The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-07-23

himself to have attributed too much weight In
the earlier editions OF his Origin Of Species" to
the action OF natural selection or the survival NJ
the nttest, and to have not sufficiently consid-
cred the existence OF many structures which
appear to be, 40 far a. we are now able to judge,
neither beneficial nor Injurious. This Darwin
esteems one OF the greatest oversights yet de-
tected In his work; but surely no impartial
reader will pronounce IL fatal, since the dis
covery OF Indifferent and temporarily mex
pliclble notifications is . very different
thing from that recognition OF specific
structure In one species manifestly formed for
the exclusive advantage OF another species,
which Darwin conceded might render bis n.y.
pothesIs untenable. Again, a postscript In the
second volume Of the Descent Of Man" con-
tans an avowai even more creditable, because
the blunder was detected solely by the author
himself. 81 have fallen" SAYS Darwin. with an
earnestness which supplies the most conclusive
proof of his conscientiousness and normal &C
curacy, into serious and unfortunate error in
relation to tho sexual differences OF animals In
attempting TO explain what seemed TO me a
singular coincidence IN the late period OF life ut
which the necessary variations have arisen in
many cases. and the late period at which
sexual selection acts. The explanation given
is wholly erroneous as have discovered
by working out an illustration In figures" VIII
u ue oeneNeu tndtupOn ground no DrOuuf tnan
that here cited Mr. MivArt taxes Darwin with
the virtual surrender OF the natural selection I"
hypothesis, and attacks his general reputation
for trustworthlness in words like these: ut
would be idle to dissemble aud disinsenuous
not to declare the amount of dis rust with which
such repeated over hasty conclusions and errp-
neous calculations should properly inspire his
readers" After this It can hardly surprise IA TO
hear the theory OF the survival OF the nttesL
which has at all events commanded more uni
versal and respectful attention than anything
propounded since the nehular hypothesis,
characterized by the author OF lessons from
Nature as "puerile" concep ION.
Mr. Mvart has reprinted In this volume let
ter published nv him In the North American
RertelC Tor April, 1872, In reply to "a criticism ON
his "Genesis OF Species" by Mr. Chauncey
Wright The American reviewer had charged
him with misfepre ,enting br. rwins opin-
ions, and with aitributng to the latters writings
an irreligious tendency which tnev do not pos-
sess The first imputdtion, although probably
well founded, l. repealed with an adroitness
which well illustr ites Mvart's skill In verbal
fence, but to the second we observe neither de-
fence nor dental Is attempted. In the work be-
fore us, indeed, he distinctly ascriUes anti-theo-
logical prejudice to Darw in-and on what
cround2 Because the latter states In his " De-
species was =" to show that species had not been
separately created" and because he consoles
himself for certain shortcomings with the
hope that lie mas at last done good service
In aiding to overthrow the dogma Of
separate creations" Surely Mlvart's charge
Is not more reasonable than the arragn-
ment Of Calico because he declared tn 4 the
time had come for releasing the study Of tue
solar system from the trsmmels Of a false the
ory Elsewhere In pass lge where It Is obvious
from the context that SPENCER, Darwin, and their
coadJutors are contemplated, tits asserted til 4 a
passionate hatred OF religion. however discreet
ly or astutely veie.i. lies at the bottom Of much
OF the scientific teaching now In vogue. Ac-
eordinel,, belief in the Il. cessary inconsistency
of science with religion, according 10 Mivart. ID
persisiently prop gated among the public by
Writings and lee ures In whicl more Is iusinu-
ated than affirmed, the attempt being made TO
sttke theology across physical science,
10 tldcken religion with coal dust, pelt
IT with fragments Of chalk, smother 1t with
sub-Atlan,ic mud, or drown II In a sea OF pro
toplasm. Finally, we can only marvel nj the
assurance which rep' caches others with nnport-
ING prejudice into scientific discuss ons, after
such glazing distortion uf facts ana uuIissuised
appeal TO the oiiuH uioOloJlcum as are contained
in the following Irouical sentence: Dclenda est
Carthage! No system Is to be tolerated whicn
will lead men 20 accept perspnal God, moral
resppnslbil'. and a future state II rewards and
punishmeuts. Let these unwel ONE truths be
once elimin ted. and no system Is de med un-
deserving Of candid II not a symolthetlc cunsid-
GRAFTON, and oceters pirtb,ls, that system which
excludes them the most etiicaciously becomes
the most &C ;eptable."
Mr.. Mivart devote. considerable space to Prof
Hnxleys Lay sermons" in which he cons dcrs
tue practical tendcncies resulting from the re-
ceplon of non-thestic philosophy. lie over
rul's the demurrer that science and philosophy
have no concern for consequences, hut frr truth
alone and he denies that they VINO oppose the
ism can support. on any LOGICAL grounds, their
conviction that truth Is necessarily good. To
which 1t might probably tie rejoned that the
benelcslce Of truth has been 80 Completely de-
nonstra ca bv experience - to DO rendered
substantially automatic. Neither are We at all
disposed to admit that pure theory Of the sex
ual relations and the protection of the weaker
sex against the sclnshness of m lie concupis-
cence are at all ENDANGERED by Prof. HuxIey's
speculations We fail to see how IL can b, so
berry maintained that an occasional reference
10 the promiscuOu- intercOurse II some savage
tribes, under the convenient term Of "Cpmnu-
rai marriage dircctly promotes tho cause Of
tree love" aud paves tue way for tue lesisla-
tive assimilation Of Two very dis,lnc. relations.
We eau nnd nothing cumUrous or Involved In
the reasoning whica should seek to preserve ex-
is.ing sexual customs In all their strinsency on
the basis Of mere expedieucy. Is there not
something preposterOus IN charging writers like
Tvndall and Darwin with intolerance, aud ad-
ducing the excesses of the French Communists
us forecastug the PROBABLE outcome OF their
opinlonsf Wa n We reueulber Mr.. Mivart's past
services To science, such eXtrav giant EXPRESSIONS
appear as strange ~ they are blameworthy, and
We cannot refrain from commencing to him the
words Of that co-worker whom he has endaay.
ored, by meaus we cannot esteem loyal, to dis
credit; " II man elect to become a Judge Of
these grave questions, still more II he assume
the responsibility of attaching praise or blame
To his fellow men for tho conclusions at which
they arrive touching them, he Will commit sin
more Rreyous tnan most breaches OF the Deca-
iogue, unless he avoid lazy Reliance upon the
Information that is 4 ithered by prejudice aud
filtered by passion unless he 20 back To the
prime sources of knowledge-the facts Of nature
and the thoughts Of those wise men, who for
generations past have been her best interpre.
ters."