5e 7 °
b 39
1 Fao

Cornell University Library

THE GIFT OF

Pee Oc PT ee Bc Pe

Cornell University

Library

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924024754719

QH 367. 539° 1904 University Library

OT

olin

AT THE DEATHBED
of DARWINISM

A senate SRF PAPERS

By EY DENNERT, Ph. D.

Authorized Translation

By E. V. OYHARRA and JOHN H. PESCHGES

1904
GERMAN LITERARY BOARD
Burlington, Iowa

»

VU SE oS

Copyright 1904
By R. NEUMANN

CONTENTS

REBAR ne cerougalieaimandtatensatcteumyantes 9

INTRODUCTION cseed ceca oak, ween te Manse 27

CHAPTER I.—The Return to Wigand—The Bota-
nist, Julius von Sachs—The Vienna Zoologist, Dr.
SCHNCIdER sv ccutiedww Guar enwetes ieee 35

CHAPTER II.—Professor Goethe on “The Present
Status of Darwinism’”—Explains the Reluctance

of certain men of Science to Discard Darwinism... 41

CHAPTER III.—Professor Korchinsky Rejects Dar-
winism—His Theory of Heterogenesis—Professor
Haberlandt of Graz—Demonstration of a ‘Vital
Force”—Its Nature—The Sudden Origination

of a New Organ—Importance of the Experiment.

CHAPTER IV.—Testimony of a Palaeontologist, Pro-
fessor Steinmann—On Haeckel’s Family Trees—
The Principle of Multiple Origin—Extinction of
the Saurians—“Darwinism Not the Alpha and
Omega of the Doctrine of Descent”—Steinmann’s

CONMCIUSIONS cove gto Sees kb Ses

CHAPTER V.—Eimer’s Theory of Organic Growth
—Definite Lines of Development—Rejects Dar-
win’s Theory of Fluctuating Variations—Opposes
Weismann—Repudiates Darwinian “Mimicry”—
Discards the “Romantic” Hypothesis of Sexual
Selection—‘‘Transmutation is a Physiological Pro-

cess, a Phyletic Growth”..............0...0000.

CHAPTER VI.—Admissions of a Darwinian—Pro-
fessor von Wagner’s Explanation of the Decay of
Darwinism—Darwinism Rejects the Inductive
Method, Hence Unscientific—Wagner’s Contra-
dictory Assertions....... 0.0.2... cece cece

CHAPTER VII.—Haeckel’s Latest Production—
His Extreme Modesty—Reception of the Welt-
raetsel—Schmidt’s Apologia—The Romanes In-
cident—Men of Science Who Convicted Haeckel
of Deliberate Fraud........... 0... ccc cee ee ees 104

CHAPTER VIII.—Grottewitz Writes on “Darwinian
Myths”—Darwinism Incapable of Scientific Proof
—“The Principleof Gradual Development Certain-
ly Untenable”—‘Darwin’s Theory of “Chance” a
WEVENS” Gasis nacre ecuat a: Gedo ma mum am auoneinees 118

CHAPTER 1IX.—Professor Fleischmann of Erlan-
gen—Doctrine of Descent Not Substantiated—
Missing Links—“Collapse of Haeckel’s Theory”
—Descent Hypothesis ‘Antiquated”—Fleisch-
mann Formerly a Darwinian—Haeckel’s Dis-

reputable Methods of Defense................. 124

CHAPTER X.—Hertwig, the Berlin Anatomist, Pro-
tests Against the Materialistic View of Life’—No
Empiric Proof of Darwinism—“The Impotence of
Natural Selection”’—Rejects Haeckel’s “Bioge-

TEMG MAW” sends catade Bae Abs ates Seca 137

CONCLUSION.—Darwinism Abandoned by Men of
Science—Supplanted by a Theory in Harmony
With Theistic Principles................ eaawans 146

PREFACE.

The general tendency of recen: scientific literature
dealing with the problem of organic evolution may fairly
be characterized as distinctly and prevailingly unfavorable:
to the Darwinian theory of Natural Selection. In the:
series of chapters herewith offered for the first time
to English readers, Dr. Dennert has brought to--
gether testimonies which leave no room for doubt
about the decadence of the Darwinian theory in the
highest scientific circles in Germany. And _ outside
of Germany the same sentiment is shared generally by
the leaders of scientific thought. That the popularizers of
evolutionary conceptions have any anti-Darwinian tenden-
cies cannot, of course, be for a moment maintained. For
who would undertake to popularize what is not novel or
striking? But a study of the best scientific literature re-
veals the fact that the attitude assumed by one of our fore-
most American zoologists, Professor Thomas Hunt Mor-
gan, in his recent work on “Evolution and Adaptation,” is
far more general among the leading men of science than is
popularly supposed. Professor Morgan’s position may be
stated thus: He adheres to the general theory of Descent,
i.e., he believes the simplest explanation which has yet

9

been offered of the structural similarities between species
within the same group, is the hypothesis of a common de-
scent from a parent species. But he emphatically rejects
the notion—and this is the quintesscnce of Darwinism—
that the dissimilarities between species have been brought
about by the purely mechanical agency of natural selection.

To find out what, precisely, Darwin meant by the
term “natural selection” let us turn for a moment, to his
great work, The Origin cf Species by Means of Natural Se-
lection. In the second chapter of that work, Darwin ob-
serves that small “fortuitous” variations in individual or-
ganisms, though of small interest to the systematist, are of
the “highest importance” for his theory, since these minute
variations often confer on the possessor of them, some ad-
vantage over his fellows in the quest for the necessaries of
life. Thus these chance individual variations become the
“first steps” towards slight varieties, which, in turn, lead to
sub-species, and, finally, to species. Varieties, in fact, are
“incipient species.” Hence, small “fortuitous” fluctuating,
individual variations—i. e., those which chance to occur
without predetermined direction—are the “‘first-steps” in
the origin of species. This is the first element in the Dar-
winian theory.

In the third chapter of the same work we read: “It has
been seen in the last chapter that amongst organic beings
in a state of nature there is some individual variability. * * *
But the mere existence of individual variability and of
some few well-marked varieties, though necessary as a
foundation of the work, helps us but little in understanding

10

how species arise in nature. How have all those exqui-
site adaptations of one part of the organization to an-
cther part, and to the conditions of life, and of one organic
being to another being, been perfected? * * * Again it
may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I have called
incipient species, become ultimately converted into good
and distinct species, which in most cases obviously differ
from each other far more than do the varieties of the same
species? How do those groups of species which consti-
tute what are called distinct genera arise? All of these
results follow from the struggle for life. Owing to this
struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever
cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the
individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex rela-
tions to other organic beings, and to their physical condi-
tions of life, will tend to the preservation of such individ-
uals and will generally be inherited by the offspring. The
offspring also will thus have a better chance of surviving,
for of the many individuals of any species which are period-
ically born, but a small number can survive. I have called
this principle by which each slight variation, if useful, is
preserved, by the term, “natural selection.” Mr. Darwin
adds that his meaning would be more accurately expressed
by a phrase of Mr. Spencer’s coinage, “Survival of the Fit-
test.”

It may be observed that neither “natural selection”
nor “survival of the fittest” gives very accurate expression
to the idea which Darwin seems to wish to convey. Nat-
ural selection is at best a metaphorical description of a

11

process, and “survival of the fittest” describes the result of
that process. Nor shall we find the moving principle of
evolution in individual variability unless we choose to re-
gard chance as an efficient agency. Consequently, the only
efficient principle conceivably connected with the pro-
cess is the “struggle for existence;” and even this has only
a purely negative function in the origination of species or of
adaptations. For, the “surviving fittest” owe nothing more
to the struggle for existence than our pensioned veterans
owe to the death-dealing bullets which did not hit them.
Mr. Darwin has, however, obviated all difficulty regarding
precision of terms by the remark that he intended to use
his most important term, “struggle for existence” in “a
large and metaphorical sense.”

We have now seen the second element of Darwinism,
namely, the “struggle for life.’ The theory of natural se-
lection, then, postulates the accumulation of minute “for-
tuitions” individual modifications, which are useful to the
possessor of them, by means of a struggle for life
of such a sanguinary nature and of such _ enor-
mous proportions as to result in the destruction of
the overwhelming majority of adult individuals. These are
the correlative factors in the process of natural selection.

In view of the popular identification of Darwinism
with the doctrine of evolution, on the one hand, and with
the theory of struggle for life, on the other hand, it is
necessary to insist on the Darwinian conception of small,
fluctuating, useful variations as the “first-steps’ in the
evolutionary process. For, this conception distinguishes

12

Darwinism from the more recent evolutionary theory, e. g.,
of De Vries who rejects the notion that species have origi-
nated by the accumulation of fluctuating variations; and it
is quite as essential to the Darwinian theory of natural
selection as is the “struggle for life.” It is, in fact, an in-
tegral element in the selection theory.

The attitude of science towards Darwinism may,
therefore, be conveniently summarized in its answer to the
following questions: 1. Is there any evidence that such
a struggle for life among mature forms, as Darwin postu-
lates, actually occurs?

2. Can the origin of adaptive structures be explained
on the ground of their utility in this struggle, i. e., is it cer-
tain or even probable that the organism would have per-
ished, had it lacked the particular adaptation in its present
degree of perfection? On the contrary, is there not con-
vincing proof that many, and presumably most, adapta-
tions cannot be thus accounted for?

The above questions are concerned with “the struggle
for life.” Those which follow haye to do with the problem
of variations.

3. Is there any reason to believe that new species may
originate by the accumulation of fluctuating individual
variations?

4. Does the evidence of the geological record—which,
as Huxley observed, is the only direct evidence that can be
had in the question of evolution—does this evidence tell
for or against the origin of existing species from earlier
ones by means of minute gradual modifications?

13

We must be content here with the briefest outline of
the reply of science to these inquiries.

1. Darwin invites his readers to “keep steadily in
mind that each organic being is striving to increase in
geometrical ratio.” If this tendency were to continue un-
checked, the progeny of living beings would soon be un-
able to find standing room. Indeed, the very bac-
teria would quickly convert every vestige of organic mat-
ter on earth into their own substance. For has not Cohn
estimated that the offspring of a single bacterium, at its
ordinary rate of increase under favorable conditions, would
in three days amount to 4,772 billions of individuals with
an aggregate weight of seven thousand five hundred tons?
And the 19,000,000 elephants which, according to Darwin,
should to-day perpetuate the lives of each pair that mated
in the twelfth century—surely these would be a “magna
pars” in the sanguinary contest. When the imagination
views these and similar figures, and places in contrast to
this multitude of living beings, the limited supply of nour-
ishment, the comparison of nature with a huge slaughter-
house seems tame enough. But reason, not imagination,
as Darwin observes more than once, should be our guide
in a scientific inquiry.

It is observed on careful reflection that Darwin’s the-
ory is endangered by an extremely large disturbing ele-
ment, viz., accidental destruction. Under this term we in-
clude all the destruction of life which occurs in utter indif-
ference to the presence or absence of any individual varia-
tions from the parent form. Indeed, the greatest destruc-

14

tion takes place among immature forms before any varia-
tion from the parent stock is discernible at all. In this
connection we may instance the vast amount of eggs and
seeds destroyed annually irrespective of any adaptive ad-
vantage that would be possessed by the matured form.
And the countless forms in every stage of individual de-
velopment which meet destruction through “accidental
causes which would not be in the least degree mitigated
by certain changes of structure or of constitution which
would otherwise be beneficial to the species.” This diffi-
culty, Darwin himself recognized. But he was of opinion
that if even “one-hundredth or one-thousandth part” of
organic beings escaped this fortuitous destruction, there
would supervene among the survivors a struggle for life
sufficiently destructive to satisfy his theory. This sugges-
tion, however, fails to meet the difficulty. For, as Professor
Morgan points out, Darwin assumes “that a second com-
petition takes place after the first destruction of individ-
uals has occurred, and this presupposes that more indi-
viduals reach maturity than there is room for in the econ-
omy of nature.” It presupposes that the vast majority of
forms that survive accidental destruction, succumb in the
second struggle for life in which the determining factor is
some slight individual variation, e. g., a little longer neck
in the case of the giraffe, or a wing shorter than usual in
the case of an insect on an island. The whole theory of
struggle, as formulated by Darwin, 1s, therefore, a violent
assumption. Men of science now recognize that “egoism

and struggle play a very subordinate part in organic devel-

15

opment, in comparison with co-operation and social ac-
tion.” What, indeed, but a surrender of the paramountcy
of struggle for life, is Huxley‘s celebrated Romanes lec-
ture in which he supplants the cosmic process by the eth-
ical? The French free-thinker, Charles Robin, gave ex-
pression to the verdict of exact science when he declared:
“Darwinism is a fiction, a poetical accumulation of proba-
bilities without proof, and of attractive explanations with-
out demonstration.”

2. The hopeless inadequacy of the struggle for life to
account for adaptive structures has been dealt with at con-
siderable length by Professor Morgan in the concluding
chapters of the work already mentioned. We cannot here
follow him in his study of the various kinds of adaptations,
e. g., form and symmetry, mutual adaptation of colonial
forms, protective coloration, organs of extreme perfection,
tropisms and instincts, etc., in regard to the origin of each
of which he is forced to abandon the Darwinian theory.
It will suffice to call attention to his conclusions concerning
the phenomena of regeneration of organs. By his re-
search in this special field Professor Morgan has won inter-
uational recognition among men of science. It was while
prosecuting -his studies in this field that he became im-
pressed with the utter bankruptcy of the theory of natural
selection which Darwinians put forward to explain the ac-
quisition by organisms of this most useful power of regen-
eration. “It is not difficult to show that regeneration could
not in many cases, and presumably in none, have been ac-

quired through natural selection (p. 379). If an earth worm

16

(allolobophora foetida) be cut in two in the middle, the pos-
terior piece regenerates at its anterior cut end, not a head
but a tail. “Not by the widest stretch of the imagination
can such a result be accounted for on the selection theory.”
Quite the reverse case presents itself in certain planarians.
If the head of planaria Iugubris is cut off just behind
the eyes, there develops at the cut surface of the head-
Piece another head turned in the opposite direction.
“These and other reasons,’ concludes Professor Morgan
(p. 381), “indicate with certainty that regeneration cannot
be explained by the theory of natural selection.”

The ingenuity of the Darwinian imagination, however,
will hardly fail to assign some reason why two heads are
more useful than one in the above instance, and thus recon-
cile the phenomenon with Darwinism. For, according to
Professor Morgan “to imagine that a particular organ is
useful to its possessor and to account for its origin be-
cause of the imagined benefit conferred, is the general pro-
cedure of the followers of the Darwinian school.” ‘‘Per-
sonal conviction, mere possibility,” writes Quatrefages,
“are offered as proofs, or at least as arguments in favor
of the theory.” “The realms of fancy are boundless,” is
Blanchard’s significant comment on Darwin’s explanation
of the blindness of the mole. “On this class of specula-
tion,” says Bateson in his “Materials for the Study of Va-
riation,” referring to Darwinian speculation as to the bene-
ficial or detrimental nature of variations, “‘on this class of
speculation the only limitations are those of the ingenuity
of the author.” The general form of Darwin’s argument,

17

declared the writer of a celebrated article in the North
British Review, is as follows: “All these things may have
been, therefore my theory is possible: and since my theory
is a possible one, all those hypotheses which it requires are
rendered probable.”

3. We pass now to the question of the possibility of
building up a new species by the accumulation of chance
individual variations. That species ever originate in this
way is denied by the advocates of the evolutionary theory
which is now superseding Darwinism. Typical of the new
school is the botanist Hugo De Vries of Amsterdam.
The “first-steps” in the origin of new species according to
De Vries are not fluctuating individua! variations, but mu-
tations, i. e., definite and permanent modifications. Ac-
cording to the mutation theory a new species arises from
the parent species, not gradually but suddenly. It appears
suddenly “without visible preparation and without transi-
tional steps.” The wide acceptance with which this theory
is meeting must be attributed to thefact that men of science
no longer believe in the origin of species by the accumu-
lation of slight fluctuating modifications. To quote the
words of De Vries, ‘Fluctuating variation cannot overstep
the limits of the species, even after the most prolonged
selection—still less can it lead to the production of new,
permanent characters.” It has been the wont of Darwin-
ians to base their speculations on the assumption that “an
inconceivably long time” could effect almost anything in
the matter of specific transformations. But the evidence

which has been amassed during the past forty yeas leaves

18

no doubt that there is a limit to individual variability which
neither time nor skill avail to remove. As M. Blanchard
asserts in his work, La wie des ctres animes (p. 102), “All
investigation and observation make it clear that, while the
variability of creatures in a state of nature displays itself
in very different degrees, yet, in its most astonishing man-
ifestations, it remains confined within a circle beyond which
it cannot pass.”

It is interesting to observe how writers of the Dar-
winian school attempt to explain the origin of articulate
language as a gradual development of animal sounds. “It
does not,” observes Darwin, “appear altogether incredible
that some unusually wise ape-like animal should have
thought of imitating the growl of a beast of prey, so as to
indicate to his fellow monkeys the nature of the expected
danger. And this would have been a first step in the for-
mation of a language.” But what a tremendous step! An
ape-like animal that “thought” of imitating a beast must
certainly have been “unusually wise.” In bridging the
chasm which rational speech interposes between man and
the brute creation, the Darwinian is forced to assume that
the whole essential modification is included in the first step.
Then he conceals the assumption by parcelling out the ac-
cidental modification in a supposed series of transitional
stages. \He endeavors to veil his inability to explain the
first step, as Chevalier Bunsen remarked, by the easy but
fruitless assumption of an infinite space of time, destined
to explain the gradual development of animals into men;

as if millions of years could supply the want of an agent

19

necessary for the first movement, for the first step in the
line of progress. ‘How can speech, the expression of
thought, develop itself in a year or in millions of years, out
of unarticulated sounds which express feelings of pleasure,
pain, and appetite? The common-sense of mankind will
always shrink from such theories.”

4. The hopes and fears of Darwinians have rightly
been centered on the history of organic development as
outlined in the geological record. It has been pointed out
repeatedly by the foremost men of science that if the the-
ory of genetic descent with the accumulation of small vari-
ations be the true account of the origin of species, a com-
plete record of the ancestry of any existing species would
reveal no distinction of species and genera. Between any
two well-defined species, if one be derived from the other,
there must be countless transition forms. But palaeon-
tology fails to support the theory of evolution by minute
variations. Darwinism has been shattered on the geologic
rocks. “The complete absence of intermediate forms,”
says Mr. Carruthers, ‘‘and the sudden and contemporane-
ous appearance of highly organized and widely separated
groups, deprive the hypothesis of genetic evolution of any
countenance from the plant record of these ancient rocks.
The whole evidence is against evolution (i. e., by minute
modification) and there is none for it.” (ci. History of
Plant Life and its Bearing on Theory of Evolution, 1898).
Similar testimony regarding the animal kingdom is
borne by Mr. Mivart in the following carefully
worded statement: “The mass of palaeontological evi-

20

dence is indeed overwhelmingly against minute and gradual
modification.” “The Darwinian theory,” declared Pro-
fessor Fleischmann of Erlangen, recently, “has not a single
fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the
result of scientific research, but purely the product of the
imagination.”

On one occasion Huxley expressed his conviction that
the pedigree of the horse as revealed in the geological record
furnished demonstrative evidence for the theory of evolu-
tion. The question has been entered into in detail by Pro-
fessor Fleischmann in his work, Die Descendenztheorie.
In this book the Erlangen professor makes great capital
out of the “trot-horse”’ (Paradepferd) of Huxley and
Haeckel; and as regards the evolutionary theory, easily
claims a verdict of ‘not proven.” In this connection the
moderate statement of Professor Morgan is noteworthy:
“When he (Fleischmann) says there is no absolute proof
that the common plan of structure must be the result of
blood relationship, he is not bringing a fatal argument
against the theory of descent, for no one but an enthusiast
sees anything more in the explanation than a very probable
theory that appears to account for the facts. To demand
an absolute proof is to ask for more than any reasonable
advocate of the descent theory claims for it.” (Professor
Morgan, as we have already seen, rejects Darwinism, and
inclines to the mutation theory of De Vries.) The vast ma-
jority of Darwinians must, therefore, be classed as en-
thusiasts’’ who are not “reasonable advocates of the descent
theory.” For has not Professor Marsh told his readers

21

that “to doubt evolution is to doubt science?” And simi-
lar assertions have been so frequently made and reiterated
by Darwinians that the claim that Darwinism has become
a dogma contains, as Professor Morgan notes, more truth
than the adherents of that school find pleasant to hear.

More interesting, however, than Huxley’s geological
pedigree of the horse is Haeckel’s' geological pedigree of
man. One who reads Haeckel’s Natural History of Creation
can hardly escape the impression that the author
had actually seen specimens of each of the twenty-one an-
cestral forms of which his pedigree of man is composed.
Such, however, was not the case. Quatrefages, speaking of
this wonderful genealogical tree which Haeckel has drawn
up with such scientific accuracy of description, observes:
“The first thing to remark is that not one of the creatures
exhibited in this pedigree has ever been seen, either living
or in fossil. Their existence is based entirely upon theory.”
(Les Emules de Darwin, ii. p. 76). “Man’s pedigree as
drawn up by Haeckel,” says the distinguished savant, Du
Bois-Reymond,” is worth about as much as is that of Ho-
mer’s heroes for critical historians.”

In constructing his genealogies Haeckel has frequent
recourse to his celebrated “Law of Biogenesis.” The “Law
of Biogenesis” which is the dignified title Haeckel has given
to the discredited recapitulation theory, asserts that the
embryological development of the individual (ontogeny), is
a brief recapitulation, a summing up, of the stages through
which the species passed in the course of its evolution in
the geologic past, (phylogeny). Ontogeny is a brief reca-

22

pitulation of phylogeny. This, says Haeckel, is what the
“fundamental Law of Biogenesis” teaches us. (The reader
of Haeckel and other Darwinians will frequently find laws
put forward to establish facts: whereas other men of
science prefer to have facts establish laws). When, there-
fore, as Quatrefages remarks, the transition between the
types which Haeckel has incorporated into his genealogical
tree, appears too abrupt, he often betakes himself to on-
togeny and describes the embryo in the corresponding in-
terval of development. This description he inserts in his
genealogical mosaic, by virtue of the “Law of Biogenesis.”

Many theories have been constructed to explain the
phenomena of embryological development. Of these the
simplest and least mystical is that of His in the great
classic work on embryology, “Unsere Koerperform.” His
tells us: “In the entire series of forms which a developing
organism runs through, each form is the necessary antece-
dent step of the following. lf the embryo is to reach the
complicated end-form, it must pass, step by step, through
the simpler ones. Each step of tne series is the physiolog-
ical consequence of the preceding stage, and the necessary
condition for the following.” But whatever theory be ac-
cepted by men of science, it is certainly not that proposed
by Haeckel. Carl Vogt after giving Haeckel’s statement
of the “Law of Biogenesis” wrote: “This law which I long
held as well-founded, is absolutely and radically false.”
Even Oskar Hertwig, perhaps the best known of Haeckel’s
former pupils, finds it necessary to change Haeckel’s ex-

pression of the biogenetic law so that “a contradiction con-

23

tained in it may be removed.” Professor Morgan, finally,
rejects Haeckel’s boasted “Law of Biogenesis” as “ i prin-
ciple, false”’ And he furthermore seems to imply that
Fleischmann merits the reproach of men of science, for
wasting his time in confuting “the antiquated and generally
exaggerated views of writers like Haeckel.”

“Antiquated and generally exaggerated views.” Such
is the comment of science on Haeckel’s boast that Dar-
win’s pre-eminent service to science consisted in pointing
out how purposive adaptations may be produced by natural
selection without the direction of mind just as easily as they
may be produced by artificial selection and human design.
And yet the latest and least worthy production from the
pen of this Darwinian philosopher, The Riddle of the Uni-
verse, is being scattered broad-cast by the anti-Christian
press, in the name and guise of popular science. It
is therein that the evil consists. For the discerning
reader sees in the book itself, its own best refuta-
tion. The pretensions of MHaeckel’s “consistent and
monistic theory of the eternal cosmogenetic process”
are best met by pointing to the fact that its most highly
accredited and notorious representative has given to the
world in exposition and defense of pure Darwinian philos-
ophy, a work, which, for boldness of assertion, meagerness
of proof, inconsequence of argument, inconsistency in fun-
damental principles and disregard for facts which tell
against the author’s theory, has certainly no equal in con-
temporary literature. In the apt and expressive phrase of
Professor Paulsen, the book “fairly drips with superficial-

24

ity” (von Seichtigkeit triefen). If the man of science is to
be justified, as Huxley suggested, not by faith but by veri-
fication, Haeckel and his docile Darwinian disciples have
good reason to tremble for their scientific salvation.

EDWIN V. O’HARA.
St. Paul, Minn.

Amen.

25

INTRODUCTION.

During the last few years I have published under this
litle short articles dealing with the present status of Dar-
winism. In view of the kind reception which has been
accorded to these articles by the reading public I have
thought it well to bring them’ together in pamphlet form.
Indeed, the Darwinian movement and its present status arc
eminently deserving of consideration, especially on the part
of those before whom Darwinism has hitherto always been
held up triumphantly as a scientific disproof of the very
foundations of the Christian faith.

By way of introduction and explanation some general
preliminary remarks may not be amiss here. Previous to
twenty or thirty years ago, it was justifiable to identity Dar-
winism with the doctrine of Descent, for at that time Dar-
winism was the only doctrine of Descent which could claim
any general recognition. Consequently, one who was an
adherent of the doctrine of Descent was also a Darwinian.
Those to whom this did not apply were so few as to be
easily counted. The dispute then hinged primarily on Dar-
winism; hence, for those who did not admit the truth of
that theory, the doctrine of Descent was for the most part
also a myth.

27

I say, for the most part; for there were already even
at that time a few clear-sighted naturalists (Wigand,
Naegeli, Koelliker and others) who saw plainly the residue
of truth that would result from the discussion, But to the
overwhelming majority, the alternatives seemed to be:
Either Darwinism or no evolution at all. Today, however,
the state of things is considerably altered. The doctrine
of Descent is clearly and definitely distinguished from
Darwinism at least by the majority of naturalists. It is
therefore of the utmost importance that this luminous dis-
tinction should likewise become recognized in lay circles.

My object in these pages is to show that Darwinism
will soon be a thing of the past, a matter of history; that
we even now stand at its death-bed, while its friends are
solicitous only to secure for it a decent burial.

Out of the chaos of controversy which has obtained
during the last four decades there has emerged an ele-
ment of truth—for there lurks a germ of truth in most
errors—which has gained almost universal recognition
among contemporary men of science, namely, the doctrine
of Descent. The fact that living organisms form an ascend-
ing series from the less perfect to the more perfect; the
further fact that they also form a series according as they
display more or less homology of structure and are formed
according to similar types; and, lastly, that the fossil re-
mains of organisms found in the various strata of the
earth’s surface likewise represent an ascending series from
the simple to the more complex—these three facts suggest-
ed to naturalists the thought that living organisms were

28

not always as we find them today, but that the more per-
fect had developed from simpler forms through a series
of modifications. These thoughts were at first advanced
with some hesitation, and were confined to narrow circles.
They received, however, material support when, during the
fourth decade of the 19th century the splendid discovery
was made (by K. E. von Baer) that every organism is slow-
ly developed from a germ, and in the process of develop-
ment passes through temporary lower stages to a perma-
nent higher one. Even at that time many naturalists be-
lieved in a corresponding development of the whole series
of organisms, without of course being able to form a clear
conception of the process. Such was the state of affairs
when Darwin in the year 1859 published his principal work,
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. In
this work for the first time an exhaustive attempt was
made to sketch a clear and completely detailed picture of
the process of development.

Darwin started with the fact that breeders of animals
and growers of plants, having at their disposal a large
number of varieties, always diverging somewhat from each
other, choose individuals possessing characteristics which
they desired to strengthen, and use only these for procrea-
tion. In this manner the desired characteristic is gradually
made more prominent, and the breeder appears to have
obtained a new species. Similar conditions are supposed
to prevail in Nature, only that there is lacking the select-
ing hand of the breeder. Here the so-called principle of
Natural Selection holds automatic sway by means of the

29

Struggle for Existence. All the various forms of life are
warring for the means of subsistence, each striving to ob-
tain for itself the best nourishment, etc. In this struggle
those organisms will be victorious which possess the most
favorable characteristics; all others must succumb. Hence
those only will survive which are best adapted to their
environment. But between those which survive, the
struggle begins anew, and when the favoring peculiarities
become more pronounced in some, (by chance, of course)
these in turn win out. Thus Nature gradually improves
her various breeds through the continued action of a self-
regulating mechanism. Such are the main features of
Darwinism, its real kernel, about which of course,—and
this is a proof of its insufficiency,—from the very beginning
a number of auxiliary hypotheses attached themselves.
Darwin’s theory sounds so clear and simple, and
seems at first blush so luminous that it is no wonder if
many careful naturalists regarded it as an incontrovertible
truth. The warning voice of the more prudent men of
science was silenced by the loud enthusiasm of the younger
generation over the solution of the greatest of the world-
problems: the genesis of living beings had been brought to
light, and—a thing which admitted of no doubt—man as
well as the brute creation was a product of purely natural
evolution. The doctrine which materialism had already
proclaimed with prophetic insight, had at length been
irrefragably established on a scientific basis: God, Soul ard
Immortality were contemptuously relegated to the domain
of nursery tales. What further use was there for a God

30

when, in addition to the Kant-Laplacian theory of the
origin of the planetary system, it had been discovered that
living organisms had likewise evolved spontaneously?
How could man who had sprung from the irrational brute
possess a soul? And thus, finally, disappeared the third de-
lusion, the hope of immortality. For with death the func-
tions of the body simply cease, as also do those of the
brain, which people had foolishly believed to be something
more than an aggregation of atoms. The body dissolves.
into its constituent elements and serves in its turn to build
up other organisms: but as a human body it all turns to
dust nor ‘leaves a wrack behind’. Thus Darwifttism was
made the basis first for a materialistic, and then for a mon-
istic, view of the world, and hence came to be rigorously
opposed to every form of Theism. But since, at that
time, Darwinism was the only theory of evolution recog-
nized by the world of science, the opposition of the
Christian world was directed not specifically against Dar-
winism, but against the theory of evolution as such. The
wheat was rooted up with the tares.

I will not discuss here which of the two views con-
cerning creation; the origin of the world in one moment
of time, or a gradual evolution of the world and its po-
tentialities, is the more worthy of the creative power of
God. Manifestly the greatness and magnificence of crea-
tion will in no way be compromised by the concept of evo-
lution. This, of course, is simply my opinion. Any further
statement would be out of place here.

31

But what is the Darwinian position?

It is merely a special form of the evolutionary theory,
one of the various attempts to explain how the process of
development actually took place. Darwinism as under-
stood in the following chapters possesses the following
characteristic traits:

(1) Evolution began and continues without the aid or
intervention of a Creator, We 24+ A otetement wad

(2) In the production of Variations there is no defi-
nite law; Chance reigns supreme.

(3) There is no indication of purpose or finality to be
detected anywhere in the evolutionary process.

(4) The working factor in evolution is Egoism, a war
of. each against his fellows: this is the predominating prin-
ciple which manifests itself in Nature.

(5) In this struggle the strongest, fleetest and most
cunning will always prevail, (the Darwinian term “fittest”
has been the innocent source of a great deal of error).

(6) Man, whether you regard his body or his mind,
is nothing but a highly developed animal.

A careful examination of Darwinism shows that these
are the necessary presuppositions, or, if you will, the in-
evitable consequences of that theory. To accept that the-
ory is to repudiate the Christian view of the world. The
truth of the above propositions is utterly incompatible, not
only with any religious views, but with our civil and social
principles as well.

32

The most patent facts of man’s moral life, however,
cannot be explained on any such hypothesis, and the logic
of events has already shown that Darwinism could never
have won general acceptance but for the incautious en-
thusiasm of youth which intoxicated the minds of the rising
generation of naturalists and incapacitated them for the
exercise of sober judgment. To show that there is among
contemporary men of science a healthy reaction against
Darwinism is the object of this treatise.

The reader may now ask, What, then, is your idea of
evolution? It certainly is easier to criticise than to do
constructive work. An honest study of nature, however,
inevitably leads us to the conclusion that the final solution
of the problem is still far distant. Many a stone has al-
ready been quarried for the future edifice of evolution by
unwearied research during the last four decades. But in
opposition to Darwinism it may, at the present time, be
confidently asserted that any future doctrine of evolution
will have to be constructed on the following basic prin-
ciples:

(1) All evolution is characterized by finality; it pro-
ceeds according to a definite plan, and tends to a definite
end.

_ (2) Chance and disorder find no place in Nature;
every stage of the evolutionary process is the result of
law-controlled factors.

(3) Egoism and struggle among living organisms
are of very subordinate importance in comparison with co-
operation and social action.

33

(4) The soul of man is an independent substance, and
entirely unintelligible as a mere higher stage of develop-
ment of animal instinct. NO /’.90f EF SOUL

A theory of evolution, however, resting on these prin-
ciples cannot dispense with a Creator and Conserver of
the world and of life.

CHAPTER I.

“Tt was a happy day that people threw off the straight-
jacket of logic and the burdensome fetters of strict method,
and mounting the light-caparisoned steed of philosophic
science, soared into the empyrean, high above the laborious
path of ordinary mortals. One may not take offense
if even the most sedate citizen, for the sake of a change,
occasionally kicks over the traces, provided only
that he returns in due time to his wonted course.
And now in the domain of Biology, one is led to
think that the time has at length arrived for putting an
end to mad masquerade pranks and for returning without
reserve to serious and sober work, to find satisfaction there-
in.” With these words did the illustrious Wigand, twenty-
five years ago, conclude the preface to the third volume
of his large classical work against Darwinism. True. he
did not at that time believe that the mad campaign of
Darwinism had already ended to its own detriment, but
he always predicted with the greatest confidence that the
struggle would soon terminate in victory for the anti-
Darwinian camp. When Wigand closed his eyes in death
in 1896, he was able to bear with him the consciousness
that the era of Darwinism was approaching its end, and
that he had been in the right.

35

Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is
more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige
among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon
be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence
when people will look back upon the history of the doc-
trine of Descent, they will confess that the years between
1860 and 1880 were in many: respects a time of carnival;
and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of
the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the
excitement attending some mad revel.

A justification of our hope that Wigand’s warning pre-
diction will finally be fulfilled is to be found in the fact
that today the younger generation of naturalists is de-
parting more and more from Darwinism. It is a fact
worthy of special mention that the opposition to Darwin-
ism today comes chiefly from the ranks of the zoologists,
whereas thirty years ago large numbers of zoologists from
Jena associated themselves with the Darwinian school,
hoping to find there a full and satisfactory solution for the
profoundest enigmas of natural science.

The cause of this reaction is not far to seek, There
was at the time a whole group of enthusiastic Darwinians
among the university professors, Haeckel leading the van,
who clung to that theoryso tenaciously and were so zealous
in propagating it, that for a while it seemed impossible
for a young naturalist to be anything but a Darwinian.
Then the inevitable reaction gradually set in. Darwin him-
self died, the Darwinians of the sixties and seventies lost
their pristine ardor, and many even went beyond Darwin.

36

Above all, calin reflection took the place of excited en-
thusiasm. As a result it has become more and more ap-
parent that the past forty years have brought to light
nothing new that is of any value to the cause of Darwinism.
This significant fact has aroused doubts as to whether
after all Darwinism can really give a satisfactory explana-
tion of the genesis of organic forms.

The rising generation is now discovering what discern-
ing scholars had already recognized and stated a quarter of
a century ago. They are also returning to a study of the
older opponents of Darwinism, especially of Wigand. It
is only now, many years after his death, that a tribute has
been paid to this distinguished savant which unfortunately
was grudgingly withheld during his life. One day recently
there was laid before his monument in the Botanical
Garden of Marburg a laurel-wreath with the inscription:
“To the great naturalist, philosopher and man.” It came
from a young zoologist at Vienna who had thoroughly
mastered Wigand’s great anti-Darwinian work, an intelli-
gent investigator who had set to work in the spirit of
Wigand. Another talented zoologist, Hans Driesch, dedi-
cates to the memory of Wigand two books in rapid suc-
cession and reprehends the contemporaries of that master
of science for ignoring him. O. Hammann abandons Dar-
.winism for an internal principle of development. W.
Haacke openly disavows Darwinism; and even at the con-
vention of naturalists in 1897, L. Wilser was allowed to as-
sert without contradiction that, “anyone who has com-
mitted himself to Darwinism can no longer be ranked as

a naturalist.”
37

These are all signs which clearly indicate a radical
revolution, and they are all the more significant since it
is the younger generation, which wili soon take the lead,
that thinks and speaks in this manner. But it is none the
less noteworthy that the younger naturalists are not alone
in this movement. Many of the older men of science are
swelling the current. We shall recall here only the great-
est of those whom we might mention in this connection.

Julius von Sachs, the most gifted and brilliant botanist
of the last century, who unfortunately is no longer among
us, was in the sixties an outspoken Darwinian, as is evident
especially from his History of Botary and from the first
edition of his Handbook of Botany. Soon, however, Sachs
began to incline toward the position assumed by Naegeli;
and as early as 1877, Wigand, in the third volume of his
great work, expressed the hope that Sachs would withdraw
still further from Darwinism. As years went by, Sachs
drifted more and more from his earlier position, and Wig-

and was of opinion that to himself should be ascribed the
credit of bringing about the change. During his last years

Sachs had become bitterly opposed to Darwinism, and in
his masterly “Physiological Notes” he took a firm stand on
the “internal factors of evolution.”

During recent years I had the pleasure of occasional
correspondence with Sachs. On the 16th of September,
1896, he wrote me: For more than twenty years I have
recognized that if we are to build up a strictly scientific
theory of organic structural processes, we must separate
the doctrine of Descent from Darwinism. It was with this

38

intention that he worked during the last years of his life
and it is to be hoped that his school will continue his
researches with this aim in view.

The tendency among naturalists to return to Wigand is
well exemplified in an article contributed to the ‘“Preussi-
schen Jahrbuecher” for January, 1897, by Dr. Karl Camillo
Schneider, assistant at the zoological Institute of the Uni-
versity of Vienna. This article which is entitled The Origin
of Species, pursues Wigand’s train of thought throughout,
and whole sentences and even paragraphs are taken ver-
batim from his main work. This, at all events, is a very
instructive indication of the present tendency which de-
serves prominence: and its significance becomes more
evident when we recall how the work of Wigand was re-
ceived by the non-christian press a quarter of a century
ago. It was either ridiculed or ignored. The two methods
of treatment were applied to his writings which are always
readily employed when the critic has nothing pertinent to
say. It is interesting to note that Darwin himself employed
this method. Wigand once told me that he had sent Dar-
win a copy of his work and had addressed a letter to him
at the same time merely stating that he had sent the book,
making no reference to the line of thought contained in it.
Darwin answered immediately in the kindest manner that
he had not as yet received the book, but when it arrived
he would at once make a careful study of its contents. Dar-
win did not write to him again, and when a new edition of
his works appeared, the work of Wigand, the most com-
prehensive answer to Darwin ever written, was passed over

39

without even a passing mention. Thus Darwin completely
ignored his keenest antagonist.

As has been said, the majority of those who wrote
about Wigand ridiculed him: very few regarded him ser-
iously, and even these indulged chiefly in personal recrimi-
nations. Thus matters stood twenty-five years ago. Wig-
and’s prediction passed unheeded. That a periodical not
having a specifically Christian circle of readers should now
publish a condemnation of Darwinism entirely in accord-
ance with the views of Wigand, is a fact which indicates a
notable change of sentiment during the intervening years.
I should not be at all astonished if many who sneered at
Wigand twenty years ago, now read the article in the
Freussischen Jahrbuecher with entire approval. Ill-will
towards Wigand has not altogether disappeared even to-
day. This is evident from the fact that as yet Dr. Schnei-
der does not venture to defend Wigand publicly, nor to ac-
knowledge him as his principal authority. We must be
content, however, if only, the truth will finally prevail.

40

CHAPTER II.

Striking testimony relative to the present position of
Darwinism is borne by the Strasburg zoologist, Dr. Goette,
who has won fame by his invaluable labors as an historian
of evolutionary theory. In the “Umschau,”’ No. 5, 1808,
he discusses the “Present Status of Darwinism,” and the
conclusions he arrives at, are identical with mine. At the
outset Goette indicates the distinction between Darwinism
and the doctrine of Descent, and then points out that the
distinguishing features of the former consist not so much in
the three facts of Heredity, Variation, and Over-
production, but rather in Selection, Survival of the Fittest,.
and also in that mystical theory of heredity—the doctrine
of Pangenesis—which is peculiarly Darwinian. Since this
theory of Pangenesis has found no adherents, the question
may henceforth be restricted to the doctrine of natural
selection. This Goette very well observes.

He points, moreover, to the fact that the misgivings
that were entertained concerning the doctrine of natural
selection on its first appearance, were, on the whole, pre--
cisely the same as they are to-day; only with this difference,
that formerly they were disregarded by naturalists whose
clearness of vision was obscured by excessive enthusiasm;
whereas, today men have again returned to their sober
senses and lend their attention more readily to objections.

41

Goette recalls the fact that M. Wagner tried to supple-
ment natural selection with his “Law of Migration,” and
that later on, Romanes and Gulick endeavored to supply
the evident deficiencies in ‘Darwin’s theory, by invoking
other principles; and that even at that time, Askenasy,
Braun, and Naegeli—and more recently, the lately deceased
Eimer—insisted on the fact of definitely ordered variations,
in opposition to the theory of Selection.

Many naturalists recognize the difficulties but do not
abandon the theory of Selection, thinking that some supple-
mentary principle would suffice to make it acceptable:
many others refuse to decide either for or against Darwin-
ism and maintain towards it an attitude of indifference.
The younger investigators, however, are utterly opposed to
it. “There can be no doubt that since its first appearance
the influence of Darwinism on men’s minds has notably
diminished, although the theory has not been entirely dis-
carded.”—But the very fact that the younger naturalists
are hostile to it, makes it evident that Darwinism has a
still darker future in store for it: that sooner or later it
will come to possess a merely historical interest.

“The present position of Darwinism,” says Goette, “is
characterized especially by the uncertainty of criticism
which is unable to declare definitely in favor of either side.”
Goette finds the chief cause of this uncertainty in the fact
“that men of science (even Darwin himself) have widened
the concept of selection as a means of originating new spe-
cies through the interaction of individuals in the same spe-
cies, so as to express the mutually antagonistic relations

42

existing between several such species.” The latter alone
is subject to experimental verification, but it can only cause
the isolation of existing forms and is not a species-origi-
nating selection—with which alone we are here concerned.
This kind of selection can enfeeble the existing flora and
fauna, but cannot produce a new species. Selection pro-
ductive of new species “is not actually demonstrable; it is
a purely theoretical invention.”

Goette next points out that the investigator is every-
where confronted by definitely-directed variation: a fact
which does not harmonize with the theory of selection,
nor, consequently with Darwinism. If some scientists have
not as yet accepted Eimer’s presentation of this doctrine,
their action is most probably to be attributed to the fear
lest “they should have to accept not merely, variation ac-
cording to definite laws, but likewise a principle of finality
and other causes lying beyond the range of scientific in-
vestigation.” The rejection of the theory of selection often
promotes, as Goette rightly observes, a reactionary tend-
ency towards a priori explanations of phenomena with
which we are but slightly acquainted. “There are natural-
ists who do not discard the theory of selection simply be-
cause it seems to furnish a much-desired mechanical ex-
planation of purposive adaptions” (a momentous admission
to which we shall have occasion to revert).

Others have broken entirely with selection and the
principle of utility and extend the idea of finality to the
general capacity of organisms to persist. Thus adaptation
becomes a principle which transcends the limits of natural

43

science and pervades the whole domain of life. Goette
observes that Darwin spoke of useful, less useful and in-
different organisms, by which he meant those adaptations
destined for particular vital functions which tend to make
the organs more and more specialized. Since the ability to
live is threatened by this specialization it cannot be pur-
posive. This is not wholly true, because the more special-
ized the individual organ becomes, the more perfect is
the whole organism which is composed of these specialized
organs. The functions of the individual organ may be
restricted, but the power of the entire organism is notably
increased, according to the law of the division of labor.
Goette therefore has not sufficient grounds for rejecting
this expression. He considers that a real and permanent
purpose for the individual living forms is out of the ques-
tion, but that this purpose may be sought for in the de-
velopment and history of the collective life of nature.
Definitely ordered variation, he thinks, a scientific explana-
tion of which is indeed yet forthcoming, will explain adap-
tation equally as well as does selection. After what has
been said this statement of Goette must come as a sur-
prise, for one would think that according to his view
definite variation explains adaptations better than selection.
Goette sums up his main conclusion in the following
words: “The doctrine of Heredity or of Descent, which
comes from Lamarck though it was first made widely
known by Darwin, has since continually gained a broader

end surer foundation. But Darwin’s own doctrine re-

44

garding the causes and process of Descent which alone
can be called Darwinism, has on the other hand doubtlessly
waned in influence and prestige.”

This is exactly what we also maintain: The establish-
ment of the theory of Descent in general, and the continual
retrogression of Darwinism in particular. Wigand was en-
tirely right when he said that Darwinism would not live be-
yond the century.

We may, however, derive from the discussions of Go-
ette something else that isof the highest importance, name-
ly, an admission in which is to be found the real and funda-
mental explanation of the conduct of the majority of
naturalists who still cling to Darwinism. It does not con-
sist in the fact that they are convinced of the truth of
Darwinism but in their “reluctance to give up the mechan-
ical explanation of finality proposed by Darwin,” or rather
in the fear of being driven to the recognition of theistic
principles. With commendable candor Goette attacks this
method of keeping up a system notwithstanding its recog-
nized deficiencies. Goette furthermore points out especial-
ly that this recognition is more widespread than one might
be able to gather from occasional discussions on the sub-
ject.

From the account which Goette gives of the present
status of Darwinism we may safely conclude that Darwin-
ism had entered upon a period of decay; it is in the third
stage of a development through which many a scientific
doctrine has already passed.

The four stages of this development are the follow-

ing:
45

1. The incipient stage: A new doctrine arises, the
older representatives of the science oppose it partly be-
cause of keener insight and greater experience, partly also
from indolence, not wishing to allow themselves to be
drawn out of their accustomed equilibrium; among the
younger generation there arises a growing sentiment in
favor of the new doctrine.

2. The stage of growth: the new doctrine continually
gains greater favor among the young generation, finding
vent in bursts of enthusiasm; some of the cautious seniors
have passed away, others are carried along by the stream
of youthful enthusiasm in spite of better knowledge, and
the voices of the thoughtful are no longer heard in the
general uproar, exultingly proclaiming that to live is bliss.

3. The period of decay: the joyous enthusiasm has
vanished; depression succeeds intoxication. Now that
the young men have themselves grown older and become
more sober, many things appear in a different light.
The doubts already expressed by the old and prudent dur-
ing the stage of growth are now better appreciated and
gradually increase in weight. Many become indifferent,
the present younger generation becomes perplexed and
discards the theory entirely.

4. The final stage: the last adherents of the ‘new
doctrine” are dead or at least old and have ceased to be
influential, they sit upon the ruins of a grandeur that even
now belongs to the “good old time.” The influential and
directing spirits have abandoned this doctrine, once so im-
portant and seemingly invincible, for the consideration of

46

living issues and the younger generation regards it as an
interesting episode in the history of science.

With reference to Darwinism we are in the third stage
which is characterized especially by the indifference of the
present middle-aged generation and by growing opposition
on the part of the younger coming generation. This verv
characteristic feature is brought into prominence by the
discussion of Goette. If all signs, however, are not decep-
tive, this third stage, that of decay, is drawing to an end;
soon we shall enter the final stage and with that the tragic-
comedy of Darwinism will be brought to a close.

If some one were to ask me how according to the
count of years, I should determine the extent of the indi-
vidual stages of Darwinism, this would be my answer:

1. The incipient stage extends from 1859 (the year
during which Darwin’s principal work, The Origin of
Species, appeared) to the end of the sixties.

2. The stage of growth: from that time, for about
zO years, to the end of the eighties.

3. The stage of decay: from that time on to about
the year Igoo.

4. The final stage: the first decade of the new cen-
tury.

I am not by choice a prophet, least of all regarding
the weather. But I think it may not be doubted that
the fine weather, at least, has passed for Darwinism. So
having carefully scanned the firmament of science for signs
of the weather, I shall for once make a forecast for Dar-

47

winism, namely: Increasing cloudiness with heavy precip-
itations, indications of a violent storm, which threatens to
cause the props of the structure to totter, and to sweep it

from the scene.

48

CHAPTER III.

As further witnesses to the passing of Darwinism,
two botanists may be cited; the first is Professor Kors-
chinsky who in No. 24, 1899, of the Naturwissenschaftliche
Wochenschrift published an article on ‘‘Heterogenesis
and Evolution,’ which was to be followed later
by a large work on this subject. With precision
and emphasis he points to the numerous instances
in which there occurs on or in a plant, suddenly and with-
out intervention, a variation which may become hereditary
under certain circumstances; thus during the last century
a number of varieties of garden plants have been evolved.
On the basis of such experiments Korschinsky developed
the theory which had been proposed by Koelliker in
Wuerzburg thirty years earlier, namely, the theory of
“heterogeneous production” or heterogenesis,” as Kor-
schinsky calls it. When one understands that a plant gives
rise suddenly and without any intervention to a grain of
seed, which produces a different plant, it becomes evident
that all Darwinistic speculations about selection and
struggle for existence are forthwith absolutely excluded.
The effect can proceed only from the internal vital powers
inherent in the specified organism acting in connection,
perhaps, with the internal conditions of life, which suddenly

exert an influence in a new direction.

49

Korschinsky distinguishes clearly and definitely be-
tween the principles of Heterogenesis and Transmutation
(gradual transformation through natural selection in the
struggle for existence), and in so doing comes to a com-
plete denial of Darwinism. MN) 0 tty

The other naturalist who has dealt Darwinism a tell-
ing blow is the botanist of Graz, Professor Haberlandt.

He published some very interesting observations and
experiments in the “Festschrift fuer Schwendener” (Berlin
1899, Borntraeger). They are concerned with a Liane
javas of the family of mulberry plants (Conocephalus
ovatus.) The free leaves possess under the outer layer, a
tissue composed of large, thin-walled, water-storing cells;
flat cavities on the upper side, having, furthermore, organs
that secrete water, which the botanist calls hydathodes.
These are delicate, small, glandular cells over which are
the bundles of vascular fibres (leaf-veins) that convey the
water to them; over these in the top layer are so-called
water-crevices through which the water can force itself to
the outside. It is unnecessary to enter upon a closer ex-
planation of the anatomical structure of these peculiar
organs. The water which is forced upward by the root-
pressure of the plant is naturally conveyed through the
vascular fibres into the leaves and at every hydathode the
superfluous water oozes out in drops, a phenomenon which
one can also very nicely observe e.g. on the “Lady’s cloak”
(Alchemilla vulgaris) of the German flora. A portion of
the night-dew must be attributed to this secretion of water.
On the Liane, then, Haberlandt observed a very consider-

50

able secretion of water: a full-grown leaf secreted during
one night 2.76 g. of water (that is 26 per cent. of its own
weight.) Through this peculiarity the water supply within
the plant is regulated and the dangeravoided that any water
should penetrate the surrounding tissue in consequence of
strong root-pressure,—which would naturally obstruct the
vital function of the entire leaf. Besides it is to be noticed
that in this way an abundant flow of water is produced: the
plant takes up large quantities of water from the earth,
laden with nutritive salts, and the distilled water is almost
pure (it contains only 0.045 g. salts), so that the nutritive
salts are absorbed by the plant.

From these considerations it necessarily appears that
the hydathodes are of great biological importance to the
plant.

Haberlandt then “poisoned” the plant, by sprinkling
it with a 0.1 per cent sublimate solution of alcohol. The
purpose of this experiment was to ascertain whether in
the secretion of water there was question of a merely phys-
ical process or of a vital process. In the first case the
action of the hydathode should continue even after the
treatment with the sublimate solution, while in the latter
case it should not. As the secretion ceased the obvious
conclusion to be deduced from this experiment is that the
hydathodes do not act as purely mechanical filtration-ap-
paratuses, as one might have thought, but that there is
here evidence of an active vital process in the plant; the
unusual term “poisoning” is therefore really justified under

present circumstances.

51

Let me dwell for a moment on this result, for, al-
though it may be somewhat foreign to our present pur-
pose and to the further observations of Haberlandt, it is
very significant in itself. The water moves in the plant
in closed cells, as the cells of the aqueous gland are entirely
closed, but the organic membrane, as every one knows, has
the peculiar physical property of allowing water to pass
through, the pressure, of course, being applied on the side
of least resistance; when therefore the water is forced into
the cells by root-pressure, it is easily intelligible that ac-
cording to purely physical laws it should come to the
surface of the leaf on the side of the least resistance, that
is, by way of the water-crevices. Even the defenders of
“vital force” would not find any reason in this for not con-
sidering the phenomenon of distillation in this case a
purely physical phenomenon. And still according to
Haberlandt’s experiments it is not. The sublimate could at
most only impede the process of filtration, but should under
no circumstances have destroyed it. But it does destroy
it, and the hydathode dies. The conclusion certainly fol-
lows from this that this process is connected with some
vital function. Even if the hydathode is treated with sub-
limate solution, all the conditions for mechanical filtration
still remain: the earth has moisture which can be taken up
by the roots so that root-pressure still exists. The water
is in all cases conveyed to the hydathodes through the
vascular fibres, the cell walls of the hydathodes are still
adapted for filtration, and yet they do not filter. Hence
some other factor must join itself to the physico-mechanical

52

process of filtration and affect or destroy it, and this factor
can be found only in the protoplasm, the vital element of
the cells; for we know that the sublimate acts with per-
nicious effect on it and in such a manner that it destroys its

entire power of reaction; it kills it, as we say.

The experiment under discussion has, therefore, great
significance for our view of the vital processes in the plant;
it proves beyond doubt that these processes are in no way
of a purely mechanical nature, but that there is something
underlying all this,a hitherto inexplicable something, which
we call “life.” In all vital activities, physical and chem-
ical processes certainly do occur; they do not, however,
take place spontaneously but are made use of by the vital
element of the plant to produce an effect that is desirable
or necessary for the vital activity of the plant. If the vital
element is dead, no matter how favorable the conditions
may be for chemical and physical processes, these do not
take place and the effect necessary for life is not obtained.
It is very remarkable after all that according to the ex-
periment of Haberlandt this peculiar relation should be-
come apparent in a process that is so open to our investi-
gation as the filtration of water through the cell-wall of a
plant. ‘

After what has been said I consider this simple expcri-
ment of Haberlandt of great significance; for it is a direct
proof of the existence of a vital force. One may resist to
lis heart’s content, but without avail; vital force is again

finding its way into science. More and more cognizance

53

is being taken of the fact that 60 and 70 years ago people
jumped at conclusions very imprudently when they be-
lieved that the first artificial preparation of organic matter
(urea, by Woehler) had proven the non-existence of a vita!
force. Since then there has been great rejoicing in the
camp of materialists who scoffed at the “ignorant” who
would not as yet forsake vital force. “Behold,” they said,
“in the chemist’s retort the same matter is produced chem-
ically that is produced in the body of the animal, without
the direction of a hidden vital force, which, if it is not
necessary in the one case, neither is it necessary in the
other.” Any one who had given the matter careful con-
sideration could even at that time have known where the
“ignorant” really were. That in both cases chemical pro-
cesses take place is clear and undisputed, but the material-
ists forgot entirely that even in the laboratory it was not
the mere contact of the elements that produced
the urea; a chemist was needed and in this case
not any one arbitrarily chosen, but a man of the
genius and knowledge of a Woehler to watch over the
process, and utilize and partly direct the laws of chemistry
in order to obtain the desired result. Hence it was even
then absurd to deny vital force as a consequence of that
experiment. Since, however, it was well-adapted for
materialistic purposes, this denial was proclaimed with the
sound of trumpet throughout the land, and repeated again
and again with surprising tenacity, with the result that
even thoughtful investigators rejected vital force almost
universally in the seventies and eighties. a (tec W teats -

54

It has always been a problem to me how this could
have happened. It can, indeed, be explained only on the
- supposition that naturalists were adverse to the introduc-
tion of anything into nature, that appeared to them mystic-
al and mysterious. Nor is such a procedure at all neces-
sary: vital force is by no means a mysterious, ghostly
power that soars above nature, but a force of na-
ture like its other forces, as mysterious and as
definite as they are, only that it dominates a speci-
fied group of beings, namely, living organisms. It
may readily be compared with any other natural
phenomenon. For instance, the phenomenon of crystaliza-
tion has its well determined sphere of activity, viz., the
mineral world. It employs definite mathematico-physical
laws to obtain a specified result, and even acts differently
in different mineral substances in so far as it produces in
the one case this, in the other case that form; but still it
should be a similarly directed force which has the effect
of producing these peculiar forms. Precisely similar is it
with vital force. It has its determined sphere of activity,
the kingdom of living organisms; it acts according to defi-
nite physico-chemical laws in producing a specified result;
it acts differently in different living organisms; it is there-
fore a force of nature as clear yet as mysterious as the
force of crystallization or as any other force of nature.
Hence one has no cause to complain of its mysteriousness,
for all other forces of nature are just as much, or if you
will, just as little mysterious as vital force. The only thing
to be maintained is this, that living organisms are domi-

55

nated by a special force with special phenomena and special
activities, even as in mineral substances there is a special
dominant force which produces special phenomena and ex-
ercises special activities.

It is possible to produce crystals in the laboratory, but
no one will be so foolish as to maintain that in nature
crystals are not formed in consequence of a very definite
force inherent in the mineral-substances; nor will any one
deny the existence of the force of crystallization because it

does not appear in living organisms.

Nor have I ever despaired of a return of the theory of
vital force. A change of opinion has really taken place dur-
ing this decade; at present the voices for a vital force are
constantly growing stronger and it will most probably not
be very long before it will be again universally recognized,
not as something preternatural, of course, but as a force
of nature on an equal footing with the other forces of
nature, with activities, just as mysterious and just as well-
attested as the activities of the other forces of nature.

Haberlandt’s experiment, however, had also an in-
direct consequence that is of far-reaching importance. He
observed that within a few days new water-secreting organs
of an entirely different structure and of different origin
were formed on the leaves that had been sprinkled with
sublimate. Over the bundles of vascular fibres, little knots
as large as a pin head arose in larger numbers out of a
tissue underlying the top layer; out of these the water now
oozed every morning. Closer investigation disclosed the

56

fact that these organs develop only on young immature
leaves where groups of peculiar, perishable gland-hairs are
found; beneath these dead mucous glands the substitute
secretive organs originate in the inner tissue. It is of no
importance to state in what particular cells they originate,

Suffice it to say that they are colorless capillary tubes
originating in various cells; projecting like the hairs of a
brush, containing living protoplasm and evanescent chlor-
ophyl. It is also important to note that this new organ
is immediately connected with the water-conducting system
consisting of bundles of vascular fibres. Haberlandt
furthermore indicates especially that these organs when
viewed in connection with the process of secretion give
evidence of an active vital principle as well as of simple
mechanical filtration.

These substitute organs are all indeed well adapted to
their purpose and adequately replace the old secretive
organs, but they so easily dry out and are so little pro-
tected that after a week they become parched and die be-
cause wound-cork forms under them. The leaf no longer
produces new hydathodes, but on its lower side it pro-
duces growths that function as vesicles, by means of which
it continues to sustain itself.

Haberlandt furthermore records a phenomenon per-
haps analogous to this on the grape-vine, but with this
exception the case described by him is unique. In order
to pass any further judgment regarding it, we should have
to ascertain whether the whole phenomenon is not a case

57

of so-called adaptation; if so, processes should be found in
nature, analogous to the poisoning of the hyda-
thodes in this experiment, which result in the destruc-
tion of the hydathodes so that in consequence the plant
would have gained the power of making good the loss, by
means of the substitute organs. Such processes, however,
(even through poisoning or through parasites) would be
very highly improbable. Equally incredible is the alterna-
tive possibility that the new organs would be produced by
the plant not as a substitute but as a supplementary ap-
paratus when the old ones would not suffice for secretion
in case of very large absorption of water. This also must
doubtlessly be rejected, as Haberlandt has observed.

Powers of adaptation should, of course, according to
Darwinism, be gradually acquired in the struggle for exist-
ence, as in that case they should also have stability; but
since this is not possessed by the new organs, the presump-
tion is that they do not possess the character of adaptation.
They are therefore new organs that originated after an
entirely unnatural and unforseen interference with the
normal vital functions and in consequence of a self-regulat-
ing activity of the organism.

What then is there in the whole phenomenon worthy
of notice with regard to the theory of Descent?

1. An immediately well adapted new organ has here
originated very suddenly without any previous incipient
formation, without gradual perfection and without stages

of transition.

58

2. In its formation struggle for existence and natural
selection are entirely excluded, neither can find any appli-
cation whatever even according to the newer exposition of
Weismann. Haberlandt himself draws this conclusion.

3. If this phenomenon of a suddenly appearing
change can take place in the course of the development
of the individual, there can be no obvious reason why it
should not take place in the same manner (without natural
selection or struggle for existence) in the course of the
phylogenetic development.

It is manifestly of the greatest importance that in this
case a direct, experimental proof has been given that an
organ has originated suddenly and without the aid of Dar-
winian principles. Haberlandt’s article is nothing less than
a complete renunciation of Darwinism on the part of
Haberlandt, a renunciation which we greet with great sat-
isfaction.

In fact one such observation would really suffice to
set aside Darwinism and prove the utter insufficiency of its
principles to give explanation of the origin of natural spe-
cies. On the other hand, this observation plainly proves
two things: first, that the above mentioned doctrine of
Koelliker, now held by Korschinsky is a move in the right
direction for the discovery of the causes of descent; and
secondly, that the principal cause of the evolution is not to
be sought in environment and blind forces but in the sys-
tematically working, internal vital principle in plants and
animals. With that, however, an important part of the
foundation of the mechanical-materialistic view of the
world is demolished. SH\l not.

59

CHAPTER IV.

Since we have heard the verdict of zoologists and
botanists concerning Darwinism, it is but right that we
should now listen to a palaeontologist, a representative of
the science, which investigates the petrified records of the
earth’s surface, and strives to collect information regard-
ing the world of life during remote, by-gone ages of the
earth. It is evident to every one that the verdict of this
science must be of very specal importance in passing on the
question of the development of living organisms. Darwin
himself recognized this at the outset. He and his follow-
ers, however, soon perceived that, while the revelations of
palaeontology were on the whole favorable to the doctrine
of Descent, in so far as they proved the gradual change
of organization, in consecutive strata, from the simple to
more complex forms, palaeontology revealed noth-
ing that would sustain the Darwinian theory as to
the method of that development. As soon as the
Darwinians, and first of all Darwin himself, per-
ceived this, they at once brought forward a very
cheap subterfuge. Since Darwinism postulates a very
gradual, uninterrupted development of living organ-
isms, there must have been an immense number of
transition-forms between any two animal or plant species
which to-day, although otherwise related, are separated by

60

characteristic features. Consequently, on the Darwinian
hypothesis, all of these transition-forms must have perished
for the singular reason that other better organized forms
overcame them in the struggle for existence. If therefore
the millions of transition-forms were still missing, and the
known petrified forms of older strata of the earth did not
reveal them, the Darwinians were able to console them-
selves until from 20 to 40 years ago, with the assertion that
our knowledge was still too deficient, that a more thorough
investigation of the earth’s surface and especially of out-of-
the-way parts would eventually bring to light the supposed
transition forms. Such assertion affords very poor con-
solation, and is anything but scientific. The method of
natural science consists in establishing general principles
on the basis of the materials actually furnished by experi-
ments and observation and not in excogitating general
laws and then consoling oneself with the thought that while
our knowledge of nature is as yet extremely imperfect,
time will furnish the actual material necessary to substan-
tiate our guesses. But since then many a year has come
ani gone and Darwinism has caused, and for that alone it
deserves credit, a diligent research in every field of natural
science, and has promoted among palaeontologists a seatch
for the missing transition-forms. The materials of investi-
gationfrom thefield of palaeontology have also wonderfully
increased during these decades. Hence it is worth while
now at the dawn of the new century to examine this mate-
rial with a view to its availableness for the theory of De-
scent and especially for Darwinism.

61

Professor Steinmann has recently done so in Frei-
burg in Breisgau, on the occasion of an address as Rector
of the University. What conclusions did he reach?

Steinmann declares it to be the primary task of post-
Darwinian palaeontology “to arrange the fossil animal and
plant-remains in the order of descent and thus to build up
a truly natural, because historically demonstrable, classifi-
cation of the animal and plant-world.” At the outset it is
to be noted thatfor various reasons palaeontologyis unable
to execute this momentous task in its full extent. The evi-
dence of palaeontology is deficient, if for no other reason
than that many animal organisms could not be preserved
at all on account of their soft bodies; many animal groups
have, nevertheless, received an unusual increase (mollusks,
radiata, fish, saurians, vertebrates, and dendroid plants).

As regards the attempt made in the sixties to draw up
lines of descent, Steinmann repudiates, without, of course,
mentioning names, the family tree constructed by Haeckel
and his associates as wholly hypothetical and hence unjust-
ified; he rightly remarks that their method smacks of the
closet. He finds fault with them chiefly because they pre-
dicated actuality of this imaginary family-tree and fancied
that the historical research of the future would have but
isolated facts to establish.

In speaking of the palaeontological research of the last
few decades, Steinmann says: “In the light of recent re-
search, fossil discoveries have frequently appeared less in-
telligible and more ambiguous than before, and in those

62

cases in which an attempt has been made to bring the de-
scent-system into agreement with the actual facts, the in-
congruity between the two has become obvious.” Thus,
for instance, the well-known archaeopteryx is not, as was
maintained, a connecting link between reptile and bird, but
a member of a blindly ending side branch. In fact palaeon-
tological research has proven incapable of finding the tran-
sitions between different species, clearly determined by the
theory. But the overwhelming abundance of matter called
for new endeavors to master it. It was then further
discovered—Steinmann finds an illustration of this fact
in the echinodermata—that the well-known “fundamental
law of biogenesis” of Haeckel can be accepted only in a
very restricted sense and may even lead to conclusions ab-
solutely false. We desire to remark here that a “fundamen-
tal principle” should never mislead; if it does so, it is not
a fundamental principle.

It is of importance to know that according to palaeon-
tological investigation, empiric systematizing and phyloge-
netic classification do not always coincide, as, for instance,
in the case of the ammonites. Acording to palaeontological
investigation the great systematic categories are only
grades of organization. Hence present day systematizing
is being more and more discarded, and the said categories
—as indeed also the lesser groups of forms—must be of
polyphyletic origin, that is, they must have descended from
different primitive stocks. It may be asked: What bearing
has this principle of multiple origins? For a long time rep-
tiles were the predominating vertebrates; when mammals

63

and birds appeared, numerous, varied and strange saur-
ians inhabited land and sea; but “with the end of the chalk-
period most saurians seem to have vanished suddenly from
the scene, and soon we behold the mainlands and oceans
inhabited by mammals of most diverse kinds.” The saur-
ians have become almost extinct and the mammal-tribe
suddenly shows a most extraordinary variability and power
of development. How is either phenomenon to be ex-
plained?

“The disappearance of a group ot organisms has been
preferably explained since the time of Darwin, by defeat in
the struggle with superior competitors. If ever an expla-
nation lacked pertinency, it does so in this case, in which
the succumbing group is represented by gigantic and well
preserved animal forms, widely distributed and accustomed
to the most varied methods of nutrition, whereas the com-
petitor appears in the form of small, harmless marsupials.
It would be equivalent to a struggle between the elephant
and the mouse.” And tee wieuee Lowa

We acknowledge with pleasure this clear rejection of
Darwinism on the part of Steinmann.

Steinmann also rejects the natural extinction of those
forms, perhaps from the weakness of old age; whether he
is wholly warranted in doing so, seems somewhat doubtful.
He tries to explain the phenomenon on the basis of the
multiple origin of the mammals; and in fact there is already
speculation regarding triple origin, viz: tambreets, mar-

supials, and the other mammals. Now if the latter also

64

possessed a multiple origin, the problem of the extinction
of the saurians would, according to Steinmann solve itself.
One would not need to consider the number of extinct forms
as large as is now done. However, he does not enter upon
any closer consideration of this question. But he points
out, for instance, that to-day the shells of mollusks (snails
and conchylia) are regardedas structures that were acquired
only in the course of time for the sake of protection, the
disappearance of which, therefore, implied a disadvantage
for the respective organisms. This transition would be
something extraordinary—‘“‘but if on the contrary, one re-
gards the shells as the necessary products of a special kind
of assimilation and of the immoveableness of certain parts
of the body, the gradual disappearance might well be con-
sidered a process which may take place in various animal-
groups with a certain regularity in the course of the phy-
letic development.” The snails devoid of shells, for in-
stance, may be derived with certainty from those possessed
of shells; this process has very probably also taken place in
different genetic lines.

This view is well worth consideration; it stands in
sharp opposition, in fundamental principles, to the Dar-
winian explanation. This calls for special emphasis here.
How should one explain the origin of uncrusted mollusks
from crusted ones through the struggle for existence, since
in such a contest the latter must have had far greater pros-
pect of survival than the former?

This view together with the principle of multiple ori-
gin opens up, according to Steinmann, “the prospect of

65

an altered conception of the process of formation of the
organic world.” According to the new conception, the
many extinct forms of antiquity are not, as Darwin sup-
posed, “unsuccessful attempts and continued aberrations of
nature”’—how this reminds one of that old, naive, much-
ridiculed idea that fossils were models that God had dis-
carded as unserviceable—but would gain new life and as-
sume hitherto unsuspected relationship to the present or-
ganic creation.

“Science, which seeks after operative causes, at the
beginning of the century regarded creation as a multipli-
city of phenomena without any causal connection as to
their origin. Darwin taught as a fundamental principle the
unity and the causal inter-relation of creation, but was not
entirely able to save this hypothesis from a violent and
sudden death. In the future sketch creation will ap-
pear as wholly restricted in itself and lasting, the causes
of its limitation lie, up to the time of the intervention of
men, solely in the balanced motion of the planet which it
peoples.”

At the close of his address Steinmann points out that
behind the problem of the manner of development,
there stands “the unsolved question regarding its operative
causes.” “Regarding this point,’ he continues, “opinions
have perhaps never been so divergent as they are to-day,
The times have passed when the Darwinian explanations
were regarded with naive confidence as the alpha and
omega of the doctrine of Descent. Not only are the ad-

herents of Darwinian ideas divided among themselves, but

66

the theory of Lamarck, somewhat altered, favored by the
results of historical investigation, appears more striking
and now seems more in harmony with facts than formerly.
What is considered by one as the ruling factor in the evo-

G

lution of organisms is regarded by another as a “quantite
negligeable” or even as the greatest mistake of the century.
In this discord of opinions the principle of Descent alone
forms the stable pole.”

Thus Steinmann, and we can but applaud his conclu-
sions with undisguised pleasure, for they tend throughout
in the direction of our anti-Darwinian view, and deal Dar-
winism another fatal blow. It is also worthy of special
note that this time the blow is dealt from the side of palae-
ontology; for, even if now and again we dissent from
Steinmann, in this we fully agree with him that the his-
torical method of considering the evidences of bygone pe-
riods of creation is at the very least quite as important for
passing correct judgment regarding descent, as is the in-
vestigation of contemporary living organisms. Indeed,
family-trees were constructed without regard for palaeon-
tology, almost exclusively from an examination of present
conditions, and sometimes the author did not even shrink
irom falsification. This procedure has been bitterly re-
venged and will take further revenge unless at length 2
definite end be put to the family-tree nuisance and the re-
spective books instead of being published anew, be rele-
gated to the lumber-room of science, there to turn yellow
amid dust and cobwebs— the curious evidence of gross
folly. But only have patience, even that time will come.

67

The conclusions of Steinmann, that are most import-
ant for us, may be summarized as follows:

1. The family and transition forms demanded from
palaeontology by Darwinism for its family-trees, construc-
ted not empirically put a priori, are nowhere to be found
among the abundant materials which palaeontological in-
vestigation has already produced.

2. The results of the investigation do not correspond
with the family groups drawn up according to the so-called
“biogenetic principle,” which principle has in fact led men
of science into false paths.

3. At best, the biogenetic principle has a limited valid-
ity, (we add that later it will undoubtedly follow Darwinism
and its family trees into the lumber-room).

4. The results of palaeontology, in so far, for instance,
as they testify to the sudden disappearance of the saurians
and the advent of mammals, everywhere contradict the
Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest in the
struggle for existence.

5. “The time has long passed when the Darwinian ex-
planations were regarded with naive confidence as the
alpha and omega of the doctrine of Descent.”

6. Only the principle of Descent is universally recog-
nized; the “how” of it, its causes, are to-day entirely a

matter of dispute.

68

CHAPTER V.

The strongest evidence of the decay of Darwinism is
to be found in the fact that, since Darwin first enunciated
his theory, many and diverse attempts have been made to
explain the origin of species on other principles. Names
of men, like M. Wagner, Naegeli, Wigand, Koelliker, and
Kerner mark these attempts; but of these investigators
Naegeli alone proposed a well-developed hypothesis. Fin-
ally, however, Eimer, professor of zoology in Tuebingen
came forward with a detailed theory of Descent. As early
as 1888 he published a comprehensive work dealing with it,
under the title: “The Origin of Species by Means of the
Transmission of Acquired Characters According to the
Laws of Organic Growth.” As the title itself indicates, a
very marked divergence was even at that time manifesting
itself between Eimer and his former teacher and friend, the
great defender of Darwinism in Germany, Aug. Weismann,
professor of zoology in Freiburg in Breisgau. For, while
the latter vigorously attacks the transmission of acquired
characters, Eimer’s whole theory is founded on this very
transmission. Observations regarding the coloring of ani-
mals, in fact, form the basis of Eimer’s theory.

Eimer attributes the origin of species to “organic
growth” by which he means not merely increase in size,
but also change of form, etc. This growth does not pro-

69

ceed blindly or aimlessly, but proceeds on rigidly determ-
ined lines, which depend upon the structure and constitu-
tion of the particular organism. External influences, how-
-ever, also affect it. Eimer specially emphasizes four points
in this connection: 1. This rigidly determined develop-
ment of a character exhibits well defined, regular
stages, and the evolution of each individual repeats the
whole series of transformations (the Mueller-Haeckel
“biogenetic-law.” 2. New characters are first acquired by
strong adult males (the law of male dominance). 3. New
characters appear on definite parts of the body, spreading
especially from the rear to the front, (the law of undula-
tion). 4. Varieties are stages in the process of develop-
ment, through which all the individuals of the respective
species must pass. Mw 3enSe

These points indicate how important for Eimer is the
transmission of those characters which the parents
themselves have acquired in the course of their own devel-
opment. He conceives that this transmission takes place
when the causative influences exert themselves permanently
on many succeeding generations. Eimer thinks that in this
way the constitution of the respective species is gradually
transformed. Besides the effect of external influences
(which may vary according to the climate, etc.: Geoffroy
St. Hilaire), Eimer mentions as important and active fac-
tors in this development, (1). The use and disuse of organs
(Lamarck); (2). The struggle for existence (Darwin); (3).
The correlation of organs, that is, the inner relation of or-
gans in consequence of which a change in one organ may

70

occasion a sudden change in another organ; (4). Cross
fertilization and hybridism. Neon Hare de fer

It is clear that with reference to the factors of evolu-
tion Eimer is, and perhaps not unreasonably, an eclectic,
whose aim is to do justice to the predecessors of Darwin
as well as to Darwin himself. His antagonism to Darwin
and Weismann in this work is still quite moderate, al-
though even here it appears with sufficient clearness that
selection and the struggle for existence, the two principles
peculiarly characteristic of Darwinism, do not give rise to
new species, but can at best only separate and differentiate
species already existing.

The second part of Eimer’s work dealing with the ori-
gin of species, which appeared after an interval of ten years,
bears the title: “Orthogenesis of Butterflies.” The Origin
of Species, II. Part (2 tables and 235 illustrations in the
text). Leipzig, 1897. In this book substantially the same
thoughts occupy the mind of the author as in the former
volume, but in many respects they are more mature, and
conspicuously more definite and precise. The most salient
features are the following:

1. Eimer establishes his theory by means of very
minute observations on a definite species of animals, viz.,
butterflies.

2. He attributes evolution almost exclusively to de-
velopment along definitely determined lines.

3. He proves the utter untenableness of Darwinian
principles and repudiates them unqualifiedly.

71

4. Ina very distinct and severe manner he gives ex-
pression to his opposition to his former friend Weismann.

5. He attacks with telling effect the fantastic Dar-
winian “Mimicry.”

In his “General Introduction” Eimer first treats of Or-
thogenesis in opposition to the Darwinian theory of selec-
tion. The very first sentence gives evidence of this antag-
onism: “According to my investigation, organic growth
(Organophysis), which is rendered dependent on the plasm
by permanent external influences, climate and nourishment,
and the expression of which is found in development along
definitely determined lines, (Orthogenesis), is the principal
cause of transformation, its occasional interruption and its
temporary cessation and is likewise the principal cause of
the division of the series of organisms into species.”

Lamarck’s theory of the use and disuse of organs and
Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection are consequently
pushed into the background. Here also Eimer at once
places himself at variance with Naegeli who had enunciated
a similar theory. Naegeli took as a starting point an in-
herent tendency in every being to perfect itself, thus pre-
supposing an “inner principle of development,” and making
light of external influences as transforming causes. Eimer
flatly contradicts this view. We shall revert to this point
in our criticism of his theory. In opposition to the theory
of selection, Eimer lays special stress on the fact that its
underlying assumption, viz., fortuitous, indefinite variation
in many different directions, is entirely devoid of foundation.

72

in fact, and that selection, in order to be effective, postu-
lates the previous existence of the required useful charac-
ters, whereas the very point at issue is to explain how these,
characters have originated. Since, therefore, according
to Eimer’s investigations, there are everywhere to be found
only a few, definitely determined lines of variation, selec-
tion is incapable of exercising any choice. The develop-
ment, furthermore, proceeds without regard for utility,
since, for instance, the features that characterize a species
of plants are out of all reference to utility. “Even if noth-
ing exists that is essentially detrimental, nevertheless very
much does exist that bears no reference whatever to im-
mediate good, and was therefore never affected by selec-
tion.”

Further on, Eimer expresses still more clearly the op-
position of his theory to that of Darwin, and in so doing
he attacks vigorously the omnipotence of selection, so un-
reasonably proclaimed by the followers of Darwin. Eimer’s
theory, consequently, asserts that: “The essential cause of
transmutation is organic growth, a definite variation,
which, during long periods of time proceeds unswervingly
and without reference to utility, in but few directions and
is conditioned by the action of external influences, of cli-
mate and nourishment.” In consequence of an interruption
of orthogenesis a stoppage ensues in certain stages of the
development, and this stoppage is the great cause of the
arrangement of forms in different species. Of vital import-
ance also “is development through different stages
(Hetero-epistase), which results in the arrested devel-

73

cpment of certain characters in an organism, while
others progress and still others become retrogressive. As
a rule use and disuse are of great efficacy in this regard,
and conjointly with these compensation and correlation.”
Occasionally also irregular development sets in, which pro-
ceeds by leaps.

Of course, Eimer could not but in his turn burn in-
cense before Darwin by declaring that he would not dare
to cross swords with such a man, while in reality he repu-
diates all of Darwin’s fundamental tenets.

It may be well to state here in addition a few important
supplementary considerations: ‘Development can every-
where proceed in only a limited number of directions be-
cause the constitution, the material composition of the
body, conditions these directions and prevents variation in
all directions.” This is an important statement because
Eimer clearly expresses therein the difference between his
own theory and that of Naegelii He makes the direction
of development dependent on the material composition
of the body, whereas Naegeli considers it dependent upon
an internal tendency of every being to perfect itseli, hence
tpon a power inherent in the body. Eimer’s view there-
fore tends towards a mechanical explanation, while Naegeli
postulates a vital energy. The “internal causes” according
to Eimer find their explanation in the material composition
of the body. Since the growth of the individual organisin
depends on this composition and on the external influences,
Eimer compares family-development with it and designates
the latter as “organic growth.” In opposition to Naegeli

74

he maintains that this “organic growth” does not always
aim at perfection but often tends to simplification and ret-
rogression.

The following, then, according to Eimer, are the di-
rective principles of variation: (1). The general law of
coloration (stripes running lengthwise change into spots,
stripes running crosswise change to a uniform color). (2).
The law of definitely directed local change (new colors
spread from the rear to the front and from above down-
ward or vice versa, old colors disappear in the same direc-
tions. (3). The law of male predominance (males are as a
rule one step in advance of the females in development).
Female predominance is an exception. (4). The law of j
age-predominance (new characters appear at a well-ad-
vanced age, and at the time of greatest strength). (5. The
law of wave-like development (during the course of the
formation of the individual organism a series of changes
proceed in a definite direction over the body of the ani-
mals). (6). The law of independent uniformity of devel-
opment (the same course of development is pursued in
non-related forms and results in similar forms). (7). The
law of development through different stages (different
characteristics of the same being may develop to a different
degree and in different directions). (8). The law of uni-
lateral development (the progeny does not present a com-
plete combination of the characters of the parents but
manifests a preponderance of the characteristics of either
parent). (9). The law of the reversal of development (the
direction of develpoment may reverse and tend towards the

75

starting point). (10). The law of the cessation of develop-
ment (a protracted cessation of development frequently
ensues in one or the other stage).

The origin (perhaps rather the distinction) of species
is accounted for principally by the last named law, by means
of which Eimer also explains the so-called atavism or re-
version. To this law are joined other factors, e. g., devel-
opment proceeding in leaps, as demonstrated by Koelliker
and Heer; local separation (through migration; prevention
of fertilization, e. g., the impossibility of cross-fertilization
between certain individual organisms (which Romanes had
already opposed to natural selection), and crossing.

The second main division of the book is taken up with
a very searching and detailed criticism of Weismann. This
criticism seems to me entirely warranted; because not only
the latter’s unintelligible position with regard to natural
selection (the repudiation of which he seems to regard as
synonymous “with cessation of all investigation into the
causal nexus of phenomena in the domain of life”) but like-
wise his fanciful theory of heredity, utterly devoid as it is
of any support from actual observation, bespeak an utter
lack of qualities essential to a naturalist; and the manner
in which he ignores his former pupil and his labors, be-
cause they proved embarrassing to him, is entirely unwor-

thy of a man of science.

Eimer devotes special attention to “mimicry”; and in-
deed he was forced to be very solicitous to dispel this fan-
ciful conception of Darwinism which radically contradicted

76

his own views. Moreover, the untenableness of the mim-
icry hypothesis must have revealed itself very clearly to
him in the course of his investigations regarding the col-
oring of butterflies. Mimicry, as our readers are well aware,
consists in this, that living beings imitate other organisms
er even inanimate objects; Darwinism maintains that this
is done for the sake of protection against enemies. This
phenomenon is said to have been produced by selection
Those animals that possessed, for instance, some similarity
to a leaf, in consequence escaped their enemies more easily
than others and survived, while those that had no leai-
like appearance succumbed; when this process had been
repeated a few times, many animals (butterflies) gradually
developed that marvelous leaf-like appearance, which fre-
quently deceives the most practiced eye.

It appears so simple and natural that one need not
wonder that this peculiar phenomenon gained many an ad-
herent for Darwinism. But, of course, it is directly op-
posed to the views of Eimer; and it is for this reason that
he endeavors‘so assiduously to disprove the error of Dar-
winism in this regard. As the underlying color design of
the butterfly Eimer designates eleven longitudinal designs;
and the examination of the leaf-like forms leads him to the
conclusion, that their appearance always depends on “the
unaltered condition or the greater prominence of certain
parts of this fundamental design.” There is to be observed
a shifting of the third band, so that in conjunction with the
fourth, which is curved, it forms the mid-rib of the leaf.
Eimer finds the cause of this phenomenon in the alteration

77

oi the form. The leaf-like form results from an acumina-
tion and elongation of the wings, which in turn results from
a marked elongation of the rim of the fore-wing. And this
again is produced by the proportionately greater growth of
cne part of the wing-section than of the others.

With reference to the reason of this growth it is of
importance to note that experiments, consisting in the ap-
plication of artificial heat to the chrysales of the swallow-
tail and sailor-butterfly, demonstrated that by this means
“the fore-wing is drawn out more toward the outer wing-
vein, and the rim of the fore-wing becomes more elongated
and curved.” It is observed, however, that the natural
heat-forms of the same genera and species, namely, the
summer-forms and those which live in the warm southern
climate, exhibit, for instance, in the case of butterflies akin
to the sailor, the same features, the elongation and more
marked curvature of the fore-rim of the fore-wings and the
consequent more extended form, that are produced by the
action of artificial heat. Manifestly this is a matter of vital
importance for the solution of the question: heat, whether

rtificial or natural, produces a difference in growth, which
results in a change of form and coloring. There is conse-
quently no room for natural selection or the struggle for

existence.

The leaf-like form is generally associated with the
dark, faded colors of dry leaves, and when this similarity
disappears even bright colors appear on the fore-wings. In

many cases the resemblance to leaves is very imperfect;

78

different forms of the same species live side by side and
among them are to be found those, the resemblance of
which to leaves is extremely slight. All these facts, and es-
pecially the frequently recurring retrogression of the leaf-
like appearance, justify serious doubt regarding the Dar-
winian assumption, that adaptation was a necessity for the
forest-butterflies on account of the protection which it pro-
vided.

An eye witness furthermore declares that the butter-
flies that resemble leaves most closely do not always alight
on withered leaves, on which they would be almost invis-
ible, but frequently rest on a green background, against
which they show off very clearly, and therefore could not
long escape the keen eye of birds. Besides, these butter-
flies are but seldom pursued by the birds, of which there
is question here, and hence are in no need of protection.

The longer Eimer devoted his attention to the origin of
this resemblance the more “‘the poetic picture of the imi-
tated leaf” vanished out of sight, and he became convinced
that it involved the necessary expression of the lines of
development, which the respective beings were bound to
follow, and that there was no question of imitation.

Apart fromthe resemblance to leaves, by reason of
regular changes of color, design, and wing-structure, nu-
merous non-related butterflies often develop such wonder-
ful similarities—which are not, as hitherto supposed, imi-
tations or disguises produced by selection, but are either
the outcome of an entirely independent uniformity of devel-
cpment or, at least, of its consequence—that it must be

79

admitted that external similarity may arise by different
means and in various ways. These relations of similarity
are of such frequent recurrence because of the limited num-
ber of directions of development in which changes or color
and design in butterflies may tend. Eimer finds the reason
of this small number of directions, in which development
may proceed, in the fact “that the elementary external in-
fluences of climate and nourishment on the constitution of
the cre are everywhere the cause of the transforma-
tions.” Is fe

Another important point is the difference of sex. If
the butterflies are of different sex, the males as a rule ex-
hibit a more developed stage of design and color than the
females. These frequently present on the upper side the
stage of coloration, which the males present on the lower
side, while the upper side of the males is one stage in ad-
vance. It is of special significance that the characters of the
more advanced sex frequently correspond to those of a re-
lated, superior species, and occasionally to those of widely
separated species. Eimer endeavors to explain male pre-
dominance “by a more delicate and more developed, i. e.,
more complex, chemico-physical organization of the male
organism.” Even this development tends toward simplifi- ,
cation, the origin of dull-black colors. qr ie ae ’ Bull ste

This most interesting question brings Eimer into con-
flict with another Darwinian principle, the so-called prin-
ciple of “sexual election,’ according to which the more
striking characteristics of the male sexbecome strengthened
for the reason that females invariably give the prefer-

80

ence to the males endowed with them, over those that are’
less “attractive.” These exceedingly romantic ideas have
been often and deservedly repudiated, e. g., even by Wal-
lace only a short time after their first appearance. Eimer
really does them too much honor when he again under-
takes, even with a certain amount of respect, a thorough
refutation of them, “as in every regard unfounded.” It is
of primary importance to note here, that in the case of di-
morphism of the sexes abrupt modifications occur in con-
nection with unilateral heredity. “It is impossible for sex-
ual selection to produce a change of design and color,
which results in the sudden kaleidoscopic formation of
wholly different designs, as we find actually taking place
through the action of artificial heat and cold and other
factors in nature.”

This brings us to a brief consideration of the answer,
which Eimer proposes to give to the question of the rea!
causes of the formation of species among butterflies. A
precise and clear statement of this important part of
Eimer’s theory of Descent, is contained in the following
extracts: “The transformation of organisms is primarily
conditioned by the action of immediate external influences
on the organisms. The same causes, which produce indi-
vidual growth, especially climate and nourishment, also
produce the organic growth of organisms, that is, trans-

_ mutation, which is but a continuation in the progeny of in-
dividual growth, through the transmission of the charac-
teristics acquired during the lifetime of the individual.

81

Hence, transmutation is simply a physiological pro-
cess, a phyletic growth.

The changes, which the individual organism experi-
ences during its life in its material, physiological and mor-
phological organization, are in part transmitted to its pro-
geny. The changes thus acquired become more marked
from generation to generation, until finally they result in a
perceptible new structure.” NE\VWE RK.

“In this process, new or changing external influences
undoubtedly exercise great activity, but the same influ-
ences, constantly repeated, must in the course of time also
produce a change in the organisms through the physiolog-
ical activity, which is conditioned by them, so that after a
long time elapses, a species will have changed even in an
unvarying environment and will react on new influences in
a manner quite different from their progenitors; their “con-
stitution” has undergone a change.” (sven?

“This organic growth of living beings takes place re-
gardless of the active use of the organs and in many cases
remains independent of this (Lamarckian) factor of trans-
formation. But use may exercise considerable influence on
the formation resulting from the primitive organic growth,
by modifying the growth, by restricting it to those parts
most frequently called into use, or even by depriving other
parts of the necessary matter (compensation).”

“The Lamarckian principle, therefore, offers but a pos-
sible and to transformation, the principal cause is to be

found in organic growth.”

82

“ko The organic growth of butterflies is primarily
conditioned by climatic influences. * * * The proof is to
be found in the facts revealed by the geographical distri-
bution of butterflies, by the variations corresponding
to the seasons, and by experiments regarding the influence
of artificial heat and cold on development.”

Experimental proof is naturally of vital importance for
Eimer’s theory. He cites in this regard especially the ex-
periments of Merrifield, Handfuss, Fischer, Fickert, and
Countess Maria von Linden. In Eimer’s own laboratory
the latter performed experiments on Papilionides, “which
prove in the most striking manner the recapitulation of the
family-history in the individual.” ‘The fact that it is pos-
sible by raising or lowering the temperature during the
time of development to breed butterflies, possessed of the
characteristics of related varieties and species living in
southern and northern regions respectively, characteristics:
not merely of color and design, but also of structure, is
complete irreffagable proof of my views.”

Eimer therefore belongs to the class of naturalists, like
Wigand, Askenasy, Naegeli, and many others, who reject
the purely mechanical trend of Darwinism and recognize
an “immanent principle of development.” He seeks the
essential cause of evolution in the constitution of the plasm
of organisms. This very analogy between the devel-
opment of the family and that of the individual should, in
fact, convince any one of this. If Eimer chooses to refer
the analogy to “growth” and to designate the evolution of

83

the whole animated kingdom as also a process of growth,
there is, strictly speaking, no room for objection. How-
ever, there is here a danger, which he does not seem to
have guarded against. To designate the whole process as
a growth, as Eimer does, really explains nothing, but
merely defines more clearly the status of the problem.
For, what do we know of the so-called process of growth?
In truth, nothing, so that very little is gained by referring
evolution to organic growth; the problem remains wn-
solved.

The most important and correct part of Eimer’s con-
clusion seems to be the establishment of definite lines of
development. He has, in fact, permanently disposed of the
Darwinian assumption of universal chaos in evolution,
upon which good mother Nature could at will exercise her
choice. Fortuitously initiated development is a conditio
sine qua non of Darwinism and Weismannism. For any
one, who has studied the work of Eimer and still adheres
to this fundamental error of Darwinism, there is no pos-
sible escape from the labyrinth into which he has allowed
the hand of Darwinism to lead him.

If, on the one hand, Eimer recognizes the immanent
ptinciples of development, he, nevertheless, on the other
hand, also accords due consideration and ascribes great
efficacy to external influences; in fact, he represents them
as perhaps the more essential factor. Climate, nourish-
ment, etc., affect the inner structure, the plasm, transform
it and thus produce variation which is transmitted to the

84

progeny. But, however great may be the influence of en-
vironment, Eimer seems to overestimate it. Indeed, the
analogy of “growth” should have led Eimer to a concep-
tion of the true relation between “internal” and “external”
causes. Warmth, air, light, moisture and nourishment, are
undoubtedly necessary factors in the process of growth,
but they are only the conditions which render it possible,
and not the causes which produce it. The latter are to
be found in the individual organism itself. The condi-
tions may be ever so favorable and well-adapted for
growth, still the organism will not develop unless it bear
within itself the power to do so. On the other hand, al-
though it is hampered and may become abnormal, it will
readily grow even in an unfavorable environment, as long
as it retains its inherent vital force. The same is very likely
true of the genealogical growth. Evolution took place in
virtue of the power inherent in the developing organisms.
Sut only when the environment was favorable and normal,
did the evolution proceed favorably and normally, that is,
toward the perfection of the animate kingdom.

It appears as if the internal principle of development
were losing influence and significance with Eimer; but the
ulterior reason for this is not far to seek. Whoever recog-
nizes the validity of the internal principle of development,
eliminates chance, that stop-gap of materialism, from evo-
lution, and is lead at once to a supreme Intelligence which
directs evolution. As soon as it comes in sight, however,
certain persons take fright and turn aside or even turn back
in order to avoid it. This was the case with Eimer, al-

85

though perhaps in a lesser degree. This is sincerely to be
deplored, since his theory would have gained in depth if
he had but done full justice to the internal principle of de-
velopment. For the same reason he seems to have at-
tacked Naegeli’s principle of perfection, another fact which
is very much to be regretted. True, it is as anti-mechan-
ical as it can be and hence has gained but few adherents;
but it is based on truth nevertheless, and will some day
prevail in the doctrine of Descent.

It is perfectly intelligible that the thought of ‘‘per-
fection” should not have occurred to Eimer or should have
slipped his memory during his observations on butterflies.
The fact however, reveals a one-sidedness which he could
have avoided. When the notion of utility is rejected—
and Eimer rejects it very emphatically in his discussions
on mimicry—it is undoubtedly difficult to arrive at the
concept of a perfecting tendency. This, however, can in
no way mean that this concept should be entirely ban-
ished from nature, even as the notion of utility cannot be
banished. Even if the coloration and design of the wings
of the butterfly do not reveal utility, other characteristics
certainly do reveal it. It is one of the fatal mistakes of
Darwinism, that it fails to recognize the possibility of di-
viding the characters and qualities of organisms into
two large groups, as I attempted to do with more detail,
for instance, in my “Catechism of Botany.” There I called
them (p. 89) “Autochthon-morphological” and “adaptive-
morphological characters.” The former reveal no re-
lation to utility, they are innate and distinguish the organ-

86

ism from other organisms; the latter can be explained by
means of certain vital functions, hence they possess a cet-
tain utility and adapt themselves more or less to environ-
ment. The former are permanent, the latter changeable.
Darwinians regard all the characters of organisms as use-
ful, physiological, and adaptive. If they have been hitherto
unable to make good this assumption, they appeal to our
lack of knowledge and console themselves with the thought
that the future may yet reveal the missing relations. The
presence on plants and animals of any autochthon-mor-
phological characters means death to Darwinism, be-
cause these can never be explained by means of selection
and struggle for existence, Thtaeor Ye odes vom

Eimer is too much inclined towards the other extreme;
he does not admit the existence of adaptive-morpho-
logical characteristics. Viewed in this aspect, his repudi-
ation of mimicry may perhaps also seem somewhat harsh
and one-sided. In this narrowness of view must also be
sought the reason for his complete repudiation of Naegeli’s
principle of perfection.

It is an incontrovertible fact that in the organic world
there exists an ascending scale from the imperfect to the
perfect. Every organism is indeed perfect in its own
sphere and from its own point of view. But perfection
with reference to things of earth is a very relative concept;
many an organism which is perfect in itself, appears very
imperfect when compared with others. If, then, there is
a gradation of animals and plants from the lower to the
higher, it is the task of the theory of Descent to explain

87

this gradual perfection. The crude and aimless activity of
Darwinian selection, which necessarily operates through
“chance,” can never explain this perfection, which remains,
as far as selection is concerned, one of the greatest enig-
mas of nature. Far from solving the enigma, selection but
makes it obscurer.

If, then, one refuses to recognize a directing creative
Intelligence, whose direction produces this perfection,
nothing remains but Naegeli’s principle of perfection. The
outer world with its influences can certainly not produce
perfection, hence this power must lie within the organism
itself. But when one has once brought himself to accept
an immanent principle of development, it surely cannot be
difficult to take the next step and ascribe to it the tendency
towards perfection.

That Eimer does not take this step, is, to my mind, a
mistake, which must be attributed to his one-sidedness,
which, in turn, results from the fact that he generalizes too
arbitrarily his observations on butterflies and the conclu-
sions which he draws from them. Animals and plants cer-
tainly possess many characteristics which cannot be ex-
plained by means of his theory alone. The conclusion will
probably be finally arrived at, that nature is inexhaustible
and many-sided, even in the lines on which it proceeds to
attain this or that end.

One thing, however, of primary importance is evident
from the investigations of Eimer, namely the proof that the
same lines of development may be entered upon from en-
tirely different starting-points, and that the number of

&8

these lines is limited. This fact is of importance because it
enjoins more caution in arguing from uniformity of devel-
opment to family-relation, than has been usually employed
since the days of Darwin. The method commonly em-
ployed is undoubtedly very convenient, but is somewhat
liable to be misleading. Hence, if one wishes to establish the
genealogical relationship of forms, nothing remains but to
set out on the laborious path of studying the development
of both; and even then it remains questionable whether
the truth will be arrived at. However, he who concludes
to relationship from a comparison of developed forms, is
much less likely to arrive at the truth.

In one point Eimer concedes too much to Darwinism,
in the matter of the famous fundamental principle of bio-
genesis, according to which an organism is said to repeat
in its individual development the whole series of its pro-
genitors. Although he does not enter upon a discussion
of the principle, it is evident from one passage that he ac-
cepts it. One is inclined to think that his careful observa-
tions and experiments should have convinced him of the
contrary. It appears to me, at least, that the abundant ma-
terials of his observations bear evidence radically opposed
to the principle. During late years, the antagonism to it
has been on the increase, and the day is not very distant
when it shall have passed into history. It would certainly
be a laudable undertaking to enter upon a thorough inves-

tigation of the actual basis of the principle.

89

CHAPTER VI.

In every disease, especially in a lingering one, there
are times when life’s flickering embers glow with an un-
natural brightness. Hence, it would not be at all surpris-
ing if a similar phenomenon were to be observed in the
case of dying Darwinism; for it cannot be doubted that its
disease is chronic. It has, in fact, been dying this long
time. Certain indications render it very probable that we
are at present witnessing such a phenomenon, for to-day
we behold once more a few naturalists stepping before the
public in defense of Darwinism. We are desirous of pre-
senting the present status of the Darwinian theory as ob-
jectively as possible, hence, since we have hitherto heard
exclusively anti-Darwinian testimonies—as the nature of
the case demanded—we shall now lend our attention to a
Darwinian. The reader may then decide for himself
whether this treatise should not still bear the title, “At
the Death-bed of Darwinism.”

The naturalist in question is the zoologist, Professor
F. von Wagner. In the “Umschau” (No. 2, 1900) he pub-
lished an article, “Regarding the Present Status of Dar-
winism,” which is highly instructive and important in
more respects than one.

We wish, in the first place, to call special attention to
the following statements embodied in the article: “Tt is

90

not to be denied that in serious professional circles the
former enthusiasm has considerably decreased and a scep-
ticism is gaining ground more and more, which betrays a
widespread tendency towards revolutionizing current theo-
ties. The fin de siecle therefore, finds Darwinism not with
the proud mien of a conqueror, but on the defensive against
new antagonists.” And again: “It seems, in fact, as if
Darwinism were about to enter a crisis, the outcome of

which can scarcely be any longer a matter of doubt.”

To what outcome reference is made, appears from two
sentences in the Introduction: ‘“Thus it happens that a
theory which was once accorded enthusiastic approval, is
treated with cold disdain or vice versa. Examples of this
are to be found in the history of all sciences and circum-
stances seem to indicate that Darwinism is to add another
to the number of these theories.”

Is not this exactly what we have repeatedly asserted?
It is most significant that these words are not written by
an opponent of Darwinism, but by one who seems to be
thoroughly convinced of the truth of Darwinism. I am of
opinion that it can be no longer a matter of doubt to any
one, that the position of Darwinism is hopeless. If this
were not true, a Darwinian would be very careful about
making such an open and unreserved statement.

We therefore accept Professor von Wagner’s words as
a very welcome endorsement of what we have constantly
maintained. Professor von Wagner, however, proposes to
himself the further question: Whence comes the unfavor-

91

able attitude of present-day natural science towards Dar-
winism? A discussion of this question by a Darwinian
cannot but be of interest to us, and indeed is an important
contribution to the problem. With Goette, Professor von
Wagner admits that the objections, which are raised
against Darwinism to-day, are the very same which were
raised from thirty to forty years ago. But when he then
proceeds to assert that this is not to be explained on the
assumption that the pristine enthusiasm for selection was
due to a serious over-estimation of that theory, he fails to

furnish even a shred of evidence in support of his assertion.

Anyone can readily point out that Darwinism explains
the totality of the world of organisms by interlinking them,
but has generally failed to account for the individual case,
Wagner admits this as far as the “actual” is concerned, for
it is quite impossible to trace with any certainty the action, _
in any particular case, of natural selection in the process
which results in the production of a new species. At the
outset it was reasonable to hope, that with the progress
of science this difficulty would be solved or at least lessened;
but this expectation has not been realized. * * *’ It is
wholly unintelligible how a naturalist can make this state-
mient five hundred years after Bacon of Verulam, without
drawing therefrom the proper conclusion. This lack of
logic reminds me strongly of the assertion recently made
by an eminent authority, that the principal cause of the
difficulties of many naturalists in matters of religion is their
deficient philosophical training.

92

Wagner’s statement implies that, in the case of Dar-
winism one may in defiance of all established law, actually
reverse the methods of natural science. How justifiable
and how necessary was it not, then, that even three decades
ago Wigand should have written his comprehensive work:
“Darwinism and the Scientific Researches of Newton and

Cuvier.”

Ordinarily the scientific (inductive) method proceeds
from the “actual” and attempts to deduce from the “indi-
vidual case” an explanation, which applies to the whole.
Here, however, we are face to face with a theory, which,
according to the candid confession of an advocate, fails in
the individual case, but furnishes a unifying explanation of
the whole. This means nothing less than a complete sub-
version of all scientific methods. Usually a theory is
deduced from separate observations regarding the “actual ”’
but here—and this is what Wigand constantly asserted—
the theory was enunciated first, and then followed the at-
tempt to establish it in fact. One could then rest content
and trust to the future to establish the theory by producing
evidences of the “actual” in the individual case. But forty
years have elapsed since the Darwinian hypothesis first be-
came known, naturalists by the thousands have spent them-
selves in the endeavor to corroborate it by proofs based on
actual facts, and to-day one of its own advocates has to con-
fess that the endeavor has been a total failure. Instead of
drawing the conclusion, however, that the theory is un-
warranted and that the decrease of enthusiasm for it is

93

therefore a natural consequence, he gratuitously enters a
flat denial of this inference.

Every intelligent observer must conclude with absolute
certainty from this confession of a Darwinian, that Dar-
winism is, in fact, not a scientific but a philosophic theory
of nature.

But let us proceed to a consideration of the other
reasons which Wagner suggests as an explanation of the
retrogression of Darwinism. He states as a first reason,
that scientific research since Darwin “has amassed such an
abundance of empiric materials for the truth of the prin-
ciple of Descent, that this doctrine has been able, even for
some time past, to maintain an independent position and
to draw proofs of its truth immediately from nature itself,
without the intervention of Darwinism.” * * * “From
which it follows as a matter of course, that the question,
whether the manner indicated by Darwin for the origin of
species is the correct one, has decreased by no means in-
considerably in significance, inasmuch as Darwin’s theory
could now, if it were necessary, be abandoned with less
concern than formerly because it could be relinquished
without detriment to the doctrine of Descent.”

It is unintelligible how one can attempt to explain a
fact of such importance so superficially. With naive un-
concern there appears on the face of it the acknowledge-
men that Darwinism has really not been based on actual
observation but has been enunciated for the sake of the
doctrine of Descent. Come what may, this must be vindi-

94

cated. Other means are now said to substantiate it, hence
the Darwinian crutches may safely be discarded. The prin-
ciple of action twenty or thirty years ago was therefore:
a poor explanation is better than no explanation. I cannot
understand, how Wagner dares to credit present-day nat-

uralists with such motives.

When he then proceeds to say “that with the advance
of the principle of development, new lines were entered up-
on, which led primarily to the corroboration and empiric
demonstration of the doctrine of Descent, and not of Dar-
winism”—that the theory of Darwin was consequently neg-
lected and, in fact, forced into the background—“that the
labors specifically attributable to Darwinism as compared
with the theory of Descent, put the former more and more
into a false position to the detriment of its prestige”’—
when, I say, Wagner has marshalled all these considera-
ions to explain the present aversion to Darwinism, he is
guilty of a total subversion of facts. The true state of the

‘case is the very contrary.

The credit given by Wagner to the Darwinian theory
for stimulating research, is the very same as I also ac~
corded it. The purpose of this research undoubtedly was
to substantiate not only the doctrine of evolution in gen-
eral, but also the Darwinian hypothesis in particular. To
verify this, one need only glance over the various num-
bers of the “Kosmos,” the periodical, which Haeckel and
his associates established for that very purpose and which
continued to publish good and bad indiscriminately until

95

some time in the eighties when lack of interest compelled
its discontinuance. Wagner therefore misconstrues facts
when he asserts that there have been no specifically Dar-
winian researches. Since the thoughts of Darwin first found
expression these researches have been most abundant and
their results have been consigned to the printer’s ink. No
doubt—and this is the salient point, which Wagner passes
over in complete silence—they have been of service only tc
the doctrine of Descent in general, and in spite of the en-
ergetic efforts of the Darwinians, they have never led to
the ardently desired proof from facts of the hypothesis of
selection. This and no other is the state of the case.

In view of these vain endeavors, however, intelligent
investigators have gradually become perplexed and have
turned away from Darwinism, not because they have lost
interest in it nor even because they no longer feel the need
of it to assist the doctrine of Descent, but for the one
sole reason that its insufficiency has become more and more
apparent and that all experiments undertaken on its behalf
have made the fact clearer and clearer that the first criti-
cism of the great naturalists of the sixties and seventies
was perfectly justified. sia, uy

In forming a judgment concerning the whole question
it cannot but be a matter of the utmost significance, that
men have turned away from Darwinism to entirely different
theories of Descent. It is a mistake to suppose, as Wag-
ner would have us suppose, that the last decades have pro-
duced nothing but generalities regarding the doctrine of

96

ut
:

Descent. For they have also witnessed the publication of a
number of significant works, which aimed at giving a bet-
ter individual explanation than was found in Darwinism.
i need but recall Naegeli, Eimer, Haacke and a host of
others. The most noteworthy feature of these new views
regarding theories of Descent, is the constantly spreading
conviction that the real determining causes of evolution are
to be sought for in the constitution of the organisms
themselves, hence in internal principles. This view, how-
ever, is not only absolutely and diametrically opposed to
Darwinism but completely destructive of it as well.

The actual circumstances, therefore, are the very re-
verse of those pictured by Wagner. Darwinism has been
rejected not on account of a lack of research but on ac-
count of an abundance of research, which proved its abso-
lute insufficiency.

Besides these “general points of view,” as he calls
them, Wagner finds two other “considerations of no less
importance” for explaining the decay of Darwinism. It is
an incontrovertible fact, that the hereditary transmission
of acquired characters has in no way been proved. On the
contrary after it had at first received a general tacit recog-
nition and was postulated by Lamarck, Darwin and
Haeckel, it was denied by Weismann. Wagner asserts
“that the number of those who have allied themselves with
Weismann in this matter is obviously on the increase as
is naturally the case, since, to the present day not a single
incontestable case of hereditary transmission of acquired

97

characters has been demonstrated, where as actual facts are
at hand to prove the contrary.”

It is perfectly evident that the doctrine that acquired
characters are not inherted is fatal to Darwinism. Hence
Wagner rightly considers its ascendancy a notable factor in
bringing about the decay of Darwinism.

Finally, Wagner briefly indicates that certain new
theories necessarily exercised an influence on Darwinism.
Haeckel and the palaeontologists of North America sup-
plemented it with a number of Lamarckian elements with-
out alteration of its essential principles (the Neo-Lamar-
ckians); Eimer regards the transmission of acquired char-
acters as an established fact, but rejects natural selection
as wholly worthless; Weismann, on the contrary, denies the
transmission of acquired characters, but nevertheless re-
gards natural selection as the main factor in the forma-
tion of species (the theory of the Neo-Darwinians).
Eimer speaks of the impotence of natural selection, Weis-
mann of its omnipotence. All this has shaken men’s confi-
dence in the trustworthiness of the Darwinian principles.
This fact we are in no way inclined to doubt, but we must
again differ from Wagner with regard to its significance.
We maintain that matters had to take this turn, since the
reason why Darwinism is now meeting with such serious
opposition, is to be found in its very nature. This indeed
should have been recognized forty years ago instead of
just beginning to dawn on men of science at the present
day. For if acquired characters are not transmitted by

98

heredity, Darwinism is an impossibility. Forty years ago
Darwinism should have recognized that its first and su-
preme task was to prove the hereditary transmission of ac-
quired characters, so as to establish itself, first of all,
on a sound footing.

One of the most peculiar incidents in this scientific
tragi-comedy is the fact that Weismann, the mainstay of
contemporary decadent Darwinism, attacks with might and
main its fundamental assumption, the transmission of ac-
quired characters, whereas Eimer, who is thoroughly con-
vinced that he has proved that doctrine, in his turn attacks
Darwinism and proves with telling effect the impotence
of its principles. The amused observer can really demand
nothing more. He can but rub his hands for joy and cheer
on the heated combatants: Well done! On with the
struggle! and the last vestige of Darwinism will soon have
disappeared.

If, then, we were to summarize our strictures on the
reasons which Wagner adduces to account for the decay
of Darwinism, we would say this: Some of them are un-
warranted, others are falsely interpreted.

There is, however, a third point which is of special in-
terest to us, in the article under consideration; we refer
to the view, which there finds expression, regarding the
nature and outcome of the present crisis—a crisis, which,
as a candid naturalist, Wagner is not in a position to deny.

This view rests on the entirely gratuitous assertion,
“that the decline, in the esteem enjoyed by Darwinism, is

99

not due to a better insight arising from widened experi-
ence, but is primarily the expression of a fendency—a ten-
dency which resulted almost as a psychological necessity
from the precarious position into which Darwinism was
forced under the sway of the theory of Descent.” This
assertion rests, as stated above, on wholly erroneous as-
sumptions. It is a serious mistake, to speak in this connec-
tion of tendencies and even to brand them as a “psycholog-
cal necessity.” The decline in esteem is essentially due to
experience, and indeed to experience which has made it

certain that Darwinism has everywhere failed.

The importance of the present crisis in Darwinism is
to be restricted even further, according to Wagner, by the
fact, “that the real objections, urged against the theory of
Darwin, are almost in every instance based on theoretic
considerations, the validity of which can be put to the test
enly in fictitious cases. This manner of proceeding man-
itestly leads to the inevitable consequence, that the results
thus obtained can claim no decisive weight against Dar-
winism. A decisive critique can be constructed only on
the basis of experience, and in this connection it cannot be
emphasized sufficiently, that, as yet, the path to it has been
scarcely indicated, to say nothing of its having been actu-
ally pursued.” The reason for this fact according to Wag-
ner, is to be found “in the numerous and most extraordi-
nary difficulties that arise in the way of the empiric investi-
gation of the theory of selection.”

After we have read all this, we instinctively ask our-

100

selves: do we actually live at the beginning of the 2oth
century? Is it possible, that even at this late day the whole
structure of scientific method is to be subverted in this
fashion?

Just consider for a moment, what according to these
words is the actual import of the whole article: Darwin-
ism is a unifying explanation of the origin of the totality
of the world of organisms, but fails in the individual case;
in any specfied case it is “almost impossible” to trace with
any certainty the action of natural selection in the process
which results in the production of a new species; that is,
Darwinism was enunciated with a complete disregard for
inductive method, as an hypothesis to explain the whole,
and without actual proof in the concrete—a most unscien-
tific procedure. Immediately after, however, the adversa-
ries of Darwinism are asked in all seriousness to produce
individual facts in disproof of the theory.

In the same strain Wagner goes on to say that “from
no point of view is our vision so penetrating as to be able
to grasp the coherence which according to Darwin per-

-vades the complex course of natural selection. When
men of science take occasion to repudiate Darwinism be-
cause of our inability to explain satisfactorily any particu-
lar case by means of the theory of selection, this inability
arises not from the theory of Darwin but from the inade-
quacy of our experience. For as yet the empiric prerequi-
sites for an objective judgment regarding the validity or
futility of the theory of selection are entirely lacking.”

101

Every naturalist who believes in the inductive method
must needs draw the conclusion from these naive admis-
sions, that, as Darwinism lacks the empiric prerequisites,
it should be discarded. Moreover, the demand is made in
all seriousness, that, in order to refute Darwinism which
has not as yet been established empirically, empiric proofs
should be forthcoming.

To my mind, the scientific and logical bankruptcy of
Darwinism was never announced more bluntly and inge-
nuously. Furthermore it must be remarked that Wagner's
statement, regarding “‘fictitious cases,” is not even perti-
nent. He seems to have no idea of the observations and
experiments of Sachs, Haberlandt, Eimer, and a host of
other investigators. The disproof of Darwinism on the
basis of scientific research is an accomplished fact.

A word about the conclusion of Wagner’s article,
which in view of what has been already said, cannot be
a matter of surprise. He maintains that the considera-
tions which he adduces, “clearly” prove that there is no
“reasonable ground for despairing of the theory of Darwin
—; for a theory, which neither proceeds from questionable
assumptions, nor loses itself in airy hypotheses, but rests
throughout and exclusively on facts, need never fear the
advance of science.”

But a moment ago it was asserted that the theory of
selection is lacking “entirely as yet the empiric prerequi-
sites” and now only twenty-three lines further on, it rests
“throughout and exclusively on facts.” It is difficult to

102

know what conclusion to come to regarding a naturalist
and University professor who can commit himself to such
a contradiction. I shall abstain from any comment and
let the reader form his own judgment.

Does this article betoken the death-bed of Darwinism?
For my own part I repeat what I said above, that I con-
sider it the most valuable contribution to the characteri-
zation of decadent Darwinism that has appeared up to the
present time. The sooner a theory, which is thus treated and
characterized by one of its own advocates, is stored away
in the lumber-room of science, the better. In view of the
sound judgment, which is to-day becoming more and more
apparent in scientific circles, there is reason to hope that
this article of Professor von Wagner will be additional in-
centive for many naturalists to break completely with Dar-

winism.

103

CHAPTER VII.

In the year 1899 Haeckel published a new work, which
he intended as a kind of testament; for with the close of
the nineteenth century the author desired to put a finish-
ing touch to his life-work.

In the Preface Haeckel states with very remarkable
modesty that his book cannot reasonably claim to present
a complete solution of the riddles of existence; that his
answer to the great questions can naturally be only sub-
jective and only partly correct; that Kis attainments in the
different branches is very unequal and imperfect; and that
his book is really only a sketch book of studies of very
unequal value. In this way the author naturally gains at
once the confidence of his reader who is thus prepared to
yield assent when the author makes pretense to sincerity of
conviction and an honest search after truth. The reader’s
surprise at the contents of the book and at the manner of
its presentation is, however, only increased by this ruse.
All modesty has vanished, monistic doctrines are presented
as absolute truth, every divergent opinion is contemptu-
ously branded as heretical; in short, the book reveals a
Darwinian orthodoxy of the purest type, with all the signs
of blind bigotry and odious intolerance which the author
imagines he discovers in his Christian adversaries. It is
difficult to see where, in view of such a contradiction be-

104

tween the work and its Preface, there is room for an hon-
est striving after truth. Personally I do not wish to deny
Haeckel all honesty of purpose, for it is my endeavor to
understand the whole man. The one prominent feature of
the “Weltraetsel” is the fact that, owing to a very marked
deficiency in philosophical training, Haeckel has become
so completely absorbed in his system that he has lost all
interest in everything else and takes cognizance only of
what suits his purpose. What he lacks above all, is the
ability to appreciate even the “honest” opinion of others;
hence, from the very outset he brings into the discussion.
that bitterness of which he complains in others (in the:
Weltraetsel he once makes this accusation against me)..
Notwithstanding all this, honest conviction may be pres--
ent, but if so, it is joined with total blindness. But what
is to be thought of his search after truth since he com-
pletely ignores his adversaries? For instance, in spite of
Loofs’ attacks, he continues to have his book reprinted
without alteration, without submitting it to revision. The
“Reichsbote” is perfectly in the right when it says:
Haeckel, in fact, takes account only of what suits his pur-
pose.

As regards the contents of the ‘“Weltraetsel,” it is not
my intention to enter here upon a criticism of it but merely
to discuss it as illustrating the general status of the theory
of Descent. It is to be noted, in the first place, that it is
really not a scientific book at all; for of its 472 pages, the
first or “Anthropological Part,” with which alone we are

105

here concerned, occupies only 74 (from pages 27 to 100),
even less than one-sixth of the whole, whereas the “Theo-
logical Part” is almost twice as long. The book is, in fact,
rather a theologico-natural-philosophical treatise than a
work of natural science. The scientific part is, however,
the foundation on which Haeckel builds up his natural phil-
esophy, and which he uses as the starting point of his criti-
cism of theology. Hence it is worth our while to discuss it.

How then fares it with the anthropological basis of
Haeckel’s whole system? As an attentive student of his
age the naturalist-philosopher of Jena must have per-
ceived the true position of Darwinism, namely, that the
foremost naturalists of to-day have no more than an his-
torical interest in it. Since, in accordance with the well
known tendency of old men to persevere in the position
they have once assumed and not easily to accept innova-
tions, Haeckel is still an incorrigibly orthodox Darwinian,
we should naturally expect him to embody in this testa-
ment some new cogent evidence of the truth of Darwinism.
But nothing of that nature is to be found in the book.

The first chapter of the “Anthropological part” istaken
up with a “general history of nineteenth century culture,”
in itself a sign of peculiar logical acumen, that he should
include this and the “struggle regarding world-views” in
the “anthropological part’’ instead of embodying it in a
general introduction. The remaining chapters treat: “Our
Bodily Structure,” “Our Life,’ “Our Embryonic-his-
tory,” “Our Family-history.” It is not to be supposed,

106

however, that any arguments are here adduced, noth-
ing but assertions; a large part of the chapter is taken
up with historical sketches, in which Haeckel again proves
himself utterly devoid of all appreciation of history and all
sense of justice. He attributes the decay of the natural
sciences to the “flourishing condition of Christianity” and
dares to speak of the unfavorable influence of Christianity
on civilization. Apart from the historical sketch, each
chapter presents only the quintessence of Darwinism, fairly
bristling with assertions, which are boldly put forth as in-
controvertible truths. In view of the author’s demand to
have at least his sincere love of truth recognized, we can
but throw up our hands out of sheer astonishment. To
illustrate Haeckel’s “love of truth” let it suffice to observe
that in the second chapter he asserts that man is not only
a true vertebrate, a true mammal, etc.—which indeed is
passable—but even a true ape (having “all the anatomical
characteristics of true apes”). With a wonderful elasticity
he passes over the differences. What, indeed, is to be said,
when he states as a “fact” that “physiologically compared
(1), the sound-speech of apes is the preparatory stage to
articulate human speech.” It is so simply monstrous, that
even Garner’s famous book of ape-speech, cannot surpass
it. As a third illustration of Haeckel’s method of argumen-
tation, if we are still justified in speaking of such a thing,
we may mention his assertion (p. 97) as a “certain historical
fact,” “That man is descended directly from the ape, and
indirectly from a long line of lower vertebrates.” If, in

107

view of the results of research during the last forty years
any one can assert this as a “certain historical fact” and
can still wish to be credited with honest conviction and love
of truth, there remains, to adopt Haeckel’s own expression,
but one explanation for this psychological enigma, namely,
intellectual marasmus senilis, which may very easily have
set in with a man of sixty-six, who himself complains (p. 7)
oi “divers warnings of approaching age.”

Thus, the anthropological part of the “Weltractsel”
contains nothing new; always the same old story, the same
threadbare assertions without a shred of evidence to cor-
roborate them.

The remaining parts also contain various scientific as-
sertions, which are proposed as iacts without being such,
but these parts do not immediately pertain to our theme.
Suffice it to say that, after reading Haeckel’s ‘““Weltraetsel,”
one would be led to think that there is no question of a
“deathbed of Darwinism,” but that on the contrary Dar-
winism, as remodeled by Haeckel, is more in the ascendant
to-day than ever. Let us judge of its prestige by the recep-
tion accorded the “Weltraetsel.”

One unaltered edition after the other, thousand after
thousand, the book is given to the public. Hence it must
meet with approval. It does indeed meet with approval,
but the question is, from whom? Immature college and
university students will doubtless receive it with rever-
ential awe, just as they received the “Natural History of
Creation” twenty-five years ago. Bebel accepts the book

108

as an infallible source of truth, and after him the social
democrats and free-church members will add it to the list
of their “body and stomach books,” which alone wil! afford
it a respectable clientele, at least in number. In no one of
my “deathbed articles,” however, have I as vet ever main-
tained that Darwinism was decaden! in these circles. I
know full well, that Darwinism has filtered down into that
sphere and there satisfies the anti-Christian and anti-relig-
ious demands of thousands.

Nothing, however, really depends on these senseless
blind adherents of Haeckel’s unproved assertions. We are
now intent upon investigating how the world of eminent
thinkers and natural science regards the latest product of
Haeckel’s fancy. That alone is of importance in ascertain-
ing the real status of Darwinism.

As regards, in the first place, the other parts of the
book, it is well known that all of them were vigorously at-
tacked. Loofs in particular exposed Haeckel’s theology,
according to its deserts, in the clear light of truth, and con-
victed Haeckel of “ignorance” and “dishonesty;” while the
philosopher Paulsen made short work of the “Weltraetsel”
from his own standpoint, (“if a book could drip with super-
ficiality, I should predicate that of the 19th chapter’).
Harnack also condemned the theological section in the
“Christliche Welt,” and Troeltsch, Hoenigswald,and Hohl-
feld took Haeckel severely to task on philosophic grounds.
The naturalists have thus far maintained silence.

Scientific journals, and, I believe, only the more pop-

109

ular ones, pass a varying judgment on the book according
to the intellectual bent of their book reviewers; but no one
of the eminent and leading naturalists has publicly ex-
pressed his opinion regarding it. They all maintain a very
significant silence, which speaks for itself. Now, however,
just at the proper time a book, Die Descendenz-theorie has
appeared from the pen of the zoologist, Professor Fleisch-
mann of Erlangen, in which Haeckel is severely con-
demned. (See Chapter IX.)

The press-notices of the Weltraetsel, which are quoted
in the book will be considered presently. It appears that
with reference to natural science, only “laymen” discuss
the book and approve of Haeckel’s views. This is a point
of great importance since it proves satisfactorily that men
of science will have nothing to do with the “Weltraetsel.”
The large number of replies would, however, not allow
Haeckel’s friends to remain silent. The most extensive
defense forthcoming was a pamphlet published by a certain
Heinrich Schmidt of Jena. It cannot be gathered from his
book (Der Kampf um die Weltraetsel, Bonn, E. Strauss
1900) to what profession the author belongs, hence I am
unable to judge whence he derives the right to treat
Haeckel’s opponents in summary a manner. It is sig-
nificant to note what class of men, according to Schmidt,
received the “Weltraetsel” with enthusiasm and joy. They
are August Specht, the free-church editor of “Mensch-
entum” and of the “Freien Glocken,” Julius Hart, Profes-
sor Keller-Zuerich, the philosopher and ‘““Neokantian” Pro-
fessor Spitzer of Graz, the popular literateur W. Boelsche,

110

W. Ule, and a few unknown great men, Dr. Zimmer, Th.
Pappstein, R. Steiner, A. Haese; but stay, I came very near
forgetting the great pillar, Dodel of Zuerich. But where is
there mention of the professional colleagues of Haeckel
whose testimonies could be taken seriously? Under the
heading “Literary Humbug,” which evidently has refer-
ence to the contents of his own work, Schmidt then meets
numerous objections. Here vigorous epithets are bandied
about, as, for instance, “absolute nonsense,” “muddler,”
“foolish and senseless prattle,” “idle talk,’ etc.; and from
Dodel he copies the words with which the latter once
sought to annihilate me: Job, verse 10, “Thou hast spoken
like one of the foolish women.” And he ventures to ex-
press indignation at Loofs’ “invectives.” As a compliment.
to Lasson he declares that he could easily conceive of the
possibility of an ape ascending the professor’s chair and
speaking as intelligently as he (Lasson); which remark he
probably intended as a witticism. He informs his readers
that the criticism of Haeckel by men like Virchow, His,
Semper, Haacke, Baer, and Wigand have been examined
by professional specialists and proved practically worthiess,
This statement alone so clearly reveals Schmidt’s lack of
critical facultly and judgment that by it he at once forfeits

his right to be taken seriously.
The whole book is nothing more than a collection of

Guotations from the reviews of the ‘“Weltraetsel,” inter-
spersed with characteristic expressions like “idle talk,”
“nonsense,” etc., as exemplified above. A really pertinent
reply and refutation of objections is entirely beyond

111

Schmidt’s range; he waives the demand for a direct reply,
for instance, in the following amusing way (p. 28): “Two
reasons, however, prevent me from being more explicit:
In the first place I do not like to dispute with people who
adduce variant readings and church-fathers as proofs and
can still remain serious. In the second place I would not
like to fall into the hands of a Loofs.” In this manner it is
indeed easy to evade an argument, which for good reasons
one is not able to pursue. Loofs’ criticism is so serious
and destructive that it should be of the utmost concern to
Haeckel’s friends to refute it. Since they are unable to do
so, they content themselves with references to Loofs’ caus-
tic style, which he should indeed have avoided. There are,
nevertheless, cases in which one must employ trenchant
phraseology, and Haeckel himself has given an occasion
for it; a dignified style is simply out of the question in his
case. Haeckel extricated himself with even greater ease,
by declaring that he had “neither time nor inclination” for
reply, and that a mutual understanding with Loofs was im-
possible because their scientific views were entirely differ-
ent. Could anything be more suggestive of the words of
Mephistopheles:

“But in each word must be a thought—
There is,— or we may so assume,—

Not always found, nor always sought,
While words—mere words supply its room.
Words answer well, when men enlist ’em,
In building up a favorite system.”

There are two other points in Schmidt’s book that are
of interest to us. The first of these is the manner in which

112

the author treats the Romanes incident. Romanes ranks,
as is well known, among the first of Haeckel’s authorities.
Hence it is a very painful fact that, but a short time before
the publication of the first edition of the ““Weltraetsel,” my
translation into German of Romanes’ “Thoughts on Reli-
gion” should have appeared. From this book it was evi-
dent that Haeckel and his associates could no longer count
this man among their number since he—a life-long seeker
after truth—had abandoned atheism for theism, and died a
believing Christian. Troeltsch and the “Reichsbote” asked
whether Haeckel had purposely concealed this fact, and
Schmidt now explains that Haeckel first became acquain-
ted with the “Thoughts on Religion” through him towards
the end of January, 1900. Unfortunately he does not add
that since then a number of new editions of the ‘‘Weltract-
sel” have appeared, in which Haeckel could have explained
himself in an honorable manner. Schmidt has therefore
not been successful in his attempt to clear up this matter.

But how does he settle with Romanes? He says: “We
are assured that the thoughts were written down by the
English naturalist George John Romanes”; and again:
“The thoughts are published by a Canon of Westminster,
Charles Gore, to whom they are said to have been handed
over after the death of Romanes in the year 1894.” Then
he has the audacity to place Romanes in quotation marks.
And finally he asserts that they would abide by Romanes’
former works as their authority, the more so, because
these were not, like the “Thoughts,” “published and
glossed by a Canon only after his (Romanes’) death.” By

113

means of all this and of a comparison with the “Letters of
the Obscurantists” he wishes to create the suspicion that
there might be question here of forgery. Such an insinua-
tion, (I employ Schmidt’s own words) “cannot be charac-
terized otherwise than as contemptible.” ‘Here it is even
worse than contemptible.” I must beg my reader’s pardon
for overstepping the bounds of reserve with these caustic
words, although they originated with Schmidt; but really
the flush of anger rightfully mounts to one’s cheeks when a
man, from the mere fact that he is a disciple of the “great”
Haeckel assumes the right to charge Canon Gore and in-
directly myself with forgery. It is really very significant
that these men should have to resort to such base and des-
picable expedients to extricate themselves from their un-
pleasant predicament. Apart from this, it was very amus-
ing to me personally to think that for the sake of my un-
worthy self, Schmidt should have borrowed from his lord
and master the epithet “pious,” which Haeckel in his turn
has drawn from his cherished friend Dodel. In all proba-
bility they will continue to hawk it about in order to bring
me into disrepute with the rest of their kind. The few re-
marks Schmidt still finds it proper to make regarding the
“Thoughts,” betray his inability to understand the book.
But as I stated in the preface it was a difficult book to read
and understand. It is obviously not reading matter for
shallow minds. I refer Schmidt to the biography of Ro-
manes, published by his wife, (The Life and Letters of G.
J. Romanes, London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1898), where
he will find Romanes’ religious development described by a

114

well-informed hand. This development began as early as
1878, hence during the time of his intimate friendship with
Darwin. In this book on pages 372 and 378 Schmidt willalso
find the words in which, before his death, Romanes begged
that, if he were personally unable to publish the
“Thoughts,” they should be given to his friend Canon
Gore after his own death. But why waste so many words on
Mr. Schmidt, for since all these things must be doubly disa-
greeable and painful to him and Haeckel, he will very
probably resort without delay to personal insinuation and
accuse Mrs. Romanes of forgery.

To us, however, who thoroughly appreciate the situa-
tion, it is a matter of great moment that of one of the few
really eminent naturalists, to whom Haeckel thought to be
able to lay full and exclusive claim, for the last twenty years
of his life should have been moving towards the Christian
faith in his eager search for truth and should die not a mon-
ist, but a convinced Christian. Neither did he dieanold man,
to whom the adherents of monism would certainly have the
effrontery to impute feeble-mindedness, but at the early
age of forty-six years. Nor was his a sudden deathbed
conversion—an impression which Schmidt attempts to cre-
ate (p. 62) in order to be able with H. Heine to relegate
the conversion to the domain of pathology—but followed
after many years of diligent and honest study and research.
The other point of which we must treat here, is the man-
ner in which, after the example of Dr. Reh, Schmidt at-
tempts in the “Umschau” to exonerate Haeckel in the

115

matter of the “History of the three cliches.” To begin
with, it is at the very least dishonest on the part of Schmidt
to say that, “in default of scientific arguments, theological
adversaries have for the last thirty years been using it as
the basis of their attacks.” That is untrue, the “theological
adversaries” have not had knowledge of it for that length
of time. On the contrary Haeckel’s own scientific colleagues
were the first to discover and publish the matter some time
in the seventies, and in consequence excluded Haeckel
from their circle. Why does Schmidt not mention here the
names of Ruetimeyer, His, and Semper? Furthermore
Schmidt writes as if Haeckel had satisfied his colleagues
in the matter of his forgery by declaring soon after
(1870) that he had been “guilty of a very ill-considered act
of folly.” Why does Schmidt not mention the fact that the
weighty attacks of His (Our Bodily Form and the Physio-
logical Problem of its Origin, Leipzig, 1875) dates from the
year 1875, five years after Haeckel’s forced, palliative ex-
planation? Besides, this incident of the three cliches is
only one instance; the other examples of Haeckel’s sense
of truthfulness are for the most part entirely unknown to
his “theological adversaries,’ who have nowhere to my
knowledge made use of them; but all of them have been
brought to light and held up before Haeckel by natural-
ists, namely, by Bastian (1874), Semper and Kossmann
(1876 and 1877), Hensen and Brandt (1891), and Hamann
(1893). Does this in any way tend to establish Schmidt’s
honesty? (Dr. Dennert has entered into a more searching

116

criticism of Haeckel in his book, Die Wahrheit ueber Haeckel.
2 Aufl Halle a. S., 1902.)

In a word, the manner in which the “Weltraetsel” was
received and in which Haeckel has been defended by
Schmidt, are valuable indications of the decay of Darwin-
ism. I repeat that I am speaking of course of the leading
scientific circles. Those who hold back are never lacking,
and one cannot be surprised that, in the case of Darwin-
ism, their number is considerable: for on the one hand, to
understand it an extraordinarily slight demand is made on
one’s mental capacity; and on the other hand it is a very
convenient and even a seemingly scientific means of obvi-
ating the necessity of belief in God. These facts appeal
very strongly to the multitude.

In concluding this section, we shall quote a positive
testimony to the decay of Darwinism, On page 3 of his
“Outlines of the History of the Development of Man and
of the Mammals” (Leipzig, W. Engelmann, 1897) Prof. O.
Schultze, Anatomist in Wuerzburg, says: “The idea en-
tertained by Darwin, that the development of species may
be explained by a natural choice—Selection—which oper-
ates through the struggle of individuals for existence, can-
not permanently satisfy the spirit of inquiry. Even the
factors of variability, heredity, and adaptation, which are
essential to the transformation of species, do not offer an
exact explanation.”

117

CHAPTER VIIL.

I have already called attention several times to the
fact that Darwinism is indeed on the wane among men of
science, but that it has gradually penetrated into lay cir-
cles where it is now posing as irrefragable truth. Especial-
ly the circles dominated by the social democrats swear by
nothing higher than Darwin and Haeckel. In fact, only a
short time ago Bebel publicly professed himself a convert
to Haeckel’s wisdom.

It is inevitable, however, that light should gradually
dawn even in these circles, for it would be indeed strange,
if no honest man could be found to tell them the truth re-
garding Darwinism. This has occurred sooner than I
dared to hope. This chapter can announce the glad tidings
that even in “social-democratic science’ Darwinism is
doomed to decay. Much printer’s ink will, of course, be
yet wasted before it will be so entirely dead as to be no
longer available as a weapon against Christianity; but a
beginning at least has been made.

In the December number of the ninth year of the
Sozialistische Monatshefte, a social-democratic writer,
Curt Grottewitz, undertakes to bring out an ar-
ticle on “Darwinian Myths.” It is stated there that
Darwin had a few eminent followers, but that the edu-
cated world took no notice of their work; that now, how-

118

ever, they seemed to be attracting more attention. ‘There
is no doubt, that a number of Darwinian views, which are
still prevalent to-day, have sunk to the level of untenable
myths. True, the main doctrine of Darwin—the origin of
new species from existing ones—is incontestably estab-
lished, but apart from this even some very fundamental
principles, which the master thought he discerned in the
development of organisms, can scarcely be any longer
maintained.”

It may be well to remark here, that this was not really
Darwin’s main doctrine, for it already existed before his
time (Lamarck, Geoffroy St. Hilaire). Darwin’s main doc-
trine is the explanation of the origin of species by natural
selection operating through the struggle for existence.
It is therefore the old error repeated: Darwinism is con-
founded with the doctrine of Descent, of which it is merely
one form. It is not our intention to derogate in the least
from Darwin’s merit, which consists in the fact that he
gained general recognition for the doctrine of Descent;
but that was not his main work. He wished above all to
explain the How of Descent; this is his doctrine, and this
doctrine we attack and declare to be on the point of ex-
piring.

Grottewitz very frankly continues: “The difficulty
with the Darwinian doctrines consists in the fact that they
are incapable of being strictly and irrefutably demonstrated.
The origin of one species from another, the conservation of
useful forms, the existence of countless intermediary links,

119

are all assumptions, which could never be supported by
concrete cases found in actual experience.” Some are said
to be well established indirectly by proofs drawn from prob-
abilities, while others are proved to be absolutely unten-
able. Among the latter Grottewitz includes “sexual se-
lection,” which is indeed a monstrous figment of the imag-
ination. There was moreover really no reason for adher-
ing to it so long. It is eminently untrue, that the biolog-
ical research of the last few years proved for the first time
the untenableness of this doctrine, as Grottewitz seems to
think. Clear thinkers recognized its untenableness long
ago, and surely Grottewitz and the whole band of Darwin-
ian devotees as well, could have known that as early as
twenty-five years ago this doctrine had been subjected toa
reductio ad absurdum with classic clearness in Wigand’s
great work.

It is certainly a very peculiar phenomenon; for decades
we behold a doctrine reverently re-echoed; thoughtful in-
vestigators expose its folly, but still the worship continues,
the Zeitgeist must have its idol. It appears, however, as
if the Zeitgeist were gradually tiring of its golden calf and
were on the point of casting it into the rubbish-heap. Mis-
givings arise on all sides; here one class of objections are
considered, there another. A closer examination reveals
that these are by no means new reasons, based on new re-
searches, but the very oldest, urged long ago and perhaps
much more clearly and forcibly. At that time, however,
the Zeitgeist was under the spell of the suggestion of indi-
vidual men: it heard and saw nothing but the captivating,

120.

obvious simplicity of the doctrine; but now when the sub-
ject begins to be tedious and the discussion lags, the in-
terest consequently abates and the Zeitgeist suddenly grasps
the old objections, presented in a new garb, and what was
hitherto truth, clear and irrefutable, now sinks into the
dreary, gray mists of myth. Sic transit gloria mundi!

This has been the history of Darwinism, and especially
of Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. What Grottewitz.
urges against it, was advanced decades ago by other and
more eminent men; then people would not listen, to-day
they are inclined to listen. Of very special interest is the
further admission, that “the principle of gradual develop-
ment” has been “considerably shaken” and is “certainly
untenable.” Grottewitz points out that it has been demon--
strated that the progeny of the same parents are often en-
tirely dissimilar, and that new organs very suddenly spring
up in individuals even when they had had no previous ex-
istence. “A slight variation from the parent form is of no
utility to the progeny; they must acquire at once a com-
pletely developed, new character, if it is to be of any
use to them.” Quite right! but this one admission is de-
structive of the entire doctrine of natural selection. If one
accepts saltatory evolution, as for instance, Heer, Koelli-
ker, and Wigand did long ago, then, as Grottewitz now dis-
covers, the difficulty arising for Darwinism from the ab-
sence of the numerous intermediary forms which it postu-
lates, naturally disappears.

Grottewitz attributes sudden variation to the influence
of environment, just as Geoffroy St. Hilaire had already

121

done before Darwin. He likewise repudiates Darwin’s doc-
trine of adaptation and the theory of “chance,” which is
bound up with all his views. “Darwin’s theory of chance
seems to me to be especially deserving of rejection.” The
article closed with these words: ‘There must evidently be
a very definite principle, according to which the frequent
and striking development from the homogeneous to the
heterogeneous, from the no-longer adapted to the readap-
ted, proceeds. We all of us are far from considering this
principle a teleological, mystical or mythical one, but for
that matter, Darwin’s theory of chance is nothing more
than a myth.”

He is most certainly in the right. To place this whole
wonderful, and so minutely regulated world of organisms
at the mercy of chance is utterly monstrous, and for this
very reason Darwinism, which is throughout a doctrine of
chance, must be rejected; it is indeed a myth. We are
grateful to Grottewitz for undertaking to tear the assumed
mask of science from this myth and expose it before his
associates. He should, however, have done so even more
vigorously and unequivocally and should have stated
plainly: Darwinism is a complete failure; we believe in-
deed in a natural development of the organic world, but we
are unable to prove it.

In the conclusion of the article quoted there is, of
course, again to be found the cloven-hoof: by all means no
teleological principle! But why in the world should we not
accept a teleological principle, since it is clearly evident

122

that the whole world of life is permeated by teleology, that
is, by design and finality? Why not? Forsooth, because
then belief in God would again enter and create havoc in
the ranks of the “brethren.”

But however much men may struggle against the tel-
eologico-theistic principle and secure themselves against it,
it is all of no avail, the principle stands at the gate and
clamors loudly for admission; and if Grottewitz could but
bring himself to undertake a study of Wigand’s masterful
work, perhaps his heresy would increase and we might per-
haps then find another article in the “Sozialistische
Monatshefte” tending still more strongly toward the truth.

But what will Brother Bebel with his Haeckelism say
to the present article?

All in all, instead of calling his article “Darwinian
Myths” Grottewitz might just as weli have entitled it “At
the Deathbed of Darwinism.” May he bring out a series
of “deathbed articles” to disclose the truth regarding Dar-
winism to his associates.

123

CHAPTER IX,

Professor Fleischmann, zoologist in Erlangen, recent-
iy published a book bearing the title, “Die Descendenzthe-
orie,” in which he opposes every theory of Descent. The
book is made up of lectures delivered by the author before
general audiences of professional students, hence is popu-
lar in form and of very special apologetic value. Numerous
excellent illustrations aid the reader in understanding the
text.

One statement in the Introduction characterizes the
decided position assumed by the author. He says: “After
long and careful investigation I have come to the conclu-
sion that the doctrine of Descent has not been substantia-
ted. I go even farther and maintain that the discussion of
the question does not belong to the field of the exact
sciences of zoology and botany.” At the outset, Fleisch-
mann establishes the fact that in the animal kingdom there
are rigidly separated types, which cannot be derived from
each other, whereas the doctrine of Descent postulates
“one single common model of body-structure” from which
all types have been developed. Cuvier in his day, set up
four such types of essentially different structure; when
Darwin’s work appeared two more had been added; R.
Hertwig postulates even seven, Boas nine (both 1900); J.
Kennel (1893) seventeen, and Fleischmann himself sixteen.
In consequence the doctrine of Descent has become

124

more complicated since it now embraces sixteen or seven-
teen different problems, each of which in turn gives rise to
many subordinate problems.

The discussion which the author inaugurates re-
garding the domain to which the question of
Descent belongs, is very well-timed. He forcibly and
definitely discountenances the method which transfers
it to the domain of religion. The question must be decided
by the naturalists themselves according to the strict induc-
tive method; that is, the solution must be based on well as-
certained facts, without resorting to conclusions deduced
from general principles. “Exact research must show that
living organisms actually have overstepped the bounds
defining their species, and not merely that they conceiv-
ably may have done so.” Hence it is absolutely necessary
to proctire the intermediary forms. This is the foundation
on which Fleischmann builds and against which no oppo-
nent can prevail. Fleischmann first discusses the differ-
ences between the classes of vertebrates; the mammals,
birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. For if the differences of
their bodily structure could be shown to be one of degree
and not radical, it could be supposed that the lines of de-
marcation which now delimitate the largertypes mightsome
day vanish. A single illustration suffices for Fleischmann’s
purpose, viz., the plan of structure of the limbs of the differ-
entclassesofvertebrates. The four higher classes are charac-
terized by a common underlying plan of limb structure,
whilst fish have one peculiar to themselves. On the other
hand it is an inevitable postulate of the doctrine of Descent

125

that fish are the original progenitors of all other verte-
brates. Hence the five-joint limbs of the latter must have
developed from the fins of fish. This derivation was actu-
ally attempted but without success, as Fleischmann points
out at considerable length. By means of citations taken
from the writings of Darwinian adherents, he illustrates the
confusion which even now reigns among them on this mat-
ter. The evolution of the remaining vertebrates from the
fish is therefore a wholly gratuitous assumption devoid of
any foundation in fact.

Fleischmann further discusses the “parade-horse” of
the theory of Descent. It has been the common belief, es-
pecially fostered by Haeckel, that the history of the De-
scent of our present horse lies before us in its complete in-
tegrity as pictured in the drawings of Marsh. Here Fleisch-
mann again proves at great length the insufficiency of ac-
tually available materials. Of special importance is his re-
peated demand that not only individual parts of the animals
but the whole organism as well should be derived from the
earlier forms. If, for instance, it be possible to arrange
horses and their tertiary kindred in an unbroken line of de-
scent according to the formation of their feet, whilst the
other characteristics (teeth, skull-structure, etc.,) do not
admit of arrangement in a corresponding series, the first
line must be surrendered.

Very similar to this is the case of the “family history
of birds,” which as all know, has been traced back to rep-
tiles. It is in this matter that the famous Archaeopteryx
plays an important part. Unfortunately, however, grave

126

difficulties are again encountered in this connection. This
primitive form is a real bird according to Zittel; and ac-
cording to the same investigator as also according to
Marsh, Dames, Vetter, Parker, Tuerbringen, Parlow and
Mehnert, it is inadmissible to connect birds with a definite
class of reptiles. Haeckel finds his way out of the difficulty
by supplying hypothetical forms which no one has ever
seen, but which his imagination has admirably depicted as
transitional forms. In so doing, however, he abandons the
inductive method of natural science.

It is impossible for us to treat at such length all the
remaining sections of this important book. We may men-
tion in passing that Fleischmann examines the “roots of
the mammal stock,” and enters upon a detailed discussion
of “the origin of lung-breathing vertebrates,” the “real
phylo-genetic problem of the mollusks,” and ‘‘the origin of
the echinodermata.” It is evident that he boldly takes up
the most important problems connected with the theory of
Descent, and does not confine himself to a one-sided dis-
cussion of individual points. As he did not fear to examine
thoroughly the famous, and as it hitherto appeared, invul-
nerable, ‘“‘parade-horse,” so neither does he hesitate to de-
molish the other reputed proof for the doctrine of Descent,
e. g., the fresh-water snail of Steinheim, the remains of
which Hilzendorf and Neumayr examined and were said
to have arranged in lines of descent that “would actually
stagger one.” It is important to call especial attention to
this because the adversaries of the book ignore it. He next
shows up the so-called “fundamental principle of biogene-

127

sis” according to which organisms are supposed to repeat
during their individual development the forms of their pro-
genitors (enunciated by Fritz Mueller and Haeckel).
Fleischmann points out the exceptions which Haeckel at-
tributes to “Cenogenesis,” (that is to falsification) and shows
the disagreement among contemporary naturalists regard-
ing this fundamental principle. Even Haeckel’s friend and
pupil, O. Hertwig sounds the retreat.

The 15th chapter deals with the “Collapse of Haeckel’s
Doctrine,” which is revealed in the fact that “the practical
possibility of ascertaining anything regarding the primitive
history of the animal kingdom is completely exhausted and
the hope of so doing forever frustrated.” “Instead of sci-
entists having been able from year to year to produce an
increasing abundance of proof for the correctness of the doc-
trine of Descent, the lack of proofs and the impossibility of
procuring evidence is to-day notorious.” In the last chap-
ter Fleischmann finally attempts to prove on logical prin-
ciples the untenableness of the evolutionary idea.

He starts from the fact that philosophers use the word
development to designate a definite sequence of ideas, i. e.,
in a logical order. ‘Metamorphosis, says Hegel, belongs
to the Idea as such since its variation alone is development.
Rational speculation must get rid of such nebulous con-
cepts as the evolution of the more highly developed animal
organisms from the less developed, etc.”

Naturalists use the word in a different sense. Instead
of a sequence of grades of being they posit a sequence of

128

transformations; instead of a logical sequence of ideas they
posit a transforming and progressive development. Zool-
ogy constructs a system of specific and generic concepts,
“an animal kingdom with logical relations.” Our concepts
are derived from natural objects, but in reality do not per-
fectly correspond to them. The phylogenetic school com-
mits the capital mistake of presenting a transformation
which can be realized only in logical concepts, as an actu-
ally occurring process, and of confounding an abstract
operation with concrete fact. “The logical transformation
of the concept ape into the concept man is no genealogical
trocess.” The mathematician may logically ‘develop’ the
concept of a circle from that of a polygon, but it by no
means follows that the circle is phylo-genetically derived
from the polygon.

Because the concept of species is variable, the species
themselves, according to Darwin, should be subject to a
continual flux; whereas the real cause of the variability
which he observed lies in the discrepancy between objective
tacts and their logical tabulation, in the narrowness of our
concepts and in the lack of adequate means of expression.
He thus makes natural objects responsible for our logica!
limitations.

With regard to organisms the Descent-school con-
founded the purely logical signification of the word “re-
lated” with that of blood or family affinity. But surely
when they speak of the relation of forms in the crystal
systems, they do not refer to genetic connection. To-day

129

this interchange of concepts is so general that one needs
to exercise great care if one would avoid it.

The theory which postulates the blood-relationship of
individuals of the same species may be correct, but it is
utterly incapable of proof, and the same is true in a greater
degree when there is question of individuals of the same
class but of different species. Since a direct proof is im-
possible, an attempt was made to construct an indirect
proof by a comparison of bodily-organs. But in so doing
the Descent theorizers had to relinquish scientific analysis
altogether.

In conclusion Fleischmann states that he does not
mean to discard every hypothesis of Descent. He simply
gives warning against an over-estimation of the theory. In
opposition to those who esteem it as the highest achieve-
ment of science, he looks upon it as a necessary evil. Its
proper sphere is the laboratory of the man of science, and
not the thronging market-place.

“The Descent hypothesis will meet the same fate (be
cast aside), since its incompatibility with facts of ordinary
observation is manifesting itself. At the time of its appear-
ance in a new form, forty years ago, it exercised a beneficial
influence on scientific progress and induced a great number
of capable minds to devote themselves to the study of ana-
tomical, palaeontological and evolutionary problems.
Meanwhile, however, viewed in the light of a constantly in-
creasing wealth of actual materials, the hypothesis has be-
come antiquated and the labors of its industrious advocates

130

makes it obvious to unbiased critics, that it is time to rele-
gate it ad acta.”
* * * * * * *
My own views agree with those of Fleischmann as pre-
sented above, except in regard to his last chapter. I must,
of course, admit that his criticism has discredited the doc-
trine of Descent as a scientifically established theory.
Hence, as I have always asserted, it must be excluded from
the realm of exact science. No doubt people will come
gradually to see that the theory involves a creed and there-
fore belongs to the domain of cosmic philosophy. All this
I readily admit. ,

Not so, however, as regards the concept of “develop-
ment.” It seems to me to be incorrect to regard this as a
logical concept only, even with reference to organisms.
True, the whole zoological system is in reality nothing
more than a logical abstraction. And in view of this fact
one must be on e#@s guard against confusing a logical
transformation of concepts with a genealogical develop-
ment.

We must, however, not forget that we possess the
wonderful analogy of ontogeny (individual development)
and above all, the fact of mutation and of metagenesis.
And even if we wish to avoid the error of Haeckel and
others who find a necessary connection between ontogeny
and phylogeny, nevertheless the analogy will still entitle us
to picture to ourselves the development of the whole range
of living organisms. Such a representation will, of course,
have only a subjective value.

131

No doubt, it is logically unjustifiable to argue from the
variable concept to the variability of the species. Still
there is something real in plants and animals which corre-
sponds to our specific concepts. In some cases the corre-
sponding reality may’ be so well defined that it is not diffi-
cult to form the concept accurately; whereas in other cases
where the task is more difficult, the difficulty must be due
to the object. Under these circumstances we may safely
conclude from the lack of definiteness in our concepts to
a certain lack of rigid delimitation in the organic forms.

This blending of certain forms suggests the idea of
transformation, but does not furnish definite proof of it.
Such proof can be had only by the direct observation of a
transformation. And no doubt in certain cases a transfor-
mation may occur. As regards animals, I may call atten-
tion, for instance, to the experiments made with butterflies
by Standfuss, and as regards plants, to the experiments of
Haberlandt, of which I treated in Chapter III. The limits
within which these transformations take place are indeed
very narrow as are also the limits of those indisputable va-
rieties which naturally arise within an otherwise rigidly
defined species. I am aware that the transformation of one
species into another has not yet been effected, but the
above-mentioned attempts at transformation have never-
theless demonstrated that certain organic forms when sub-
jected to changed conditions of life, display certain muta-
tions which clearly show that variability is to be attributed,
not, certainly, to the specific concepts, but to the corres-
ponding reality. This observation and reflexion, joined

132

with the fact that organisms form a progressive series from
the simple to the more complex, and with the observed
phenomena of individual development, lead me to regard
the concept of Descent as admissible, and in a certain
sense, even probable. But I agree with Fleischmann in
saying that this is a mere belief, and that all attempts to
give it a higher scientific value by inductive proof have
signally failed.

My standpoint, moreover, requires me to admit the
validity of the hypothesis of Descent as an heuristic maxim
of natural science. I believe that we shall be justified in
the future, as we were forty years ago, in directing our in-
vestigation in the direction of Descent, and I do not con-
sider such investigation so utterly hopeless as Fleischmann
represents it. However, I entirely concur with him in the
opinion that we are here concerned (and shall be for a long
time to come) with a mere hypothesis which belongs not in
the market-place, nor among the world views of the mul-
titude, but in the study of the man of science.

Above all it must not be mixed up with religious ques-
tions. Whether the hypothesis will ever emerge from the
study of the man of science as a well-attested law, is still.

an open question, incapable of immediate solution.
* * * * * * *

It is of interest for us to inquire what reception.
Fleischmann’s protest against the theory of Descent has
been accorded by his associates.

Fleischmann was formerly an advocate of the theory
of Descent. He was a pupil and assistant of Selenka, who.

133

was then at Erlangen (died in Muenster 1902). He had
previously written a number of scientific works from the
standpoint of the Descent theory. In the year 1891, in-
vestigations regarding rodents led him to oppose that the-
ory. During the winter term of 189:-92 he gave evidence
of this change in a public lecture. Not until 1895 was there
question of his appointment to the chair of zoology in Er-
langen. In 1898 he published a Manual of Zoology based
on principles radically opposed to the doctrine of Descent.
This manual irritated Haeckel so much that he issued one
of his well-known articles, Ascending and Descending Zool-
egy, in which, after his usual manner, he casts suspicion on
Fleischmann of having received his appointment to the
chair at Erlangen by becoming an anti-Darwinian in ac-
cordance with a desire expressed at the diet of Bavaria. I
am not aware that Haeckel has paid any attention to the
work of Fleischmann which we have just reviewed.

By its publication, however, the author disturbed a
hornet’s nest. Dispassionate, but still entirely adverse is
Professor Plate’s review in the “Biologisches Zentralblatt,”
while the “Umschaw” publishes two criticisms, one by Pro-
fessor von Wagner, the other by Dr. Reh, which for want
of sense could not well be equalled. It was the former who
furnished material for our sixth chapter and who there dis-
played such utter confusion of thought regarding the in-
ductive method. The same confusion is apparent in his
recent utterance in which he observes that Fleischmann’s
whole aim is to accumulate observational data, meanwhile
avoiding speculation as far as possible. His criticism is re-

134

plete with bitter personal epithets, e. g., “reactionary,”
“mental incompetency,” “dishonest mask of hypercritical
exactness,” which manifest the writer’s inability to enter
upon an objective discussion of the question.

A still more reprehensible position is assumed by Dr.
Reh, who censures Fleischmann for introducing to the
general public the question of Descent which belongs prop-
erly to the forum of science. He claims that Fleischmann,
by so doing, forfeited his right to an unbiased hearing. Dr.
Reh forgets that but a short time ago he had no word of
censure for Haeckel’s Weltraetsel which was intended for a
far wider circle of readers. He next appropriates Haeck-
el’s suspicion regarding Fleischmann which we noticed
above, and then adds the entirely untrue assertion that the
first half of Fleischmann’s Manual, written before he took
possession of the chair in Erlangen, is written in the spirit
of Darwin, whereas the second half which appeared at a
later date is written in the contrary spirit. He then takes
individual points of Fleischmann’s treatise out of their con-
text in order to execute a cheap and nonsensical criticism
of them. Haeckel has evidently been giving instructions
on the best manner of dealing with adversaries. And very
docile disciples they are who imitate his method even to the
extent of defaming and abusing their scientific opponents.

But is not this another plain indication of the decay of
Darwinism? Of course Haeckel recognized at the very
beginning of his career that it was necessary to support the
theory by means of personal bitterness, forgeries and mis-
representations. But if the last surviving advocates of Dar-

135

winism must needs have recourse to the same disreputable
means, to what a low estate, indeed, has it fallen!

Let us hope that these last wild convulsions are really
the signs of approaching dissolution.

Ne, tro ant yuak Ha. porn f labo fer a
tk torte to be Lon yer.

136

CHAPTER X.

In order to judge of the present status of Darwinism
it is of primary importance to note the position assumed
by the few really eminent investigators, who as pupils of
Haeckel still seem to have remained true to him. Among
these I reckon Oskar Hertwig, the well known Berlin anat-
omist.

As early as 1899 in an address at the University on,
Die Lehre vom Organismus und ihre Beziehung zur Sozialwis-
senschaft, Hertwig gave expression to views which are very
little in harmony with the doctrines proceeding from Jena,
and which are also put forth in his manual, The Cell and the
Tissue. In that address we read (p. 8): “With the same
right, with which, for the good of scientific progress, am
energetic protest has been raised against a certain mysti-
cism which attaches to the word Vitality, I beg to
give warning against an opposite extreme which is but too
apt to lead to onesided and unreal, and hence also, ulti-
mately to false notions of the vital process, against an ex~
treme which would see in the vital process nothing but-a
chemico-physical and mechanical problem and thinks to
arrive at true scientific knowledge only in so far as it suc-
‘ceeds in tracing back phenomena to the movements of re-
pelling and attracting atoms and in subjecting them to
mathematical calculation.”

“With right does the physicist Mach, with reference to

137

such views and tendencies, speak of a ‘mechanical mythol-
ogy in opposition to the animistic mythology of the old re-
ligions’ and considers both as ‘improper and fantastic
exaggerations based on a one-sided judgment.” “My posi-
tion on the question just stated becomes apparent from
the consideration that the living organism is not only a
complex of chemical materials and a bearer of physical
forces, but also possesses a special organization, a struc-
ture, by means of which it is very essentially differentiated
from the inorganic world, and in virtue of which it alone
is designated as living.”

Here, then, the distinction between living and non-
living nature is clearly and definitely expressed, and Hert-
wig expresses himself just as definitely when he says (p.
21): “Whereas, but a few decades ago a scientific material-
istic conception of the world issuing from a onesided, un-
historical point of view, misjudged the significance of the
historic religious and ethical forces in the development of
mankind, a change has become apparent in this regard.”

To this gratifying testimony against materialism the
distinguished naturalist added an equally valuable testimo-
ny regarding Darwinism on the occasion of the naturalists’
convention in 1900. He there sketched an excellent sum-
mary of the “Development of Biology in the Ninteenth

’

Century,” in which he decidedly opposes the materialistic-
mechanical conception of life. In so doing he also touches
upon Haeckel’s carbon-hypothesis, to which the latter still
clings, and says: “That from the properties of carbon,

combined with the properties of oxygen, hydrogen, nitro-

138

gen, etc., in certain proportions albumen should result, is a
process which in its essence is as incomprehensible as that
a living cell should arise from a certain organization of dif-
ferent albumina.” Then the speaker is inevitably led to
speak of the doctrine of Descent and Darwinism.

In the first place he declares definitely that ontogeny
alone, i. e., the development of the individual being, is
“capable of a direct scientific investigation.” On the other
hand we move in the domain of hypotheses in dealing with
the further question: “How have the species of organisms
living to-day originated in the course of the world’s his-
tory?” This is a very valuable admission in view of Haeck-
el’s dogmatic assertion that the descent of man from the
ape is a “certain historical fact.” Very moderate and per-
tinent are also the further words of the speaker: “Of
course, a philosophically trained investigator will regard it
as axiomatic that the organisms which inhabit our earth
to-day did not exist in their present form in earlier periods
of the earth and that they had to pass through a process
of development, beginning with the simplest forms.”

“But in the attempt to outline in detail the particular
form in which a species of animals of our day existed in re-
mote antiquity, we lose the safe ground of experience. For
out of the countless millions of organisms, that lived in earl-
ier periods of the earth, the duration of which is measured
by millions of years, only scanty skeleton remains have by
way of exception been preserved in a fossil state. From these
naturally but a very imperfect and hypothetical representa-
tion can be formed of the soft bodies with which they were

139

once clothed. And even then it remains forever doubtful
whether the progeny of the prehistoric creature, the scant
remains of which we study, has not become entirely ex-
tinct, so that it can in no way be regarded as the progenitor
of any creature living at present.” I should like to know
wherein this differs radically from Fleischmann’s conten-
tion in his Descendenztheorie” (p. 10.) For we find stated
here what Fleischmann emphasizes so much, viz., that with
the problem of Descent we leave the domain of experience.
It is worthy of special note in this connection that Hert-
wig likewise evidently regards as the sole really empirically
and inductively serviceable proof of Descent, that which is
drawn from palaeontology, from prehistoric animal and
plant remains. He makes not the least mention of the in-
direct proofs taken from ontogenetic development or com-
parative anatomy, to which the Darwinians and advocates
of Descent love so much to appeal, because they feel that
the real inductive proof is lacking and totally fails to sus-
tain their position. Hertwig next points out that the prob-
lem of Descent stirred scientific as well as lay circles twice
during the past century. He then pays Lamarck and Dar-
win the necessary tribute, at which we cannot take offense
since he was reared in the Darwinian atmosphere of Jena.
I also willingly admit that Darwinism served science as a

”

“powerful ferment,” even if I must emphasize just as de-
cidedly how harmful it was that this “ferment” was intro-
duced into lay circles at an unseasonable time by the apos-
tles of materialism. For while it was very well adapted to

bring about in educated circles a fermentation which pro-

140

duced beneficial results, in uncritical lay-circles this ferment
produced nothing but a corruption of world-views.

Hertwig then designates “Struggle for Existence,”
Survival of the Fittest, and Selection, as “very indefinite
expressions.” “With too general terms, one does not explain
the individual case or produces only the appearance of an
explanation whereas in every case the true causative rela-
tions remain in the dark. But it is the duty of scientific
investigation to establish for each observed effect the pre-
venient cause, or more correctly, since nothing results from
a single cause, to discover the various causes.”

“The origin of the world of organisms from natural
causes, however, is certainly an unusually complicated and
difficult problem. It is just as little capable of being solved
by a single magic formula as every disease is of yielding to
a panacea. By the very act of proclaiming the omnipotence
of natural selection, Weismann found he was forced to the
admission that: “as a rule we cannot furnish the proof that
a definite adaptation has originated through natural selec-
tion,” in other words: We know nothing in reality of the
complexity of causes which has produced the given phe-
nomenon. So we may on the contrary, with Spencer,
speak of the “Impotence of Natural Selection.”

“Tn this scientific struggle with which the past century
closed, it seems necessary to distinguish between the doc-
trine of evolution and the theory of selection. They are
based on entirely different principles. For with Huxley we
can say: “Even if the Darwinian hypothesis were blown
away, the doctrine of Evolution would remain standing

141

where it stood.” In it we possess an acquisition of our
century which rests on facts, and which undoubtedly ranks

amongst its greatest.”

This last sentence affirms exactly what I have repeat-
edly asserted: the doctrine of Descent remains, Darwinism
passes away. Hertwig then is decidedly of opinion that
Darwinism entirely fails in the individual case because in
its application the basis of experience vanishes. Indeed,
according to him, phylogeny is not at all capable of direct
scientific investigation. These are all important admis-
sions which one would certainly have considered impos-
sible twenty years ago; they unequivocally indicate the de-
cline of Darwinian views, and in a certain way also har-
monize with Fleischmann’s work,

True, Hertwig still clings to the thought of Descent,
but apparently no longer as to a conclusion of natural
science. This appears from the assertion: “Ontogeny
alone is capable of a direct scientific (he evidently
speaks of natural science) investigation,’ and from the
other statement that a philosophically trained investigator
will accept it (Descent) as axiomatic although it belongs to
the domain of hypothesis. What else does this mean but
that: We have no specific knowledge of Descent but we
believe in it. In short, this is not natural science but nat-
ural philosophy; it forms no constituent part of our certain
knowledge of nature but it is one aspect of our world-
view.

All the above-quoted assertions of Hertwig are calm

142

and well-considered and show a decided deviation from the
Darwinian position. Above all we are pleased to note that
he appropriates Spencer’s phrase regarding the “Impot-
ence of Natural Selection” and that in the citation from
Huxley he at least admits the possibility that the Darwin-
ian doctrine will be “wafted away.”

It is also proper to mention here the fact that in an-
other place Hertwig no longer recognizes so fully the dog-
ma set up by Fritz Mueller and Haeckel which is so closely
bound up with Darwinism. J mean the so-called “bioge-
netic principle” according to which the individual organ-
ism is supposed to repeat in its development the develop-
ment of the race during the course of ages.

In his book: ‘The Cell and the Tissue” (Die Zelle
und die Gewebe, II. Jena 1898, p. 273) Hertwig says: “We
must drop the expression: ‘repetition of forms of extinct
ancestors’ and employ instead: repetition of forms which
accord with the laws of organic development and lead from
the simple to the complex. We must lay special emphasis
on the point that in the embryonic forms even as in the
developed animal forms general laws of the development
of the organized body-substance find expression.”

Any one can subscribe to these statements; in truth
they contain something totally different from the “biogen-
etic principle”; for Haeckel has really no interest in so
general a truth, but is intent only upon a proof of Descent.

Hertwig continues: “In order to make our train of
thought clear, let us take the egg-cell. Since the develop-

143

ment of every organism begins with it, the primitive condi-
tion is in no way recapitulated from the time when perhaps
only single-celled amoebas existed on our planet. For ac-
cording to our theory the egg-cell, for instance, of a now
extant mammal is no simple and indifferent, purposeless
structure, as it is often represented, (as according to
Haeckel’s “biogenetic principle” it would necessarily be);
we see in it, in fact, the extraordinarily complex end-
product of a very long historic process of development,
through which the organic substance has passed since that
hypothetical epoch of single-celled organisms.”

“Tf the eggs of a mammal now differ very essentially
from those of a reptile and of an amphibian because in their
organization they represent the beginnings only of mam-
mals, even as these represent only the beginnings of rep-
tiles and amphibians, by how much more must they differ
from those hypothetical single-celled amoebas which could
as yet show no other characteristics than to reproduce
amoebas of their own kind.”

This is a view which has frequently been clearly ex-
pressed by anti-Darwinians: The egg-cells of the various
animals are in themselves fundamentally different and can
therefore have nothing in common but similarity of struc-
ture. In opposition to Hertwig, Haeckel in his superficial
way deduces from it an internal similarity as well. After a
few polite bows before his old teacher, Haeckel, Hertwig
thus summarizes his view: “Ontogenetic (that is, those
stages in the individual development) stages therefore give

144

us only a greatly changed picture of the phylogenetic (i. e.,
genealogical) stages as they may once have existed in
primitive ages, but do not correspond to them in their actu-
al content.” This is a very resigned position, very far
removed from Haeckel’s certainty and orthodoxy.

To sum up: O. Hertwig has become a serious heretic
in matters Darwinian. Will Haeckel, in his usual manner
try to cast suspicion on Hertwig also? For Haeckel himself
says (Free Science and Free Doctrine, Stuttgart, 1878, p.
85): “Since I am not bound by fear to the Berlin Tribunal
of Science or by anxieties regarding the loss of influential
Berlin connections, as are most of my like-minded col-
leagues, I do not hesitate here as elsewhere to express my
honest conviction, frankly and freely, regardless of the an-
ger which perhaps real or pretended privy councillors in
Berlin may feel upon hearing the unadorned truth.”

Verily, it is a matter of suspense to know whether his
school will now pour forth their wrath upon O. Hertwig,
or whether finally the discovery will not be made in Jena
that Hertwig secretly possessed himself of his position in
Berlin, in the same manner as Fleischmann obtained his
at Erlangen, viz., by a promise of desertion from Darwin-
ism.

145

CONCLUSION.

We may conveniently summarize what we have said in
the foregoing chapters in the following statement: The
theory of Descent is almost universally recognized to-day
by naturalists as a working hypothesis. Still, in spite of as-
sertions to the contrary, no conclusive proof of it has as yet
been forthcoming. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that
the theory provides us with an intelligible explanation of
a series of problems and facts which cannot be so well ex-
plained on other grounds.

On the other hand, Darwinism, i. e., the theory of Nat-
ural Selection by means of the Struggle for Existence, is
being pushed to the wall all along the line. The bulk of nat-
uralists no longer recognizes its validity, and even those
who have not yet entirely discarded it, are at least forced
to admit that the Darwinian explanation now possesses a
very subordinate significance.

In the place of Darwinian principles, new ideas are
gradually winning general acceptance, which, while they
are in harmony with the principles of adaptation and use,
(Lamarck) enunciated before the time of Darwin, never-
theless attribute a far-reaching importance to internal
forces of development. These new conceptions necessarily
involve the admission that Evolution has not been a purely
mechanical process.

Rt ft iJ S r & f
[4 obit stonda. Survival of Pt h Chat va hg
146

Oa Var a Sod. smy EA abiard, aan tis qttlea she u already
for ge pte *

THE BOOK OF THE DAY

Sctence and Christianity

By F. BETTEX

Translated from the German

The author among other things says in the preface: I wish to make clear
to my readers how little real science is hidden behind the fine phrases and
sounding werds of the infidel, and how little he himself understands of the
material creation which he affirms to be the only one . . . The Christian
and Biblical conception of the universe is more logical, more harmonious,
more in accordance with facts, therefore, more scientific than all philosophies,
all systems, materialistic and atheistic. Contents of the book:

Chapter I. Progress

Chapter II. Evolution and Modern Science
Chapter III. Christians and Science
Chapter [V. Science

Chapter V. Materialism

One of the many favorable reviews: It isa view of much scope, and
so far as it attempts reconciliation between science and christianity, is emi-
nently successful. There can be no doubt that at present, when there is so
pronounced a disposition to follow every fad in science, especially if it op-
poses the Bible, such a book should have a wide reading and is adapted to

accomplish much good.
Price $1.50

GERMAN LITERARY BOARD,

Burlington, Iowa

AS

SEN