You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
MECHANICAL VIEWS OF KANT AND LAPLACE 201<br />
substances, and which are called Kfe, in the usual sense of the word. The old idea of spontaneous generation is<br />
now taken in many different senses. I (Haeckel) restrict it to the first development of hving protoplasm out of<br />
inorganic carbonates, and distinguish two phases in this beginning of biogenesis : (1) autoguny, or the rise of the<br />
simplest protoplasmic substances in a formative fluid, and (2) plasmogony, the differentiation of individual primitive<br />
organisms out of these protoplasmic compounds in the form of monera. . . . Since<br />
Darwin gave us the key to the<br />
monistic explanation of organisation in his theory of ' selection ' forty years ago, it has become possible for us to<br />
trace the splendid variety of orderly tendencies of the organic world to mechanical, natural causes."<br />
§ 34. Mechanical Views of Kant and Laplace as Interpreted by Haeckel.<br />
Haeckel continuing adds :<br />
" Since Newton (1682) formulated the law of gravitation, and Kant (1755) established<br />
'the constitution and mechanical origin of the entire fabric of the world on Newtonian laws,' and Laplace (1796)<br />
provided a mathematical foundation for this law of cosmic mechanism, the whole of the inorganic sciences have<br />
become purely mechanical, and at the same time purely atheistic. Astronomy, cosmogony, geology, meteorology,<br />
and inorganic physics and chemistry are now absolutely ruled by mechanical laws on a mathematical foundation.<br />
The idea of ' design ' has wholly disappeared from this vast province of science. The anthropomorphic notion<br />
of a deliberate architect and ruler of the world has gone for ever from this field ; the eternal, iron laws of ' nature '<br />
have taken his place.<br />
" But the idea of design has a very great significance and application in the organic world. We do undeniably<br />
perceive a purpose in the structure and in the life of an organism. The plant and the animal seem to be controlled<br />
by a definite design in the combination of their several parts, just as clearly as we see in the machines which man<br />
invents and constructs ; as long as hfe continues the functions of the several organs are directed to definite ends,<br />
just as is the operation of the various parts of a machine. Hence it was quite natural that the older naive study<br />
of nature, in explaining the origin and activity of the living being, should postulate a creator who had ' arranged<br />
all things with wisdom and understanding,' and had constructed each plant and animal according to the special<br />
purpose of its life. The conception of this ' almighty creator of heaven and earth ' was usually quite anthropomorphic<br />
; he created ' everything after its kind.' As long as the creator seemed to man to be of human<br />
shape, to think with his brain, see with his eyes, and fashion with his hand, it was possible to form a definite<br />
picture of this ' divine engineer ' and his artistic work in the great workshop of creation. This was not so<br />
easy when the idea of God became refined, and man saw in his ' invisible God ' a creator without organs—<br />
gaseous being. Still more unintelligible did these anthropomorphic ideas become when physiology substituted<br />
for the conscious, divine architect " an unconscious, creative vital force '—a mysterious, purposive, natural force,<br />
which differed from the familiar forces of physics and chemistry, and only took these in part, during life, into its<br />
service. . . .<br />
" Nowhere in the evolution of animals and plants do we find any trace of design, but merely the inevitable<br />
outcome of the struggle for existence, the bUnd controller, instead of the provident God, that effects the changes<br />
of organic forms by a mutual action of the laws of heredity and adaptation. And there is no more trace of<br />
' design ' in the embryology of the individual plant, animal, or man. Throughout the whole of astronomy,<br />
geology, physics, and chemistry there is no question to-day of a ' moral order ' or a personal God, whose ' hand<br />
hath disposed all things in wisdom and understanding.' And the same must be said of the entire field of biology,<br />
the whole constitution and history of organic nature, if we set aside the question of man for the moment. Darwin<br />
has not only proved by his theory of selection that the orderly processes in the hfe and structure of animals and<br />
plants have arisen by mechanical laws without any preconceived design, but he has shown us 'in the struggle<br />
for Hfe '<br />
the powerful natural force which has exerted supreme control over the entire course of organic evolution<br />
anthropomorphic character of this notion, generally closely connected with belief in a<br />
for milhons of years. . . . The<br />
personal God, is quite obvious. Behef in a ' loving Father' who unceasingly guides the destinies of 1,500,000,000<br />
men on our planet, and is attentive at all times to their millions of contradictory prayers and pious wishes, is<br />
absolutely impossible ; that is at once perceived on laying aside the coloured spectacles of faith, and reflecting<br />
rationally on the subject. Since impartial study of the evolution of the world teaches us that there is no definite<br />
aim and no special purpose to be traced in it, there seems to be no alternative but to leave everything to blind<br />
chance. The development of the universe is a monistic, mechanical process, in which we discover no aim or pur-<br />
pose whatever ; what we call design in the organic world is a special result of biological agencies ; neither in the<br />
evolution of the heavenly bodies nor in that of the crust of our earth do we find any trace of a controlhng purpose<br />
—all is the result of chance."<br />
The foregoing quotations fairly and fully express the views of Haeckel, and of Darwin as interpreted by<br />
VOL. T,<br />
^ °