492 



NATURE 



\Oct. 4, 1877 



less fancies, an 1 will arrive at absurd conclusions. The speaker 

 then turned to the conceptions of the universe. The world 

 which is known to us changes ; if we follow this in the past and 

 future we find, from a physical point of view, a state which 

 approaches perfect rest more and more, without reaching it alto- 

 gether. But if we suppose that in space worlds arise from worlds 

 without e ,d and perish again, then the successive state.;, accord- 

 ing to the materialistic conception, are of the same value, while 

 according to the philosophical conception they change their rela- 

 tive value by becoming more perfect. The one conception lets 

 the world awaken from dead repo;e and return to it, the other 

 condemns it to eternal repose. With regard to the extension of 

 the universe in space, the thought that all material space must 

 again and again have limits, leads us to the mathematical con- 

 clusion that our earth, just as it is now, reoccurs in infinite num- 

 bers in the universe. The speaker then passed to the third point, 

 viz., the demands we make of knowledge. Our knowledge does 

 not go further than to compare observed phenomena and judge 

 of them with regard to others ; we understand a phenomenon, 

 understand its value with regard to other phenomena, if either we 

 measure, count, or weigh it, or if we create it ourselves. It is in 

 this latter manner that mathematical science is the product of our 

 mind. The understanding of nature therefore rests in the recog- 

 nition of the mathematical method in natural phenomena. 

 As by the help of mathematics we understand only relative 

 or quantitative differences, but not qualitative ones, because 

 these cannot be compared, it follows that with regard to the 

 latter scientific understanding is ordy possible separately within 

 each single individual. Then Prof. Niigeli spoke against the 

 opinion of those who divide nature into a material and a spiritual 

 one, because no naturalist can avoid the conception of a causal 

 connection of mind and body. The finite human mind is a 

 double one ; on the one hand it invents and puts the muscles 

 intc motion, on the other it contemplates, feels pleasure and 

 pain, hate and love, and remembers. Even without this latter 

 property, therefore, without consciousness, the world would have 

 become world, man would have lived and t.aught, spoken and 

 made music, but everything only mechanically — man would have 

 been, an automaton. Prof. Niigeli then passed from the domain 

 of the mind to that of sensation, explaining that doubtless 

 there v/as sensation in all molecular forces, the saiw. sensations 

 in the highest as well as in the lowest stages of organs, in 

 the former only so much more vivid and refined than in the 

 latter. If we understand spiritual life to be the mediator of 

 cause and effect, then we find it everywhere. Du Bois-Reymond, 

 who treated the same subject at Leipzig in 1S72, finished his 

 address with the words " Ignoramus et ignorabimus," but Prof. 

 Niigeli ended his speech with the proud words^" We know, and 

 we shall know if we are satisfied with human insight." 



An address by Prof. Dr. Klebs, of Prague, followed " On the 

 Changes in IVIedical Views during; the Last Decades." 



At the final meeting, on the 22nd instant, Prof. Rudolf 

 Virchowgave an address " On the Liberty of Science in Modern 

 State-life," which was received with loud acclamations of approval. 

 Alttr contrasting former with present times. Prof. Vnchow said 

 that the last few days had proved that now science enjoys full 

 liberty. We must retain this possession, and must take care not 

 to go too far. Moderation, the resignation ol personal predi- 

 lections, will be necessary to retain the present favourable con- 

 ditions. The sum total of that which we may designate as true 

 and real science, in the strictest sense of the woid, and for which 

 alone we may demand full scientific liberty, is a far more modest 

 one than the domain of speculative expansion of problems and 

 of presentiment. The spe.\ker tlien in the most detailed and 

 interesting manner drew the limit be'ween speculative investiga- 

 tion on the one side and that which we have recognised as facts 

 on the other. Prof. Virchow is ready to ask that everything 

 which may be considered as a perfectly secured scientific truth, 

 shall be admitted to the scientific treasure of the nation. If now 

 we stand everywhere before reforms in education, and if for 

 natural science a far-reaching consideration is claimed, it must 

 first of all be perfectly clear to us what is to be comprised in 

 this science and what not, and it cannot be left for the peda- 

 g igues to decide, as I'rof Ilaeckel says it ought to be, whellier 

 me doctrine of evolution is to be comprised in the programme of 

 elucation or not. If this doctrine is a scientific truth, and proved 

 beyond doubt, then its admission to this educational programme 

 must be demanded, unless we wish to make hypociites of our 

 t^ciievs. But if it is completely proved it ought to be explained 

 to every child in the schools, not only to the scientific man. 

 The speaker then criticised somewhat severely Prof. Haeckel's 



theory of the plistidule soul and of the animated cell. As long as 

 the undeniable proofs were wanting, he maintained, we ought, on 

 thecontrary.to ask our teachers not to teach the evolution doctrine. 

 In the domain of the doctrine of evolution wiie moderation is more 

 necessary than anywhere else. For many years Harvey's maxim, 

 " Omne vivum ex ovo " remained undenied ; to-day we know for 

 certain that the "omne" is incorrect. In the same way the 

 " generatio a:quivoca " maybe true or not it certainly is not 

 undeniably proved. In natural science belief and knowledge, 

 i.e., subjecdve and objective knowledge are united. The domain 

 of dogmatic belief is lessened year after year in favour of objec- 

 tive knowledge which is based upon ficts. But apart from the 

 latter, subjective knowledge makes itself very prominent some- 

 times, and hallucinations and fancies are now and then hid 

 beneath its cover. Anthropological investigations contradict 

 directly the doctrine of evolution. The skulls found in the 

 tombs of the oldest times show a far more human and a far less 

 apish type than do a gieat many living heads, and we cannot 

 suppose that only the highest-developed skulls of those periods 

 have escaped destruction. Therefore, precaution, moderation, 

 no overrating of our scientific power, for Bacon's " scientia est 

 potentia " is only meant for true objective knowledge, i 



Many papers of great scientific value were read in the various 

 sections, and we hope to be able to refer to these in a future 

 number. 



THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE EVO- 

 LUTION THEORY' 

 r~\N this festive day which unites us here for the open'ng of the 

 ^"^ fiftieth meeting of the Association of German Naturalists, ' 

 universal science may justly point out its relation to the 

 domains of our special investigations. Ou such a day the 

 educated of all circles, who follow with vivid interest the asto- 

 nishing progress of the investigation of nature are specially 

 to ask what general results have been obtained for the entire 

 domain of humrn education. If, therefore, to-diy I comply 

 with the honourable request addressed to me, and ask for your 

 kind attention for a short time, I do not think that I can choose 

 a more fitting subject fjr our common consideration than the 

 relation of science as a whole to that branch of investigation 

 which lies nearcit to me, viz., the doctrine of evolution. 



No other doctrine has so vividly claimed general attention for 

 the last decade, no other alTects our most important convictions 

 so deeply, than the newly-risen doctrine of evolution and the 

 monistic philosophy united with it. Because wholly and solely 

 by this doctrine the " question of all questions " can be solved, 

 the fundamental "question of the position of man in nature." 

 As mm himself is the measure of all things, thus naturally the 

 last fundamental questions and the highest principles of all 

 science must depend on the position which our advanced under- 

 standing of nature assigns in nature to man himself 



As you know, it is principally to Charles Darwin that the 

 evolution theory of the present day owes this commanding 

 position. Because it was he who, eighteen years ago, first broke 

 through the ri^id ice-cover of reigning prejudices, inspired by the 

 same fundamental thought of a monisticdevelopment of the world, 

 which a century ago moved our greatest thinkers and poets, 

 Imraanuel Kant and Wolfgang Goethe at their head. By the 

 conception of his theory of selection — the doctrine of natural 

 selection in the struggle lor existence — Darwin c juld in particular 

 give a firm foundation to the most important biological part of 

 that doctrine, which had already appeared in the beginning of 

 our century, viz., the theory of descent. In vain the older 

 natural philosophy had then begun the fight for this theory ; 

 neither Lamarck and Geoffroy St. Hilaire in France, nor Oken 

 and Schellin.^ in Germany could obtain a victory for it. Just 

 fifty years have nov passed since Lorenz Oken began his 

 academical lectures on the theory of evolution here at Munich, 

 and it therefore becomes us here today to place a laurel wreath 

 upon the tomb of this deep-sighted zojlogist and inspired philo- 

 sppher. It was Oken also wlio, in his enthusiasm lor scientific 

 unity, called together the first meeting of Germui mturalists at 

 Jena in 1822, and to whom, for that reason alone, the thanks of 

 this fiftieth assembly ar; due. 



Bat the natural philosophy of that time could only draw up the 

 general plan of construction and the first outline of the colossal 

 edifice of the monistic theory ot evolution ; only the zealous and 

 ant-Iike ddigence of half the following century collected the 



• " On the Evolution Theory of the Present Day in itb Rel.itionto Science 

 in general." Address by Prof. Haeckel at the Munich Meeelijig of the 

 German Association. 



