done before Darwin. He likewise repudiates Darwin's doc- 

 trine of adaptation and the theory of "chance," which is 

 bound up with all his views. "Darwin's theory of chance 

 seems to me to be especially deserving of rejection." The 

 article closed with these words : "There must evidently be 

 a very definite principle, according to which the frequent 

 and striking development from the homogeneous to the 

 heterogeneous, from the no-longer adapted to the readap- 

 ted, proceeds. We all of us are far from considering this 

 principle a teleological, mystical or mythical one, but for 

 that matter, Darwin's theory of chance is nothing more 

 than a myth." 



He is most certainly in the right. To place this whole 

 wonderful, and so minutely regulated world of organisms 

 at the mercy of chance is utterly monstrous, and for this 

 very reason Darwinism, which is throughout a doctrine of 

 chance, must be rejected; it is indeed a myth. We are 

 grateful to Grottewitz for undertaking to tear the assumed 

 mask of science from this myth and expose it before his 

 associates. He should, however, have done so even more 

 vigorously and unequivocally and should have stated 

 plainly: Darwinism is a complete failure; we believe in- 

 deed in a natural development of the organic world, but we 

 are unable to prove it. 



In the conclusion of the article quoted there is, of 

 course, again to be found the cloven-hoof: by all means no 

 teleological principle ! But why in the world should we not 

 accept a teleological principle, since it is clearly evident 



122 



