Luck, or Cunning, as the Main Means of Organic ModificationButler, Samuel
Philosophy
Luck, or Cunning, as the Main Means of Organic Modification
Butler, Samuel
Evolution; Natural selection
I do not mean to say that Mr. Darwin ever wrote anything which made the
utility of his contention as apparent as it is made by what I have above
put into the mouth of his supposed follower. Mr. Darwin was the
Gladstone of biology, and so old a scientific hand was not going to make
things unnecessarily clear unless it suited his convenience. Then,
indeed, he was like the man in “The Hunting of the Snark,” who said, “I
told you once, I told you twice, what I tell you three times is true.”
That what I have supposed said, however, above about the jemmy is no
exaggeration of Mr. Darwin’s attitude as regards design in organism will
appear from the passage about the eye already referred to, which it may
perhaps be as well to quote in full. Mr. Darwin says:—
“It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We
know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued
efforts of the highest human intellects, and we naturally infer that the
eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this
inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator
works by intellectual powers like those of men? If we must compare the
eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick
layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and
then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly
in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and
thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the
surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further, we must suppose
that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental
alteration in the transparent layers, and carefully selecting each
alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any
degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new
state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million, and each to be
preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be
destroyed. In living bodies variation will cause the slight alterations,
generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection
will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go
on for millions on millions of years, and during each year on millions of
individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical
instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass as the works
of the Creator are to those of man?” {92a}
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account