256 LUCK, OR CUNNING? 



mainly upon the accidents of molecular physics in a 

 colliding germ cell and sperm cell ; the other makes 

 him depend mainly on the doings and gains of his 

 ancestors as modified and altered by himself." 



This second creed is pure Erasmus-Darwinism and 

 Lamarck. 



Again : — 



" It seems to me easy to understand how survival 

 of the fittest may result in progress starting from such 

 functionally produced gains (italics mine), but im- 

 possible to understand how it could result in progress, 

 if it had to start in mere accidental structural incre- 

 ments due to spontaneous variation alone." * 



Which comes to saying that it is easy to understand 

 the Lamarckian system of evolution, but not the 

 Charles-Darwinian. Mr. Allen concluded his article 

 a few pages later on by saying : — 



" The first hypothesis " (Mr. Darwin's) " is one that 

 throws no light upon any of the facts. The second 

 hypothesis " (which is unalloyed Erasmus Darwin and 

 Lamarck) " is one that explains them all with tran- 

 sparent lucidity." Yet in his " Charles Darwin " Mr. 

 Allen tells us that though Mr. Darwin " did not invent 

 the development theory, he made it believable and 

 comprehensible " (p. 4). 



In his " Charles Darwin " Mr. Allen does not tell us 

 how recently he had, in another place, expressed an 

 opinion about the value of Mr. Darwin's " distinctive 

 contribution" to the theory of evolution, so widely 

 difierent from the one j^he is now expressing with 

 * Mind, p. 498, Oct. 1883. 



