results of the world to the humblest and most simple beginnings, we do not destroy the value and interest of anything when we know how it came about. The more we learn of the methods of the world's development, the more is our feeling of wonder enhanced, and the larger does our conception grow of the Divine method; for at every stage of the process we find powers at work which were not at work in the lower stage. From the mechanical we arrive at the chemical, from the chemical to the organic, and from the organic we reach the conscious stage of existence. We confessedly cannot explain the chemical by the physical, nor the organic by the chemical and the mechanical, nor the conscious by what is unconscious. If, then, we have arrived at the goal of conscious, moral, social, religious life, we have come to a stage in which a philosophy, a science, a moral system, a creed ought to be possible.

CHAPTER VIII

SUPER-ORGANIC EVOLUTION

Controversy regarding heredity-Spencer and Weismann— Machinery of Evolution defective-Limits of Organic Evolution-Man does not modify himself, but modifies his Environment-Survival of the Fittest explained by Huxley and by Spencer-Evolution does not account for advance-Illustration of man's power of modifying his environment-Results.

IT

T is with some timidity that one ventures at the present time to write the word “ heredity." It is one of the three great names which occur in connection with evolution. "Variability," "natural selection," transmission or "heredity," are words which occur in every statement of the theory of evolution, and both the meaning and causes of each are keenly contested. At present the contest is keenly waged as to the nature and the meaning and the factors of heredity. The problem is, no doubt, a most complex one, and there are great biological authorities who widely differ as to what is transmitted and the means of transmission. Are acquired qualities—that is, qualities acquired in the lifetime of an individual -transmitted to his offspring? Weismann and Lankester deny the transmissibility of acquired qualities, and contend that only inborn, germinal,

or constitutional variations are transmissible; while Mr. Herbert Spencer emphatically says that "either there has been inheritance of acquired characters, or there has been no evolution" (Contemporary Review, March 1893, p. 446). And again he says: "A right answer to the question whether acquired characters are or are not inherited underlies right beliefs, not only in biology and psychology, but also in education, ethics, and politics" (May 1893, p. 730). The question, like many other questions, was raised by Darwin, whose theory of pangenesis had the supreme merit, not of solving the problem, but of showing how great, complex, and intricate was the problem that needed to be solved.

Not many have believed in pangenesis, but pangenesis has set men to inquire into the nature and character of inheritance. What is the relation between successive generations? What is the character of the organic continuity which all alike recognise as a fact? Have the experience, character, and aquirements of individuals any chance of being transmitted to their offspring? It seems best to me to wait for an answer. If a man of the scientific attainments of Dr. Romanes

can say, "Professor Weismann is not quite correct in saying that I adhere to the doctrine of the transmission of acquired characters. My position with regard to this question is one of suspended judgment," one less expert may well be excused for remaining in suspense. We may watch the evolution of the controversy with interest. We may read the writings of Professor Weismann as these are printed from year to year; and whether his main contention is made out or

not, we always gain some knowledge from him. We may listen with sympathy to the complaints of Mr. J. T. Cunningham when he states that he has been boycotted by Nature. Nature," he "has em

66

says,

braced the principles of Weismann's Neo-Darwinism; and while willing to devote plenty of space to favourable reviews of Weismann's essays written by undergraduates, suppresses without a word of explanation or apology contributions which argue against the fashionable creed" (Translator's preface to Eimer's Organic Evolution, p. xxii.). And we ask ourselves, Has the odium theologicum been suddenly transferred to science? Or we may read the mild and reasonable and able summary of the whole question in Mr. Arthur Thomson's book The Study of Animal Life, which is so clear and lucid that a non-specialist may readily understand the issue. We may read the controversy between Herbert Spencer and Professor Weismann, their statements and replies and rejoinders in the Contemporary Review of 1893, and mark the keenness of the conflict and the fierceness of the attack and defence, and be thankful that we can stand aside and take no part in it. We may wait until the controversy is settled, and apparently the issue may be decided in the next century. Happily for our purpose it is not necessary to wait for the cessation of the controversy. It is enough for us that there is a relation of organic unity between the generations, and it is not necessary for us to decide for our purpose as to the precise machinery by which the organic continuity is maintained. Mr. Spencer is bound to fight hard for the transmission of

acquired characters; for it is on that supposition that he has formulated his system of psychology and ethics, and has propounded his scheme of reconciliation between a priori and a posteriori forms of knowledge. We need not here controvert his theory of inheritance; for on our view, even if granted, it does not prove his case. No doubt Weismann also, if he ever reaches the study of psychology and ethics, would have his explanation from his own point of view.

Meanwhile, while the machinery of evolution is so far defective, and men are not agreed as to what heredity is, we may at least assume as true that the results won by organic modification have somehow been preserved. Things have really made progress. Species have been produced, and once produced they beget others in their own likeness. Life may have gone on irrespective of the experience of the individual, as Weismann says; or the experience and acquirements of the individual have played a respectable part in evolutionary progress, as Mr. Spencer says; still, life has gone on, and has got itself sorted into certain kinds.

Organic modification is, however, an expensive process, and cannot go on for ever; for life to continue to inscribe its experience in cells, be these cells and their functions as varied and diversified as we please, is a process which has a limit. We know not, and scarcely any one can guess, what power and potency may be in a living cell. It may carry within it the potency of a Shakespeare or of a Newton. But our aim at present is to show that the process of organic change has become less and less as life has become