New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-01-25
NEW PUBLICATIONS.

, NEW ATTACK ON NATURAL SELECTION
DARWINIANIsM Workbench and Work; BY
lanes ID ESn. Pr. XVI. S5s Imported by
Charles Scrbner's sons
Dr. Stirling refuses to agree with those VINO
see in the hypothesis maintained by Darwin
real cunport to the doctrine Of design. Many
students undoubtedly accept the statement Of
tho philosophical historian Windeband that
the principle OF evolution is one according to
which the whole connected system Of organic
and animate beings is regarded as the single
process Of development Of organic forms de-
termined by the theological point of view Of
Ntness for life But Darwin himself in spite
or the eaCerness with which friends like Pro-
rcssor Asa Gray pointed out the fact. refused
IN acknowledge the relation Of his theory to
the doctrine Of purpose In the universe. lie
thought that with the two words Natural Sc
lection he had furnished the key for an exclu-
sivelv mechanical solution Of all the problems
Of life except those which were to be relegated
O.. sexuaI selection Thus DR.. Stirling If not
right with reference to Darwnanism az posi-
tive increment in modern philosophy, Is fully
Justified from Darwin's own point Of view. The
trouble Is that he thus takes upon himself
fruitlcss quarrel with Natural Selection as n
rue Of scientific observation. AS might be
wins theory is the least convincing part Of DR..
Strings book
It Is in his minute study Of the develop
ment Of the theory itself, first III the
works of Dr. Erasmus Darwin and then in
those of his grandson. that his acuteness as
philosophical critic is shown. lie notes the
pcc,liarities Of temper in DR.. Erasmus Darwin,
his dislike Of adverse criticism. his taste for
theory and generalization. his desire for the
success OF such theories as he propounded, and
gives them importance in explaining the
career Of Charles Darwin. 1t is acknowledged
at the outset that Charles Darwin could never
be called intolerant. but it is indicated that his
GOODNESS toward the undecided Lyell and others
resembled al least family the irritation shown
Nv his grandfather at Thomas Browns criticism
of "Zoonoma" State nents Of both Charles
Darwin and his son are cited to show that he
had all his grandfather's taste FOR theories. but
IT is added that his une~ ing Judgment led him
to cast aside at once tn which could not be
sustained Then Charles Darwin's own letters
are quoted in consideral quantity to show
how eager he was in ID propaganda of the
hypothesIs of Natural Sell ,tion. But IN add
ton TO traits more or less nilar in grandfather
and grandson. it is point out In the second
place how closely the latl Is theory OF nature
followed that Of bis an estor Even the
ordinary opinion that Chal les Darwin owed 10
an impulse from Nautilus bis doctrine named
H. Herbert Spencer the Survival OF the
Fittcst is declared to be. If not false at all
events unnecessary. For the notion that battle
g the origin and conditi,n of all life was
familiar to Erasmus Darw!l who held that it
enhanced the pleasure Of xistence and that
iigher organization was the result of It. But
Erasmus Darwin never freed himself from the
NJ ITe iS
T.ns; K-ause "a LamarckiaT before Iamarck."
IA his opinion. changes happen in an animal
tecause Il has need Of them. II spoke of mod
:hcatiors IN animals which may have been
erected to accommodate them - new ways OF
procuring heir food Thus, as DR.. Stirling
SAYS. lie touched the zone absorbing. great
question Of the grandson. Charles" But the
latter looked at the subject, after az, from
different point of view: for according to Dr.
C,irng. 'he would not have spoken OF changes
which may have been effected to accommodate
them to ways of procuring Their food. but
Of changes which. being effected (to wit
casually. did accommodate them - new WAYS
Of procuring food" That is. ne attributed
wholly to accident what Erasmus Darwin was
not aveise to crediting to final cause. on the
otfer hand both were agreed in leaving the
creative or efficient cause out Of consideration
or rather to the weakness of otter mems in
tellects which failed to grasp Hume's argument
on casuality--the origin of this disregard ior the
efficient cause. Hume. he declares. knew and
never denied that cause has efficacy, e'ndency
power to produce its effect. that there rs eason
for the necessary connection between then, but
supposed that this reason could not be exp Aned
philosophically. His critics were as snch
puzzled as he by difficulty which was only
speculative never real. II men could habit ialiy
and actually think with DR.. Brown that the
relation OF cause and effect was merely that
they invariably occurred in the order named
they would soon deem 1t a waste Of time to In
ouire the wherefore" and the WHEREBY Of
ANYTHING Dr. Stirling has srely not worked
out his thought completely but he seems TO
imply that contemporary philosophy led both the
Darwins TO treat the problem Of cause as IN
soluble In effect Charles Darwin should have
inherited this along with the scientific theories
In his grandfathers writings Thus some sort
of personal reason can be given for the stubborn
ness with which he held out against the BELIEF
I'm design and for the still more notable Iact
that Darwniansm ceased TO be wholly Darwin
ian almost from the moment when it left the
hands of its author. For nobody else would &C.
cent 1t without modifying the conception OF 1t
In his own mind. With such notifications Dr.
Stirling refuses to have anything to do lie
attends TO the Origin Of Species" and the other
that can be made out Of Darwln's defects as
compIler. and out of his promptness in accept
inc anecdotes that Tailed with his plan lie
argues that all Of Darwin's work presupposes
the existence of species at the outset that in TACT