BOOK NOTICES

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 5372, 3 September 1904, Page 10

BOOK NOTICES

(From the "New Zealand Mail.") LIFE, iRT AND SCIENCE A QUESTION IN EVOLUTION. “Essays on Life, Art add’ Science,” by Samuel Butter. Edited by R. A. Streatfcild. Grant Richards, London; Gordon, and Gotch, Wellington ■ .These admirable essays require no apology for being placed before tho public. Samuel Butler was a man of rare versatility and genius. His interests were many and varied, and his literary style has commended itself to ail cultured people. .He will best ho known to posterity, as ho is to the present generation of reading men and. women, -by his works, • “Erowhon” and “Erowhon Revisited/’ But these essays must take rank among the best efforts of thoir kind, that have been written within the last quarter of -a. century, -and.will add lustre to the'fair" name of their author. - They aro all unquestionably of rare merit, hut if we were to select any one in preference to the others, it would ho 'that which follows “Thought and Language,” and ' entitled “The Deadlock in Darwinism.” Under “The Deadlock” there are virtually three essays, and. they may he regarded as a postcript to Butler’s four hooks on Evolution, namely, “Life and Habit,”. “Evolution Old and\New.” ‘‘Unconscious Memory” and “Luck or ■Cunning.” How far tho problem Cm--bodied in these essays is from a solution, was shown by correspondence which appeared in the “London Times” of last year, which brought forth some remark? by Lord Kelvin at the University College, When ho proposed a vote of thanks to Professor Henslow for his letter on “Present Day Rationalism.” Mr Streatfoild points out that Lord Kelvin’s claim for recognition of the fact that “in organic nature scientific thought is compelled to accept tiro idea of some’, kind of directive power, and his statement that biolog 1 ists are .coming. once more ‘.to a firm -acceptance of a vital principle, drew from several..- distinguished men of science retorts heated’ enough to prove beyond a doubt that the gulf 'between the two main divisions of evolutionists is as wide to-day as it was when Butler wrote.” All.evolutionists agree that the differences between species are caused by the accumulation and transmissions of variations, but they do not agree as to the causes to which: variations are due. It may bo noted that the view held'.by. Button, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck, who have been followed "by many modern thinkers, in-: eluding Herbert Spencer, and Butler, is that the variations occur mainly as ■the result of effort and design. 0n ; the other hand, the opposite • view, which is-that advocated by Alfred Russel Wallace in “Darwinism,” is that the variations occur merely’as the result of chance. . The former recognises tho presence iu organic nature of design, whether it be .called creative power or vital principle. The latter view,' in which, .the existence of design is absolutely negatived, is now usually described as Weismannism, from tlio name of,tho writer who has been its principal advocate in, more recent years. ■ ’Butler , in his essay : contends, that as early as 1756,’ Buffou discovered that “the movement of nature turned on two immovable pivots, one the >l- - fecundity,' ♦ which ho, has given to all species, the other - the im numerable difficulties Which'reduce the results of that , fecundity/’ Erasmus Darwin and, Lamarck followed in the same sense. Thus they admit the, survival of the fittest as fully as Mr' Darwin himself, though they do not make • use of ■ this’ particular expression. The dispute, therefore, turns not upon natural selection, which is common to all readers on evolution, but upon the nature and causes of the variations that aro supposed to bo selected and thus accumulated. The question for scientists, Butler points out, is, aro these variations mainly attributable re tho inherited effects of use and disuse supplemented by occasional sports and happy accidents? or, aro they due to sports and happy .-accidents supplemented by occasional inherited effects of use and disuse? Butler declares that nature cannot take what is not offered to her; and it is plain that what nature can bo supposed able to do, by way of choice, must depend on the supply of the variations, from which she is supposed to choose. He argues and reasons with logical sequence and with a convincing force that is not deniable. Tho question which makes the difference between the Darwinism of Erasmus Darwin and the Darwinism, of his grandsoni Charles, is not a personal one, nor anything like a personal one, it envelopes the existence of evolution, and it affects the view, says Butler, w© take of life and things in an endless vitrioty of most- interesting and important ways. It is imperative that tho.se who take any interest in these matters should; place side by. side, in-

tlva deafest contrast, the views of those who refer the evolution of species mainly to accumulation of variations without any other inception of chance anti that older school, which makes design perceive and develop still further tho. goods that chance provides.'' “The older view gives us our design, and gives us evolution also ; the more recent view supplies a quasi anthropomorphic God modelling species and variations as a potter models clay, it gives us God as vivifying and indwelling in all his creatures. Ho in them and they in Him. If it refuses to see Got! outside the universe, it equally refuses to see any part of the universe as outside God. If it makes the universe the body of God, it also makes God the soul of the universe.” In his essay on “Thought and Language,” our author contends that it doss not prove a lack of intelligence, or a want of thought in the minds of lower animals, in that they are not able to express themselves in articulate speech. Tho way in which he ‘supports this contention is perhaps one of the finest intellectual, efforts in the bool:. We would like to follow his argument for the benefit of students, and to show to our leaders ho\y effectually our author has dealt with the subject that has t puzzled and is still commanding the attention of the greatest minds the world knows; but the limits of our space forbid that wc should further pursuo this subject. We can, however, commend this volume of essays on . “Life, Art and Science,” to all thoughtful people. O’ne word •as to its publication: it is a-,pity it has not been presented to tho public in such , a binding as the merits of tho book' ought to have suggested to editor and publisher. _