Medicine Under Capitalism

tion. His first-rate and first-hand working knowledge of geology and paleontology as well as his clear perception of the weak arguments in Darwin's theory raise this book far above the level of similar endeavors of the period. Dawson attempts to salvage his faith by careful analysis ofthese arguments. He demonstrates, for example, that the fossil record does not provide support only for the Darwinian interpretation ofevolution, and also that without a clear statement of the mechanism by which adaptive mutations in one generation are transmitted to succeeding ones the notion of "survival of the fittest" collapses. Because ofthese failures, Dawson concludes that Darwinism not only did not, but could not, explain the origin of species. For him this failure represented the triumph of teleology or design in nature. This was crucial for Dawson because the argument from design provided the link between God and nature so necessary for those intent on harmonizing religion and science. Without that pivot, God could be logically banished from the operations ofnature and Dawson rejoices in believing he has staved offthis threat. The cause for such joy disappeared the year after Dawson's death with the rediscovery and publication ofthe Mendelian patterns of inheritance by DeVries and Correns. This and subsequent research in genetics provided the "missing link" so eagerly sought or feared by the nineteenth century antagonists of science vs. religion for now the path was open to finding the mechanisms behind evolutionary processes. In closing, I would add that the publication of this and similar reprints by Neale Watson's various enterprises provide a great service to historians of biology and medicine. THOMAS P. GARIEPY Department ofHistory of Science and Medicine Yale University