Wagner's statement implies that, in the case of Dar- 

 winism one may in defiance of all established law, actually 

 reverse the methods of natural science. How justifiable 

 and how necessary was it not, then, that even three decades 

 ago Wigand should have written his comprehensive work: 

 "Darwinism and the Scientific Researches of Newton and 

 Cuvier." 



Ordinarily the scientific (inductive) method proceeds 

 from the "actual" and attempts to deduce from the "indi- 

 vidual case" an explanation, which applies to the whole. 

 Here, however, we are face to face with a theory, which, 

 according to the candid confession of an advocate, fails in 

 the individual case, but furnishes a unifying explanation of 

 the whole. This means nothing less than a complete sub- 

 version of all scientific methods. Usually a theory is 

 deduced from separate observations regarding the "actual '' 

 but here — and this is what Wigand constantly asserted — 

 the theory was enunciated first, and then followed the at- 

 tempt to establish it in fact. One could then rest content 

 and trust to the future to establish the theory by producing 

 evidences of the "actual" in the individual case. But forty 

 years have elapsed since the Darwinian hypothesis first be- 

 came known, naturalists by the thousands have spent them- 

 selves in the endeavor to corroborate it by proofs based on 

 actual facts, and to-day one of its own advocates has to con- 

 fess that the endeavor has been a total failure. Instead of 

 drawing the conclusion, however, that the theory is un- 

 warranted and that the decrease of enthusiasm for it is 



93 



