The History of Creation Volume I Part 2

These two groups, on the whole, correspond with the two different princ.i.p.al forms of the human notions of the universe which we have already contrasted as the _monistic and the dualistic_ conception of nature. In the usual dualistic or teleological (vital) conception of the universe, organic nature is regarded as the purposely executed production of a Creator working according to a definite plan. Its adherents see in every individual species of animal and plant an "embodied creative thought," the material expression of a _definite first cause_ (causa finalis) acting for a set purpose. They must necessarily a.s.sume supernatural (not mechanical) processes for the origin of organisms. With justice, we may therefore designate their scheme of the world's growth as the _Supernatural History of Creation_.

Among all such teleological histories of creation, that of Moses has gained the greatest influence, since even so distinguished a naturalist as Linnaeus has claimed admittance for it in Natural Science. Cuvier's and Aga.s.siz's views of creation also belong to this group, as do in fact those of the great majority of both scientific and unscientific men.

On the other hand, the theory of development carried out by Darwin, which we shall have to treat of here as the _Non-miraculous_ or _Natural History of Creation_, and which has already been put forward by Goethe and Lamarck, must, if carried out logically, lead to the monistic or mechanical (causal) conception of the universe. In opposition to the dualistic or teleological conception of nature, our theory considers organic, as well as inorganic, bodies to be the necessary products of natural forces. It does not see in every individual species of animal and plant the embodied thought of a personal Creator, but the expression for the time being of a mechanical process of development of matter, the expression of a necessarily active cause, that is, of a mechanical cause (causa efficiens). Where teleological Dualism seeks the arbitrary thoughts of a capricious Creator in the miracles of creation, causal Monism finds in the process of development the necessary effects of eternal immutable laws of nature.

The Monism here maintained by us is often considered identical with Materialism. Now, as Darwinism, and in fact the whole theory of development, has been designated as "_materialistic_," I cannot avoid here at once guarding myself against this ambiguous word, and against the malice with which, in certain quarters, it is employed to stigmatize our doctrine.

By the word "_Materialism_," two completely different things are very frequently confounded and mixed up, which in reality have nothing whatever to do with each other, namely, scientific and moral materialism. Scientific materialism, which is identical with our Monism, affirms in reality no more than that everything in the world goes on naturally-that every effect has its cause, and every cause its effect.

It therefore a.s.signs to causal law-that is, the law of a necessary connection between cause and effect-its place over the entire series of phenomena that can be known. At the same time, scientific materialism positively rejects every belief in the miraculous, and every conception, in whatever form it appears, of supernatural processes. Accordingly, nowhere in the whole domain of human knowledge does it recognize real metaphysics, but throughout only physics; through it the inseparable connection between matter, form, and force becomes self evident. This scientific materialism has long since been so universally acknowledged in the wide domain of inorganic science, in Physics and Chemistry, in Mineralogy and Geology, that no one now doubts its sole authority. But in Biology, or Organic science, the case is very different; here its value is still continually a matter of dispute in many quarters. There is, however, nothing else which can be set up against it, excepting the metaphysical spectre of a vital power, or empty theological dogma. If we can prove that all nature, so far as it can be known, is only _one_, that the same "great, eternal, iron laws" are active in the life of animals and plants, as in the growth of crystals and in the force of steam, we may with reason maintain the monistic or mechanical view of things throughout the domain of Biology-in Zoology and Botany-whether it be stigmatized as "materialism" or not. In such a sense all exact science, and the law of cause and effect at its head, is purely materialistic.

_Moral_, or _ethical Materialism_, is something quite distinct from scientific materialism, and has nothing whatever in common with the latter. This real materialism proposes no other aim to man in the course of his life than the most refined possible gratification of his senses.

It is based on the delusion that purely material enjoyment can alone give satisfaction to man; but as he can find that satisfaction in no one form of sensuous pleasure, he dashes on weariedly from one to another.

The profound truth that the real value of life does not lie in material enjoyment, but in moral action-that true happiness does not depend upon external possessions, but only in a virtuous course of life-this is unknown to ethical materialism. We therefore look in vain for such materialism among naturalists and philosophers, whose highest happiness is the intellectual enjoyment of Nature, and whose highest aim is the knowledge of her laws. We find it in the palaces of ecclesiastical princes, and in those hypocrites who, under the outward mask of a pious wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, solely aim at hierarchical tyranny over, and material spoliation of, their fellow-men. Blind to the infinite grandeur of the so-called "raw material," and the glorious world of phenomena arising from it-insensible to the inexhaustible charms of Nature, and without a knowledge of her laws-they stigmatize all natural science, and the culture arising from it, as sinful "materialism," while really it is this which they themselves exhibit in a most shocking form. Satisfactory proofs of this are furnished, not only by the whole history of the Catholic Popes, with their long series of crimes, but also by the history of the morals of orthodoxy in every form of religion.

In order, then, to avoid in future the usual confusion of this utterly objectionable Moral Materialism with our Scientific Materialism, we think it necessary to call the latter either _Monism_ or _Realism_. The principle of this _Monism_ is the same as what Kant terms the "principle of mechanism," and of which he expressly a.s.serts, that _without it there can be no natural science at all_. This principle is quite inseparable from our Non-miraculous History of Creation, and characterizes it as opposed to the teleological belief in the miracles of a Supernatural History of Creation.

Let us now first of all glance at the most important of all the supernatural histories of creation, I mean that of Moses, as it has been handed down to us in the Bible, the ancient doc.u.ment of the history and laws of the Jewish people. The Mosaic history of creation, since in the first chapter of Genesis it forms the introduction to the Old Testament, has enjoyed, down to the present day, general recognition in the whole Jewish and Christian world of civilization. Its extraordinary success is explained not only by its close connection with Jewish and Christian doctrines, but also by the simple and natural chain of ideas which runs through it, and which contrasts favourably with the confused mythology of creation current among most of the other ancient nations. First the Lord G.o.d creates the earth as an inorganic body; then he separates light from darkness, then water from the dry land. Now the earth has become inhabitable for organisms, and plants are first created, animals later-and among the latter the inhabitants of the water and the air first, afterwards the inhabitants of the dry land. Finally G.o.d creates man, the last of all organisms, in his own image, and as the ruler of the earth.

Two great and fundamental ideas, common also to the non-miraculous theory of development, meet us in this Mosaic hypothesis of creation, with surprising clearness and simplicity-the idea of separation or _differentiation_, and the idea of progressive development or _perfecting_. Although Moses looks upon the results of the great laws of organic development (which we shall later point out as the necessary conclusions of the Doctrine of Descent) as the direct actions of a constructing Creator, yet in his theory there lies hidden the ruling idea of a progressive development and a differentiation of the originally simple matter. We can therefore bestow our just and sincere admiration on the Jewish lawgiver's grand insight into nature, and his simple and natural hypothesis of creation, without discovering in it a so-called "divine revelation." That it cannot be such is clear from the fact that two great fundamental errors are a.s.serted in it, namely, first, the _geocentric_ error that the earth is the fixed central point of the whole universe, round which the sun, moon, and stars move; and secondly, the _anthropocentric_ error, that man is the premeditated aim of the creation of the earth, for whose service alone all the rest of nature is said to have been created. The former of these errors was demolished by Copernicus' System of the Universe in the beginning of the 16th century, the latter by Lamarck's Doctrine of Descent in the beginning of the 19th century.

Although the geocentric error of the Mosaic history was demonstrated by Copernicus, and thereby its authority as an absolutely perfect divine revelation was destroyed, yet it has maintained, down to the present day, such influence, that it forms in many wide circles the principle obstacle to the adoption of a natural theory of development. Even in our century, many naturalists, especially geologists, have tried to bring the Mosaic theory into harmony with the recent results of natural science, and have, for example, interpreted Moses' seven days of creation as seven great geological periods. However, all these ingenious attempts at interpretation have so utterly failed, that they require no refutation here. The Bible is no scientific book, but consists of records of the history, the laws, and the religion of the Jewish people, the high merit of which, as a history of civilization, is not impaired by the fact that in all scientific questions it has no commanding importance, and is full of gross errors.

We may now make a great stride over more than three thousand years, from Moses, who died about the year 1480 before Christ, to Linnaeus, who was born in the year 1707 after Christ. During this whole period no history of creation was brought forward that gained any lasting importance, or the closer examination of which would here be of any interest. Indeed, during the last fifteen hundred years, since Christianity gained its supremacy, the Mosaic history of creation, together with the dogmas connected with it, has become so generally predominant, that the 19th century is the first that has dared positively to rise against it. Even the great Swedish naturalist, Linnaeus, the founder of modern natural history, linked his System of Nature most closely to the Mosaic history of creation.

The extraordinary progress which Charles Linnaeus made in the so-called descriptive natural sciences, consists, as is well known, in his having established a system of nomenclature of animals and plants, which he carried out in a manner so perfectly logical and consistent, that down to the present day it has remained in many respects the standard for all succeeding naturalists engaged in the study of the forms of animals and plants. Although Linnaeus' system was artificial, although in cla.s.sifying animal and vegetable species he only sought and employed single parts as the foundation for his divisions, it has, nevertheless, gained the greatest success; firstly, in consequence of its being carried out consistently, and secondly, by its nomenclature of natural bodies, which has become extremely important, and at which we must here briefly glance.

Before Linnaeus' time, many vain attempts had been made to throw light upon the endless chaos of different animal and vegetable forms (then known) by adopting for them suitable names and groupings; but Linnaeus, by a happy hit, succeeded in accomplis.h.i.+ng this important and difficult task, when he established the so-called "_binary nomenclature_." The binary nomenclature, or the twofold designation, as Linnaeus first established it, is still universally applied by all zoologists and botanists, and will, no doubt, maintain itself, for a long time to come, with undiminished authority. It consists in this, that every species of animal and plant is designated by two names, which stand to each other in the same relation as do the christian and surnames of a man. The special name which corresponds with the christian name, and expresses the idea of "a species," serves as the common designation of all individual animals or plants, which are equal in all essential matters of form, and are only distinguished by quite subordinate features. The more general name, on the other hand, corresponding with the surname, and which expresses the idea of a genus, serves for the common designation of all the most nearly similar kinds or species.

According to Linnaeus' plan, the more general and comprehensive generic name is written first; the special subordinate name of the species follows it. Thus, for example, the common cat is called Felis domestica; the wild cat, Felis catus; the panther, Felis pardus; the jaguar, Felis onca; the tiger, Felis tigris; the lion, Felis leo. All these six kinds of animals of prey are different species of one and the same genus-Felis. Or, to add an example from the vegetable kingdom, according to Linnaeus' designation the pine is Pinus abies; the fir, Pinus picea; the larch, Pinus larix; the Italian pine, Pinus pinea; the Siberian stone pine, Pinus cembra; the knee timber, Pinus mughus; the common pine, Pinus silvestris. All these seven kinds of pines are different species of one and the same genus-Pinus.

Perhaps this advance made by Linnaeus may seem to some only of subordinate importance in the practical distinction and designation of the variously formed organisms. But in reality it was of the very greatest importance, both from a practical and theoretical point of view. For now, for the first time, it became possible to arrange the immense ma.s.s of different organic forms according to their greater or less degree of resemblance, and to obtain an easy survey of the general outlines of such a "system." Linnaeus facilitated the tabulation and survey of this "system" of plants and animals still more by placing together the most nearly similar genera into so-called orders (ordines); and by uniting the most nearly similar orders into still more comprehensive main divisions or cla.s.ses. Thus, according to Linnaeus, each of the two organic kingdoms were broken up into a number of cla.s.ses, the vegetable kingdom into twenty-four, and the animal kingdom into six. Each cla.s.s again contains several orders. Every single order may contain a number of genera, and, again, every single genus several species.

Valuable as was Linnaeus' binary nomenclature in a _practical_ way, in bringing about a comprehensive systematic distinction, designation, arrangement, and division of the organic world of forms, yet the incalculable _theoretical_ influence which it gained forthwith in relation to the history of creation was no less important. Even now all the important fundamental questions as to the history of creation turn finally upon the decision of the very remote and unimportant question, _What really are kinds or species?_ Even now the _idea of organic species_ may be termed the central point of the whole question of creation, the disputed centre, about the different conceptions of which Darwinists and Anti-Darwinists fight.

According to Darwin's opinion, and that of his adherents, the different species of one and the same genus of animals and plants are nothing else than differently developed descendants of one and the same original primary form. The different kinds of pine mentioned above would accordingly have originated from a single primaeval form of pine. In like manner the origin of all the species of cat mentioned above would be traced to a single common form of Felis, the ancestor of the whole genus. But further, in accordance with the Doctrine of Descent, all the different genera of one and the same order ought also to be descended from one common primary ancestor, and so, in like manner, all orders of a cla.s.s from a single primary form.

On the other hand, according to the idea of Darwin's opponents, all species of animals and plants are quite independent of each other, and only the individuals of each species have originated from a single primary form. But if we ask them how they conceive these original primary forms of each species to have come into existence, they answer with a leap into the incomprehensible, "They were created."

Linnaeus himself defined the idea of species in this manner by saying, "There are as many different species as there were different forms created in the beginning by the infinite Being." ("Species tot sunt diversae, quot diversas formas ab initio creavit infinitum ens.") In this respect, therefore, he follows most closely the Mosaic history of creation, which in the same way maintains that animals and plants were created "each one after its kind." Linnaeus, accepting this, held that originally of each species of animals and plants either a single individual or a pair had been created; in fact a pair, or, as Moses says, "a male and a female" of those species which have separate s.e.xes, but of those species in which each individual combines both s.e.xual organs (hermaphrodites), as for instance the earthworm, the garden and vineyard snails, as well as the great majority of plants, a single individual.

Linnaeus further follows the Mosaic legend in regard to the flood, by supposing that the great general flood destroyed all existing organisms, except those few individuals of each species (seven pairs of the birds and of clean animals, one pair of unclean animals) which Noah saved in the ark, and which were placed again on land, on Mount Ararat, after the flood had subsided. He tried to explain the geographical difficulty of the living together of the most different animals and plants, as follows: Mount Ararat, in Armenia, being situated in a warm climate, and rising over 16,000 feet in height, combines in itself the conditions for a temporary common abode of such animals as live in different zones.

Accordingly, animals accustomed to the polar regions could climb up the cold mountain ridges, those accustomed to a warm climate could go down to the foot of the mountain, and the inhabitants of a temperate zone could remain midway up the mountain. From this point it was possible for them to spread north and south over the earth.

It is scarcely necessary to remark that this Linnaean hypothesis of creation, which evidently was intended to harmonize most closely with the prevailing belief in the Bible, requires no serious refutation. When we consider Linnaeus' clearness and sagacity in other matters, we may doubt whether he believed it himself. As to the simultaneous origin of all individuals of each species from one pair of ancestors respectively (or in the case of the hermaphrodite species, from one original hermaphrodite), it is clearly quite untenable; for, apart from other reasons, in the first days after the creation, the few animals of prey would have sufficed to have utterly demolished all the herbivorous animals, as the herbivorous animals must have destroyed the few individuals of the different species of plants. The existence of such an equilibrium in the economy of nature as obtains at present cannot possibly be conceived, if only one individual of each species, or only one pair, had originally and simultaneously been created.

Moreover, how little importance Linnaeus himself attached to this untenable hypothesis of creation is clear, among other things, from the fact that he recognized _Hybridism_ (crossing) as a source of the production of new species. He a.s.sumed that a great number of independent new species had originated by the interbreeding of two different species. Indeed, such hybrids are not at all rare in nature, and it is now proved that a great number of species, for example, of the genus Rubus (bramble), mullen (Verbasc.u.m), willow (Salix), thistle (Cirsium), are hybrids of different species of these genera. We also know of hybrids between hares and rabbits (two species of the genus Lepus), further of hybrids between different species of dog (genus Canis), etc., which can be propagated as independent species.

It is certainly very remarkable that Linnaeus a.s.serted the physiological (therefore mechanical) origin of new species in this process of hybridism. It clearly stands in direct opposition to the supernatural origin of the other species by creation, which he accepted as put forward in the Mosaic account. The one set of species would therefore have originated by dualistic (teleological) creation, the other by monistic (mechanical) development.

The great and well merited authority which Linnaeus gained by his systematic cla.s.sification and by his other services to Biology, was clearly the reason why his views of creation also remained, throughout the whole of the last century, undisputed and generally recognized. If throughout systematic Zoology and Botany the distinctions, cla.s.sification, and designations of species, introduced by Linnaeus, and the dogmatic ideas connected therewith had not been maintained-more or less unaltered-we should be at a loss to understand how his idea of an independent creation of single species could have stood, by itself down to the present day. It is only owing to his great authority, and through his attaching himself to the prevailing Biblical belief, that his hypothesis of creation has retained its position so long.

CHAPTER III.

THE HISTORY OF CREATION ACCORDING TO CUVIER AND AGa.s.sIZ.

General Theoretical Meaning of the Idea of Species.-Distinction between the Theoretical and Practical Definition of the Idea of Species.-Cuvier's Definition of Species.-Merits of Cuvier as the Founder of Comparative Anatomy.-Distinction of the Four Princ.i.p.al Forms (types or branches) of the Animal Kingdom, by Cuvier and Bar.-Cuvier's Services to Palaeontology.-His Hypothesis of the Revolutions of our Globe, and the Epochs of Creation separated by them.-Unknown Supernatural Causes of the Revolutions, and the subsequent New Creations.-Aga.s.siz's Teleological System of Nature.-His Conception of the Plan of Creation, and its six Categories (groups in cla.s.sification).-Aga.s.siz's Views of the Creation of Species.-Rude Conception of the Creator as a man-like being in Aga.s.siz's Hypothesis of Creation.-Its internal Inconsistency and Contradictions with the important Palaeontological Laws discovered by Aga.s.siz.

The real matter of dissension in the contest carried on by naturalists as to the origin of organisms, their creation and development, lies in the conceptions which are entertained about the _nature of species_.

Naturalists either agree with Linnaeus, and look upon the different species as distinct forms of creation, independent of one another, or they a.s.sume with Darwin their blood-relations.h.i.+p. If we share Linnaeus'

view (which was discussed in our last chapter), that the different organic species came into existence independently-that they have no blood-relations.h.i.+p-we are forced to admit that they were created independently, and we must either suppose that every single organic individual was a special act of creation (to which surely no naturalist will agree), or we must derive all individuals of every species from a single individual, or from a single pair, which did not arise in a natural manner, but was called into being by command of a Creator. In so doing, however, we turn aside from the safe domain of a rational knowledge of nature, and take refuge in the mythological belief in miracles.

If, on the other hand, with Darwin, we refer the similarity of form of the different species to real blood-relations.h.i.+p, we must consider all the different species of animals and plants as the altered descendants of one or a few most simple original forms. Viewed in this way, the Natural System of organisms (that is, their tree-like and branching arrangement and division into cla.s.ses, orders, families, genera, and species) acquires the significance of a real genealogical tree, whose root is formed by those original archaic forms which have long since disappeared. But a truly natural and consistent view of organisms can a.s.sume no supernatural act of creation for even those simplest original forms, but only a coming into existence by _spontaneous generation_[2]

(archigony, or generatio spontanea). From Darwin's view of the nature of species, we arrive therefore at a _natural theory of development_; but from Linnaeus' conception of the idea of species, we must a.s.sume a _supernatural dogma of creation_.

Most naturalists after Linnaeus, whose great services in systematic and descriptive natural history won for him such high authority, followed in his footsteps, and without further inquiry into the origin of organization, they a.s.sumed, in the sense of Linnaeus, an independent creation of individual species, in conformity with the Mosaic account of creation. The foundation of their conception was based upon Linnaeus' words: "There are as many different species as there were different forms created in the beginning by the Infinite Being." We must here remark at once, without going further into the definition of species, that all zoologists and botanists in their cla.s.sificatory systems, in the practical distinction and designation of species of animals and plants, never troubled, or even could trouble, themselves in the slightest degree about this a.s.sumed creation of the parent forms. In reference to this, one of our first zoologists, the ingenious Fritz Muller, makes the following striking observation: "Just as in Christian countries there is a catechism of morals, which every one knows by heart, but which no one considers it his duty to follow, or expects to see followed by others,-so zoology also has its dogmas, which are just as generally professed as they are denied in practice." (Fur Darwin, p.

71.)(16)

Linnaeus' venerated dogma of species is just such an irrational dogma, and for that very reason it is powerful. Although most naturalists blindly submitted to it, yet they were, of course, never in a position to demonstrate the descent of individuals belonging to one species from the common, originally created, primitive form. Zoologists and botanists, in their systems of nomenclature, confined themselves entirely to the similarity of forms, in order to distinguish and name the different species. They placed in one species all organic individuals which were very similar, or almost identical in form, and which could only be distinguished from one another by very unimportant differences. On the other hand, they considered as different species those individuals which presented more essential or more striking differences in the formation of their bodies. But of course this opened the flood-gates to the most arbitrary proceedings in the systematic distinctions of species. For as all the individuals of one species are never completely alike in all their parts, but as every species varies more or less, no one could point out which degree of variation const.i.tuted a really "good species," or which degree indicated a "mere variety."

This dogmatic conception of the idea of species, and the arbitrary proceedings connected with it, necessarily led to the most perplexing contradictions, and to the most untenable suppositions. This is clearly demonstrable in the case of the celebrated Cuvier (born in 1769), who next to Linnaeus has exercised the greatest influence on the study of zoology. In his conception and definition of the idea of species, he agreed on the whole with Linnaeus, and shared also his belief in an independent creation of individual species. Cuvier considered their immutability of such importance that he was led to the foolish a.s.sertion-"The immutability of species is a necessary condition of the existence of scientific natural history." As Linnaeus' definition of species did not satisfy him, he made an attempt to give a more exact and, for systematic practice, a more useful definition, in the following words: "All those individual animals and plants belong to one species which can be proved to be either descended from one another, or from common ancestors, or which are as similar to these as the latter are among themselves."

In dealing with this matter, Cuvier reasoned in the following manner:-"In those organic individuals, of which we know that they are descended from one and the same common form of ancestors-in which, therefore, their common ancestry is empirically proved-there can be no doubt that they belong to one species, whether they differ much or little from one another, or whether they are almost alike or very unlike. Moreover, all those individuals also belong to this species which differ no more from the latter (those proved to be derived from a common stock) than these differ from one another." In a closer examination of this definition of species given by Cuvier, it becomes at once evident that it is neither theoretically satisfactory nor practically applicable. Cuvier, with this definition, began to move in the same circle in which almost all subsequent definitions of species have moved, through the a.s.sumption of their immutability.

Considering the extraordinary authority which George Cuvier has gained in the science of organic nature, and in consequence of the almost unlimited supremacy which his views exercised in zoology, during the first half of our century, it seems appropriate here to examine his influence a little more closely. This is all the more necessary as we have to combat, in Cuvier, the most formidable opponent to the Theory of Descent and the monistic conception of nature.

One of the many and great merits of Cuvier is that he stands forth as the founder of Comparative Anatomy. While Linnaeus established the distinction of species, genera, orders, and cla.s.ses mostly upon external characters, and upon separate and easily discoverable signs in the number, size, place, and form of individual organic parts of the body, Cuvier penetrated much more deeply into the essence of organization. He demonstrated great and wide differences in the inner structure of animals, as the real foundation of a scientific knowledge and cla.s.sification of them. He distinguished natural families in the cla.s.ses of animals, and established his natural system of the animal kingdom on their comparative anatomy.

The progress from Linnaeus' artificial system to Cuvier's natural system was exceedingly important. Linnaeus had arranged all animals in a single series, which he divided into six cla.s.ses, two cla.s.ses of Invertebrate, and four cla.s.ses of Vertebrate animals. He distinguished these artificially, according to the nature of their blood and heart. Cuvier, on the other hand, showed that in the animal kingdom there were four great natural divisions to be distinguished, which he termed Princ.i.p.al Forms, or General Plans, or Branches of the animal kingdom (Embranchments), namely-1. The Vertebrate animals (Vertebrata); 2. The Articulate animals (Articulata); 3. The Molluscous animals (Mollusca); and 4. The Radiate animals (Radiata). He further demonstrated that in each of these four branches a peculiar plan of structure or type was discernible, distinguis.h.i.+ng each branch from the three others. In the Vertebrate animals it is distinctly expressed by the form of the skeleton, or bony framework, as also by the structure and position of the dorsal nerve-chord, apart from many other peculiarities. The Articulate animals are characterized by their ventral nerve-chord and their dorsal heart. In Molluscs the sack-shaped and non-articulate body is the distinguis.h.i.+ng feature. The Radiate animals, finally, differ from the three other princ.i.p.al forms by their body being the combination of four or more main sections united in the form of radii (antimera).

The distinction of these four princ.i.p.al forms of animals, which has become extremely productive in the development of zoology, is commonly ascribed entirely to Cuvier. However, the same thought was expressed almost simultaneously, and independently of Cuvier, by Bar, one of the greatest naturalists, and still living, who did the most eminent service in the study of animal development. Bar showed that in the development of animals, also, four different main forms (or types) must be distinguished.(20) These correspond with the four plans of structure in animals, which Cuvier distinguished on the ground of comparative anatomy. Thus, for example, the individual development of all Vertebrate animals agrees, from the commencement, so much in its fundamental features that the germs or embryos of different Vertebrate animals (for example, of reptiles, birds, and mammals) in their earlier stages cannot be distinguished at all. It is only at a late stage of development that there gradually appear the more marked differences of form which separate those different cla.s.ses and orders from one another. The plan of structure, which shows itself in the individual development of Articulate animals (insects, spiders, crabs), is from the beginning essentially the same in all Articulate animals, but different from that of all Vertebrate animals. The same holds good, with certain limitations, in Molluscous and Radiated animals.

Neither Bar, who arrived at the distinction of the four animal types or princ.i.p.al forms through the history of the individual development (Embryology), nor Cuvier, who arrived at the same conclusion by means of comparative anatomy, recognized the true cause of this difference.

This is disclosed to us by the Theory of Descent. The wonderful and astonis.h.i.+ng similarity in the inner organization and in the anatomical relations of structure, and the still more remarkable agreement in the embryonic development of all animals belonging to one and the same type (for example, to the branch of the Vertebrate animals), is explained in the simplest manner by the supposition of their common descent from a single primary original form. If this view is not accepted, then the complete agreement of the most different Vertebrate animals, in their inner structure and their manner of development, remains perfectly inexplicable. In fact it can only be explained by the law of _inheritance_.

Next to the comparative anatomy of animals and the systematic zoology founded anew by it, it was specially to the science of petrifactions, or Palaeontology, that Cuvier rendered great service. We must draw special attention to this, because these very palaeontological views, and the geological ideas connected with them, were held almost universally in the highest esteem during the first half of the present century, and caused the greatest hindrance to the working out of a truly natural history of creation.

Petrifactions, the scientific study of which Cuvier promoted at the beginning of our century in a most extensive manner, and established quite anew for the Vertebrate animals, play one of the most important parts in the "non-miraculous history of creation." For these remains and impressions of extinct animals and plants, preserved to us in a petrified condition, are the true "monuments of the creation," the infallible and indisputable records which fix the correct history of organisms upon an irrefragable foundation. All petrified or fossil remains and impressions tell us of the forms and structure of such animals and plants as are either the progenitors and ancestors of the present living organisms, or they are the representatives of extinct collateral lines, which, together with the present living organisms, branched off from a common stem.

These inestimable records of the history of creation throughout a long period played a subordinate part in science. Their true nature was indeed correctly understood, even more than five hundred years before Christ, by the great Greek philosopher, Xenophanes of Colophon, the same who founded the so-called Eleatic philosophy, and who was the first to demonstrate with convincing precision that all conceptions of personal G.o.ds result in more or less rude anthropomorphism.

Xenophanes for the first time, a.s.serted that the fossil impressions of animals and plants were real remains of formerly living creatures, and that the mountains in whose rocks they were found must at an earlier date have stood under water. But although other great philosophers of antiquity, and among them Aristotle, also possessed this true knowledge, yet throughout the illiterate Middle Ages, and even with some naturalists of the last century, the idea prevailed that petrifactions were so-called freaks of nature (lusus naturae), or products of an unknown formative power or instinct of nature (nisus formativus, vis plastica). Respecting the nature of this mysterious and mystic creative power, the strangest ideas were formed. Some believed that this constructive power-the same to which they also ascribed the coming into existence of the present species of animals and plants-had made numerous attempts to create organisms of different forms, but that these attempts had only partially succeeded, had often failed, and that petrifactions were nothing more than such unsuccessful attempts.

According to others, petrifactions originated from the influence of the stars upon the interior of the earth.

Others, again, had the still cruder notion that the Creator had first made models (out of mineral substances-for example, of gypsum or clay) of those forms of animals and plants which he afterwards executed in organic substances, and into which he breathed his living breath; petrifactions were accordingly such rude inorganic models. Even as late as the last century these crude ideas prevailed, and it was a.s.sumed, for example, that there existed a special "seminal air," which was said to penetrate into the earth with the water, and by fructifying the stones formed petrifactions or "stony flesh" (caro fossilis).