PBEDABWINIAN AND POSTDARWINIAN BIOLOGY 381 



PEEDARWINIAN AND POSTDAEWINIAN BIOLOGY^ 



By Professoe WILLIAM MORTON WHEELER 



HAKVAED ITNIVBESITY 



CHAELES DAEWIN" undoubtedly exerted a profound and three- 

 fold influence on botany, zoology and all the kindred sciences; 

 first, by his rehabilitation of Lamarck's theory of transformism, or 

 evolution, as it is more generally but less aptly called ; secondly, by his 

 wonderful studies on variation; and thirdly, by the announcement of 

 his brilliant theory of natural selection through the survival of the 

 fittest. There is much difference of opinion as to which of these con- 

 stitutes Darwin's most glorious achievement. Neodarwinists regard 

 the promulgation of the theory of natural selection as his greatest work ; 

 experimental zoologists and botanists attribute to his studies on varia- 

 tion a deeper and more salutary influence on present and future inves- 

 tigation; while Neolamarckians insist that his labors in the cause of 

 evolution in general, quite irrespective of whether it be conceived to 

 result from natural selection or from other factors, is his most impor- 

 tant contribution, not only to biological science, but to the whole body 

 of modern thought. With this last estimate I believe that most con- 

 servative men of science will agree. Just how Darwin's work has com- 

 pelled us to change our attitude so radically towards the world about us 

 can be made clear if you will permit me very briefly to contrast the 

 tendencies of ancient and modern science. 



The unceasing flux of phenomena which is all that science can deal 

 with has been envisaged very differently by ancient and modem 

 observers. The Greek scientist fixed his attention on particular mo- 

 ments or aspects of phenomena, so that science became to him a static 

 edifice of concepts or ideas, a hierarchy of genera and species. The 

 scientist of to-day does not thus concentrate his attention on single 

 moments to the exclusion or neglect of all other aspects of a phenom- 

 enon, but seeks to obtain a complete knowledge of the uniformities and 

 constants in its occurrence and recurrence. For this reason modern 

 science is dynamic and lays stress on laws and not on the definition and 

 classification of concepts and ideas. These important differences between 

 ancient and modern science have been clearly pointed out by the eminent 

 French philosopher, Henri Bergson, in the following words : 



Ancient science believed that she understood her object when she had 

 noted its privileged moments, whereas modem science considers it at any 



^Read before the Boston Society of Natural History, February 12, 1909. 



