« PreviousContinue »
they must shed on one another. The two guiding and animating principles of his scientific work were-1. That the embryonic development of one of the higher representatives of any group repeated in a general way the terms of the taxonomic series in the same group, and therefore that embryology furnished the key to a true classification ; and, 2. That the succession of forms and structure in geological times in any group is similar to the succession of forms and structure in the development of the individual in the same group, and thus that embryology furnishes also the key to geological succession. In other words, during his whole life, Agassiz insisted that the laws of embryonic development (ontogeny) are also the laws of geological succession (phylogeny). Surely this is the foundation, the only solid foundation, of a true theory of evolution. It is true that Agassiz, holding as he did the doctrine of permanency of specific types, and therefore rejecting the doctrine of the derivative origin of species, did not admit the causal or natural relation of phylogenic succession to embryonic succession and taxonomic order as we now believe it-it is true that for him the relation between the three series was an intellectual not a physical one-consisted in the preordained plans of the Creator, and not in any genetic connection or inherited property ; but evidently the first and greatest step was the discovery of the relation itself, however accounted for. The rest wa sure to follow,
But more. Not only did Agassiz establish the essential identity of the geologic and embryonic succession, the general similarity of the two series, phylogenic and ontogenic, but he also announced and enforced all the formal laws of geologic succession (i. e., of evolution) as we now know them. These, as already stated and illustrated, are the law of differentiation, the law of progress of the whole, and the law of cyclical movement, although he did not formulate them in these words. No true inductive evidence of evolution was possible without the knowledge of these laws, and for this knowledge we are mainly indebted to Agassiz. He well knew also that they were the laws of embryonic development and therefore of evolution ; but be avoided the word evolution, as implying the derivative origin of species, and used instead the word development, though it is hard to see in what the words differ. Thus, it is evident that Agassiz laid the whole foundation of evolution, solid and broad, but refused to build any scientific structure on it ; he refused to recognize the legitimate, the scientifically necessary outcome of his own work. Nevertheless, without his work a scientific theory of evolution would have been impossible. Without Agassiz (or his equivalent), there would have been no Darwin.
There is something to us supremely grand in this refusal of Agassiz to accept the theory of evolution. The opportunity to become the leader of modern thought, the foremost man of the century, was in his hands, and he refused, because his religious, or, perhaps better, his philosophic intuitions, forbade. To Agassiz, and, indeed, to all men of that time, to many, alas ! even now, evolution is materialism. But materialism is atheism. Will some one say, the genuine Truth-seeker follows where she seems to lead, whatever be the consequences! Yes ; whatever be the consequences to one's self, to one's opinions, prejudices, theories, philosophies, but not to still more certain truth. Now, to Agassiz, as to all genuine thinkers, the existence of God, like our own existence, is more certain than any scientific theory, than anything can possibly be made by proof. From his standpoint, therefore, he was right in rejecting evolution as conflicting with still more certain truth. The mistake which he made was in imagining tbat there was any such conflict at all. But this was the universal mistake of the age. A lesser man would have seen less clearly the higher truth and accepted the lower. A greater man would have risen above the age, and seen that there was no conflict, and so accepted both. All thinking men are coming to this conclusion now, but none had done so then.
Now, then, at last, the obstacle of supernaturalism in the realm of Nature having been removed by the establishment of the doctrine of correlation of natural forces, and the extension of this doctrine to embrace also life-force ; and now also a broad and firm basis of carefully-observed facts and well-established laws of succession of organic forms having been laid by Agassiz, when again, for the third time, the doctrine of origin of species " by derivation with modifications” was brought forward by Darwin in a far more perfect form, with more abundant illustrative materials, and with a new and most potent factor of modification-viz., divergent variations and natural selectionit found the scientific world already fully prepared, and anxiously waiting. I say anxi ously waiting—for the supposed supernatural origin of species had been the one exception to the otherwise universal law of cause and effect, or the law of continuity. It was therefore an open contradiction to the whole drift of scientific thought for five hundred years. Is it any wonder, then, that the derivative origin of species was welcomed with joy by the scientific world ? For five hundred years, scientific thought, like a rising tide which knows no ebb, bad tended thitherward with ever-increasing pressure, but kept back by the one supposed fact of the supernatural origin of species. Darwin lifted the gate, and the in-rushing tide flooded the whole domain of thought.
What, then, is the place of Agassiz in biological science? What is the relation of Agassiz to Darwin-of Agassizian development to Darwinian evolution ? I answer, it is the relation of formal science to physical or causal science. Agassiz advanced biology to the formal stage ; Darwin carried it forward, to some extent at least, to the physical stage. All true inductive sciences in their complete development pass through these two stages. Science in the one stage treats of the laws of phenomena ; in the other, of the causes or explanation of these laws. The former must precede the latter, and form its founda
tion ; the latter must follow the former, and constitute its completion. The change from the one to the other is always attended with prodigious impulse to science.
To illustrate : Until Kepler, astronomy was little more than an accumulation of disconnected facts concerning celestial motionsabundant materials, but no science ; piles of brick and stone, but no building. Kepler reduced this chaos to beautiful order and musical harmony by the discovery of the three great laws which bear his name, and therefore he has been justly called the legislator of the heavensthe largiver of space. But, had be been asked the cause of these beautiful laws, he could only have answered, “The first cause—the direct will of the Deity.” A good answer and a true, but not scientific ; because it places the question beyond the domain of science, which deals only with second or physical causes. But Newton comes forward and gives a physical cause. He shows that all these beautiful laws are the necessary result of gravitation ; and thus astronomy becomes a physical science. So, until Agassiz, the facts of geological succession of organic forms were in a state of lawless confusion. Agassiz by establishing the three great laws of succession, which ought to bear his name, reduced this chaos to order and beauty; and, therefore, be might justly be called the legislator of geological history—the lavogirer of time. But, when asked the cause of these laws, he could only answer, and did indeed answer, “ The plans of the Creator.” A noble answer and true, but not scientific. Darwin now comes forward and gives, partly at least, the cause of these laws. He shows that all these beautiful laws are explained by the doctrine of "origin of species by derivation with modifications"; that these laws are not ultimate, but derivative from more fundamental laws of life; and thus biology is advanced one step, at least, toward the causal stage. Newton and Darwin substituted second causes for first cause-natural for supernatural. They each in his own department broke the bonds of supernaturalism in the domain of Nature.
One more important reflection : There are two, and only two, fundamental conditions of material existence-space and time. There are, therefore, two, and only two, cosmoses-space-cosmos and timecosmos. These bave been redeemed from confusion and reduced to law and order and beauty—changed from chaos to cosmos-by science. For this result we are chiefly indebted, in the one case, to Kepler and Newton ; in the other, to Agassiz and Darwin. The universal law, in the one cosmos, is the law of gravitation ; in the other, the law of evolution. Traced by analysis to its deepest roots of philosophic truth, the one law may be called the divine mode of sustentation ; the other, the divine process of creation.
Or, again : we have all heard of the “music of the spheres ”a beautiful and significant name used by the old thinkers for the divine order of the universe-a music heard not by human ear, but only by the attentive human spirit. Harmonic relation apprehended by reason we call Luw, and its embodiment Science; the same apprehended by the imagination and ästhetic sense, we call Beauty, and its embodiment Art, music. Now, in music there are two kinds of har. mony, simultaneous and consecutive---chordal harmony and melody. These must be combined to produce the grandest effect. So in cosmic order, too, there are two kinds of harmonic relation—the coexistent in space and the consecutive in time. The law of gravitation expresses the universal harmonic inter-relation of objects coexistent in space, the law of evolution, the universal harmonic relation of forms successive in time. Of the divine spheral music, the one is the chordal harmony, the other the consecutive harmony or melody. Combined they form the divine chorus which “the morning stars sang together.”
SPECIALIZATION IN SCIENCE.
Br PROFESSOR G. H. THEODOR EIMER.
me, ence, that the naturalist of to-day can be a physiologist or a physicist, mineralogist, geologist, zoologist, botanist, or chemist, and no more ; that he can not overlook the wbole of science, but can at most only really know a part of his own branch, from which he is not, of course, justified in drawing any general conclusion. It was otherwise with the Jesuit, who excluded himself from no department of knowledge. This man touched accurately what is now recognized as a growing peril to the general significance of science in mental development—the continuous contraction of the individual's field of labor, or specializing. It is right for naturalists in these days to make themselves masters in their own branch, and masters usually in that alone, unless they are in a position to obtain a survey over the whole of the sciences. But it is wrong, in the present condition of knowledge, to deny them a general acquaintance with all scientific matters. That would be to put their capacity below that of the Jesuit, who only desires to obtain a superficial view of science in order to aid him in holding his position in sophistical disputations against it and in favor of his own dogma. Most naturalists and scientifically educated persons have, moreover, been trained in a liberal range of studies, and are well qualified to form a judgment on general scientific as well as upon important and fundamental philosophical questions. Yet we are living, to a large extent, upon the provision left by the fathers. The dividing up is daily becoming more and more minute, and is destined in time to throw a broad shadow over the outlook, unless the demand for a manysided basis of training as a defense against the evil is universally insisted upon. It is not necessary to have always at hand, at every moment of life, all the details of knowledge which one has once made his own, any more than it is to put what one learns to immediate practical use; if it were so, we should be at a loss to determine the value of the gymnasial training which demands the best of the time and the best of the strength of our youth. This principle, and the danger of promoting a one-sided practical training, in specialties, as opposed to general culture and more ideal views of life, were entirely lost sight of when the Imperial Government a few years ago made the far-reaching step in the direction—which was itself opposed from the practical side-of curtailing the required preparatory scientific instruction of physicians.
From this point of view the words receive a new prominence, which State Minister Von Gossler recently spoke in welcoming the fifty-ninth meeting of the German Naturalists and Physicians to Berlin. “The number of those," he said, “who have accurately mastered most of the branches of science seems to be growing less, and the question whether another mind will ever appear who will be able to write a 'Cosmos' for his time is becoming harder to answer. And yet the
conviction remains inextinguishable that there is a ‘Cosmos’and there . must be a 'Cosmos.' It is certainly necessary that an incessant accumulation of scientifically ascertained facts shall continue to go on, whether by the way of logical comparison or by the aid of the imagi. nation, and lead to the acquisition of new theories and new conceptions. But the other principle is just as valid, that the essential nature and the law of what is can not be apprehended without a harmonious intimate association of the individual sciences; and the perception is perhaps constantly becoming more clear that the separation among the branches of knowledge has its ultimate reason in the limitations and finitude of human power. Where we formerly thought we were in the presence of a number of forces and unknown causes, we now try to discern one force in different forms of manifestation; and we can not exclude the thought that the great progress that can be shown in single branches of science, is in many respects a kind of induction effect of that which is made in other branches."
These are golden words, which might well be applied by the state in the training of its citizens—particularly in the circle of the higher schools. Is it not by specializing carried to an extreme that our gymnasial teachers have devoted themselves to the ancient languages, till they are hardly competent to do any better work than to carry youth through these, their specialties during nine years, without their pupils giving a glance at the all-forming spirit of Nature around them? Let me be permitted to add to Minister Von Gossler's expressions a word of protest against this most untimely and damaging of all specializing, in favor of the sciences, which are treated by the schools in so stepmotherly a way. There is an impression still current that scientific training is mischievous to the peaceful citizen”; that it fits him to