THE CLAIMS OF SOCIOLOGY 251
III
There is only one way of settling the methodological issue. We must adopt the natural-science view of human society, and scrutinize the human species just as we should any other species. Upon this point I proposed recourse to Darwin's observations. In his reply Professor Ellwood remarks that I seem to be un- aware that Darwinian theories "have recently been shaken to their foundations, and that a theory of society built upon them may be no more secure than other theories." I am not unaware of the tenor of discussion on Darwinism, but I do not find that its foundations have been shaken by the controversy as to the respective value of different selective factors. The mutability of species and the operation of selective process are the essential principles of Darwinism, and these seem to me to be fully veri- fied theories, entitled to general acceptance. Apparently Pro- fessor Small does not concur with Professor Ellwood in the notion that Darwinism has been shaken. Otherwise he would hardly say as he does that "all our thinking is affected by Dar- win." If he thought that it ought not to be, it is to be inferred that he would have added some qualifying remark. At the same time I must concede that Professor Ellwood is logically con- sistent. If Darwin's views of the descent of man are sound, the fundamental concept of sociology is illusory; if Darwin is wrong, then the alternative is the acceptance of the sociological hypothe- sis. On this point. Professor Lester F. Ward occupies a per- fectly consistent position. He sees that the theory of human origins advanced by Aristotle and corroborated by Darwin is incompatible with the sociological hypothesis, and he expressly rejects their views. Professor Ward's opinions on government and individual liberty are derived in strict logical sequence from his premises. I think his opinions are wrong, but I do not find any fallacy in his argument. It can be refuted only by discredit- ing his premises.
As in this article I am meeting sociology on the methodo- logical plane, I shall not undertake to argue the point whether the Darwinian theory of the descent of man is true or false, but shall confine myself to a statement of the methodological im-
