New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-17
DARWINISM IN GERMANY.
TRUTH AND ERROR MINGLED IN THE DOC
Urine.

Urine.
A SEARCHING CRITICIsH AT THE HANDS OF Won
HARTMANN-AN ENDEAvoR TO RECONCILE THE
DEVELOPMENT THEORY WITH PURE PHILOSOPHY
EVOLUTION NOT DENIED But THE DOCTRINE OF
DESCENT arrACKED-THE FACTORS OF THE OAR
wIyIAS THEORY INADEQUATE.
IRON An OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBcSEl
LEIPsIC, March 2S.-In the great battle which has
been waged in the scientific world in the last 10 or
Is years between the advocates of the development
theory one side and its opponents on the other'
the readers of THE TRIBUNE through the fun reports
they have had from the of conflict have been
suffered TO lose sight OfnO one single Important Issue
or change of base. They will hardly need to be tod
that the conflict which is waged 50 actively IN In
gland and America is quite as active In Germany
The development theory under one aspect or an
other early promulgated here, stimulated great
discussion and received wide acceptance. Especially
from the works of Haeckel has this theory re-
ceived great impetus, while many Others have
contributed to the interest and value OF the
discussion. At the same time, Darwinism
per Sc has by been paSsvely received In its
entirety. II has been more OF less modified by TINS
that critic scientist, who, while he accepts inc
principle of Evolution at the foundation OF Darwlh
ism, cannot wholly accept Darwn's exegesis OF tne
same The grounds, nature and extent OF this modi-
cation form to-day of the principal SUBJECTS OF
debate within the ranks Of the EvOlutionlsts.
One of the most searching criticisms of Darwin
ism that has appeared since the new year has been
from the pen of man who is himself a most pro-
nounced evolutonist but who is not willing to take
Darwinsm in its length and breadth. refer to
Edward Won Hartmann's critique on 1.-The truth ana
Error in Darwinism." Won Hartmann, judging from
the great sale which his various books have had ana
especially his PHILOSOPHY of the Unconscous Is no
doubt one of the most popular philosophical writers
in Germany. At least he is one who is very exten-
sively read, whether his devotion to Schopenham
and his unhappy Pessimism makes converts or not.
And whatever we may think of his philosophy, and
confess it has attractions for me- he has certainly
done good work in reference to the philosophical
method. 1t has been his aim to carry science INTO
philosophy and philosophy into science-to unite
scientific research with profound philosophc specu
lation.
For while in England and America the discussion
which Darwinism has awakened has, apart from lts
scientific validity mainly referred to the consequent
real OF supposed issue between science and religion
in Germany it has not only included this, but has
perhaps more intimately concerned the antagonism
between science and philosophy. With Won Hart
mann there is no such antagonism. Philosophy Is
not exiled, but becomes the arbiter OF science
Science furnishes the material philosophy recog-
pizes and atirns the relations which science sug-
gests.
Hartmann's latest critique on Darwinism has wide
scope II is an attempt TO relieve the development
theory of certain hindrances which the critic THINKS
Darwin has imposed upon it, and which prevent us
universal acceptance. The frequency with winch
Darwinism is COMPOUNDED or made synonymous with
evolution in our own country renders Hartmann's
protest quite as timely there as here
Hartmann begins his criticism by recognizing the
great prevalence which the Darwinian theory has
obtained in Germany. Perhaps nothing says he, has
contributed so much to this result as the zeal With
which philosophers and theologians of all schools
fastened to attack it, Against this opposition, which
had no scientific grounds, was developed, however,
an enthusiastic adherence TO the Darwinian theory
which derived its most powerful stimulus from those
consequences of the Darwinian doctrine which the
author himself had only cautiously indicated or pur-
posey veiled-by which, indeed, the opposition was
only 80 much more embittered.
Among naturalists themselves il became evident
that il would be impossible TO Withstand the
new theory, and that they must join them
selves TO the new doctrine III some form OF other
Only those " no did not possess sufficient elasticity
of mind 10 unlearn what they had been taught
classed themselves against Darwinisn. That moder-
ate element which sought TO find truth and untruth
in the doctrine was extremely small, and its voice
was lost in the strife of enthusiastic disciples on the
one side and embittered opponents on the other The
task of the philosopher consists in recognizing and
eliminating the untruth which arises from one-sided
ness and incompleteness, by which relative truth
comes TO pass for absolute one, and principle
valid within certain limits is carried beyond Its
bounds. This task Hartmann undertook as early as
1865 when he accepted the development theory as
an integral part of his system, while he aimed 10
prove that the influence OF natural and sexual
selection had been overestimatcd as a factor. The
Weiglebred objection, which he had borrowed from
the Botanist Nageli was that natural selection could
not be efficient in reference TO morphoioglcally
structural relations but only in reference TO the ac-
commodation of given morphological organs to
determined physiological functions while the dis
tincton of species, whose origin Darwin claimed 10
explain through his theory of selection, are essentially
of a morphologcal nature and that all progress to
higher grades of organization rests upon change IN
the structural, mOrphological relations.
Since that time, says Hartmann, Darwin has him
self been moved to acknowledge the soundness OF
this objection, and has confessed that he had as
cribed too much to the working of natural selection
because this could only be extended to the useful
adaptive, physiological characters but not to the
morphological structural relations Indifferent to
physiology. He has acknowledged this in the " De-
scent of Nam and in the revision of the NTH En-
glish edition OF his principal work. but failed how
ever, to acknowledge that the title OF the work
1.-THE Origin of Species Through Natural Selection
is no longer suitable for the explanation OF the on
gin of species through principle which leaves the
principal element unexplained. This obvious conse-
oucnce Darwin himself has avoided by giving
stronger emphasis to auxiliary principles which
really lead to fundamental conception opposed to
that from which the principle of selection origi-