Criticisms on The Origin of Species文档格式.docx

Criticisms on The Origin of Species文档格式.docx

《Criticisms on The Origin of Species文档格式.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Criticisms on The Origin of Species文档格式.docx（21页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

publishedamostinstructiveandphilosophicalpamphlet（anexcellent

noticeofwhichistobefoundinthe'

Reader'

forFebruary27thof

thisyear）supportingsimilarviewswithalltheweightofhisspecial

knowledgeandestablishedauthorityasalinguist.ProfessorHaeckel,

towhomSchleicheraddresseshimself,previouslytookoccasion,inhis

splendidmonographonthe'

Radiolaria'

*,toexpresshishigh

appreciationof,andgeneralconcordancewith,Mr.Darwin'

sviews.

[footnote]*'

DieRadiolarien:

eineMonographie'

p.231.

Butthemostelaboratecriticismsofthe'

OriginofSpecies'

whichhave

appearedaretwoworksofverywidelydifferentmerit,theoneby

ProfessorKolliker,thewell-knownanatomistandhistologistof

Wurzburg;

theotherbyM.Flourens,PerpetualSecretaryoftheFrench

AcademyofSciences.

ProfessorKolliker'

scriticalessay'

UpontheDarwinianTheory'

is,like

allthatproceedsfromthepenofthatthoughtfulandaccomplished

writer,worthyofthemostcarefulconsideration.Itcomprisesabrief

butclearsketchofDarwin'

sviews,followedbyanenumerationofthe

leadingdifficultiesinthewayoftheiracceptance;

difficultieswhich

wouldappeartobeinsurmountabletoProfessorKolliker,inasmuchashe

proposestoreplaceMr.Darwin'

sTheorybyonewhichhetermsthe

'

TheoryofHeterogeneousGeneration.'

Weshallproceedtoconsider

firstthedestructive,andsecondly,theconstructiveportionofthe

essay.

Weregrettofindourselvescompelledtodissentverywidelyfrommany

ofProfessorKolliker'

sremarks;

andfromnonemorethoroughlythan

fromthoseinwhichheseekstodefinewhatwemaytermthe

philosophicalpositionofDarwinism.

"

Darwin,"

saysProfessorKolliker,"

is,inthefullestsenseofthe

word,aTeleologist.Hesaysquitedistinctly（FirstEdition,pp.199,

200）thateveryparticularinthestructureofananimalhasbeen

createdforitsbenefit,andheregardsthewholeseriesofanimal

formsonlyfromthispointofview."

Andagain:

7.TheteleologicalgeneralconceptionadoptedbyDarwinisamistaken

one.

Varietiesariseirrespectivelyofthenotionofpurpose,orof

utility,accordingtogenerallawsofNature,andmaybeeitheruseful,

orhurtful,orindifferent.

Theassumptionthatanorganismexistsonlyonaccountofsomedefinite

endinview,andrepresentssomethingmorethantheincorporationofa

generalidea,orlaw,impliesaone-sidedconceptionoftheuniverse.

Assuredly,everyorganhas,andeveryorganismfulfils,itsend,but

itspurposeisnottheconditionofitsexistence.Everyorganismis

alsosufficientlyperfectforthepurposeitserves,andinthat,at

least,itisuselesstoseekforacauseofitsimprovement."

Itissingularhowdifferentlyoneandthesamebookwillimpress

differentminds.Thatwhichstruckthepresentwritermostforciblyon

hisfirstperusalofthe'

wastheconvictionthat

Teleology,ascommonlyunderstood,hadreceiveditsdeathblowatMr.

shands.Fortheteleologicalargumentrunsthus:

anorganor

organism（A）ispreciselyfittedtoperformafunctionorpurpose（B）;

thereforeitwasspeciallyconstructedtoperformthatfunction.In

Paley'

sfamousillustration,theadaptationofallthepartsofthe

watchtothefunction,orpurpose,ofshowingthetime,isheldtobe

evidencethatthewatchwasspeciallycontrivedtothatend;

onthe

ground,thattheonlycauseweknowof,competenttoproducesuchan

effectasawatchwhichshallkeeptime,isacontrivingintelligence

adaptingthemeansdirectlytothatend.

Suppose,however,thatanyonehadbeenabletoshowthatthewatchhad

notbeenmadedirectlybyanyperson,butthatitwastheresultof

themodificationofanotherwatchwhichkepttimebutpoorly;

andthat

thisagainhadproceededfromastructurewhichcouldhardlybecalled

awatchatall--seeingthatithadnofiguresonthedialandthehands

wererudimentary;

andthatgoingbackandbackintimewecameatlast

toarevolvingbarrelastheearliesttraceablerudimentofthewhole

fabric.Andimaginethatithadbeenpossibletoshowthatallthese

changeshadresulted,first,fromatendencyofthestructuretovary

indefinitely;

andsecondly,fromsomethinginthesurroundingworld

whichhelpedallvariationsinthedirectionofanaccurate

time-keeper,andcheckedallthoseinotherdirections;

thenitis

obviousthattheforceofPaley'

sargumentwouldbegone.Foritwould

bedemonstratedthatanapparatusthoroughlywelladaptedtoa

particularpurposemightbetheresultofamethodoftrialanderror

workedbyunintelligentagents,aswellasofthedirectapplicationof

themeansappropriatetothatend,byanintelligentagent.

Nowitappearstousthatwhatwehavehere,forillustration'

ssake,

supposedtobedonewiththewatch,isexactlywhattheestablishment

ofDarwin'

sTheorywilldofortheorganicworld.Forthenotionthat

everyorganismhasbeencreatedasitisandlaunchedstraightata

purpose,Mr.Darwinsubstitutestheconceptionofsomethingwhichmay

fairlybetermedamethodoftrialanderror.Organismsvary

incessantly;

ofthesevariationsthefewmeetwithsurrounding

conditionswhichsuitthemandthrive;

themanyareunsuitedandbecome

extinguished.

AccordingtoTeleology,eachorganismislikeariflebulletfired

straightatamark;

accordingtoDarwin,organismsarelikegrapeshot

ofwhichonehitssomethingandtherestfallwide.

Fortheteleologistanorganismexistsbecauseitwasmadeforthe

conditionsinwhichitisfound;

fortheDarwiniananorganismexists

because,outofmanyofitskind,itistheonlyonewhichhasbeen

abletopersistintheconditionsinwhichitisfound.

Teleologyimpliesthattheorgansofeveryorganismareperfectand

cannotbeimproved;

theDarwiniantheorysimplyaffirmsthattheywork

wellenoughtoenabletheorganismtoholditsownagainstsuch

competitorsasithasmetwith,butadmitsthepossibilityof

indefiniteimprovement.Butanexamplemaybringintoclearerlight

theprofoundoppositionbetweentheordinaryteleological,andthe

Darwinian,conception.

Catscatchmice,smallbirdsandthelike,verywell.Teleologytells

usthattheydosobecausetheywereexpresslyconstructedforso

doing--thattheyareperfectmousingapparatuses,soperfectandso

delicatelyadjustedthatnooneoftheirorganscouldbealtered,

withoutthechangeinvolvingthealterationofalltherest.Darwinism

affirmsonthecontrary,thattherewasnoexpressconstruction

concernedinthematter;

butthatamongthemultitudinousvariationsof

theFelinestock,manyofwhichdiedoutfromwantofpowertoresist

opposinginfluences,some,thecats,werebetterfittedtocatchmice

thanothers,whencetheythroveandpersisted,inproportiontothe

advantageovertheirfellowsthusofferedtothem.

Farfromimaginingthatcatsexist'

inorder'

tocatchmicewell,

Darwinismsupposesthatcatsexist'

because'

theycatchmice

well--mousingbeingnottheend,butthecondition,oftheir

existence.Andifthecattypehaslongpersistedasweknowit,the

interpretationofthefactuponDarwinianprincipleswouldbe,notthat

thecatshaveremainedinvariable,butthatsuchvarietiesashave

incessantlyoccurredhavebeen,onthewhole,lessfittedtogetonin

theworldthantheexistingstock.

Ifweapprehendthespiritofthe'

rightly,then,

nothingcanbemoreentirelyandabsolutelyopposedtoTeleology,asit

iscommonlyunderstood,thantheDarwinianTheory.Sofarfrombeinga

Teleologistinthefullestsenseoftheword,"

wewoulddenythathe

isaTeleologistintheordinarysenseatall;

andweshouldsaythat,

apartfromhismeritsasanaturalist,hehasrenderedamost

remarkableservicetophilosophicalthoughtbyenablingthestudentof

Naturetorecognise,totheirfullestextent,thoseadaptationsto

purposewhicharesostrikingintheorganicworld,andwhichTeleology

hasdonegoodserviceinkeepingbeforeourminds,withoutbeingfalse

tothefundamentalprinciplesofascientificconceptionofthe

universe.TheapparentlydivergingteachingsoftheTeleologistandof

theMorphologistarereconciledbytheDarwinianhypothesis.

Butleavingourownimpressionsofthe'

OriginofSpecies,'

andturning

tothosepassagesespeciallycitedbyProfessorKolliker,wecannot

admitthattheybeartheinterpretationheputsuponthem.Darwin,if

wereadhimrightly,does'

not'

affirmthateverydetailinthe

structureofananimalhasbeencreatedforitsbenefit.Hiswordsare

（p.199）:

--

Theforegoingremarksleadmetosayafewwordsontheprotestlately

madebysomenaturalistsagainsttheutilitariandoctrinethatevery

detailofstructurehasbeenproducedforthegoodofitspossessor.

Theybelievethatverymanystructureshavebeencreatedforbeautyin

theeyesofman,orformerevariety.Thisdoctrine,iftrue,wouldbe

absolutelyfataltomytheory--yetIfullyadmitthatmanystructures

areofnodirectusetothei