In any case we are in duty bound to accept this theory till a better one be found, which will undertake to explain the same amount of facts in an equally simple manner. Until now we have been in utter want of such a theory. The fundamental idea that all different animal and vegetable forms must be descended from a few or even from one single, most simple primary form, was indeed not new. This idea was long since distinctly formulated—first by the great Lamarck, at the beginning of our century. But Lamarck in reality only expressed the hypothesis of the Doctrine of Filiation, without establishing it by an explanation of the active causes. And it is just the demonstration of these causes which marks the extraordinary progress which Darwin’s theory has made beyond that of Lamarck. In the physiological properties of Inheritance and Adaptation of organic matter, Darwin discovered the true cause of the genealogical relationship of organisms. It was not possible for the genius of Lamarck in his day to command that colossal material of biological facts which has been collected by the patient zoological and botanical investigations of the last fifty years, and which has been used by Darwin as an overpowering apparatus of evidence.
Darwin’s theory is therefore not what his opponents frequently represent it as being—an unwarranted hypothesis taken up at random. It is not for zoologists or botanists to accept or reject this as an explanatory theory, as they please; they are rather compelled and obliged to accept it, according to the general principle observed in all natural sciences, that we must accept and retain for the explanation of phenomena any theory which, though it has only a feeble basis, is compatible with the actual facts—until it is replaced by a better one. If we do not adopt it, we renounce a scientific explanation of phenomena, and this is, in fact, the position which many biologists still maintain. They look upon the whole domain of animate nature as a perfect mystery, and upon the origin of animals and plants, the phenomena of their development and affinities, as quite inexplicable and miraculous; in fact, they will not allow that there can be a true understanding of them.
Those opponents of Darwin who do not exactly wish to renounce a scientific explanation are in the habit of saying, “Darwin’s theory of the common origin of the different species is only one hypothesis; we oppose to it another, the hypothesis that the individual animal and vegetable species have not developed one from another by descent, but that they have come into existence independently of one another, by a still undiscovered law of nature.” But as long as it is not shown how this coming into existence is to be conceived of, and what that “law of nature” is—as long as not even probable grounds of explanation can be brought forward to account for the independent coming into existence of animal and vegetable species, so long this counter-hypothesis is in fact no hypothesis, but an empty unmeaning phrase. Darwin’s theory ought, moreover, not to be called an hypothesis. For a scientific hypothesis is a supposition, postulating the existence of unknown properties or motional phenomena of natural bodies, which properties have not as yet been observed by the experience of the senses. But Darwin’s theory does not assume such unknown conditions; it is based upon general properties of organisms that have long been recognized, and—as has been remarked—it is the exceedingly ingenious and comprehensive combination of a number of phenomena which had hitherto stood isolated, which gives the theory its extraordinarily great and intrinsic value. By it we are for the first time in a position to demonstrate an active cause for all the known morphological phenomena in the animal and vegetable kingdoms; and, in fact, this cause is always one and the same, viz., the alternate action of Adaptation and Inheritance, therefore a physiological, that is, a physico-chemical or mechanical, relationship. For these reasons the acceptance of the Doctrine of Filiation, as mechanically established by Darwin, is a binding and unavoidable necessity for the whole domain of zoology and botany.
As, therefore, in my opinion the immense importance of Darwin’s theory lies in the fact that it has mechanically explained those organic phenomena of forms which had hitherto been unexplained, it is perhaps necessary that I should here say a few words about the different ideas connected with the word “explanation.” It is very frequently said, in opposition to Darwin’s theory, that it does indeed explain those phenomena by Inheritance and Adaptation, but that it does not at the same time explain those properties of organic matter, and that therefore we do not arrive at first causes. This objection is quite correct, but it applies equally to all explanations of phenomena. We nowhere arrive at a knowledge of first causes. The origin of every simple salt crystal, which we obtain by evaporating its mother liquor, is no less mysterious to us, as far as concerns its first cause, and in itself no less incomprehensible than the origin of every animal which is developed out of a simple cell. In explaining the most simple physical or chemical phenomena, as the falling of a stone, or the formation of a chemical combination, we arrive, by discovering and establishing the active causes—for example, the gravitation or the chemical affinity—at other remoter phenomena, which in themselves are mysterious. This arises from the limitation or relativity of our powers of understanding. We must not forget that human knowledge is absolutely limited, and possesses only a relative extension. It is, in its essence, limited by the very nature of our senses and of our brains.
All knowledge springs from sensuous perceptions. In opposition to this statement, the innate, à priori knowledge of man may be brought up; but we can see that the so-called à priori knowledge can by Darwin’s theory be proved to have been acquired à posteriori, being based on experience as its first cause. Knowledge which is based originally upon purely empirical observations, and which is therefore a purely sensuous experience, but has then been transmitted from generation to generation by inheritance, appears in later generations as if it were independent, innate, and à priori. In our late animal ancestors, all our so-called “à priori knowledge” was originally acquired à posteriori, and only gradually became à priori by inheritance. It is based in the first instance upon experiences, and by the laws of Inheritance and Adaptation we can positively prove that knowledge à priori and knowledge à posteriori cannot rightly be placed in opposition, as is usually done. On the contrary, sensuous experience is the original source of all knowledge. For this reason alone, all our knowledge is limited, and we can never apprehend the first causes of any phenomena. The force of crystallization, the force of gravitation, and chemical affinity remain in themselves just as incomprehensible as do Adaptation and Inheritance.
Seeing that Darwin’s theory explains from a single point of view the totality of all those phenomena of which we have given a brief survey, that it demonstrates one and the same quality of the organism as the active cause in all cases, we must allow that it gives us for the present all that we can desire. Moreover, we have good reason to hope that at some future time we shall learn to explain the first causes at which Darwin has arrived, namely, the properties of Adaptation and Inheritance; and that we shall succeed in discovering in the composition of albuminous matter certain molecular relations as the remoter, simpler causes of these phenomena. There is indeed no prospect of this in the immediate future, and we content ourselves for the present with the tracing back of organic phenomena to two mysterious properties, just as in the case of Newton’s theory we are satisfied with tracing the planetary motions to the force of gravitation, which itself is likewise a mystery to us and not cognizable in itself.
Before commencing our principal task, which is the careful discussion of the Doctrine of Descent, and the consequences that arise out of it, let us take an historical retrospect of the most important and most widely spread of those views, which before Darwin men had elaborated concerning organic creation, and the coming into existence of the many animal and vegetable species. In doing this I have no intention of entertaining the reader with a statement of all the innumerable stories about the creation which have been current among the different human species, races, or tribes. However interesting and gratifying this task would be, from an ethnographical point of view, as well as in a history of civilization, it would lead us here much too far from our subject. Besides, the great majority of all these legends about creation bear too clearly the stamp of arbitrary fiction, and of a want of a close observance of nature, to be of interest in a scientific treatment of the history of creation. I shall therefore only select the Mosaic history from among those that are not founded on scientific investigation, on account of the unparalleled influence which it has gained in the western civilized world; and then I shall immediately take up the scientific hypothesis about creation, which originated with Linnæus as late as the commencement of last century.
All the different conceptions which man has ever formed about the coming into existence of the different animal and vegetable species may conveniently be divided into two great contrasted groups—the natural and supernatural histories of creation.
These two groups, on the whole, correspond with the two different principal forms of the human notions of the universe which we have already contrasted as the monistic and the dualistic conception of nature. In the usual dualistic or teleological (vital) conception of the universe, organic nature is regarded as the purposely executed production of a Creator working according to a definite plan. Its adherents see in every individual species of animal and plant an “embodied creative thought,” the material expression of a definite first cause (causa finalis) acting for a set purpose. They must necessarily assume supernatural (not mechanical) processes for the origin of organisms. With justice, we may therefore designate their scheme of the world’s growth as the Supernatural History of Creation. Among all such teleological histories of creation, that of Moses has gained the greatest influence, since even so distinguished a naturalist as Linnæus has claimed admittance for it in Natural Science. Cuvier’s and Agassiz’s views of creation also belong to this group, as do in fact those of the great majority of both scientific and unscientific men.
On the other hand, the theory of development carried out by Darwin, which we shall have to treat of here as the Non-miraculous or Natural History of Creation, and which has already been put forward by Goethe and Lamarck, must, if carried out logically, lead to the monistic or mechanical (causal) conception of the universe. In opposition to the dualistic or teleological conception of nature, our theory considers organic, as well as inorganic, bodies to be the necessary products of natural forces. It does not see in every individual species of animal and plant the embodied thought of a personal Creator, but the expression for the time being of a mechanical process of development of matter, the expression of a necessarily active cause, that is, of a mechanical cause (causa efficiens). Where teleological Dualism seeks the arbitrary thoughts of a capricious Creator in the miracles of creation, causal Monism finds in the process of development the necessary effects of eternal immutable laws of nature.