266 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. X. No. 252 



science, truth is as a 'a pearl of great price,' to buy whicti he is 

 ready to part with every thing previously obtained ; to the states- 

 man, success is the one thing needful, for the sake of which hardly 

 any sacrifice appears too great. This is not said wholly as a re- 

 proach : it " takes all sorts to make a world." The ardor of the 

 follower of the ideal, which may degenerate into recklessness, is 

 wholesomely checked and beneficially qualified by the calmness of 

 one who has to deal practically with mankind, and has learned by 

 experience that evolution rather than catastrophic change is the law 

 of life, and is in accordance with the analogy of nature. Still the 

 two types of mind are commonly diverse, and the Duke of Argyll 

 has recently afforded a remarkable instance of the extreme difficulty 

 of combining in one person these apparently opposite characters. 



This instance is afforded by an article which appeared in the 

 Ni7ietee}ith Century for September last, and is commented on by 

 Professor Huxley in the number for the present month. The duke's 

 article bears the somewhat imposing title of ' The Great Lesson.' 

 Professor Huxley's reply forms a part of an article entitled 'Science 

 and the Bishops.' As the charge which the duke has in effect 

 brought against men of science is a very grave one, and as some of 

 the readers of Nature may not be constant readers of the chief 

 monthly magazines, a brief notice of both accusation and reply may 

 not be without interest. 



The moral of ' The Great Lesson ' is practically, ' Beware of 

 idolatry.' The scientific world, in the duke's opinion, has been for 

 some time bowing down to the idol of Darwin and the theory of 

 evolution, which is the fundamental dogma of that cult. Like a 

 prophet of old, he raises a warning voice, and points out that the 

 feet of the golden image are in part composed of clay. In the 

 North has been hewn the stone which shall shatter those fragile 

 supports and lay the idol prone in the dust. To abandon meta- 

 phor, this is the state of the case. Among the results of Mr. Dar- 

 win's labors during the voyage of the 'Beagle' in the years 1831- 

 36, when he accumulated that vast store of observations which 

 served as a foundation for ' The Origin of Species by Means of 

 Natural Selection,' was a theory of the formation of coral reefs and 

 atolls, set forth in a volume entitled ' On the Structure and Dis- 

 tribution of Coral Reefs' (published in 1842 and republished in 

 1874). Of this theory the duke gives an outline in ' The Great 

 Lesson,' executing this portion of his task so fully in the spirit of a 

 just judge, and with so little of the craft of an advocate, as to leave 

 nothing to be desired for lucidity of statement and cogency of rea- 

 soning. In fact, in the judge's summing-up, the case for the de- 

 fence appears stronger than that for the prosecution ; so much so, 

 indeed, as to suggest that the difference is due to their inherent 

 merits rather than to the mode of statement. However, be that as 

 it may, the duke thus pronounces judgment, and in so doing passes 

 a censure, stinging if deserved, on the men of science of this gener- 

 ation. 



These are his words (Nineteenth Century, p. 305) : — 



" Mr. Murray's new explanation of the structure and origin of 

 coral reefs and islands was communicated to the Royal Society of 

 Edinburgh in 1880, and supported with such a weight of fact and 

 such a close texture of reasoning, that no serious reply has ever 

 been attempted. At the same time, the reluctance to admit such 

 an error in the great idol of the scientific world, the necessity of 

 suddenly disbelieving all that had been believed and repeated in 

 every form for upwards of forty years, of cancelling what had been 

 taught to the young of more than a whole generation, has led to a 

 slow and sulky acquiescence, rather than to that joy which every 

 true votary of science ought to feel in the discovery of a new truth, 

 and — not less — in the exposure of a long-accepted error." 



Again : — 



" The overthrow of Darwin's speculation is only beginning to be 

 known. It has been whispered for some time. The cherished 

 dogma has been dropping very slowly out of sight. Can it be pos- 

 sible that Darwin was wrong } Must we indeed give up all that 

 we have been accepting and teaching for more than a generation ? 

 Reluctantly, almost sulkily, and with a grudging silence so far as 

 public discussion is concerned, the ugly possibility has been con- 

 templated as too disagreeable to be much talked about ; the evi- 

 dence old and new has been weighed again and again, and the ob- 

 viously inclining balance has been looked at askance many times. 



But, despite all averted looks, I apprehend it has settled to its piace 

 forever, and Darwin's theory of the coral islands must be relegated 

 to the category of the many hypotheses which have indeed helped 

 science for a time, by promoting and provoking further research,, 

 but which in themselves have now finally kicked the beam." 



This, then, is ' The Great Lesson : ' — 



" It is that Darwin's theory is a dream. It is not only unsound 

 but is in many respects the reverse of the truth. With all his con- 

 scientiousness, with all his caution, with all his powers of observa- 

 tion, Darwin in these matters fell into errors as profound as the 

 abysses of the Pacific." 



This is plain speaking. In words which admit of no ambiguity 

 the duke declares that Darwin was wrong ; that Mr. Murray set 

 him right ; and that the latter, instead of receiving a welcome, was 

 met with a virtual conspiracy of silence on the part of scientific 

 men. Of these three assertions, — -which are to a considerable ex- 

 tent independent one of another, — the first and second are ob- 

 viously very much matters of opinion, because, if the third state- 

 ment be true, it is clear that no verdict has been delivered by ex- 

 perts, but that, like an Irish jury, they have professed themselves 

 unable to agree, because the facts were so strong that even they 

 could not bring in a verdict of acquittal. The third assertion, how- 

 ever, is much more a matter of fact, not difficult to substantiate, 

 and at any rate, if incorrect, easy to^ disprove. 



In regard, then, to the first and second, it may suffice to follow 

 Professor Huxley's example, and be content with expressing a 

 doubt as to the accuracy of the duke's assertions. In the face of 

 statements so definite as those quoted above, this may seem pre- 

 sumptuous. They read almost like the sentence of an ecclesiastical 

 court, which it is heresy to question. Caledonia locuta est, causa 

 finita est, seems to be their tone ; and if one whisper a doubt, one 

 expects the familiar conclusion, Attathema sit! But men of 

 science, as all the world knows, are sceptics. Have they yet 

 awakened and rubbed their eyes, and said of Darwin's theory, 

 " Lo ! it was a dream " .' What says Professor Huxley ? He as- 

 serts that Darwin's confidence in the accuracy of his own theory 

 was not seriously shaken, as the duke alleges, and quotes as con- 

 clusive evidence a letter from Professor Judd, who gives the results 

 of a conversation which he had with Darwin no long time before 

 the death of the latter. Professor Huxley also intimates that to 

 himself, though tolerably familiar with coral reefs, the new theory 

 is at first sight so far from fascinating, that, until he can devote a 

 considerable time to a re-examination of the whole subject, he must 

 be content to remain " in a condition of suspended judgment," and 

 that Professor Dana, " an authority of the first rank on such sub- 

 jects," has pronounced against the new hypothesis in explicit terms. 

 Undoubtedly, Mr. Murray has obtained distinguished converts, but 

 with such differences of opinion among those best qualified to 

 judge, it is certainly going further than is warranted by facts to in- 

 sinuate, if not to assert, that he has convinced the scientific public. 

 Very probably more than a minority of them are in my own position, 

 which perhaps I may be pardoned for stating. They, like myself, 

 have never had the opportunity of forming an independent judg- 

 ment upon the matter, but they see some very serious difficulties — 

 difficulties which are of a general rather than of a special nature — 

 in the new explanation. At present these difficulties do not appear 

 to them to have been overcome ; so that, while admitting that Mr. 

 Murray's hypothesis may sometimes apply, and that Darwin either 

 may have expressed himself a little too sweepingly, or may have 

 been understood so to do, the theory of the latter is capable of a 

 more general application, and presents less serious general difficul- 

 ties, than does that of Mr. Murray. 



We come, then, to the third charge, which is the most serious 

 one, because it affects the morality of scientific men ; and many of 

 them, like myself, are old-fashioned enough to resent being called a 

 knave more than being called a fool. Has Mr. Murray been met 

 by ' a conspiracy of silence ' ? The duke, in asserting this, must 

 have been strangely oblivious of, or, among the cares of a states- 

 man, have failed to keep himself au courant with, the literature of 

 geology. Professor Huxley denies the assertion, and adduces in, 

 his support an answer to an inquiry which he had addressed to 

 Professor Judd. The facts according to these authorities are 

 briefly as follows : Mr. Murray's views were duly published, as the 



