United States or Isle of Man ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Now, however, just at the proper time a book, Die Descendenz-theorie has appeared from the pen of the zoologist, Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen, in which Haeckel is severely condemned. The press-notices of the Weltraetsel, which are quoted in the book will be considered presently. It appears that with reference to natural science, only "laymen" discuss the book and approve of Haeckel's views.
The whole book is nothing more than a collection of quotations from the reviews of the "Weltraetsel," interspersed with characteristic expressions like "idle talk," "nonsense," etc., as exemplified above. In the second place I would not like to fall into the hands of a Loofs." In this manner it is indeed easy to evade an argument, which for good reasons one is not able to pursue.
The first of these is the manner in which the author treats the Romanes incident. Romanes ranks, as is well known, among the first of Haeckel's authorities. Hence it is a very painful fact that, but a short time before the publication of the first edition of the "Weltraetsel," my translation into German of Romanes' "Thoughts on Religion" should have appeared.
In a word, the manner in which the "Weltraetsel" was received and in which Haeckel has been defended by Schmidt, are valuable indications of the decay of Darwinism. I repeat that I am speaking of course of the leading scientific circles.
Reh, who censures Fleischmann for introducing to the general public the question of Descent which belongs properly to the forum of science. He claims that Fleischmann, by so doing, forfeited his right to an unbiased hearing. Dr. Reh forgets that but a short time ago he had no word of censure for Haeckel's Weltraetsel which was intended for a far wider circle of readers.
Suffice it to say that, after reading Haeckel's "Weltraetsel," one would be led to think that there is no question of a "deathbed of Darwinism," but that on the contrary Darwinism, as remodeled by Haeckel, is more in the ascendant to-day than ever. Let us judge of its prestige by the reception accorded the "Weltraetsel."
As regards the contents of the "Weltraetsel," it is not my intention to enter here upon a criticism of it but merely to discuss it as illustrating the general status of the theory of Descent. The book is, in fact, rather a theologico-natural-philosophical treatise than a work of natural science.
Thus, the anthropological part of the "Weltraetsel" contains nothing new; always the same old story, the same threadbare assertions without a shred of evidence to corroborate them. The remaining parts also contain various scientific assertions, which are proposed as facts without being such, but these parts do not immediately pertain to our theme.
Unfortunately he does not add that since then a number of new editions of the "Weltraetsel" have appeared, in which Haeckel could have explained himself in an honorable manner. Schmidt has therefore not been successful in his attempt to clear up this matter. But how does he settle with Romanes?
The one prominent feature of the "Weltraetsel" is the fact that, owing to a very marked deficiency in philosophical training, Haeckel has become so completely absorbed in his system that he has lost all interest in everything else and takes cognizance only of what suits his purpose. Notwithstanding all this, honest conviction may be present, but if so, it is joined with total blindness.
Word Of The Day