NA TURE 



25 



THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1887. 



A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE. 



^"'HE Duke of Argyll is eminent as a statesman, and 

 has won distinction as a man of science. The 

 mental qualities, however, which lead to success in these 

 capacities are widely different ; nay, in the opinion of some, 

 are almost oppugnant. To the man of science, truth is as 

 a "pearl of great price," to buy which he is ready to part 

 with everything previously obtained ; to the statesman, 

 success is the one thing needful, for the sake of which 

 hardly any sacrifice appears too great. This is not said 

 wholly as a reproach : it " takes all sorts to make a 

 world." The ardour of the follower of the ideal, which 

 may degenerate into recklessness, is wholesomely checked 

 and beneficially qualified by the calmness of one who has 

 to deal practically with mankind, and has learned by 

 experience that evolution rather than catastrophic change 

 is the law of life, and is in accordance with the analogy 

 of Nature. Still the two types of mind are commonly 

 diverse, and the Duke of Argyll has recently afforded a 

 remarkable instance of the extreme difficulty of combining 

 in one person these apparently opposite characters. 



This instance is afforded by an article which appeared 

 in the Nineteenth Century for September last, and is 

 commented on by Prof. Huxley in the number for the 

 present month. The Duke's article bears the somewhat 

 imposing title of "The Great Lesson." Prof. Huxley's 

 reply forms a part of an article entitled " Science and the 

 Bishops." As the charge which the Duke has in effect 

 brought against men of science is a very grave one, and 

 as some of the readers of Nature may not be constant 

 readers of the chief monthly magazines, a brief notice of 

 both accusation and reply may not be without interest. 



The moral of " The Great Lesson " is, practically, 

 " beware of idolatry." The scientific world, in the Duke's 

 opinion, has been for some time bowing down to the idol 

 of Darwin and the theory of evolution, which is the funda- 

 mental dogma of that cult. Like a prophet of old he raises a 

 warning voice, and points out that the feet of the golden 

 image are in part composed of clay. In the North has been 

 hewn the stone which shall shatter those fragile supports 

 and lay the idol prone in the dust ! To abandon meta- 

 phor, this is the state of the case. Among the results of 

 Mr. Darwin's labours during the voyage of the Beagle in 

 the years 1831-36, when he accumulated that vast store 

 of observations which served as a foundation for "the 

 Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection," was a 

 theory of the formation of Coral Reefs and Atolls, set 

 forth in a volume entitled " On the Structure and Dis- 

 tribution of Coral Reefs" (published in 1842 and repub- 

 lished in 1874). Of this theory the Duke gives an outline 

 in " The Great Lesson," executing this portion of his task 

 so fully in the spirit of a just judge, and with so little 

 of the craft of an advocate, as to leave nothing to be 

 desired for lucidity of statement and cogency of reason- 

 ing. In fact, in the judge's summing up, the case for the 

 defence appears stronger than that for the prosecution — 

 so much so, indeed, as to suggest that the difference is 

 Vol. XXXVII. — No. 941. 



due to their inherent merits rather than to the mode of 

 statement. However, be that as it may, the Duke thus 

 pronounces judgment, and in so doing passes a censure, 

 stinging if deserved, on the men of science of this 

 generation. 



These are his words {Nineteenth Century, p. 305) :— - 



" Mr. Murray's new explanation of the structure and 

 origin of coral reefs and islands was communicated to 

 the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1880, and supported 

 with such a weight of fact and such a close texture of 

 reasoning that no serious reply has ever been attempted. 

 At the same time, the reluctance to admit such an error 

 in the great idol of the scientific world, the necessity of 

 suddenly disbelieving all that had been believed and 

 repeated in every form for upwards of forty years, of 

 cancelling what had been taught to the young of more 

 than a whole generation, has led to a slow and sulky 

 acquiescence, rather than to that joy which every true 

 votary of science ought to feel in the discovery of a new 

 truth, and — not less — in the exposure of a long-accepted 

 error." 



Again : — 



" The overthrow of Darwin's speculation is only begin- 

 ning to be known. It has been whispered for some time. 

 The cherished dogma has been dropping very slowly 

 out of sight. Can it be possible that Darwin was wrong ? 

 Must we indeed give up all that we have been accepting 

 and teaching for more than a generation 1 Reluctantly, 

 almost sulkily, and with a grudging silence so far as 

 public discussion is concerned, the ugly possibility has 

 been contemplated as too disagreeable to be much talked 

 about ; the evidence old and new has been weighed again 

 and again, and the obviously inclining balance has been 

 looked at askance many times. But, despite all averted 

 looks, I apprehend it has settled to its place for ever, and 

 Darwin's theory of the coral islands must be relegated to 

 the category of the many hypotheses which have indeed 

 helped science for a time, by promoting and provoking 

 further research, but which in themselves have now 

 finally kicked the beam." 



This, then, is " The Great Lesson " : — 



" It is that Darwin's theory is a dream. It is not 

 only unsound, but is in many respects the reverse of 

 the truth. With all his conscientiousness, with all his 

 caution, with all his powers of observation, Darwin in 

 these matters fell into errors as profound as the abysses 

 of the Pacific." 



This is plain speaking. In words which admit of no 

 ambiguity the Duke declares that Darwin was wrong ; 

 that Mr. Murray set him right ; and that the latter, instead 

 of receiving a welcome, was met with a virtual conspiracy 

 of silence on the part of scientific men. Of these three 

 assertions — which are to a considerable extent independent 

 one of another — the first and second are obviously very 

 much matters of opinion, because, if the third statement 

 be true, it is clear that no verdict has been delivered by 

 experts, but that, like an Irish jury, they have professed 

 themselves unable to agree, because the facts were so 

 strong that even they could not bring in a verdict of 

 acquittal. The third assertion, however, is much more a 

 matter of fact, not difficult to substantiate, and at any rate, 

 if incorrect, easy to disprove. 



In regard, then, to the first and second it may suffice 

 to follow Prof. Huxley's example and be content with 

 expressing a doubt as to the accuracy of the Duke's 



C 



