WCP2496

[1]

The Ferns,

Witcombe,

Gloucester

12.ii.[19]11

Dear Mr Wallace,

It was most kind of you to take the trouble to reply to my letter which I only wrote because you mailed some remarks.

I have not seen a single review of your book and if I had I should certainly have no sympathy with any remark or sneer at your views.

You must let me correct you on one technical point in your letter. It is no longer possible to say that chemists effect the synthetic & organic products "by the "use of other organic substances". From what has been already effected it cannot be doubted that eventually every organic substance will be built up from "the "few simple elements available in air[,] earth "and water". I think you may take it from me that this does not admit of dispute.

[2] To go to another point. Looking at the 'Variation' I see Darwin says specifically, (ii,233) pretty much what he said to me at Kew. "We ought to be "scientifically cautious in judging what "characters are of importance in a state "of nature....their structures depending "on conditions, about which we are "profoundly ignorant."

In this weeks Nature there is, p. 490, a most exciting account ^{the results of} D^r Lorentz's¹.New Guinea expedition. It is very [word illeg.] He finds ⁽ⁱ⁾a low level flora of Malayan type with a Laya endemic element; ii an upland flora of North Australian type iii an alpine flora of a Northern type, as in [3] Himalayas?, Lara & Sumatra.

At any rate we are in agreement as to natural selection being capable of explaining Evolution "from amoeba to man".

It is generally admitted that that is a mechanical or scientific explanation. That is to say, it invokes nothing but intelligible actions and causes.

De Vries^{2 however} asserts that the Darwinism theory is not scientific at all, and that is of course a position he has a right to take up.

But if we admit that it is scientific then we are precluded from admitting a 'directive power'.

This was Von Baers³ position, also that of Kant⁴ and of Weissman[sic].⁵

But Von Baer remarks that the naturalist is not precluded from asking "whether the totality of details leads [4] "him to a general and final basis "of intentional design". I have no objection to this and offer it as an olive branch which you can throw to your howling and sneering critics.

As to "structures organised to serve "certain definite purposes", surely they offer no more difficulty as regards "scientific" explanation that the apparatus by which an orchid is fertilised.

We can work back to the amoeba to find ourselves face to face with a scarcely organised mass of protoplasm, and then we find ourselves face to face with a problem which will perhaps for ever remain insoluable scientifically. But for that matter so is the primeval nature of which it ^(protoplasm) is composed. 'Matter' itself is evaporating, for it is being resolved by physical research into [5] something which is intangible.

We cannot form the slightest idea how protoplasm came into existence. It is impossible to regard it as a mass substance. It is a mechanism, although the chemist may hope to make eventually all the substance which protoplasm fabricates, and will probably do so, he can only build them up by the most complicated processes. Protoplasm appears to be able to manufacture them straight off in a way of which the chemist cannot form the slightest conception. This is one aspect of the mystery of Life. Hubert Spencer's⁶ definition tells us nothing.

[6]Science can only explain nature as it reveals itself to the senses in terms of consciousness. The explanation may be all wrong in the eyes of omniscience. All one can say ^is, that it is a practical working basis and is good enough for mundane purposes. But if I am asked if I can solve the riddle of the Universe I can only answer, no. Brunetière⁷ then retorts that science is bankrupt, but this is equivocal. It only means that it cannot meet demands beyond its power to satisfy.

If I entirely sympathise with [7] anyone who seeks an answer from some other non—scientific source. But I keep scientific explanation and spiritual craving wholly distinct.

The whole point of Evolution as formulated by Lyell⁸ and Darwin⁹ is to explain phenomena by a known cause. Now, directive power is not a known course. Determinism compels us to believe that every event is inevitable. If we admit a directive power, the order of nature becomes capricious and unintelligible. Excuse my saying all this. But that is the dilemma as it presents itself to my mind. If it does not trouble some people, I can only say so much the better for them. Only I am afraid I must say that it is [8] ultra—scientific. I think that would have been pretty much Darwin's view.

I do not think that it is quite fair to say that biologists should shirk the problem. In my opinion they are not called upon to face it. Bastian I suppose believed that he has bridged the gulf between lifeless and living matter. And here is a man of whom I know nothing, who has apparently got the whole thing cut and dried.

Yours sincerely | W. T. Thiselton-Dyer [signature]¹⁰