofit,inapplicabletothewholevegetableworld。Idonotthinkthatanyimpartialjudgewhoreadsthe’PhilosophieZoologique’now,andwhoafterwardstakesupLyell’strenchantandeffectualcriticism(publishedasfarbackas1830),willbedisposedtoallottoLamarckamuchhigherplaceintheestablishmentofbiologicalevolutionthanthatwhichBaconassignstohimselfinrelationtophysicalsciencegenerally,——buccinatortantum。(ErasmusDarwinfirstpromulgatedLamarck’sfundamentalconceptions,and,withgreaterlogicalconsistency,hehadappliedthemtoplants。Buttheadvocatesofhisclaimshavefailedtoshowthathe,inanyrespect,anticipatedthecentralideaofthe’OriginofSpecies。’)

  But,byacuriousironyoffate,thesameinfluencewhichledmetoputaslittlefaithinmodernspeculationsonthissubject,asinthevenerabletraditionsrecordedinthefirsttwochaptersofGenesis,wasperhapsmorepotentthananyotherinkeepingaliveasortofpiousconvictionthatEvolution,afterall,wouldturnouttrue。Ihaverecentlyreadafreshthefirsteditionofthe’PrinciplesofGeology’;andwhenIconsiderthatthisremarkablebookhadbeennearlythirtyyearsineverybody’shands,andthatitbringshometoanyreaderofordinaryintelligenceagreatprincipleandagreatfact——theprinciple,thatthepastmustbeexplainedbythepresent,unlessgoodcausebeshowntothecontrary;andthefact,that,sofarasourknowledgeofthepasthistoryoflifeonourglobegoes,nosuchcausecanbeshown(Thesameprincipleandthesamefactguidetheresultfromallsoundhistoricalinvestigation。Grote’s’HistoryofGreece’isaproductofthesameintellectualmovementasLyell’s’Principles。’)——I

  cannotbutbelievethatLyell,forothers,asformyself,wasthechiefagentforsmoothingtheroadforDarwin。Forconsistentuniformitarianismpostulatesevolutionasmuchintheorganicasintheinorganicworld。Theoriginofanewspeciesbyotherthanordinaryagencieswouldbeavastlygreater\"catastrophe\"thananyofthosewhichLyellsuccessfullyeliminatedfromsobergeologicalspeculation。

  Infact,noonewasbetterawareofthisthanLyellhimself。(Lyell,withperfectright,claimsthispositionforhimself。Hespeaksofhaving\"advocatedalawofcontinuityevenintheorganicworld,sofaraspossiblewithoutadoptingLamarck’stheoryoftransmutation\"……

  \"ButwhileItaughtthatasoftenascertainformsofanimalsandplantsdisappeared,forreasonsquiteintelligibletous,otherstooktheirplacebyvirtueofacausationwhichwasbeyondourcomprehension;itremainedforDarwintoaccumulateproofthatthereisnobreakbetweentheincomingandtheoutgoingspecies,thattheyaretheworkofevolution,andnotofspecialcreation……

  \"Ihadcertainlypreparedthewayinthiscountry,insixeditionsofmyworkbeforethe’VestigesofCreation’appearedin1842[1844],forthereceptionofDarwin’sgradualandinsensibleevolutionofspecies。\"——’LifeandLetters,’LettertoHaeckel,volumeii。page436。November23,1868。)

  Ifonereadsanyoftheearliereditionsofthe’Principles’carefully(especiallybythelightoftheinterestingseriesoflettersrecentlypublishedbySirCharlesLyell’sbiographer),itiseasytoseethat,withallhisenergeticoppositiontoLamarck,ontheonehand,andtotheidealquasi—progressionismofAgassiz,ontheother,Lyell,inhisownmind,wasstronglydisposedtoaccountfortheoriginationofallpastandpresentspeciesoflivingthingsbynaturalcauses。Buthewouldhaveliked,atthesametime,tokeepthenameofcreationforanaturalprocesswhichheimaginedtobeincomprehensible。

  InaletteraddressedtoMantell(datedMarch2,1827),LyellspeaksofhavingjustreadLamarck;heexpresseshisdelightatLamarck’stheories,andhispersonalfreedomfromanyobjectionbasedontheologicalgrounds。

  AndthoughheisevidentlyalarmedatthepithecoidoriginofmaninvolvedinLamarck’sdoctrine,heobserves:——

  \"But,afterall,whatchangesspeciesmayreallyundergo!Howimpossiblewillitbetodistinguishandlaydownaline,beyondwhichsomeoftheso—

  calledextinctspecieshaveneverpassedintorecentones。\"

  Again,thefollowingremarkablepassageoccursinthepostscriptofaletteraddressedtoSirJohnHerschelin1836:——

  \"Inregardtotheoriginationofnewspecies,Iamverygladtofindthatyouthinkitprobablethatitmaybecarriedonthroughtheinterventionofintermediatecauses。Ileftthisrathertobeinferred,notthinkingitworthwhiletooffendacertainclassofpersonsbyembodyinginwordswhatwouldonlybeaspeculation。\"(Inthesamesense,seethelettertoWhewell,March7,1837,volumeii。,page5:——

  \"Inregardtothislastsubject[thechangesfromonesetofanimalandvegetablespeciestoanother]……yourememberwhatHerschelsaidinhislettertome。IfIhadstatedasplainlyashehasdonethepossibilityoftheintroductionororiginationoffreshspeciesbeinganatural,incontradistinctiontoamiraculousprocess,Ishouldhaveraisedahostofprejudicesagainstme,whichareunfortunatelyopposedateverysteptoanyphilosopherwhoattemptstoaddressthepubliconthesemysterioussubjects。\"SeealsolettertoSedgwick,January12,1838ii。page35。)Hegoesontorefertothecriticismswhichhavebeendirectedagainsthimonthegroundthat,byleavingspeciestobeoriginatedbymiracle,heisinconsistentwithhisowndoctrineofuniformitarianism;andheleavesittobeunderstoodthathehadnotreplied,onthegroundofhisgeneralobjectiontocontroversy。

  Lyell’scontemporarieswerenotwithoutsomeinklingofhisesotericdoctrine。Whewell’s’HistoryoftheInductiveSciences,’whateveritsphilosophicalvalue,isalwaysworthreadingandalwaysinteresting,ifundernootheraspectthanthatofanevidenceofthespeculativelimitswithinwhichahighly—placeddivinemight,atthattime,safelyrangeatwill。Inthecourseofhisdiscussionofuniformitarianism,theencyclopaedicMasterofTrinityobserves:——

  \"Mr。Lyell,indeed,hasspokenofanhypothesisthat’thesuccessivecreationofspeciesmayconstitutearegularpartoftheeconomyofnature,’buthehasnowhere,Ithink,sodescribedthisprocessastomakeitappearinwhatdepartmentofsciencewearetoplacethehypothesis。

  Arethesenewspeciescreatedbytheproduction,atlongintervals,ofanoffspringdifferentinspeciesfromtheparents?Orarethespeciessocreatedproducedwithoutparents?Aretheygraduallyevolvedfromsomeembryosubstance?Ordotheysuddenlystartfromtheground,asinthecreationofthepoet?……

  \"Someselectionofoneoftheseformsofthehypothesis,ratherthantheothers,withevidencefortheselection,isrequisitetoentitleustoplaceitamongtheknowncausesofchange,whichinthischapterweareconsidering。Thebareconvictionthatacreationofspecieshastakenplace,whetheronceormanytimes,solongasitisunconnectedwithourorganicalsciences,isatenetofNaturalTheologyratherthanofPhysicalPhilosophy。\"(Whewell’s’History,’volumeiii。page639—640(Edition2,1847。))

  Theearlierpartofthiscriticismappearsperfectlyjustandappropriate;

  but,fromtheconcludingparagraph,Whewellevidentlyimaginesthatby\"creation\"LyellmeansapreternaturalinterventionoftheDeity;whereasthelettertoHerschelshowsthat,inhisownmind,Lyellmeantnaturalcausation;andIseenoreasontodoubt(ThefollowingpassagesinLyell’slettersappeartomedecisiveonthispoint:——

  ToDarwin,October3,1859(ii,325),onfirstreadingthe’Origin。’

  \"Ihavelongseenmostclearlythatifanyconcessionismade,allthatyouclaiminyourconcludingpageswillfollow。

  \"Itisthiswhichhasmademesolonghesitate,alwaysfeelingthatthecaseofManandhisRaces,andofotheranimals,andthatofplants,isoneandthesame,andthatifaveracausabeadmittedforoneinstant,[instead]ofapurelyunknownandimaginaryone,suchastheword’creation,’alltheconsequencesmustfollow。\"

  ToDarwin,March15,1863(volumeii。page365)。

  \"Irememberthatitwastheconclusionhe[Lamarck]cametoaboutmanthatfortifiedmethirtyyearsagoagainstthegreatimpressionwhichhisargumentsatfirstmadeonmymind,allthegreaterbecauseConstantPrevost,apupilofCuvier’sfortyyearsago,toldmehisconviction’thatCuvierthoughtspeciesnotreal,butthatsciencecouldnotadvancewithoutassumingthattheywereso。’\"

  ToHooker,March9,1863(volumeii。page361),inreferencetoDarwin’sfeelingaboutthe’AntiquityofMan。’

  \"He[Darwin]seemsmuchdisappointedthatIdonotgofartherwithhim,ordonotspeakoutmore。IcanonlysaythatIhavespokenouttothefullextentofmypresentconvictions,andevenbeyondmystateofFEELINGastoman’sunbrokendescentfromthebrutes,andIfindIamhalfconvertingnotafewwhowereinarmsagainstDarwin,andareevennowagainstHuxley。\"

  Hespeaksofhavinghadtoabandon\"oldandlongcherishedideas,whichconstitutedthecharmtomeofthetheoreticalpartofthescienceinmyearlierday,whenIbelievedwithPascalinthetheory,asHallamtermsit,of’thearch—angelruined。’\"

  SeethesamesentimentinthelettertoDarwin,March11,1863,page363:——

  \"Ithinktheold’creation’isalmostasmuchrequiredasever,butofcourseittakesanewformifLamarck’sviewsimprovedbyyoursareadopted。\")that,ifSirCharlescouldhaveavoidedtheinevitablecorollaryofthepithecoidoriginofman——forwhich,totheendofhislife,heentertainedaprofoundantipathy——hewouldhaveadvocatedtheefficiencyofcausesnowinoperationtobringabouttheconditionoftheorganicworld,asstoutlyashechampionedthatdoctrineinreferencetoinorganicnature。

  Thefactis,thatadiscerningeyemighthaveseenthatsomeformorotherofthedoctrineoftransmutationwasinevitable,fromthetimewhenthetruthenunciatedbyWilliamSmiththatsuccessivestrataarecharacterisedbydifferentkindsoffossilremains,becameafirmlyestablishedlawofnature。Noonehassetforththespeculativeconsequencesofthisgeneralisationbetterthanthehistorianofthe’InductiveSciences’:——

  \"Butthestudyofgeologyopenstousthespectacleofmanygroupsofspecieswhichhave,inthecourseoftheearth’shistory,succeededeachotheratvastintervalsoftime;onesetofanimalsandplantsdisappearing,asitwouldseem,fromthefaceofourplanet,andothers,whichdidnotbeforeexist,becomingtheonlyoccupantsoftheglobe。Andthedilemmathenpresentsitselftousanew:——eitherwemustacceptthedoctrineofthetransmutationofspecies,andmustsupposethattheorganizedspeciesofonegeologicalepochweretransmutedintothoseofanotherbysomelong—continuedagencyofnaturalcauses;orelse,wemustbelieveinmanysuccessiveactsofcreationandextinctionofspecies,outofthecommoncourseofnature;actswhich,therefore,wemayproperlycallmiraculous。\"(Whewell’s’HistoryoftheInductiveSciences。’Editionii。,1847,volumeiii。pages624—625。Seefortheauthor’sverdict,pages638—

  39。)

  Dr。Whewelldecidesinfavourofthelatterconclusion。AndifanyonehadpliedhimwiththefourquestionswhichheputstoLyellinthepassagealreadycited,allthatcanbesaidnowisthathewouldcertainlyhaverejectedthefirst。ButwouldhereallyhavehadthecouragetosaythataRhinocerostichorhinus,forinstance,\"wasproducedwithoutparents;\"orwas\"evolvedfromsomeembryosubstance;\"orthatitsuddenlystartedfromthegroundlikeMilton’slion\"pawingtogetfreehishinderparts。\"I

  permitmyselftodoubtwhethereventheMasterofTrinity’swell—triedcourage——physical,intellectual,andmoral——wouldhavebeenequaltothisfeat。Nodoubtthesuddenconcurrenceofhalf—a—tonofinorganicmoleculesintoaliverhinocerosisconceivable,andthereforemaybepossible。Butdoessuchaneventliesufficientlywithintheboundsofprobabilitytojustifythebeliefinitsoccurrenceonthestrengthofanyattainable,or,indeed,imaginable,evidence?

  Inviewoftheassertion(oftenrepeatedintheearlydaysoftheoppositiontoDarwin)thathehadaddednothingtoLamarck,itisveryinterestingtoobservethatthepossibilityofafifthalternative,inadditiontothefourhehasstated,hasnotdawneduponDr。Whewell’smind。

  Thesuggestionthatnewspeciesmayresultfromtheselectiveactionofexternalconditionsuponthevariationsfromtheirspecifictypewhichindividualspresent——andwhichwecall\"spontaneous,\"becauseweareignorantoftheircausation——isaswhollyunknowntothehistorianofscientificideasasitwastobiologicalspecialistsbefore1858。Butthatsuggestionisthecentralideaofthe’OriginofSpecies,’andcontainsthequintessenceofDarwinism。

  Thus,lookingbackintothepast,itseemstomethatmyownpositionofcriticalexpectancywasjustandreasonable,andmusthavebeentakenup,onthesamegrounds,bymanyotherpersons。IfAgassiztoldmethattheformsoflifewhichhadsuccessivelytenantedtheglobeweretheincarnationsofsuccessivethoughtsoftheDeity;andthathehadwipedoutonesetoftheseembodimentsbyanappallinggeologicalcatastropheassoonasHisideastookamoreadvancedshape,Ifoundmyselfnotonlyunabletoadmittheaccuracyofthedeductionsfromthefactsofpaleontology,uponwhichthisastoundinghypothesiswasfounded,butIhadtoconfessmywantofanymeansoftestingthecorrectnessofhisexplanationofthem。Andbesidesthat,Icouldbynomeansseewhattheexplanationexplained。

  Neitherdidithelpmetobetoldbyaneminentanatomistthatspecieshadsucceededoneanotherintime,invirtueof\"acontinuouslyoperativecreationallaw。\"Thatseemedtometobenomorethansayingthatspecieshadsucceededoneanother,intheformofavote—catchingresolution,with\"law\"topleasethemanofscience,and\"creational\"todrawtheorthodox。

  SoItookrefugeinthat\"thatigeSkepsis\"whichGoethehassowelldefined;and,reversingtheapostolicprecepttobeallthingstoallmen,Iusuallydefendedthetenabilityofthereceiveddoctrines,whenIhadtodowiththetransmutationists;andstoodupforthepossibilityoftransmutationamongtheorthodox——thereby,nodoubt,increasinganalreadycurrent,butquiteundeserved,reputationforneedlesscombativeness。

  Iremember,inthecourseofmyfirstinterviewwithMr。Darwin,expressingmybeliefinthesharpnessofthelinesofdemarcationbetweennaturalgroupsandintheabsenceoftransitionalforms,withalltheconfidenceofyouthandimperfectknowledge。Iwasnotaware,atthattime,thathehadthenbeenmanyyearsbroodingoverthespecies—question;andthehumoroussmilewhichaccompaniedhisgentleanswer,thatsuchwasnotaltogetherhisview,longhauntedandpuzzledme。Butitwouldseemthatfourorfiveyears’hardworkhadenabledmetounderstandwhatitmeant;forLyell(’LifeandLetters,’volumeii。page212。),writingtoSirCharlesBunbury(underdateofApril30,1856),says:——

  \"WhenHuxley,Hooker,andWollastonwereatDarwin’slastweekthey(allfourofthem)ranatiltagainstspecies——further,Ibelieve,thantheyarepreparedtogo。\"

  IrecollectnothingofthisbeyondthefactofmeetingMr。Wollaston;andexceptforSirCharles’distinctassuranceasto\"allfour,\"Ishouldhavethoughtmy\"outrecuidance\"wasprobablyacounterblasttoWollaston’sconservatism。WithregardtoHooker,hewasalready,likeVoltaire’sHabbakuk,\"capabledutout\"inthewayofadvocatingEvolution。

  AsIhavealreadysaid,Iimaginethatmostofthoseofmycontemporarieswhothoughtseriouslyaboutthematter,wereverymuchinmyownstateofmind——inclinedtosaytobothMosaistsandEvolutionists,\"aplagueonbothyourhouses!\"anddisposedtoturnasidefromaninterminableandapparentlyfruitlessdiscussion,tolabourinthefertilefieldsofascertainablefact。AndImay,therefore,furthersupposethatthepublicationoftheDarwinandWallacepapersin1858,andstillmorethatofthe’Origin’in1859,hadtheeffectuponthemoftheflashoflight,whichtoamanwhohaslosthimselfinadarknight,suddenlyrevealsaroadwhich,whetherittakeshimstraighthomeornot,certainlygoeshisway。Thatwhichwewerelookingfor,andcouldnotfind,wasahypothesisrespectingtheoriginofknownorganicforms,whichassumedtheoperationofnocausesbutsuchascouldbeprovedtobeactuallyatwork。Wewanted,nottopinourfaithtothatoranyotherspeculation,buttogetholdofclearanddefiniteconceptionswhichcouldbebroughtfacetofacewithfactsandhavetheirvaliditytested。The’Origin’provideduswiththeworkinghypothesiswesought。Moreover,itdidtheimmenseserviceoffreeingusforeverfromthedilemma——refusetoacceptthecreationhypothesis,andwhathaveyoutoproposethatcanbeacceptedbyanycautiousreasoner?In1857,Ihadnoanswerready,andIdonotthinkthatanyoneelsehad。Ayearlater,wereproachedourselveswithdullnessforbeingperplexedbysuchaninquiry。Myreflection,whenIfirstmademyselfmasterofthecentralideaofthe’Origin,’was,\"Howextremelystupidnottohavethoughtofthat!\"IsupposethatColumbus’companionssaidmuchthesamewhenhemadetheeggstandonend。Thefactsofvariability,ofthestruggleforexistence,ofadaptationtoconditions,werenotoriousenough;butnoneofushadsuspectedthattheroadtotheheartofthespeciesproblemlaythroughthem,untilDarwinandWallacedispelledthedarkness,andthebeacon—fireofthe’Origin’guidedthebenighted。

  Whethertheparticularshapewhichthedoctrineofevolution,asappliedtotheorganicworld,tookinDarwin’shands,wouldprovetobefinalornot,was,tome,amatterofindifference。Inmyearliestcriticismsofthe’Origin’Iventuredtopointoutthatitslogicalfoundationwasinsecuresolongasexperimentsinselectivebreedinghadnotproducedvarietieswhichweremoreorlessinfertile;andthatinsecurityremainsuptothepresenttime。But,withanyandeverycriticaldoubtwhichmyscepticalingenuitycouldsuggest,theDarwinianhypothesisremainedincomparablymoreprobablethanthecreationhypothesis。Andifwehadnoneofusbeenabletodiscerntheparamountsignificanceofsomeofthemostpatentandnotoriousofnaturalfacts,untiltheywere,sotospeak,thrustunderournoses,whatforceremainedinthedilemma——creationornothing?Itwasobviousthat,hereafter,theprobabilitywouldbeimmenselygreater,thatthelinksofnaturalcausationwerehiddenfromourpurblindeyes,thanthatnaturalcausationshouldbeincompetenttoproduceallthephenomenaofnature。Theonlyrationalcourseforthosewhohadnootherobjectthantheattainmentoftruth,wastoaccept\"Darwinism\"asaworkinghypothesis,andseewhatcouldbemadeofit。Eitheritwouldproveitscapacitytoelucidatethefactsoforganiclife,oritwouldbreakdownunderthestrain。Thiswassurelythedictateofcommonsense;and,foronce,commonsensecarriedtheday。Theresulthasbeenthatcompletevolte—faceofthewholescientificworld,whichmustseemsosurprisingtothepresentgeneration。IdonotmeantosaythatalltheleadersofbiologicalsciencehaveavowedthemselvesDarwinians;butIdonotthinkthatthereisasinglezoologist,orbotanist,orpalaeontologist,amongthemultitudeofactiveworkersofthisgeneration,whoisotherthananevolutionist,profoundlyinfluencedbyDarwin’sviews。WhatevermaybetheultimatefateoftheparticulartheoryputforthbyDarwin,Iventuretoaffirmthat,sofarasmyknowledgegoes,alltheingenuityandallthelearningofhostilecriticshavenotenabledthemtoadduceasolitaryfact,ofwhichitcanbesaid,thisisirreconcilablewiththeDarwiniantheory。Intheprodigiousvarietyandcomplexityoforganicnature,therearemultitudesofphenomenawhicharenotdeduciblefromanygeneralisationswehaveyetreached。Butthesamemaybesaidofeveryotherclassofnaturalobjects。Ibelievethatastronomerscannotyetgetthemoon’smotionsintoperfectaccordancewiththetheoryofgravitation。

  Itwouldbeinappropriate,evenifitwerepossible,todiscussthedifficultiesandunresolvedproblemswhichhavehithertomettheevolutionist,andwhichwillprobablycontinuetopuzzlehimforgenerationstocome,inthecourseofthisbriefhistoryofthereceptionofMr。Darwin’sgreatwork。Buttherearetwoorthreeobjectionsofamoregeneralcharacter,based,orsupposedtobebased,uponphilosophicalandtheologicalfoundations,whichwereloudlyexpressedintheearlydaysoftheDarwiniancontroversy,andwhich,thoughtheyhavebeenansweredoverandoveragain,cropupnowandthentothepresentday。

  Themostsingularofthese,perhapsimmortal,fallacies,whichliveon,Tithonus—like,whensenseandforcehavelongdesertedthem,isthatwhichchargesMr。Darwinwithhavingattemptedtoreinstatetheoldpagangoddess,Chance。Itissaidthathesupposesvariationstocomeabout\"bychance,\"andthatthefittestsurvivethe\"chances\"ofthestruggleforexistence,andthus\"chance\"issubstitutedforprovidentialdesign。

  Itisnotalittlewonderfulthatsuchanaccusationasthisshouldbebroughtagainstawriterwhohas,overandoveragain,warnedhisreadersthatwhenheusestheword\"spontaneous,\"hemerelymeansthatheisignorantofthecauseofthatwhichissotermed;andwhosewholetheorycrumblestopiecesiftheuniformityandregularityofnaturalcausationforillimitablepastagesisdenied。ButprobablythebestanswertothosewhotalkofDarwinismmeaningthereignof\"chance,\"istoaskthemwhattheythemselvesunderstandby\"chance\"?Dotheybelievethatanythinginthisuniversehappenswithoutreasonorwithoutacause?Dotheyreallyconceivethatanyeventhasnocause,andcouldnothavebeenpredictedbyanyonewhohadasufficientinsightintotheorderofNature?Iftheydo,itistheywhoaretheinheritorsofantiquesuperstitionandignorance,andwhosemindshaveneverbeenilluminedbyarayofscientificthought。

  Theoneactoffaithintheconverttoscience,istheconfessionoftheuniversalityoforderandoftheabsolutevalidityinalltimesandunderallcircumstances,ofthelawofcausation。Thisconfessionisanactoffaith,because,bythenatureofthecase,thetruthofsuchpropositionsisnotsusceptibleofproof。Butsuchfaithisnotblind,butreasonable;

  becauseitisinvariablyconfirmedbyexperience,andconstitutesthesoletrustworthyfoundationforallaction。

  Ifoneofthesepeople,inwhomthechance—worshipofourremoterancestorsthusstrangelysurvives,shouldbewithinreachoftheseawhenaheavygaleisblowing,lethimbetakehimselftotheshoreandwatchthescene。

  Lethimnotetheinfinitevarietyofformandsizeofthetossingwavesoutatsea;orofthecurvesoftheirfoam—crestedbreakers,astheydashagainsttherocks;lethimlistentotheroarandscreamoftheshingleasitiscastupandtorndownthebeach;orlookattheflakesoffoamastheydrivehitherandthitherbeforethewind;ornotetheplayofcolours,whichanswersagleamofsunshineasitfallsuponthemyriadbubbles。

  Surelyhere,ifanywhere,hewillsaythatchanceissupreme,andbendthekneeasonewhohasenteredtheverypenetraliaofhisdivinity。Butthemanofscienceknowsthathere,aseverywhere,perfectorderismanifested;

  thatthereisnotacurveofthewaves,notanoteinthehowlingchorus,notarainbow—glintonabubble,whichisotherthananecessaryconsequenceoftheascertainedlawsofnature;andthatwithasufficientknowledgeoftheconditions,competentphysico—mathematicalskillcouldaccountfor,andindeedpredict,everyoneofthese\"chance\"events。

点击下载App,搜索"The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin",免费读到尾