essays on life, art and science-第32章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


that　every　movement　forward　in　language　must　be　determined　by　an
antecedent　movement　forward　in　thought；　still；　unless　thought　be
accompanied　at　each　point　of　its　evolutions　by　a　corresponding
evolution　of　language；　its　further　development　is　arrested。〃

Man　has　evolved　an　articulate　language；　whereas　the　lower　animals
seem　to　be　without　one。　　Man；　therefore；　has　far　outstripped　them　in
reasoning　faculty　as　well　as　in　power　of　expression。　　This；　however；
does　not　bar　the　communications　which　the　lower　animals　make　to　one
another　from　possessing　all　the　essential　characteristics　of
language；　and　as　a　matter　of　fact；　wherever　we　can　follow　them　we
find　such　communications　effectuated　by　the　aid　of　arbitrary　symbols
covenanted　upon　by　the　living　beings　that　wish　to　communicate；　and
persistently　associated　with　certain　corresponding　feelings；　states
of　mind；　or　material　objects。　　Human　language　is　nothing　more　than
this　in　principle；　however　much　further　the　principle　has　been
carried　in　our　own　case　than　in　that　of　the　lower　animals。

This　being　admitted；　we　should　infer　that　the　thought　or　reason　on
which　the　language　of　men　and　animals　is　alike　founded　differs　as
between　men　and　brutes　in　degree　but　not　in　kind。　　More　than　this
cannot　be　claimed　on　behalf　of　the　lower　animals；　even　by　their　most
enthusiastic　admirer。



THE　DEADLOCK　IN　DARWINISM　｛20｝PART　I



It　will　be　readily　admitted　that　of　all　living　writers　Mr。　Alfred
Russel　Wallace　is　the　one　the　peculiar　turn　of　whose　mind　best　fits
him　to　write　on　the　subject　of　natural　selection；　or　the
accumulation　of　fortunate　but　accidental　variations　through　descent
and　the　struggle　for　existence。　　His　mind　in　all　its　more　essential
characteristics　closely　resembles　that　of　the　late　Mr。　Charles
Darwin　himself；　and　it　is　no　doubt　due　to　this　fact　that　he　and　Mr。
Darwin　elaborated　their　famous　theory　at　the　same　time；　and
independently　of　one　another。　　I　shall　have　occasion　in　the　course
of　the　following　article　to　show　how　misled　and　misleading　both
these　distinguished　men　have　been；　in　spite　of　their　unquestionable
familiarity　with　the　whole　range　of　animal　and　vegetable　phenomena。
I　believe　it　will　be　more　respectful　to　both　of　them　to　do　this　in
the　most　out…spoken　way。　　I　believe　their　work　to　have　been　as
mischievous　as　it　has　been　valuable；　and　as　valuable　as　it　has　been
mischievous；　and　higher；　whether　praise　or　blame；　I　know　not　how　to
give。　　Nevertheless　I　would　in　the　outset；　and　with　the　utmost
sincerity；　admit　concerning　Messrs。　Wallace　and　Darwin　that　neither
can　be　held　as　the　more　profound　and　conscientious　thinker；　neither
can　be　put　forward　as　the　more　ready　to　acknowledge　obligation　to
the　great　writers　on　evolution　who　had　preceded　him；　or　to　place　his
own　developments　in　closer　and　more　conspicuous　historical
connection　with　earlier　thought　upon　the　subject；　neither　is　the
more　ready　to　welcome　criticism　and　to　state　his　opponent's　case　in
the　most　pointed　and　telling　way　in　which　it　can　be　put；　neither　is
the　more　quick　to　encourage　new　truth；　neither　is　the　more　genial；
generous　adversary；　or　has　the　profounder　horror　of　anything　even
approaching　literary　or　scientific　want　of　candour；　both　display　the
same　inimitable　power　of　putting　their　opinions　forward　in　the　way
that　shall　best　ensure　their　acceptance；　both　are　equally　unrivalled
in　the　tact　that　tells　them　when　silence　will　be　golden；　and　when　on
the　other　hand　a　whole　volume　of　facts　may　be　advantageously　brought
forward。　　Less　than　the　foregoing　tribute　both　to　Messrs。　Darwin　and
Wallace　I　will　not；　and　more　I　cannot　pay。

Let　us　now　turn　to　the　most　authoritative　exponent　of　latter…day
evolutionI　mean　to　Mr。　Wallace；　whose　work；　entitled　〃Darwinism；〃
though　it　should　have　been　entitled　〃Wallaceism；〃　is　still　so　far
Darwinistic　that　it　develops　the　teaching　of　Mr。　Darwin　in　the
direction　given　to　it　by　Mr。　Darwin　himselfso　far；　indeed；　as　this
can　be　ascertained　at　alland　not　in　that　of　Lamarck。　　Mr。　Wallace
tells　us；　on　the　first　page　of　his　preface；　that　he　has　no　intention
of　dealing　even　in　outline　with　the　vast　subject　of　evolution　in
general；　and　has　only　tried　to　give　such　an　account　of　the　theory　of
natural　selection　as　may　facilitate　a　clear　conception　of　Darwin's
work。　　How　far　he　has　succeeded　is　a　point　on　which　opinion　will
probably　be　divided。　　Those　who　find　Mr。　Darwin's　works　clear　will
also　find　no　difficulty　in　understanding　Mr。　Wallace；　those；　on　the
other　hand；　who　find　Mr。　Darwin　puzzling　are　little　likely　to　be
less　puzzled　by　Mr。　Wallace。　　He　continues：…

〃The　objections　now　made　to　Darwin's　theory　apply　solely　to　the
particular　means　by　which　the　change　of　species　has　been　brought
about；　not　to　the　fact　of　that　change。〃

But　〃Darwin's　theory〃as　Mr。　Wallace　has　elsewhere　proved　that　he
understandshas　no　reference　〃to　the　fact　of　that　change〃that　is
to　say；　to　the　fact　that　species　have　been　modified　in　course　of
descent　from　other　species。　　This　is　no　more　Mr。　Darwin's　theory
than　it　is　the　reader's　or　my　own。　　Darwin's　theory　is　concerned
only　with　〃the　particular　means　by　which　the　change　of　species　has
been　brought　about〃；　his　contention　being　that　this　is　mainly　due　to
the　natural　survival　of　those　individuals　that　have　happened　by　some
accident　to　be　born　most　favourably　adapted　to　their　surroundings；
or；　in　other　words；　through　accumulation　in　the　common　course　of
nature　of　the　more　lucky　variations　that　chance　occasionally
purveys。　　Mr。　Wallace's　words；　then；　in　reality　amount　to　this；　that
the　objections　now　made　to　Darwin's　theory　apply　solely　to　Darwin's
theory；　which　is　all　very　well　as　far　as　it　goes；　but　might　have
been　more　easily　apprehended　if　he　had　simply　said；　〃There　are
several　objections　now　made　to　Mr。　Darwin's　theory。〃

It　must　be　remembered　that　the　passage　quoted　above　occurs　on　the
first　page　of　a　preface　dated　March　1889；　when　the　writer　had
completed　his　task；　and　was　most　fully　conversant　with　his　subject。
Nevertheless；　it　seems　indisputable　either　that　he　is　still
confusing　evolution　with　Mr。　Darwin's　theory；　or　that　he　does　not
know　when　his　sentences　have　point　and　when　they　have　none。

I　should　perhaps　explain　to　some　readers　that　Mr。　Darwin　did　not
modify　the　main　theory　put　forward；　first　by　Buffon；　to　whom　it
indisputably　belongs；　and　adopted　from　him　by　Erasmus　Darwin；
Lamarck；　and　many　other　writers　in　the　latter　half　of　the　last
century　and　the　earlier　years　of　the　present。　　The　early
evolutionists　maintained　that　all　existing　forms　of　animal　and
vegetable　life；　including　man；　were　derived　in　course　of　descent
with　modification　from　forms　resembling　the　lowest　now　known。

Mr。　Darwin　went　as　far　as　this；　and　farther　no　one　can　go。　　The
point　at　issue　between　him　and　his　predecessors　involves　neither　the
main　fact　of　evolution；　nor　yet　the　geometrical　ratio　of　increase；
and　the　struggle　for　existence　consequent　thereon。　　Messrs。　Darwin
and　Wallace　have　each　thrown　invaluable　light　upon　these　last　two
points；　but　Buffon；　as　early　as　1756；　had　made　them　the　keystone　of
his　system。　　〃The　movement　of　nature；〃　he　then　wrote；　〃turns　on　two
immovable　pivots：　　one；　the　illimitable　fecundity　which　she　has
given　to　all　species：　　the　other；　the　innumerable　difficulties　which
reduce　the　results　of　that　fecundity。〃　　Erasmus　Darwin　and　Lamarck
followed　in　the　same　sense。　　They　thus　admit　the　survival　of　the
fittest　as　fully　as　Mr。　Darwin　himself；　though　they　do　not　make　use
of　this　particular　expression。　　The　dispute　turns　not　upon　natural
selection；　which　is　common　to　all　writers　on　evolution；　but　upon　the
nature　and　causes　of　the　variations　that　are　supposed　to　be　selected
from　and　thus　accumulated。　　Are　these　mainly　attributable　to　the
inherited　effects　of　use　and　disuse；　supplemented　by　occasional
sports　and　happy　accidents？　　Or　are　they　mainly　due　to　sports　and
happy　accidents；　supplemented　by　occasional　inherited　effects　of　use
and　disuse？

The　Lamarckian　system　has　all　along　been　maintained　by　Mr。　Herbert
Spencer；　who；　in　his　〃Principles　of　Biology；〃　published　in　1865；
showed　how　impossible　it　was　that　accidental　varia