Part 4 (1/2)
For Virchow these specialist difficulties seeards my reticence as a mere ”postpone astonishi+ng sentences:--”If the theory of descent is as certain as Herr Haeckel assumes, then we must deht in schools How is it conceivable that a doctrine of such importance, which must effect such a total revolution in all our mental consciousness, which directly tends to create a new kind of religion, should not be included in the school scheme of instruction? How is it possible that such a--revelation, shall I say--should be in any reatest andthe present century should be left to the discretion of schoolentlemen, that would indeed be a renunciation of the hardest kind, and practically it could never be carried out! Every schoolmaster who assumes this doctrine for himself will involuntarily teach it, how can it be otherwise?”
I must here be permitted to take Virchow exactly at his word I endorse al sentences The only difference in our views is this, that Virchow regards the theory of descent as an unproved and unproveable hypothesis; I, on the contrary, as a fully established and indispensable theory How then will it be if the teachers of whoree with my views, if--apart, of course, from all special theories of descent--they, like eneral theory of descent as the indispensable basis of all biological teaching? And that that is actually the case Virchow may easily convince hiy and botany! Our whole ical literature in particular is already so deeply and coenetic principles already prevail so universally as a certain and indispensable instrument of inquiry, that no man for the future would deprive himself of their help As Oscar Schmidt justly observes--”Perhaps ninety-nine per cent of all living, or rather of all working zoologists, are convinced by inductive methods of the truth of the doctrine of descent” And Virchoith his isterial requirements will attain only the very reverse of what he aims at How often has it not been said already that science must either have perfect freedo as it is of inquiry, for the two are intrinsically and inseparably connected And so it is not in vain that it is written in section 152 of the German Code, and in section 20 of the Prussian Charter, ”Science and her teaching shall be free!”
CHAPTER VI
THE DOCTRINE OF DESCENT AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
Every great and comprehensive theory which affects the foundations of human science, and which, consequently, influences the systems of philosophy, will, in the first place, not only further our theoretical views of the universe, but will also react on practical philosophy, ethics, and the correlated provinces of religion and politics In my paper read at Munich I only briefly pointed out the happy results which, in my opinion, the modern doctrine of evolution will entail when the true, natural religion, founded on reason, takes the place of the dog principle derives the human sense of duty from the social instincts of animals
The references to the social instincts which I, in coard as the proper source and origin of all moral development, appear to have afforded Virchow an opportunity in his reply for designating the doctrine of inheritance as a ”socialist theory,” and for attributing to it the erous and objectionable character which, at the present ti denunciations so soon as they were known called forth such just indignation and such coht very properly pass them over here Still we must at least shortly examine them, in so far as they supply a further proof that Virchow is unacquainted with the most important principles of the develope it Moreover, Virchow, as a politician, manifestly attributed special iave it the title, which otherould have been hardly suitable, of ”The Freedoot to add to this title the tords in which the special tendency of his discourse culnant words, ” disclosures in which Virchow denounces the doctrine of evolution, and particularly the doctrine of descent, as socialist theories and dangerous to the community, run as follows:--”Now, picture to yourself the theory of descent as it already exists in the brain of a socialist Ay, gentlehable to many, but it is in truth very serious, and I only hope that the theory of descent may not entail on us all the horrors which si countries At all tiically carried out to the end, has an uncoained the sympathy of socialism has not, it is to be hoped, escaped your notice Wethis state,” or the Vienna ”Vaterland,” I ask myself in surprise, ”What in the world has the doctrine of descent to do with socialism?”
It has already been abundantly proved onsince, that these two theories are about as coht with justice retort, ”If the socialists would think clearly they would feel that they must do all they can to choke the doctrine of descent, for it declares with express distinctness that socialist ideas are impracticable” And he proceeds to add, ”And why has not Virchow entle doctrines of Christianity responsible for the excesses of socialis so reat public, as though it concerned 'a sure and attested scientific truth,' is, at the saht into harnity of science”
With all these eroundless objections which Virchow brings against the doctrine of evolution, he takes good care in no way to touch the kernel of the matter How, indeed, would it have been possible without arriving at conclusions wholly opposed to those which he has declared? For the theory of descent proclaims more clearly than any other scientific theory, that that equality of individuals which socialism strives after is an impossibility, that it stands, in fact, in irreconcilable contradiction to the inevitable inequality of individuals which actually and everywhere subsists Socialishts, equal duties, equal possessions, equal enjoyments for every citizen alike; the theory of descent proves, in exact opposition to this, that the realisation of this demand is a pure ianised cohts nor duties, neither possessions nor enjoyments have ever been equal for all the hout the evolutionist theory, as in its biological branch, the theory of descent--the great law of specialisation or differentiation--teaches us that a inal unity, heterogeneity froinal simplicity The conditions of existence are dissi of its existence; even the inherited qualities, the natural ”disposition,”
are more or less unlike; how, then, can the problehly political life is organised, the reat principle of the division of labour, and thesecurity of the whole state that its members should be variously distributed in the manifold tasks of life; and as the work to be performed by different individuals is of theoutlay of strength, skill, property, &c, the reward of the work must naturally be also extreible facts that one would suppose that every reasonable and unprejudiced politician would recoeneral, as the best antidote to the fatho
Besides, Darwinism, the theory of natural selection--which Virchow aimed at in his denunciation, much more especially than at transformation, the theory of descent--which is often confounded with it--Darwinislish hypothesis is to be compared to any definite political tendency--as is, no doubt, possible--that tendency can only be aristocratic, certainly not democratic, and least of all socialist
The theory of selection teaches that in human life, as in animal and plant life everywhere, and at all times, only a small and chosen minority can exist and flourish, while the enormous majority starve and perish er individuals which spring from them are innumerable, while the number of those fortunate individuals which develop to oal is out of all proportion trifling The cruel and hout all living nature, and in the course of nature _ and inexorable co creatures, is an incontestable fact; only the picked minority of the qualified ”fittest” is in a position to resist it successfully, while the great majority of the competitors must necessarily perish ical state of things, but we can neither controvert it nor alter it ”Many are called but few are chosen” The selection, the picking out of these ”chosen ones,” is inevitably connected with the arrest and destruction of the renates the kernel of Darwinism very frankly as the ”survival of the fittest,” as the ”victory of the best” At any rate, this principle of selection is nothing less than democratic, on the contrary, it is aristocratic in the strictest sense of the word
If, therefore, Darwinis to Virchow, ”an uncommonly suspicious aspect,” this can only be found in the idea that it offers a helping hand to the efforts of the aristocrats But how the socialisement in these efforts, and how the horrors of the Paris Commune can be traced to them, is to me, I must frankly confess, absolutely incomprehensible
Moreover, we erous such a direct and unqualified transfer of the theories of natural science to the dohly elaborate conditions of our modern civilised life require from the practical politician such circuh historical training and powers of critical comparison, that he will not venture to make such an application of a ”natural law” to the practice of civilised life, but with the greatest caution and reserve How, then, is it possible that Virchow, the experienced and skilled politician, who, above all things, preaches caution and reserve in theory, suddenly makes just such an application of transformation and Darwinism--an application so radically perverse that it actually flies in the face of the funda less than a politician In direct contrast with Virchow, I lack alike the gift and the training for it, as well as taste and vocation Hence I neither shall play any political part in the future, nor have I hitherto h here and there I have occasionally uttered a political opinion, or have made a political application of some theory of natural science, these subjective opinions have no objective value
In point of fact I have by so doing overstepped the li into questions of zoology and particularly that of the transformation of apes: I am a layman in political practice, as Virchow is in the province of zoological hypothesis Moreover, such success as Virchow has attained during the twenty years of his painful, weariso activity as a politician does not, in truth, make me pine for such laurels
But this at least I, as a theoretical naturalist,our theories for political ends they should first make themselves exactly acquainted with the conclusions froht reasonably to be inferred Misunderstandings would never thus be wholly avoided, it is true, but what doctrine is universally secure against ? And from what theory, however sound and true, may not the , perhaps, shows so plainly as the history of Christianity how little theory and practice harmonise in human life; how little pains are taken, even by those whose calling it is to uphold established doctrines, to apply their natural consequences to practical life The Christian religion, no doubt, as well as the Buddhist, when stripped of all dogmatic and fabulous nonsense, contains an admirable human kernel, and precisely that hu--in the best sense social-democratic--which preaches the equality of all hbour as yourself, love in general in the noblest sense, a fellow-feeling with the poor and wretched, and so forth--precisely, those truly human sides of the Christian doctrine are so natural, so noble, so pure, that we unhesitatingly adopt theion Nay, the social instincts of the higher aniion (for instance the marvellous sense of duty of ants, &c) are in this best sense strictly Christian
And what--we may ask--what have the professed supporters, the ”learned divines” of this religion of love done? Their deeds are written in letters of blood in the history of the civilisation ofchurch-religions have accomplished for the forcible extension of their doctrines and for the extirpation of heretics of other creeds, all that the Jews have been guilty of towards the heathen, the Roman emperors towards the Christians, the Mohammedans towards Christians and Jews alike--all this is outdone by the hecatombs of human victims which Christianity has demanded for the spread of her doctrines And these were Christians against Christians--orthodox Christians against heterodox Christians! think only of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages, of the inconceivable and inhus” of Spain, by their worthy colleagues in Frankfort, in Italy, and elsewhere Hundreds of thousands then died that most horrible death by fire, simply because they would not bend their reason to pass under the yoke of the grossest superstition, and because their loyalty to their convictions forbade them to deny the natural truth that they clearly discerned There are no deeds more hideous, base, and inhuman than those that at that time were committed--nay, are still committed--in the name and on account of ”true Christianity”
And finally, how do ard to the morality of the priests who announce themselves as the ministers of God's Word, and whose duty is therefore above all others to carry out the saving doctrines of Christianity in their own lives? The long, unbroken, and horrible series of crimes of every kind which is offered by the history of the Roman Popes is the best answer to this question And just as these ”Vicars of God on earth” did, so did their subordinates and accomplices, so, too, have the orthodox priests of other sects done; never failing to set the practice of their own course of life in the strongest possible contrast to those noble doctrines of Christian love which were constantly on their lips
And as with Christianity so it is with every other religious and ht to have proved its power in the wide domain of practical philosophy, in the education of youth, in the civilisation of nations The theoretic kernel of this doctrinecontradiction to its practical working-out, testifying to the endless inconsistency of human nature: but what can all this matter to the scientific inquirer? His sole and only task is to seek for truth and to teach what he has discerned to be the truth, indifferent as to what consequences the various parties of state or church may happen to draw from it
CHAPTER VII
IGNORABIMUS ET RESTRINGAMUR
The dangerous atteainst the freedom of science is not the first of its kind On the contrary, five years before, it experienced a similar attack which is most intimately connected with this later one, so that, in conclusion, we must here add a feords on the subject Undoubtedly the fanorabimus-speech” of Du Bois-Rey of Ger, forainst the freedoa of the same society, forms the second part
That brilliant and powerful essay by Du Bois-Reye” has already been discussed so often, and froht seem superfluous to say another word about it It seeravity of its contents was overlooked in admiration of the brilliant accessories of the essay Indeed this frequently happens with Du Bois-Reymond's articles, for he knows too well how to conceal the weakness of his arguht, by striking iy of rhetoric in which the versatile French nature is so superior to our sober German one It is all the more important that we should not let ourselves be dazzled by these seductive tricks, and particularly by adduced facts which bear upon the most important and fundamental questions of human science, but that we should extract the hard kernel frorant fruit In the preface to my ”Evolution of Man,” and in the notes 22 and 23 of my Munich address, I have already incidentally alluded to the chief weaknesses of the ”Ignorabimus-speech;” but I must here return somewhat more fully to the subject