Darwin's dilemma 237 



question of naming as I do. It is my simple intention to show 

 what strange views we may be led to, unless we clear up this 

 particular problem of naming in connection with the theory 

 of evolution — with the theory of evolution, at least as it was 

 begun by Darwin. Theories of evolution were around long 

 before then, but Darwin can be said to have begun the scientific 

 investigation of the problem and to have proposed a scien- 

 tifically sound theory, at least for his time. 



One of these strange views — and I should not use the word 

 " strange " in too forceful a way — we find in Sir Julian Huxley's 

 interpretation of general Darwinian theory. Darwin allowed 

 that one plant may be said to struggle " more truly " than 

 another plant, according to circumstances, or according to kind, 

 or according to the kind of plant or kinds of plants with which 

 it has to struggle. Now this is surely very different from saying 

 that a stone is more truly a stone than a heart of stone, because 

 in the latter case we have not changed the imposition of the 

 word " stone "; we have retained the first meaning and applied 

 it without imposing a new meaning upon it. There is a change 

 in the mode of signifying, but not in the significance of the 

 word. For the " heart of stone " is in no sense truly a stone 

 at all. But Sir Julian takes Darwin's " metaphorical sense " 

 quite literally. Take, for instance, the term tending in " ten- 

 dency of all organisms to increase in geometrical ratio." Is 

 the word " tendency " used here as a metaphor, or is it taken 

 as an analogous term.^ For instance, it is a metaphor in " the 

 tendency of a variable to its limit." This is not tendency by 

 which a man tends to do this, or tends to do that; or by which 

 a dog intends to get the bone. The " tendency of a variable 

 to a limit " is in this context plainly a metaphor. 



Sir Julian Huxley writes that " at first sight, the biological 

 sector seems full of purpose. Organisms are built as if in 

 purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim." But the truth, he adds, 

 " lies in those two words ' as if.' As the genius of Darwin 

 showed, the purpose is only an apparent one." Darwin's con- 

 tribution, according to Sir Julian, consists precisely in this — 



