264 THEORETICAL BIOLOGY 



up to the mammals. It is obvious that here we are deahng 

 with a comphcation ; for no one will deny that in mammals 

 the relations of the parts to one another and to the whole are 

 far more involved than in the amoebae. Thinking of this 

 transition from the simple to the complex organism, how can 

 we speak of an evolution, an enfolding ? 



It will at once be admitted that evolution is perhaps a 

 badly chosen terminus technicus ; for it is customary to 

 speak of more highly evolved animals, when what is meant 

 is that there is an increase in complexity. 



But this is not correct ; for when Darwinism speaks of 

 the evolution of the individual, it means quite rightly the 

 decrease in the number of its folds. In the Darwinistic 

 sense, evolution means that within the germ the finished 

 animal already lies concealed, just as the folded bud contains 

 the perfect flower, and in addition to growing, has merely 

 to unfold and evolve in order to produce it. That this idea 

 is false does not affect the present argument ; it merely 

 proves that Darwinism, here using the word in its right sense, 

 sees in the genesis of the individual a decrease in the folding, 

 and, accordingly, a simplification. 



It cannot be denied that, in the same breath, Darwinism 



uses one word in two opposite senses. When it speaks of 



J the evolution of the individual, it means simplification ; when 



it speaks of evolution in the animal kingdom, it means 



complication. 



It is not surprising that the hopeless confusion obtaining 

 at present (and not only among laymen) with regard to 

 fundamental questions in natural science, should be the 

 outcome of this unconscious juggling on the part of Dar- 

 winism. 



Darwinism, the logical consistency of which leaves as 

 much to be desired as does the accuracy of the facts on which 

 it is based, is a religion rather than a science. Consequently 



