At the Deathbed of Darwinism | Page 6

the types which Haeckel
has incorporated into his genealogical tree, appears too abrupt, he often
betakes himself to ontogeny and describes the embryo in the
corresponding interval of development. This description he inserts in
his genealogical mosaic, by virtue of the "Law of Biogenesis."
Many theories have been constructed to explain the phenomena of
embryological development. Of these the simplest and least mystical is
that of His in the great classic work on embryology, "Unsere
Koerperform." His tells us: "In the entire series of forms which a
developing organism runs through, each form is the necessary
antecedent step of the following. If the embryo is to reach the
complicated end-form, it must pass, step by step, through the simpler
ones. Each step of the series is the physiological consequence of the
preceding stage, and the necessary condition for the following." But
whatever theory be accepted by men of science, it is certainly not that
proposed by Haeckel. Carl Vogt after giving Haeckel's statement of the
"Law of Biogenesis" wrote: "This law which I long held as
well-founded, is absolutely and radically false." Even Oskar Hertwig,
perhaps the best known of Haeckel's former pupils, finds it necessary to
change Haeckel's expression of the biogenetic law so that "a
contradiction contained in it may be removed." Professor Morgan,
finally, rejects Haeckel's boasted "Law of Biogenesis" as "in principle,
false." And he furthermore seems to imply that Fleischmann merits the
reproach of men of science, for wasting his time in confuting "the
antiquated and generally exaggerated views of writers like Haeckel."
"Antiquated and generally exaggerated views." Such is the comment of
science on Haeckel's boast that Darwin's pre-eminent service to science
consisted in pointing out how purposive adaptations may be produced
by natural selection without the direction of mind just as easily as they
may be produced by artificial selection and human design. And yet the
latest and least worthy production from the pen of this Darwinian
philosopher, The Riddle of the Universe, is being scattered broad-cast
by the anti-Christian press, in the name and guise of popular science. It

is therein that the evil consists. For the discerning reader sees in the
book itself, its own best refutation. The pretensions of Haeckel's
"consistent and monistic theory of the eternal cosmogenetic process"
are best met by pointing to the fact that its most highly accredited and
notorious representative has given to the world in exposition and
defense of pure Darwinian philosophy, a work, which, for boldness of
assertion, meagerness of proof, inconsequence of argument,
inconsistency in fundamental principles and disregard for facts which
tell against the author's theory, has certainly no equal in contemporary
literature. In the apt and expressive phrase of Professor Paulsen, the
book "fairly drips with superficiality" (von Seichtigkeit triefen). If the
man of science is to be justified, as Huxley suggested, not by faith but
by verification, Haeckel and his docile Darwinian disciples have good
reason to tremble for their scientific salvation.
EDWIN V. O'HARA.
St. Paul, Minn.

INTRODUCTION.
During the last few years I have published under this title short articles
dealing with the present status of Darwinism. In view of the kind
reception which has been accorded to these articles by the reading
public I have thought it well to bring them together in pamphlet form.
Indeed, the Darwinian movement and its present status are eminently
deserving of consideration, especially on the part of those before whom
Darwinism has hitherto always been held up triumphantly as a
scientific disproof of the very foundations of the Christian faith.
By way of introduction and explanation some general preliminary
remarks may not be amiss here. Previous to twenty or thirty years ago,
it was justifiable to identify Darwinism with the doctrine of Descent,
for at that time Darwinism was the only doctrine of Descent which
could claim any general recognition. Consequently, one who was an
adherent of the doctrine of Descent was also a Darwinian. Those to

whom this did not apply were so few as to be easily counted. The
dispute then hinged primarily on Darwinism; hence, for those who did
not admit the truth of that theory, the doctrine of Descent was for the
most part also a myth.
I say, for the most part; for there were already even at that time a few
clear-sighted naturalists (Wigand, Naegeli, Koelliker and others) who
saw plainly the residue of truth that would result from the discussion.
But to the overwhelming majority, the alternatives seemed to be: Either
Darwinism or no evolution at all. Today, however, the state of things is
considerably altered. The doctrine of Descent is clearly and definitely
distinguished from Darwinism at least by the majority of naturalists. It
is therefore of the utmost importance that this luminous distinction
should likewise become recognized in lay circles.
My object