A DEFENSE OF MODERN THOUGHT. 789 



Evolution has nothing to do with such questions : it is a simple theory 

 as to the mode of generation and order of succession of different forms 

 of existences. 



It is, however, when his lordship comes to discuss the doctrine of 

 the survival of the fittest that his sad want of acquaintance with the 

 whole subject shows itself most conspicuously. Let me quote : " By 

 some means or other ' the survival of the fittest in the struggle for ex- 

 istence ' is assumed to be a law of Nature, and if it be so our faith is 

 severely taxed. Survival of the fittest fittest for what ? If the an- 

 swer be, fittest for surviving, we argue in a circle, and get no informa- 

 tion whatever. The only rational answer must be, they survive who 

 are fittest for their environments in size, strength, and vigor." Let 

 me here ask what sense the learned author can possibly attach to these 

 last words execpt the very one he had just discarded as meaningless 

 " fitness to survive " ? How is fitness to environment proved except by 

 the actual fact of survival ? Do environments always require " size " 

 as an element of fitness ? By no means, they sometimes require small- 

 ness. When a mouse escapes into a hole, where the cat can not follow, 

 it survives not by reason of its size, but by reason of its smallness. 

 Strength, again, is one element of adaptation to environment, but only 

 one ; and it may fall far below some other element, swiftness, for ex- 

 ample, or cunning, in practical importance. The fact, however, that 

 the learned author sees no meaning in the answer "fitness to sur- 

 vive," tells the whole story of his own unfitness for the special envi- 

 ronment in which he has placed himself in attempting to discuss the 

 doctrine of evolution, and rather tends to create doubt as to the sur- 

 vival of the work he has given to the world. This is a matter in 

 which no aptitude in quoting Horace is of any avail. The road to an 

 understanding of the terms and conceptions of modern science lies in a 

 careful study at first hand of the works in which these terms and con- 

 ceptions are expounded. His lordship assumes that, if we say that 

 those survive who are fit to survive, we utter a barren truism. It is a 

 truism we may grant, but not a barren one, any more than the axioms 

 of geometry are barren. The simple word " fitness " implies a definite 

 external something, adaptation to which is the price of existence. The 

 definiteness of the mold involves the definiteness of that which is 

 molded ; and all the miracles of life and organization we see around 

 us are in the last resort merely examples of adaptation to fixed condi- 

 tions of existence. " Born into life we are," says Matthew Arnold, 

 " and life must be our mold." By " life " understand the universe, and 

 we have a poetical version of the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. 

 It so happens, and this is a further truth which it would not be well to 

 pass over, that adaptation does more or less imply excellence even from 

 the human stand-point. All those adaptations that favor human life 

 and happiness we of course call excellent, even though they may not be 

 favorable to the life and happiness of other living creatures. And as 



