a critical examination of on the origin of species-第4节

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！


the　conditions　on　which　it　depends；　I　say　that　we　have　no　right　to
affirm　that　those　conditions　will　not　be　better　understood　by　and　by；
and　we　have　no　ground　for　supposing　that　we　may　not　be　able　to
experiment　so　as　to　obtain　that　crucial　result　which　I　mentioned　just
now。　　So　that　though　Mr。　　Darwin's　hypothesis　does　not　completely
extricate　us　from　this　difficulty　at　present；　we　have　not　the　least
right　to　say　it　will　not　do　so。

There　is　a　wide　gulf　between　the　thing　you　cannot　explain　and　the　thing
that　upsets　you　altogether。　　There　is　hardly　any　hypothesis　in　this
world　which　has　not　some　fact　in　connection　with　it　which　has　not　been
explained；　but　that　is　a　very　different　affair　to　a　fact　that　entirely
opposes　your　hypothesis；　in　this　case　all　you　can　say　is；　that　your
hypothesis　is　in　the　same　position　as　a　good　many　others。

Now；　as　to　the　third　test；　that　there　are　no　other　causes　competent　to
explain　the　phenomena；　I　explained　to　you　that　one　should　be　able　to
say　of　an　hypothesis；　that　no　other　known　causes　than　those　supposed　by
it　are　competent　to　give　rise　to　the　phenomena。　　Here；　I　think；　Mr。
Darwin's　view　is　pretty　strong。　　I　really　believe　that　the　alternative
is　either　Darwinism　or　nothing；　for　I　do　not　know　of　any　rational
conception　or　theory　of　the　organic　universe　which　has　any　scientific
position　at　all　beside　Mr。　Darwin's。　　I　do　not　know　of　any　proposition
that　has　been　put　before　us　with　the　intention　of　explaining　the
phenomena　of　organic　nature；　which　has　in　its　favour　a　thousandth　part
of　the　evidence　which　may　be　adduced　in　favour　of　Mr。　Darwin's　views。
Whatever　may　be　the　objections　to　his　views；　certainly　all　others　are
absolutely　out　of　court。

Take　the　Lamarckian　hypothesis；　for　example。　　Lamarck　was　a　great
naturalist；　and　to　a　certain　extent　went　the　right　way　to　work；　he
argued　from　what　was　undoubtedly　a　true　cause　of　some　of　the　phenomena
of　organic　nature。　　He　said　it　is　a　matter　of　experience　that　an　animal
may　be　modified　more　or　less　in　consequence　of　its　desires　and
consequent　actions。　Thus；　if　a　man　exercise　himself　as　a　blacksmith；
his　arms　will　become　strong　and　muscular；　such　organic　modification　is
a　result　of　this　particular　action　and　exercise。　　Lamarck　thought　that
by　a　very　simple　supposition　based　on　this　truth　he　could　explain　the
origin　of　the　various　animal　species：　he　said；　for　example；　that　the
short…legged　birds　which　live　on　fish　had　been　converted　into　the
long…legged　waders　by　desiring　to　get　the　fish　without　wetting　their
bodies；　and　so　stretching　their　legs　more　and　more　through　successive
generations。　　If　Lamarck　could　have　shown　experimentally；　that　even
races　of　animals　could　be　produced　in　this　way；　there　might　have　been
some　ground　for　his　speculations。　　But　he　could　show　nothing　of　the
kind；　and　his　hypothesis　has　pretty　well　dropped　into　oblivion；　as　it
deserved　to　do。　　I　said　in　an　earlier　lecture　that　there　are　hypotheses
and　hypotheses；　and　when　people　tell　you　that　Mr。　　Darwin's
strongly…based　hypothesis　is　nothing　but　a　mere　modification　of
Lamarck's；　you　will　know　what　to　think　of　their　capacity　for　forming　a
judgment　on　this　subject。

But　you　must　recollect　that　when　I　say　I　think　it　is　either　Mr。　Darwin's
hypothesis　or　nothing；　that　either　we　must　take　his　view；　or　look　upon
the　whole　of　organic　nature　as　an　enigma；　the　meaning　of　which　is
wholly　hidden　from　us；　you　must　understand　that　I　mean　that　I　accept　it
provisionally；　in　exactly　the　same　way　as　I　accept　any　other　hypothesis。
Men　of　science　do　not　pledge　themselves　to　creeds；　they　are　bound　by
articles　of　no　sort；　there　is　not　a　single　belief　that　it　is　not　a
bounden　duty　with　them　to　hold　with　a　light　hand　and　to　part　with　it
cheerfully；　the　moment　it　is　really　proved　to　be　contrary　to　any　fact；
great　or　small。　　And　if；　in　course　of　time　I　see　good　reasons　for　such
a　proceeding；　I　shall　have　no　hesitation　in　coming　before　you；　and
pointing　out　any　change　in　my　opinion　without　finding　the　slightest
occasion　to　blush　for　so　doing。　　So　I　say　that　we　accept　this　view　as
we　accept　any　other；　so　long　as　it　will　help　us；　and　we　feel　bound　to
retain　it　only　so　long　as　it　will　serve　our　great　purposethe
improvement　of　Man's　estate　and　the　widening　of　his　knowledge。　　The
moment　this；　or　any　other　conception；　ceases　to　be　useful　for　these
purposes；　away　with　it　to　the　four　winds；　we　care　not　what　becomes　of
it！

But　to　say　truth；　although　it　has　been　my　business　to　attend　closely　to
the　controversies　roused　by　the　publication　of　Mr。　Darwin's　book；　I
think　that　not　one　of　the　enormous　mass　of　objections　and　obstacles
which　have　been　raised　is　of　any　very　great　value；　except　that
sterility　case　which　I　brought　before　you　just　now。　　All　the　rest　are
misunderstandings　of　some　sort；　arising　either　from　prejudice；　or　want
of　knowledge；　or　still　more　from　want　of　patience　and　care　in　reading
the　work。

For　you　must　recollect　that　it　is　not　a　book　to　be　read　with　as　much
ease　as　its　pleasant　style　may　lead　you　to　imagine。　　You　spin　through
it　as　if　it　were　a　novel　the　first　time　you　read　it；　and　think　you　know
all　about　it；　the　second　time　you　read　it　you　think　you　know　rather
less　about　it；　and　the　third　time；　you　are　amazed　to　find　how　little
you　have　really　apprehended　its　vast　scope　and　objects。　　I　can
positively　say　that　I　never　take　it　up　without　finding　in　it　some　new
view；　or　light；　or　suggestion　that　I　have　not　noticed　before。　　That　is
the　best　characteristic　of　a　thorough　and　profound　book；　and　I　believe
this　feature　of　the　'Origin　of　Species'　explains　why　so　many　persons
have　ventured　to　pass　judgment　and　criticisms　upon　it　which　are　by　no
means　worth　the　paper　they　are　written　on。

Before　concluding　these　lectures　there　is　one　point　to　which　I　must
advert；though；　as　Mr。　　Darwin　has　said　nothing　about　man　in　his　book；
it　concerns　myself　rather　than　him；for　I　have　strongly　maintained　on
sundry　occasions　that　if　Mr。　Darwin's　views　are　sound；　they　apply　as
much　to　man　as　to　the　lower　mammals；　seeing　that　it　is　perfectly
demonstrable　that　the　structural　differences　which　separate　man　from
the　apes　are　not　greater　than　those　which　separate　some　apes　from
others。　　There　cannot　be　the　slightest　doubt　in　the　world　that　the
argument　which　applies　to　the　improvement　of　the　horse　from　an　earlier
stock；　or　of　ape　from　ape；　applies　to　the　improvement　of　man　from　some
simpler　and　lower　stock　than　man。　　There　is　not　a　single
facultyfunctional　or　structural；　moral；　intellectual；　or
instinctive；there　is　no　faculty　whatever　that　is　not　capable　of
improvement；　there　is　no　faculty　whatsoever　which　does　not　depend　upon
structure；　and　as　structure　tends　to　vary；　it　is　capable　of　being
improved。

Well；　I　have　taken　a　good　deal　of　pains　at　various　times　to　prove　this；
and　I　have　endeavoured　to　meet　the　objections　of　those　who　maintain；
that　the　structural　differences　between　man　and　the　lower　animals　are
of　so　vast　a　character　and　enormous　extent；　that　even　if　Mr。　Darwin's
views　are　correct；　you　cannot　imagine　this　particular　modification　to
take　place。　　It　is；　in　fact；　easy　matter　to　prove　that；　so　far　as
structure　is　concerned；　man　differs　to　no　greater　extent　from　the
animals　which　are　immediately　below　him　than　these　do　from　other　members
of　the　same　order。　　Upon　the　other　hand；　there　is　no　one　who　estimates
more　highly　than　I　do　the　dignity　of　human　nature；　and　the　width　of　the
gulf　in　intellectual　and　moral　matters；　which　lies　between　man　and　the
whole　of　the　lower　creation。

But　I　find　this　very　argument　brought　forward　vehemently　by　some。　　〃You
say　that　man　has　proceeded　from　a　modification　of　some　lower　animal；
and　you　take　pains　to　prove　that　the　structural　differences　which　are
said　to　exist　in　his　brain　do　not　exist　at　all；　and　you　teach　that　all
functions；　intellectual；　moral；　and　others；　are　the　expression　or　the
result；　in　the　long　run；　of　structures；　and　of　the　molecular　forces
which　they　exert。〃　　It　is　quite　true　that　I　do　so。

〃Well；　but；〃　I　am　told　at　once；　somewhat　triumphantly；　〃you　say　in　the
same　breath　that　there　is　a　great　moral　and　intellectual　chasm　between
man　and　the　lower　animals。　　How　is　this　possible　when　you　declare　that
moral　and　intellectual　characteristics　depend　on　structure；　and　yet
tell　us　that　there　is　no　such　gulf　between　the　structure　of　man　and　that
of　the　lower　animals？〃

I　think　that　objection　is　based　upon　a　misconception　of　the　real
relations　which　exist　between　structure　and　function；　between　mechanism
and　work。　　Function　is　the　expression　of　molecular　forces　and
arrangements　no　doubt；　but；　does　it　follow　from　this；　that　variation　in
function　so　depends　upon　variation　in　structure　that　the　former　is
always　exactly　proportioned　to　the　latter？　　If　there　is　no　such
relation；　if　the　variation　in　function　which　follows　on　a　variation　in
structure；　may　be　enormously　greater　than　the　variation　of　the
structure；　then；　you　see；　the　objection　falls　to　the　ground。

Take　a　couple　of　watchesmade　by　the　same　maker；　and　as　completely
alike　as　possible；　set　them　upon　the　table；　and　the　function　of
eachwhich　is　its　rate　of　goingwill　be　performed　in　the　sam