THE THEORY OF DESCENT 269 



not be fair to turn into ridicule a theory which bears the 

 name of a man who is not at all responsible for its dogmatic 

 form. Indeed, we are speaking against Darwinism of the 

 most dogmatic form only, not against Darwin himself. He 

 never analysed the phenomena of regeneration or of 

 embryonic restitution they lay in a field very unfamiliar 

 to him and to his time. I venture to say that if he had 

 taken them into consideration, he would have agreed with 

 us in stating that his theory was not at all able to cover 

 them ; for he was prepared to make great concessions, to 

 Laniarckism for instance, in other branches of biology, and 

 he did not pretend to know what life itself is. 



Darwin was not a decided materialist, though materialism 

 has made great capital out of his doctrines, especially in 

 Germany. His book, as is well known, is entitled " The 

 Origin of Species" that is of organic diversities,^^ he himself 

 possibly might have regarded all restitution as belonging to 

 the original properties of life, anterior to the originating of 

 diversities. Personally he might possibly be called even a 

 vitalist. Thus dogmatic " Darwinism " in fact is driven into 

 all the absurdities mentioned above, whilst the " doctrine of 

 Darwin " can only be said to be wrong on account of its 

 failing to explain mutual adaptation, the origin of new 

 organs, and some other features in organic diversities ; the 

 original properties of life were left unexplained by it 

 intentionally. 



DARWINISM FAILS ALL ALONG THE LINE 



The result of our discussion then must be this : selection 

 has proved to be a negative factor only, and fluctuating 



