473
other hand, the advocates of the traditional view had no
thought of altering their standpoint. They stuck to their
authorised version of the world’s history, and could sub
stitute no other. If they yielded, of course they would
have to yield to their opponents. The result was a great
advantage to the advocates of Natural Selection. So far
as their opponents were concerned, the theory sufficed to
prove that the transmutation of species was a fact in
nature ; and the easily learned formula of Natural Selec
tion, embodying as it seemed the most obvious facts,
gave to this teaching a power which no other, at that
time, could have wielded.
But while this victory was being won, the triumphant
theory was itself undergoing modification. The more
absolute and, as it seems to me, the more logical theory
of Pure Darwinism, was taking the place of Mixed Dar
winism. This conviction was steadily growing, in conse
quence of the depreciatory language used by Mr. Darwin
with respect to transforming influences ; of the introduction
by Dr. Weismann of his theory of the germ plasm ; of the
growing tendency of Mr. Wallace to the more exclusive
doctrine ; and of the powerful advocacy of writers like
Dr. Ray Lankester. Pure Darwinism thus became the
accepted view of the majority of the advocates of Natural
Selection ; and hence the identification of the arguments
for the process of Organic P3volution, and for the one
only law which was supposed to have brought about that
process, seemed perfectly fair.
For these reasons, the arguments for the process of
Organic PLvolution have been treated as identical with
the arguments for the particular law or method of Natural
Selection. But while the historical development of the
doctrine of Natural Selection has more or less justified
this treatment of the subject, we must remember that for