MODERN BIOLOGY 481 



Speculation, equally unworkable in form as in contents and therefore in- 

 evitably doomed to failure. 



It would hardly be worth while to carry this account of the attacks 

 against Darwin any further. We might still mention the contribution of 

 S. WiLBERFORCE, Bishop of Oxfotd, owing to the sensation it created at the 

 time. Having himself studied natural science, and with the indefatigable 

 Owen as prompter, he reviews the weaknesses of Darwinism in an easy and 

 fluent style, though somewhat superficially, but at the end of his treatise 

 he spoils his case completely by sermonizing on the subject of the origin 

 of man, bringing forward all the persons of the Trinity as arguments to 

 prove a special creation in the image of God. From such opponents Darwin 

 clearly had nothing to fear. But even scientists with a truly modern concep- 

 tion adopted from the outset an attitude of criticism towards this theory — 

 KoLLiKER, for instance. In a brief examination, substantiated by numerous 

 facts, Kolliker submits in a concise and determined style his objections to 

 the theory of selection, at the same time acknowledging the great service 

 of Darwin in having sought to base the knowledge of the origin of organ- 

 isms upon experiments and in having made descent the foundation thereof, 

 so that the life-forms might be regarded as a series of evolutionary phenom- 

 ena. He expressly declares that the earlier attempts of natural philosophy to 

 construct a history of evolution are weak in comparison with Darwin's, 

 and, moreover, he appreciates the far-reaching insight and the splendid con- 

 scientiousness on which his theory is founded. As its weak points he men- 

 tions first of all its teleological conception; the principle of finality as applied 

 to life -forms, which has already been pointed out above; further, the ab- 

 sence of transition forms between the species, both extant and fossil, the 

 lack of proof that characterizes 'the entire hypothesis of selection, and 

 finally the circumstance that nothing is known of unfertile variety-hybrids, 

 which would nevertheless be bound to appear somewhere if the varieties 

 were transitions to species. Moreover, Kolliker holds that it is possible to 

 imagine other ways of evolution than Darwin's. He considers that the idea 

 that all species have been created as they are is not worth discussing, but 

 it is conceivable either that all organisms have arisen each out of its own 

 primary form, or that the species have come into existence through one pri- 

 mary form or through a few. The latter alternative he considers to be more 

 probable, but then there must be a common law governing formation, ac- 

 cording to which forms of one kind may in certain circumstances give rise 

 to entirely different forms, either by a larval form's adopting an independ- 

 ent course of development, or by an egg or embryo of a lower form's giving 

 rise to a higher type of life. This creation theory of Kolliker's is merely a 

 concept and is, moreover, based on hypotheses that have never been con- 

 firmed. Of real value, on the other hand, is his criticism of Darwm's theory 



