At the Deathbed of Darwinism | Page 9

of Darwinism had
already ended to its own detriment, but he always predicted with the
greatest confidence that the struggle would soon terminate in victory
for the anti-Darwinian camp. When Wigand closed his eyes in death in
1896, he was able to bear with him the consciousness that the era of
Darwinism was approaching its end, and that he had been in the right.
Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than
that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen
its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades
hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of
Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were
in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that
time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to
them as the excitement attending some mad revel.
A justification of our hope that Wigand's warning prediction will
finally be fulfilled is to be found in the fact that to-day the younger
generation of naturalists is departing more and more from Darwinism.
It is a fact worthy of special mention that the opposition to Darwinism
to-day comes chiefly from the ranks of the zoologists, whereas thirty
years ago large numbers of zoologists from Jena associated themselves
with the Darwinian school, hoping to find there a full and satisfactory
solution for the profoundest enigmas of natural science.
The cause of this reaction is not far to seek. There was at the time a
whole group of enthusiastic Darwinians among the university
professors, Haeckel leading the van, who clung to that theory so
tenaciously and were so zealous in propagating it, that for a while it
seemed impossible for a young naturalist to be anything but a
Darwinian. Then the inevitable reaction gradually set in. Darwin
himself died, the Darwinians of the sixties and seventies lost their
pristine ardor, and many even went beyond Darwin. Above all, calm
reflection took the place of excited enthusiasm. As a result it has
become more and more apparent that the past forty years have brought

to light nothing new that is of any value to the cause of Darwinism.
This significant fact has aroused doubts as to whether after all
Darwinism can really give a satisfactory explanation of the genesis of
organic forms.
The rising generation is now discovering what discerning scholars had
already recognized and stated a quarter of a century ago. They are also
returning to a study of the older opponents of Darwinism, especially of
Wigand. It is only now, many years after his death, that a tribute has
been paid to this distinguished savant which unfortunately was
grudgingly withheld during his life. One day recently there was laid
before his monument in the Botanical Garden of Marburg a
laurel-wreath with the inscription: "To the great naturalist, philosopher
and man." It came from a young zoologist at Vienna who had
thoroughly mastered Wigand's great anti-Darwinian work, an
intelligent investigator who had set to work in the spirit of Wigand.
Another talented zoologist, Hans Driesch, dedicates to the memory of
Wigand two books in rapid succession and reprehends the
contemporaries of that master of science for ignoring him. O.
Hammann abandons Darwinism for an internal principle of
development. W. Haacke openly disavows Darwinism; and even at the
convention of naturalists in 1897, L. Wilser was allowed to assert
without contradiction that, "anyone who has committed himself to
Darwinism can no longer be ranked as a naturalist."
These are all signs which clearly indicate a radical revolution, and they
are all the more significant since it is the younger generation, which
will soon take the lead, that thinks and speaks in this manner. But it is
none the less noteworthy that the younger naturalists are not alone in
this movement. Many of the older men of science are swelling the
current. We shall recall here only the greatest of those whom we might
mention in this connection.
Julius von Sachs, the most gifted and brilliant botanist of the last
century, who unfortunately is no longer among us, was in the sixties an
outspoken Darwinian, as is evident especially from his History of
Botany and from the first edition of his Handbook of Botany. Soon,

however, Sachs began to incline toward the position assumed by
Naegeli; and as early as 1877, Wigand, in the third volume of his great
work, expressed the hope that Sachs would withdraw still further from
Darwinism. As years went by, Sachs drifted more and more from his
earlier position, and Wigand was of opinion that to himself should be
ascribed the credit of bringing about the change. During his last years
Sachs had become bitterly opposed to