II.
Mechanism and Teleology.
In the third volume of his smaller works Karl Ernst von Baer submits the theory of selection to a most searching examination. Without actually calling in question its scientific admissibility, he believes that this theory is dependent upon its satisfying one condition, viz. that it should connect the teleological with the mechanical principle.
“The Darwinian hypothesis, as stated by its supporters, always ends in denying to the processes of nature any relation to a future, i.e. any relation of aim or design. Since such relations appear to me quite evident,” &c. And further:—“If the scientific correctness of the Darwinian hypothesis is to be admitted, it must accommodate itself to this universal striving after a purpose. If it cannot do this we should have to deny its value.”
These words appear almost equivalent to passing a sentence of doom upon the theory of selection and the mechanical conception of nature, for how can one and the same process be effected simultaneously by necessity and by designing powers? The one excludes the other, and we must—so it appears—take our stand either on one side or the other.
Nevertheless we cannot set aside Von Baer’s proposition without further examination simply because it is apparently incapable of being fulfilled, since it contains a truth which should not be overlooked, even by those who uphold the mechanical theory of nature. It is the same truth which is also made use of by the philosophical opponents of this theory, viz. that the universe as a whole cannot be conceived as having arisen from blind necessity—that the endless harmony revealed in every nook and corner by all the phenomena of organic and of inorganic nature cannot possibly be regarded as the work of chance, but rather as the result of a “vast designed process of development.” It is also quite correct when, in reply to the supposed objection that the mechanical theory of nature is not concerned with chances but with necessities, Von Baer answers that the operations of a series of necessities which “are not connected together” can only be termed accidents in their opposing relations. He illustrates this by instancing a target. If I hit the latter by a well-aimed shot, nobody would explain this as the result of an accident, but if “a horseman is riding along a gravelly road past this target, and one of the pebbles thrown up by the hoof of the galloping horse hits the mark, this would be termed an accident of extremely rare occurrence. My target was not the mark for the pebble, therefore the hit was purely accidental, although the projection of the stone in this precise direction with the velocity which it had acquired, was sufficiently explained by the kick given by the horse. But the hit was accidental because the kick of the galloping horse, although it necessarily projected the pebble, had no relation at all to my target. For the same reason we must regard the universe as an immense accident if the forces which move it are not designedly regulated—the more immense because it is not a single motion of projection that acts here, but a large number of heterogeneous powers, i.e. a large number of variously acting necessities which are, as a whole, devoid of purpose, but which nevertheless accomplish this purpose, not only at any single moment, but constantly. A truly admirable series of desirable accidents!”[305]
The same idea is expressed, although in a very different manner, by Von Hartmann, in the concluding chapter of his work already quoted. He thinks that “design is a necessary and certain consequence of the mechanical laws of nature.” “Were the mechanism of natural laws not teleological there would be no mechanically regulated laws, but a weak chaos of obstinate and capricious powers. Not until the causality of the laws of inorganic nature had superseded the expression “dead” nature, and had shown itself as the mainspring of life and of a conformability to design visible on all sides, did it deserve the name of mechanical lawfulness; just as a complication of wheels and machinery made by man, which move in some definite manner with respect to one another, only acquires the name of a mechanism or of a machine when the immanent teleology of the combination and of the various movements of the parts is revealed.”[306]
Against the correctness of the idea underlying these statements scarcely anything can in my opinion be said. The harmony of the universe and of that portion of it which we designate organic nature, cannot be explained by chance, i.e. without a common ground for co-operating necessities; by the side of mere mechanism it is impossible not to acknowledge a teleological principle—the only question is, in what manner can we conceive this as acting without abandoning the purely mechanical conception of nature?
This is obviously effected if, with Von Baer and Von Hartmann, we permit the metaphysical principle to interrupt the course of the mechanism of nature, and if we consider both the former and the latter to work together with equal power. Von Hartmann expressly makes such an admission under the name of an “internal principle of development,” to which he attributes such an important share that one cannot understand why it should have any need for the employment of causal powers, and why it does not simply do everything itself. Von Baer expresses himself much less decisively, and even in many places insists upon the purely mechanical connection of organic natural phenomena; but that with him also the idea of interruption by a metaphysical principle is present, is principally shown by his assuming, at least partly, the per saltum development of species. This necessarily involves an actively internal power of development.
Although I have already brought forward many arguments against the existence of such a power, and although in refuting it every form of development by directive powers is at the same time overthrown, it nevertheless appears to me not to be superfluous in such a deeply important question to show that a per saltum development, and especially the so-called heterogeneous generation, is inconceivable, not only on the ground of the arguments formerly employed against the phyletic vital force in general, but quite independently of these.
In the first place it must be said that the positive basis of this hypothesis is insecure. Cases of sudden transformation of the whole organism with subsequent inheritance are as yet quite unknown. It has been shown that the occasional transformation of the Axolotl must most probably be regarded in a different light. Another case, taken for heterogeneous generation, viz. the budding of twelve-rayed Medusæ in the gastric cavity of an eight-rayed species, has lately been shown by Franz Eilhard Schulze[307] to be a kind of parasitism or commensalism. The buds of the Cuninæ do not spring, as was supposed, from the Geryonia, but are developed from a Cunina egg. But even if we recall here the cases of alternation of generation and heterogenesis, this would not be of any value by way of proof; it would only be thus indicated how one might picture to oneself a sudden transformation. That in alternation of generation, or generally, in every mode of cyclical reproduction, we have not to deal with the abandonment of one type of organization and the transition to some other, is proved by the continual return to the type of departure—by the cyclical character of the entire transformation. That two quite heterogeneous types can belong to one cycle of development is, however, capable of a far better and more correct explanation than would be given by the supporters of per saltum development. If we trace cyclical reproduction to the adaptation of different developmental stages or generations to deviating conditions of life, we thus not only explain the exact and often striking agreement between form and mode of life—we not only bridge over the gap between metamorphosis and alternation of generation, but we can also understand how, within one and the same family of Hydrozoa, species can occur with or without alternation of generation, and further how other species can exist in which the alternation of generation (the production of free Medusæ) is limited to the one sex; we can understand in general how one continuous series of forms may lead from the simple sexual organ of the Polypes to the independent and free swimming sexual form of the Medusæ, and how hand in hand with this the simple reproduction becomes gradually cyclical. It is just these intermediate steps between the two kinds of reproduction that make quite untenable the idea that the heterogeneous forms in cyclical propagation arise through so-called “heterogeneous generation,” i.e. through sudden per saltum transformation. It is excusable if philosophers to whom these facts are strange, or who have to take the trouble of working them up, should adduce alternation of generation as an instance of “heterogeneous generation,” but by naturalists this should be once and for ever abandoned.