35^ THE HISTORY OF CREATIOISr. 



remains in detail (like all the pedigrees of animals and 

 plants previously discussed) a more or less approximate 

 general hypothesis. This however does not affect the 

 application of the theory of descent to man. Here, as in 

 all investigations on the derivation of organisms, one must 

 clearly distinguish between the general theory of descent 

 and the special hypotheses of descent. The general theory of 

 descent claims full and lasting value, because it is an 

 inductive law, based upon all the whole series of biological 

 phenomena and their inner causal connection. Every 

 special hypothesis of descent, on the other hand, has its 

 special value determined by the existing condition of our 

 biological knowledge, and by the extent of the objective 

 empirical basis upon which we deductively establish this 

 particular hypothesis. Hence, aU the individual attempts 

 to obtain a knowledge of the pedigree of any one group of 

 organisms possesses but a temporary and conditional value, 

 and any special hypothesis relating to it will become the 

 more and more perfect the greater the advance we make in 

 the comparative anatomy, ontogeny, and palaeontology of 

 the group in question. The more, however, we enter into 

 genealogical details, and the further we trace the separate 

 off-shoots and branches of the pedigree, the more uncertain 

 and subjective becomes our special hypothesis of descent on 

 account of the incompleteness of our empirical basis. This 

 however does no injury to the general theory of descent, 

 which remains as the indispensable foundation for really 

 profound apprehension of biological phenomena. Accord- 

 ingly, there can be no doubt that we can and must, with 

 fuU assurance, regard the derivation of man — in the first 

 place, from ape-like forms; further back, from lower 



