A WEEKLY ILLUSTRATED JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 



" To the solid ground 

 Of Nature trusts the mind which builds for aye." — Wordsworth 



THURSDAY, MAY 5, 18S1 



EVOLUTION 

 Evolution, Expression, and Sensation. By John Cleland, 

 M.D., F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy in the University 

 of Glasgow. (Glasgow: James Maclehose, 1881.) 



PROF. CLELAND is so well known as a skilled 

 anatomist who holds some views of his own on the 

 subject of evolution, that we are glad to welcome in this 

 book a definite statement of what these views are. The 

 work, moreover, is throughout very interesting. It is a 

 collection of six essays, of which the first is on Evolution, 

 the second on Expression, the third on Vision, the fourth 

 on a Theory concerning the relations of Body and Mind, 

 the fifth on Theories of the CeU, and tlie sixth a reprint 

 of an address to medical students on Truth, Pathology, 

 and the Public. These essays display a good deal of 

 original and suggestive thinking, though not always of a 

 kind with which we are disposed to agree. 



The first essay, on the " Evolution of Organisations," 

 e.xpresses the view that gradual development has been 

 the law of organic nature, but that this law has always 

 been subservient to, or expressive of, supernatural design. 

 After some introductory paragraphs the author clearly 

 enough strikes his key-note thus. The fact of evolution 

 being granted, it " may be conceived of variously, both in 

 respect of character and cause. In its character it may 

 be conceived of as a growth without aim, forming alto- 

 gether an indefinite aggregation like the sum of the 

 branches of a tree ; or the view may be held that it is an 

 orderly arrangement, like some vast temple in which 

 every minaret and most fantastic ornament has' got its 

 own appointed place and harmonies, while the central 

 tower ascends to its pre-ordained completeness." He 

 then goes on to complain that " the name of Evolutionist 

 has, with curious obliviousness, been assumed as a dis- 

 tinctive title by those who believe that the evolution is 

 merely indefinite. . . . Had they called themselves 

 Demolitionists, on account of their disbelief in morpho- 

 logical design, the name might possibly have been more 

 expressive." 



From this quotation the tone of the whole essay may 

 be inferred. The essay, however, is written in the most 

 Vol. XXIV. — No. 601 



temperate style, and by a man who certainly has a good 

 right to be heard on all matters pertaining to morpholog)'. 

 We shall therefore offer a few remarks upon his general 

 position as indicated by the above extract. 



As regards the mere name appropriated by evolutionists 

 of the naturalistic school, we cannot see that there is 

 much ground for complaint. It is intended to signify 

 belief in gradual development by natural causes as dis- 

 tinguished from sudden changes due to supernatural inter- 

 vention. The name therefore has really no direct reference 

 to any ulterior belief or opinion as to whether behind the 

 natural causes producing evolution there is any super- 

 natural design — provided only that this design is not 

 supposed to display itself by breaking out into miracle, or 

 interference with these natural causes. Therefore Prof. 

 Cleland has quite as much right as Prof. Hiickel, whom 

 he rightly enough regards as a representative of the 

 thorough-going " Demohtionists," to call himself an 

 evolutionist, and we do not see that Hiickel could pro- 

 perly deny him this right ; they both believe in evolution 

 as a process, much as they may differ in their views on 

 all that lies behind that process. And the only reason 

 why the term evolutionist has in many minds become 

 identified with extra-theistic opinion, is simply because 

 the theory of evolution has been for the most part deve- 

 loped by minds unfettered by any preconceived ideas on 

 " the Method of Divine Government." If we had had to 

 wait for the natural theologians to teach us the theory in 

 question. Prof. Cleland's essay would not yet have been 

 conceived. It nevertheless remains perfectly true that 

 now when it has been conceived, written, and printed, he 

 is as much an evolutionist as anybody else. 



But when we pass from this question of mere terminology 

 to the more important matter with which the essay is con- 

 cerned, we are brought face to face with a question which 

 it is useless in these columns to discuss. This question 

 is whether the new light which science has shed on biology 

 by the theory of descent is compatible with the older 

 theory of design, and if so, to what extent. It is useless 

 in these columns to discuss this question, because it is 

 one upon which opinions differ, and may legitimately 

 differ, through all points of the intellectual compass; 

 there being here no general medium of knowledge to 

 direct opinion, every man's judgment rests in whatever 



