OCR Text |
Show 14 JJARWINIANA. tb.ings that are Cresar's-looks to natural agencies for the actual distribution and perpetuation of species, to a supernatural for their origin. The theory of Agassiz regards the origin of species and their present general distribution over the world as equally primordial, equally supernatural; that of Darwin, as equally derivative, equally natural. The theory of Agassiz, referring as it does the phenomena both of origin and distributi()n directly to the Divine will-thus removing th~ latter with the former out of the domain of inductive science (in which efficient cause is not the first, but the last word) -may be said to be theistic to excess. The contrasted theory is not open to this objection. Studying the facts and phenomena in reference to proximate causes, and endeavoring to trace back the series of cause and effect as far as possible, Darwin's aim and processes are strictly scientific, and his endeavor, whether successful or futile, must be regarded as a legitimate attempt to extend the domain of natural or physical science. For, though it well may be that "organic forms have no physical or secondary cause," yet this can be proved only indirectly, by the failure of every attempt to refer the phenomena in question to causal laws. But, however originated, and whatever be thought of Mr. Darwin's arduous undertaking in this respect, it is ~rtain that plants and animals are subject from their. birth to physical influences, to which they have to accommodate themselves as they· can. How literally they are "born to trouble," and how incessant and severe the struggle for life generally is, the present volume graphically describes. Few will THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 15 deny that such influences must · have gravely affected the range and t~e association of individuals and species on the earth's surface. Mr. Darwin thinks that, acting upon an inherent predisposition to vary, they have sufficed even to modify the species themselves and produce the present diversity. Mr. Agassiz believes that they have not even affected the geographical range and the actual association of species, still less their forms ; but that every adaptation of species to climate, and of species to. species, is as aboriginal, and therefore as inexplicable, as are the organic forms themselves. Who shall decide between such extreme ·views so ably maintained on either hand, and say how much of truth there may be in each~ The present reviewer has not the presumption to undertake such a task. Having no prepossession in favor of naturalistic theories, but struck with the eminent ability of Mr. Darwin's work, and charmed with its fairness, our humbler duty will be performed if, laying aside prejudice as much as we can, we shall succeed in giving a fair account of its method and argument, offering by the way a few suggestions, such as might occur to any naturalist of an inquiring mind. An editorial character for this article must in justice be disclaimed. The plural pronoun is employed not to give editorial weight, but _to avoid even the appearance of egotism, and also the circumlocution which attends a rigorous adherence to the impersonal style. We have contrasted these two extremely divergent theories, in. their broad statements. It must not be inferred ~hat they have no points nor ultimate results in common. |