110 MR. DARWIN'S WORK AND 



to give rise to the phenomena. Here, I think, Mr. Darwin's 

 view is pretty strong. I really believe that the alternative 

 is either Darwinism or nothing, for I do not know of any 

 rational conception or theory of the organic universe which 

 has any scientific position at all beside Mr. Darwin's. I 

 do not know of any proposition that has been put before 

 us with the intention of explaining the phenomena of 

 organic nature, which has in its favour a thousandth 

 part of the evidence which may be adduced in favour 

 of Mr. Darwin's views. Whatever may be the objections 

 to his views, certainly all others are absolutely out of court. 



Take the Lamarckian hypothesis, for example. Lamarck 

 was a great naturalist, and to a certain extent went the 

 right way to work ; he argued from what was undoubtedly 

 a true cause of some of the phenomena of organic nature. 

 He said it is a matter of experience that an animal may be 

 modified more or less in consequence of its desires and 

 consequent actions. Thus, if a man exercise himself as a 

 blacksmith, his arms will become strong and muscular ; 

 such organic modification is a result of this particular 

 action and exercise. Lamarck thought that by a very 

 simple supposition based on this truth he could explain 

 the origin of the various animal species : he said, for 

 example, that the short-legged birds which live on fish, 

 had been converted into the long-legged waders by desiring 

 to get the fish without wetting their feet, and so stretching 

 their legs more and more through successive generations. 

 If Lamarck could have shown experimentally, that even 

 races of animals could be produced in this way, there 

 might have been some ground for his speculations. But 

 he could show nothing of the kind, and his hypothesis has 

 pretty well dropped into oblivion, as it deserved to do. 

 I said in an earlier lecture that there are hypotheses and 

 hypotheses, and when people tell you that Mr. Darwin's 

 strongly-based hypothesis is nothing but a mere modification 

 of Lamarck's, you will know what to think of their capacity 

 for forming a judgment on this subject. 



But you must recollect that when I say I think it is 

 either Mr. Darwin's hypothesis or nothing ; that either 

 \ve must take his view, or look upon the whole of organic 

 nature as an enigma, the meaning of which is wholly hidden 

 from us ; you must understand that I mean that I accept 

 it provisionally, in exactly the same way as I accept any 

 other hypothesis. Men of science do not pledge themselves 



