Evolution in Modern Thought | Page 3

child of the past--is in great part just the idea of human
history projected upon the natural world, differentiated by the
qualification that the continuous "Becoming" has been wrought out by
forces inherent in the organisms themselves and in their environment.
A reference to Kant[6] should come in historical order after Buffon,
with whose writings he was acquainted, but he seems, along with
Herder and Schelling, to be best regarded as the culmination of the
evolutionist philosophers--of those at least who interested themselves
in scientific problems. In a famous passage he speaks of "the agreement
of so many kinds of animals in a certain common plan of structure" ...
an "analogy of forms" which "strengthens the supposition that they
have an actual blood-relationship, due to derivation from a common
parent." He speaks of "the great Family of creatures, for as a Family we
must conceive it, if the above-mentioned continuous and connected
relationship has a real foundation." Prof. Osborn alludes to the
scientific caution which led Kant, biology being what it was, to refuse
to entertain the hope "that a Newton may one day arise even to make
the production of a blade of grass comprehensible, according to natural
laws ordained by no intention." As Prof. Haeckel finely observes,
Darwin rose up as Kant's Newton.[7]
The scientific renaissance brought a wealth of fresh impressions and
some freedom from the tyranny of tradition, and the twofold stimulus
stirred the speculative activity of a great variety of men from old
Claude Duret of Moulins, of whose weird transformism (1609) Dr.
Henry de Varigny[8] gives us a glimpse, to Lorenz Oken (1779-1851)
whose writings are such mixtures of sense and nonsense that some

regard him as a far-seeing prophet and others as a fatuous follower of
intellectual will-o'-the-wisps. Similarly, for De Maillet, Maupertuis,
Diderot, Bonnet, and others, we must agree with Professor Osborn that
they were not actually in the main Evolution movement. Some have
been included in the roll of honour on very slender evidence, Robinet
for instance, whose evolutionism seems to us extremely dubious.[9]
The first naturalist to give a broad and concrete expression to the
evolutionist doctrine of descent was Buffon (1707-1788), but it is
interesting to recall the fact that his contemporary Linnæus
(1707-1778), protagonist of the counter-doctrine of the fixity of
species,[10] went the length of admitting (in 1762) that new species
might arise by inter-crossing. Buffon's position among the pioneers of
the evolution-doctrine is weakened by his habit of vacillating between
his own conclusions and the orthodoxy of the Sorbonne, but there is no
doubt that he had firm grasp of the general idea of "l'enchaînment des
êtres."
Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), probably influenced by Buffon, was
another firm evolutionist, and the outline of his argument in the
Zoonomia[11] might serve in part at least to-day. "When we revolve in
our minds the metamorphoses of animals, as from the tadpole to the
frog; secondly, the changes produced by artificial cultivation, as in the
breeds of horses, dogs, and sheep; thirdly, the changes produced by
conditions of climate and of season, as in the sheep of warm climates
being covered with hair instead of wool, and the hares and partridges of
northern climates becoming white in winter: when, further, we observe
the changes of structure produced by habit, as seen especially in men of
different occupations; or the changes produced by artificial mutilation
and prenatal influences, as in the crossing of species and production of
monsters; fourth, when we observe the essential unity of plan in all
warm-blooded animals,--we are led to conclude that they have been
alike produced from a similar living filament".... "From thus meditating
upon the minute portion of time in which many of the above changes
have been produced, would it be too bold to imagine, in the great
length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of years
before the commencement of the history of mankind, that all

warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament?"... "This
idea of the gradual generation of all things seems to have been as
familiar to the ancient philosophers as to the modern ones, and to have
given rise to the beautiful hieroglyphic figure of the [Greek: prôton
ôon], or first great egg, produced by night, that is, whose origin is
involved in obscurity, and animated by [Greek: Erôs], that is, by Divine
Love; from whence proceeded all things which exist."
Lamarck (1744-1829) seems to have become an evolutionist
independently of Erasmus Darwin's influence, though the parallelism
between them is striking. He probably owed something to Buffon, but
he developed his theory along a different line. Whatever view be held
in regard to that theory there is no doubt that Lamarck was a
thorough-going evolutionist. Professor Haeckel speaks of the
Philosophie Zoologique as "the first connected and