SOME COMMON ERRORS CONSIDERED 99 



man who was asked to frame an hypothesis to 

 explain the recovery of his sight: "One thing I 

 know, that whereas I was blind, now I see." 



Similarly we should see the fact of organic 

 evolution, even though we had no idea of its 

 explanation and had never sought for one. 



One consequence of this unfortunate confusion 

 of a fact with a certain explanation of it is to be 

 traced in the third error which we may now 

 consider. Men regard the explanation, natural 

 selection, as an essential part of that which it 

 explains, the fact of organic evolution. Now this 

 fact is merely a fact of change : change which 

 may be for the " better " or for the " worse " or may 

 be neither. But when natural selection is regarded 

 as an essential part of organic evolution, a wholly 

 erroneous inference is drawn. The phrase readily 

 lends itself to the process of personification — a 

 circumstance which led Spencer to substitute for 

 it the expression, " survival of the fittest " — and 

 men dimly conceive of " Nature " (which is prac- 

 tically equivalent to " Providence ") as selecting 

 what types she prefers for perpetuation. Now 

 Nature (or Providence) will surely preserve the 

 best (they think), and even Spencer's phrase does 

 not succeed in averting the erroneous interpreta- 

 tion, for survival of the fittest is readily construed 

 in accordance with the notion already half-for- 

 mulated, as survival of the best. Briefly, then, the 

 law of evolution is a law of progress : all things 

 are on an upward journey, under the guidance of 

 Providence. 



Whether or not we may accept any attempt at 



