MODERN SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT 87 



But it has not been through such violence alone that the influence 

 of the Hebrew tradition has been felt. More subtly did it discourage 

 the great anatomist, Vesalius, who, in the flower of his young manhood, 

 filled with the spirit of the pioneer, linked his fortunes to the throne 

 of Charles and Philip. It is significant that, while he idly fretted out 

 his life on Spanish soil, Suarez, the Spanish Jesuit, was born, destined 

 to create the doctrine of special creation in its modern form by reaffirm- 

 ing in detail the Mosaic account of the creation — even the episode of 

 the rib. The fact carries a suggestion of the reason why the productive 

 years of that great progressive in biological science were limited to five, 

 and ended with his thirtieth anniversary. 



It was against this anachronistic doctrine of special creation, crystal- 

 lized out of the civilization of the seventeenth century, that Darwin 

 launched his great argument in the shape of the " Origin of Species." 

 But, in doing so, he found in his opponents Hebrew tradition mixed with 

 Greek. Evolution was not a conception hostile to the mind of Aristotle, 

 though what we now recognize as phenomena of evolution did not espe- 

 cially engage his attention. The two rather ambiguous passages in which 

 he arranges living creation in a series of closely intergrading types might 

 be interpreted in terms of evolution without doing essential violence to 

 his general conception of life. The origin of species of organic beings 

 was not with him an issue. He was unaffected by the Mosaic record. 

 Historical problems were to him of less moment than essential relations 

 of structure and function. His especial interest in the ultimate analysis 

 of truth was not, however, incompatible with an admission of the trans- 

 formation of organic types. Indeed, under the influence of Aristotelian 

 philosophy, St. Augustine himself sought to interpret the Mosaic cos- 

 mology with its conception of an external Creator, in naturalistic terms 

 that should harmonize with the Greek conception of forces and poten- 

 tialities inherent in the universe itself. It is this mixed derivation 

 that complicates to some extent attempts to trace to their origins the 

 ideas of the modern world. 



There was no fundamental incompatibility then, between Greek 

 tradition and the doctrine of descent with modification. As an evolu- 

 tionist, Aristotle was at least as modern as Charles Bonnet. "Were he 

 alive to-day, I should confidently look for him in the foremost ranks of 

 biological thinkers. His biological contributions, however, have been 

 largely obscured by his versatility of interest in final causes. This 

 interest I am disposed to believe was a product of his time, of the age 

 into which he was born, of his education, his companionships, rather 

 than a fundamental tendency of his mind. However it may be inter- 

 preted, there is no doubt that his ideas on transformism in organic 

 nature were definitely limited thereby. If he was an evolutionist, he 

 was also a teleologist. Adaptation in nature spelled for him design. 



