4 72
We must further remember that Mr. Darwin accepted
Lamarckian principles as part of his teaching, and held
them not inconsistent with the action of Natural Selection ;
so that his chief foe was the traditional view which had so
much sentiment and authority on its side. This fact
seems to me to have largely affected the way in which
the arguments for Natural Selection have been presented.
The facts of the case justified—perhaps almost demanded,
the argumentum ad hominem addressed to the advocates
of the traditional view, and containing theological objec
tions to their theologically supported doctrine of nature.
This fact also accounts for and justifies the mode of attack.
The absolute fixity of species was the orthodox doctrine.
The idea of its sanctity—I venture to use even so strong
a word as that—is expressed in the word hybrid, which
signifies that the offspring of individuals of different
species is the shame of its parents and an outrage upon
nature—a transgression of a demarcation laid down at
the creation of the world.
The doctrines of the special creation and fixity of species
must first be overcome. Then, as Buffon said long ago,
the doctrine of Organic Evolution would prevail.
“ If the point were once gained, that among animals and vegetables
there had been, I do not say several species, but even a single one,
which had been produced in the course of direct descent from another
species ; if, for example, it could be once shown that the ass was but
a degeneration from the horse, then there is no farther limit to be set
to the power of nature, and we should not be wrong in supposing that
with sufficient time she could have evolved all other organised forms
from one primordial type.”—(Universal Review, vol. vii., ft. 77.)
Hence, as it seems to me, it happened that the first
and chief stress of the argument consisted in proving that
species were not absolutely fixed ; and that the agent
employed by nature to secure the transmutation and even
the origin of species was Natural Selection. And on the
