the early evolutionists in my work； 〃Evolution； Old and New；〃 first
published ten years ago； and not； so far as I am aware； detected in
serious error or omission。 If； however； Mr。 Wallace still thinks it
safe to presume so far on the ignorance of his readers as to say
that the only two important works on evolution before Mr。 Darwin's
were Lamarck's Philosophie Zoologique and the 〃Vestiges of
Creation；〃 how fathomable is the ignorance of the average reviewer
likely to have been thirty years ago； when the 〃Origin of Species〃
was first published？ Mr。 Darwin claimed evolution as his own
theory。 Of course； he would not claim it if he had no right to it。
Then by all means give him the credit of it。 This was the most
natural view to take； and it was generally taken。 It was not；
moreover； surprising that people failed to appreciate all the
niceties of Mr。 Darwin's 〃distinctive feature〃 which； whether
distinctive or no； was assuredly not distinct； and was never frankly
contrasted with the older view； as it would have been by one who
wished it to be understood and judge upon its merits。 It was in
consequence of this omission that people failed to note how fast and
loose Mr。 Darwin played with his distinctive feature； and how
readily he dropped it on occasion。
It may be said that the question of what was thought by the
predecessors of Mr。 Darwin is； after all； personal； and of no
interest to the general public； comparable to that of the main
issuewhether we are to accept evolution or not。 Granted that
Buffon； Erasmus Darwin； and Lamarck bore the burden and heat of the
day before Mr。 Charles Darwin was born； they did not bring people
round to their opinion； whereas Mr。 Darwin and Mr。 Wallace did； and
the public cannot be expected to look beyond this broad and
indisputable fact。
The answer to this is； that the theory which Messrs。 Darwin and
Wallace have persuaded the public to accept is demonstrably false；
and that the opponents of evolution are certain in the end to
triumph over it。 Paley； in his 〃Natural Theology；〃 long since
brought forward far too much evidence of design in animal
organisation to allow of our setting down its marvels to the
accumulations of fortunate accident； undirected by will； effort and
intelligence。 Those who examine the main facts of animal and
vegetable organisation without bias will； no doubt； ere long
conclude that all animals and vegetables are derived ultimately from
unicellular organisms； but they will not less readily perceive that
the evolution of species without the concomitance and direction of
mind and effort is as inconceivable as is the independent creation
of every individual species。 The two facts； evolution and design；
are equally patent to plain people。 There is no escaping from
either。 According to Messrs。 Darwin and Wallace； we may have
evolution； but are on no account to have it as mainly due to
intelligent effort； guided by ever higher and higher range of
sensations； perceptions； and ideas。 We are to set it down to the
shuffling of cards； or the throwing of dice without the play； and
this will never stand。
According to the older men； cards did indeed count for much； but
play counted for more。 They denied the teleology of the timethat
is to say； the teleology that saw all adaptation to surroundings as
part of a plan devised long ages since by a quasi…anthropomorphic
being who schemed everything out much as a man would do； but on an
infinitely vaster scale。 This conception they found repugnant alike
to intelligence and conscience； but； though they do not seem to have
perceived it； they left the door open for a design more true and
more demonstrable than that which they excluded。 By making their
variations mainly due to effort and intelligence； they made organic
development run on all…fours with human progress； and with
inventions which we have watched growing up from small beginnings。
They made the development of man from the amoeba part and parcel of
the story that may be read； though on an infinitely smaller scale；
in the development of our most powerful marine engines from the
common kettle； or of our finest microscopes from the dew…drop。
The development of the steam…engine and the microscope is due to
intelligence and design； which did indeed utilise chance
suggestions； but which improved on these； and directed each step of
their accumulation； though never foreseeing more than a step or two
ahead； and often not so much as this。 The fact； as I have elsewhere
urged； that the man who made the first kettle did not foresee the
engines of the Great Eastern； or that he who first noted the
magnifying power of the dew…drop had no conception of our present
microscopesthe very limited amount； in fact； of design and
intelligence that was called into play at any one pointthis does
not make us deny that the steam…engine and microscope owe their
development to design。 If each step of the road was designed； the
whole journey was designed； though the particular end was not
designed when the journey was begun。 And so is it； according to the
older view of evolution； with the development of those living
organs； or machines； that are born with us； as part of the
perambulating carpenter's chest we call our bodies。 The older view
gives us our design； and gives us our evolution too。 If it refuses
to see a quasi…anthropomorphic God modelling each species from
without as a potter models clay； it gives us God as vivifying and
indwelling in all His creaturesHe in them； and they in Him。 If it
refuses to see God outside the universe； it equally refuses to see
any part of the universe as outside God。 If it makes the universe
the body of God； it also makes God the soul of the universe。 The
question at issue； then； between the Darwinism of Erasmus Darwin and
the neo…Darwinism of his grandson； is not a personal one； nor
anything like a personal one。 It not only involves the existence of
evolution； but it affects the view we take of life and things in an
endless variety of most interesting and important ways。 It is
imperative； therefore； on those who take any interest in these
matters； to place side by side in the clearest contrast the views of
those who refer the evolution of species mainly to accumulation of
variations that have no other inception than chance； and of that
older school which makes design perceive and develop still further
the goods that chance provides。
But over and above this； which would be in itself sufficient； the
historical mode of studying any question is the only one which will
enable us to comprehend it effectually。 The personal element cannot
be eliminated from the consideration of works written by living
persons for living persons。 We want to know who is whowhom we can
depend upon to have no other end than the making things clear to
himself and his readers； and whom we should mistrust as having an
ulterior aim on which he is more intent than on the furthering of
our better understanding。 We want to know who is doing his best to
help us； and who is only trying to make us help him； or to bolster
up the system in which his interests are vested。 There is nothing
that will throw more light upon these points than the way in which a
man behaves towards those who have worked in the same field with
himself； and； again； than his style。 A man's style； as Buffon long
since said； is the man himself。 By style； I do not； of course； mean
grammar or rhetoric； but that style of which Buffon again said that
it is like happiness； and vient de la douceur de l'ame。 When we
find a man concealing worse than nullity of meaning under sentences
that sound plausibly enough； we should distrust him much as we
should a fellow…traveller whom we caught trying to steal our watch。
We often cannot judge of the truth or falsehood of facts for
ourselves； but we most of us know enough of human nature to be able
to tell a good witness from a bad one。
However this may be； and whatever we may think of judging systems by
the directness or indirectness of those who advance them；
biologists； having committed themselves too rashly； would have been
more than human if they had not shown some pique towards those who
dared to say； first； that the theory of Messrs。 Darwin and Wallace
was unworkable； and secondly； that even though it were workable it
would not justify either of them in claiming evolution。 When
biologists show pique at all they generally show a good deal of
pique； but pique or no pique； they shunned Mr。 Spencer's objection
above referred to with a persistency more unanimous and obstinate
than I ever remember to have seen displayed even by professional
truth…seekers。 I find no rejoinder to it from Mr。 Darwin himself；
between 1865 when it was first put forward； and 1882 when Mr。 Darwin
died。 It has been similarly 〃ostrichised〃 by all the leading
apologists of Darwinism； so far at least as I have been able to
observe； and I have followed the matter closely for many years。 Mr。
Spencer has repeated and amplified it in his recent work； 〃The
Factors of Organic Evolution；〃 but it still remains without so much
as an attempt at serious answer； for the perfunctory an