Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-11-28

ASussEA on EHG EgGFNibHEAGHt HtoEys
1t is known that Professor Agassiz does not
accept the speculatons which age current as
"Ddrwinism," but, on the contrary, rejects them
with emphasis The ground Of his objection TO
them is not so well understood, or, at any rate,
has not been carefully conside ed by many oil
those who most need to hear AMI weigh what be
says. AT the meeting of the National Academy
of Science in Boston, the other day, he read
brief paper on the development theory, winch
was clear, sharp, and conclusive The character
and pertnence of his objection TO this theory
can be seen in the title of his paper; Critical
Remarks about Scientific Views entertained
upon Theoretical Grounds" He. maintains
that "yiews" resting wholly on "theoretic
grounds" are not science and should not pre-
tend to be scientific. Theories, no matter how
carefully elaborated by the constructive power
of imagination, or oy the subtle wit of theoriz-
ing enthusiasm, can not he accepted as scientific
facts. Experience and observation, he said, had
brought him more and more to see the danger
Of stretching inlerences from few observations
10 a wide field. We take the following from a
report of what he said:
81 see that the younger generation among nat
uralisis are al this moment falling into the mis-
take OF making assertions and presenting views
as scientific principles, which are not even based
upon real observation. l think If is time that
some positive remonstrance be made against
that tendency. The manner in which the eyOlu.
ton theory in zoology is treated would lead
those who are not special BIOLOGISTS TO suppose
that observations have been made, by which it
can be inferred that there is in nature such
thing as change among organized beings actu-
ally taking place. There is no such thing on
record. II is shifting the ground from one field
OF observation to another TO make this state
ment, and when the assertions 90 so far as TO eX-
Guide from the domain of science those who Will
not be dragged into this mine of mere asser-
tion, then 1t is time TO protest. He thought
1t was inoerant TO say be was not on scientific
grounds because he was not falling into the path
which was occupied by those who maintain that
all organized beings have been derived fIom a
few original pfogenitors. Other supporters of
the transmutatIon doctrine assume that they
can demUnstraiethe changes 10 have taken place
by SHOWING certain degrees OF resemblance; but
what they never touch is the quality and con-
dltIon OF those few first progentors from which
they were evolved. They assume that they con-
tanned all that is necessary to evolve what ex.
lists now. That is begging the question at the
outset; for if tuese first prototypes contained
the principle Of evolution, we should know
something about them from observation,
and it should be shown that there are
evolution. | ask, whence came these properties?
II this power and capacity of change is not in
herent 10 the first prOgenitOrs, then l ask
whence came the impulses by which those pro-
genltors which have net this power of change in
themselves, acquire them2 What is the power
by when they are started in directions which
are not determined by their primiIve nature?
From the total silence oil the supporters of the
tfansmutation theory on these and other points,
ne ana not think II worth their while TO take the
slightest notice of this doctrine of evolution in
lis scientific considerations. He acknowledged
what The eyolutionisls had done incidentally
IN scientific research; none had done more than
BIT. Darwin. lie believed he had been injured
Wofully by his adhereuts. He was far better
man than most Of his school made him"
In the discussions Of what is called "Darwn-
ism," nothing has seemed more surprising than
the facility with which acute and well trained
men have allowed themselves to talk Of an IN.
proved theory as if it had the sanction of science,
and, on account of it, assume to be higher up
than others on the superior way of scieuufc iu-
quiry' A theory may have good uses as one of
the instruments of scientific investigation; but
theories are not facts works of Imagination are
not science, and an improved hypothesis has
nothing in common with a scientific demonstra-
ton. During the last thirty or forty years,
there has been wonderful progress in physical |
science, which has given speculation strong |
nateralisiic tendency; but the speculations
Of scientists are now preparing the way
for a reaction toward the spiritual |
philosophy which recognizes something meta.
physical, something above the physical, in a |
word, the supernatural, and makes it under.
stood that the sphere Of human intelligence con
tains much that is quite beyond the reach of
natural science. If the problem of origins, which
the Ddrwinists attempt to solve, were within
the sphere Of physical science, they would be
a0Ie to give US demonstration instead of theory. |
we wish that Professor Agassiz would write on |
this subject at length, and enable us to read his
,ie"S aud arguments in book. Such book |
holh MN would be sure Of wide circulation.