WCP1486

[1]¹

Old Orchard,

Broadstone,

Wimborne.²

Feb.8th. 1911

To Sir W.T.Thistelton-Dyer.³ )

Dear Sir Thistelton-Dyer

I thank you much for taking so much trouble as you have done in writing your views on my new book.⁴ I am glad to find that you agree with much of what I have said in the more evolutionary part of it, and that you differ only on some of my suggested interpretations of the facts. I have always felt the disadvantage I have been under — more especially during the last 20 years — in having not a single good biologist anywhere here near me, with whom I could discuss matters of theory or obtain information as to matters of fact. I am therefore the more pleased that you do not seem to have come across any serious misstatements in the botanical portions, as to which I have had to trust entirely to second hand information, often obtained through a long and varied correspondence.

As to your disagreement from me in the conclusions arrived at, and strenuously advocated in the latter portions of my work, I am not surprised. I am afraid now, that I have not expressed myself sufficiently clearly as to the fundamental phenomena which seem to me absolutely to necessitate a guiding mind and organising power. Hardly one of my critics (I [1 letter deleted] think absolutely not one,) has noticed the distinction I have tried and intended to draw between Evolution on the one hand, and the fundamental powers and properties of Life — growth, assimilation, reproduction, heredity &c. on the other.

In "Evolution" I recognise the action of "natural selection" as universal and capable of explaining all the facts of the continuous development of species from species, "from Amoeba to Man".⁵

But this as Darwin,⁶ [1 word deleted] Weismann,⁷ Kerner,⁸ Lloyd-Morgan⁹ and even Huxley¹⁰ — have seen, has nothing whatever to do with the basic mysteries of life — growth &c. &c. The chemists think they have done wonders when they have produced in their laboratories certain organic substances — always by the use of other organic products.

But beyond these products, life builds up within each organism, and from the few simple elements available in air earth and water, innumerable structures — bone, horn, hair, skin, blood, muscle &c. &c.

[2]¹¹

To Sir W.T. Thistelton-Dyer. Feb.8th. 1911 )

- and these are not amorphous — mere lumps of dead matter — but [1 word deleted] organised to serve certain definite purposes in each living organism. I have dwelt on this in my chapter on "the Mystery of the Cell".

Now I have been unable to find any attempt, by any biologist or physiologist, to grapple with this problem. One and all they shirk it, or simply state it to be insoluble. It is here that I state guidance, & organising power are essential. My little physiological parable or allegory (p.296) I think sets forth the difficulty fairly, though by no means adequately, yet not one of about 50 reviews I have read even mentions it.

If you know of any writer of sufficient knowledge and mental power, who has fully recognised, and fairly grappled with this fundamental problem, I should be very glad to be referred to him. I have been able to find no approach to it. Yet I am at once howled at, or sneered at, for pointing out the facts that such problems exist, that they are not in any way touched by Evolution, but are far before it, and the forces, laws and agencies involved are those of existencies possessed of powers, mental and physical, far beyond those mere mechanical physical or chemical forces we see at work in nature.

Excuse this reiteration but I wished to make my position clear.

Yours very truly | Alfred R. Wallace.

[1]¹

Old Orchard,

Broadstone,

Wimborne.²

Feb.8th. 1911

To Sir W.T.Thistelton-Dyer. )

Dear Sir Thistelton-Dyer

I thank you much for taking so much trouble as you have done in writing your views on my new book.³ I am glad to find that you agree with much of what I have said in the more evolutionary part of it, and that you differ only on some of my suggested interpretations of the facts. I have always felt the disadvantage I have been under — more especially during the last 20 years — in having not a single good biologist anywhere here near me, with whom I could discuss matters of theory or obtain information as to matters of fact. I am therefore the more pleased that you do not seem to have come across any serious misstatements in the botanical portions, as to which I have had to trust entirely to second hand information, often obtained through a long and varied correspondence.

As to your disagreement from me in the conclusions arrived at, and strenuously advocated in the latter portions of my work, I am not surprised. I am afraid now, that I have not expressed myself sufficiently clearly as to the fundamental phenomena which seem to me absolutely to necessitate a guiding mind and organising power. Hardly one of my critics (I [1 letter deleted] think absolutely not one,) has noticed the distinction I have tried and intended to draw between Evolution on the one hand, and the fundamental powers and properties of Life — growth, assimilation, reproduction, heredity &c. on the other.

In "Evolution" I recognise the action of "natural selection" as universal and capable of explaining all the facts of the continuous development of species from species, "from Amoeba to Man".⁴

But this as Darwin,⁵ [1 word deleted] Weismann,⁶ Kerner,⁷ Lloyd-Morgan⁸ and even Huxley⁹ — have seen, has nothing whatever to do with the basic mysteries of life — growth &c. &c. The chemists think they have done wonders when they have produced in their laboratories certain organic substances — always by the use of other organic products.

But beyond these products, life builds up within each organism, and from the few simple elements available in air earth and water, innumerable structures — bone, horn, hair, skin, blood, muscle &c. &c.

[2]¹⁰

To Sir W.T. Thistelton-Dyer. Feb.8th. 1911 )

- and these are not amorphous — mere lumps of dead matter — but [1 word deleted] organised to serve certain definite purposes in each living organism. I have dwelt on this in my chapter on "the Mystery of the Cell".

Now I have been unable to find any attempt, by any biologist or physiologist, to grapple with this problem. One and all they shirk it, or simply state it to be insoluble. It is here that I state guidance, & organising power are essential. My little physiological parable or allegory (p.296) I think sets forth the difficulty fairly, though by no means adequately, yet not one of about 50 reviews I have read even mentions it.

If you know of any writer of sufficient knowledge and mental power, who has fully recognised, and fairly grappled with this fundamental problem, I should be very glad to be referred to him. I have been able to find no approach to it. Yet I am at once howled at, or sneered at, for pointing out the facts that such problems exist, that they are not in any way touched by Evolution, but are far before it, and the forces, laws and agencies involved are those of existencies possessed of powers, mental and physical, far beyond those mere mechanical physical or chemical forces we see at work in nature.

Excuse this reiteration but I wished to make my position clear.

Yours very truly | Alfred R. Wallace.

[1] [p. 93]

To SIR W. T. THISELTON-DYER

Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. February 8, 1911.

Dear Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer,— I thank you very much for taking so very much trouble as you have done in writing your [2] [p. 94] views of my new book.¹ I am glad to find that you agree with much of what I have said in the more evolutionary part of it, and that you differ only on some of my suggested interpretations of the facts. I have always felt the disadvantage I have been under — more especially during the last twenty years — in having not a single good biologist anywhere near me, with whom I could discuss matters of theory or obtain information as to matters of fact. I am therefore the more pleased that you do not seem to have come across any serious misstatements in the botanical portions, as to which I have had to trust entirely to second-hand information, often obtained through a long and varied correspondence.

As to your disagreement from me in the conclusions arrived at and strenuously advocated in the latter portions of my work, I am not surprised. I am afraid, now, that I have not expressed myself sufficiently clearly as to the fundamental phenomena which seem to me absolutely to necessitate a guiding mind and organising power. Hardly one of my critics (I think absolutely not one) has noticed the distinction I have tried and intended to draw between Evolution on the one hand, and the fundamental Powers and properties of Life — growth, assimilation, reproduction, heredity, etc. — on the other. In Evolution I recognise the action of Natural Selection as universal and capable of explaining all the facts of the continuous development of species from species, "from amoeba to man." But this, as Darwin, Weismann, Kerner, Lloyd-Morgan, and even Huxley have seen, has nothing whatever to do with the basic mysteries of life — growth, etc. etc. The chemists think they have done wonders when they have produced in their laboratories certain organic substances — always by the use of other organic products — which life [3] builds up within each organism, and from the few simple elements available in air, earth, and water, innumerable structures — bone, horn, hair, skin, blood, muscle, etc. etc.; and these are not amorphous — mere lumps of dead matter — but organised to serve certain definite purposes in each living organism. I have dwelt on this in my chapter on "The Mystery of the Cell." Now I have been unable to find any attempt by any biologist or physiologist to grapple with this problem. One and all, they shirk it, or simply state it to be insoluble. It is here that I state guidance and organising power are essential. My little physiological parable or allegory (p. 296) I think sets forth the difficulty fairly, though by no means adequately, yet not one of about fifty reviews I have read even mentions it.

If you know of any writer of sufficient knowledge and mental power, who has fully recognised and fairly grappled with this fundamental problem, I should be very glad to be referred to him. I have been able to find no approach to it. Yet I am at once howled at, or sneered at, for pointing out the facts that such problems exist, that they are not in any way touched by Evolution, but are far before it, and the forces, laws and agencies involved are those of existences possessed of powers, mental and physical, far beyond those mere mechanical, physical, or chemical forces we see at work.... — Yours very truly. ALFRED R. WALLACE.