THE INADEQUACY OF "NATURAL SELECTION." 171 



which he increasingly perceived as he grew older, is more im- 

 portant than he admitted even at the last. The neo-Darwinists, 

 however, do not admit this cause at all. 



Let it not be supposed that this explanation implies any dis- 

 approval of the dissentients, considered as such. Seeing how little 

 regard for authority I have myself usually shown, it would be 

 absurd in me to reflect in any degree upon those who have re- 

 jected certain of Mr. Darwin's teachings, for reasons which they 

 have thought sufficient. But while their independence of thought 

 is to be applauded rather than blamed, it is, I think, to be re- 

 gretted that they have not guarded themselves against a long- 

 standing bias. It is a common trait of human nature to seek 

 some excuse when found in the wrong. Invaded self-esteem sets 

 up a defense, and anything is made to serve. Thus it happened 

 that when geologists and biologists, previously holding that all 

 kinds of organisms arose by special creations, surrendered to 

 the battery opened upon them by The Origin of Species, they 

 sought to minimize their irrationality by pointing to irrationality 

 on the other side. "Well, at any rate, Lamarck was in the 

 wrong." " It is clear that we were right in rejecting his doctrine." 

 And so, by duly emphasizing the fact that he overlooked " Natural 

 Selection" as the chief cause, and by showing how erroneous 

 were some of his interpretations, they succeeded in mitigating the 

 sense of their own error. It is true their creed was that at success- 

 ive periods in the Earth's history, old Floras and Faunas had 

 been abolished and others introduced ; just as though, to use Prof. 

 Huxley's figure, the table had been now and again kicked over 

 and a new pack of cards brought out. And it is true that La- 

 marck, while he rejected this absurd creed, assigned for the facts 

 reasons some of which are absurd. But in consequence of the 

 feeling described, his defensible belief was forgotten and only 

 his indefensible ones remembered. This one-sided estimate has 

 become traditional ; so that there is now often shown a subdued 

 contempt for those who suppose that there can be any truth in 

 the conclusions of a man whose general conception was partly 

 sense, at a time when the general conceptions of his contempo- 

 raries were wholly nonsense. Hence results unfair treatment 

 hence result the different dealings with the views of Lamarck 

 and of Weismann. 



"Where are the facts proving the inheritance of acquired 

 characters " ? ask those who deny it. Well, in the first place, 

 there might be asked the counter-question Where are the facts 

 which disprove it ? Surely if not only the general structures of 

 organisms, but also many of the modifications arising in them, 

 are inheritable, the natural implication is that all modifications 

 are inheritable ; and if any say that the inheritableness is limited 



