|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 34
To this focus of close friendships Charles Darwin would assuredly have
been invited to belong had he been other than an invalid living
away from London; for he was the warm and revered friend not only of
Huxley, but still more of Hooker, who in age stood midway between the
two--eight years younger than the one and eight years older than the
other--and who, for some fifteen years before the publication of the
_Origin of Species_, had been Darwin's most intimate friend and aid in
his work.
Huxley had made Darwin's acquaintance early in the fifties, and soon
fell under the spell of his deep thought, his utter sincerity and
generous warmth of heart. Darwin, for his part, was strongly attracted
by his new friend's penetrating knowledge, incisive criticism, and
brilliant conversation. When, in 1858, he began to write out the
_Origin_, Huxley was one of the three men he fixed upon by whose
judgment of the book he meant to abide. Lyell, who had read the book
before it came out, was the first; Hooker, his long-time aid and
critic and finally convert, the second. On the eve of publication,
secure of these, he adds: "If I can convert Huxley I shall be
content."
On all three the effect of the completed book, with its array of
detailed argument and evidence, was far greater than that of
previous discussions. With one or two reservations as to the logical
completeness of the theory, Huxley accepted it as a well-founded
working hypothesis, calculated to explain problems otherwise
inexplicable. There were evolutionists before Darwin, from Lamarck and
the author of the _Vestiges of Creation_ to Herbert Spencer; but as
there was no evidence to bear out the orthodox creational view of the
Book of _Genesis_, enlarged upon in detail by Milton, so before Darwin
the evidence in favour of the transmutation of species was wholly
insufficient, and no suggestion which had been made to the causes
of the assumed transmutation was in any way adequate to explain
the phenomena. Under such conditions only an agnostic attitude was
possible. "So," writes Huxley--
I took refuge in that "_th�tige Skepsis_," which Goethe has so
well defined, and, reversing the apostolic precept to be all
things to all men, I usually defended the tenability of
the received doctrines when I had to do with the
transmutationists, and stood up for the possibility of
transmutation among the orthodox, thereby, no doubt,
increasing an already current, but quite undeserved,
reputation for needless combativeness.
Then came the publication of the Darwin-Wallace paper in 1858, and of
the _Origin_ in 1859, the effect of which he compares to--
the flash of light which, to a man who has lost himself on a
dark night, suddenly reveals a road which, whether it takes
him straight home or not, certainly goes his way. That which
we were looking for, and could not find, was an hypothesis
respecting the origin of known organic forms which assumed
the operation of no causes but such as could be proved to be
actually at work. We wanted, not to pin our faith to that or
any other speculation, but to get hold of clear and definite
conceptions which could be brought face to face with facts and
have their validity tested. The _Origin_ provided us with the
working hypothesis we sought. Moreover, it did the immense
service of freeing us for ever from the dilemma--refuse to
accept the creation hypothesis and what have you to propose
that can be accepted by any cautious reasoner? In 1857 I had
no answer ready, and I do not think that any one else had.
A year later we reproached ourselves with dullness for being
perplexed with such an inquiry. My reflection, when I first
made myself master of the central idea of the _Origin_, was:
"How extremely stupid not to have thought of that." I suppose
that Columbus's companions said much the same when he made the
egg stand on end. The facts of variability, of the struggle
for existence, of adaptation to conditions, were notorious
enough; but none of us had suspected that the road to the
heart of the species problem lay through them until Darwin
and Wallace dispelled the darkness, and the beacon-fire of the
_Origin_ guided the benighted.
Whether the particular shape which the doctrine of Evolution,
as applied to the organic world, took in Darwin's hands would
prove to be final or not, was to me a matter of indifference.
In my earliest criticisms of the _Origin_ I ventured to
point out that its logical foundation was insecure so long as
experiments in selective breeding had not produced varieties
which were more or less infertile; and that insecurity remains
up to the present time. But, with any and every critical doubt
which my sceptical ingenuity could suggest, the Darwinian
hypothesis remained incomparably more probable than the
creation hypothesis. And if we had none of us been able to
discern the paramount significance of some of the most patent
and notorious of natural facts, until they were, so to
speak, thrust under our noses, what force remained in the
dilemma--creation or nothing? It was obvious that hereafter
the probability would be immensely greater, that the links
of natural causation were hidden from our purblind eyes, than
that natural causation should be incompetent to produce all
the phenomena of nature. The only rational course for those
who had no other object than the attainment of truth was to
accept "Darwinism" as a working hypothesis and see what could
be made of it. Either it would prove its capacity to elucidate
the facts of organic life or it would break down under the
strain. This was surely the dictate of common sense, and for
once common sense carried the day.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|