Evolution, Old New | Page 3

some German Writers 68
CHAPTER VIII.
Buffon--Memoir 74
CHAPTER IX.
Buffon's Method--The Ironical Character of his Work 78
CHAPTER X.
Supposed Fluctuations of Opinion--Causes or Means of the
Transformation of Species 97
CHAPTER XI.
Buffon--Puller Quotations 107
CHAPTER XII.
Sketch of Dr. Erasmus Darwin's Life 173
CHAPTER XIII.
Philosophy of Dr. Erasmus Darwin 195
CHAPTER XIV.
Fuller Quotations from the 'Zoonomia' 214

CHAPTER XV.
Memoir of Lamarck 235
CHAPTER XVI.
General Misconception concerning Lamarck--His Philosophical
Position 244
CHAPTER XVII.
Summary of the 'Philosophie Zoologique' 261
CHAPTER XVIII.
Mr. Patrick Matthew, MM. Étienne and Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire,
and Mr. Herbert Spencer 315
CHAPTER XIX.
Main Points of Agreement and of Difference between the Old and New
Theories of Evolution 335
CHAPTER XX.
Natural Selection considered as a Means of Modification--The
Confusion which this Expression occasions 345
CHAPTER XXI.
Mr. Darwin's Defence of the Expression, Natural Selection--Professor
Mivart and Natural Selection 362
CHAPTER XXII.
The Case of the Madeira Beetles as illustrating the Difference between
the Evolution of Lamarck and of Mr. Charles Darwin--Conclusion 373

APPENDIX 385
INDEX 409

EVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW
CHAPTER I.
STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. CURRENT OPINION
ADVERSE TO TELEOLOGY.
Of all the questions now engaging the attention of those whose destiny
has commanded them to take more or less exercise of mind, I know of
none more interesting than that which deals with what is called
teleology--that is to say, with design or purpose, as evidenced by the
different parts of animals and plants.
The question may be briefly stated thus:--
Can we or can we not see signs in the structure of animals and plants,
of something which carries with it the idea of contrivance so strongly
that it is impossible for us to think of the structure, without at the same
time thinking of contrivance, or design, in connection with it?
It is my object in the present work to answer this question in the
affirmative, and to lead my reader to agree with me, perhaps mainly, by
following the history of that opinion which is now supposed to be fatal
to a purposive view of animal and vegetable organs. I refer to the
theory of evolution or descent with modification.
Let me state the question more at large.
When we see organs, or living tools--for there is no well-developed
organ of any living being which is not used by its possessor as an
instrument or tool for the effecting of some purpose which he considers
or has considered for his advantage--when we see living tools which
are as admirably fitted for the work required of them, as is the

carpenter's plane for planing, or the blacksmith's hammer and anvil for
the hammering of iron, or the tailor's needle for sewing, what
conclusion shall we adopt concerning them?
Shall we hold that they must have been designed or contrived, not
perhaps by mental processes indistinguishable from those by which the
carpenter's saw or the watch has been designed, but still by processes
so closely resembling these that no word can be found to express the
facts of the case so nearly as the word "design"? That is to say, shall we
imagine that they were arrived at by a living mind as the result of
scheming and contriving, and thinking (not without occasional
mistakes) which of the courses open to it seemed best fitted for the
occasion, or are we to regard the apparent connection between such an
organ, we will say, as the eye, and the sight which is affected by it, as
in no way due to the design or plan of a living intelligent being, but as
caused simply by the accumulation, one upon another, of an almost
infinite series of small pieces of good fortune?
In other words, shall we see something for which, as Professor Mivart
has well said, "to us the word 'mind' is the least inadequate and
misleading symbol," as having given to the eagle an eyesight which can
pierce the sun, but which, in the night is powerless; while to the owl it
has given eyes which shun even the full moon, but find a soft brilliancy
in darkness? Or shall we deny that there has been any purpose or design
in the fashioning of these different kinds of eyes, and see nothing to
make us believe that any living being made the eagle's eye out of
something which was not an eye nor anything like one, or that this
living being implanted this particular eye of all others in the eagle's
head, as being most in accordance with the habits of the creature, and
as therefore most likely to enable it to live contentedly and leave
plenitude of offspring? And shall we then go on to maintain that the
eagle's eye was formed little by little by