3. 4. 5. 1. SECTION OF ORCHID FLOWER, SHOWING POLLEN VESSEL, SEED STORE, AND HONEY 3. POLLEN VESSEL. 4. BEE RETREATING. 5. BEE PREPARED FOR ENTERING ANOTEER FLOWER. tions of life." Such a metaphorical representation attributing to nature different processes, such as scrutinizing, rejecting, preserving, and working, considerably aids us by pointing to the intellectual conditions involved in the acceptance of the theory of evolution. To this it may suffice if there be added the closing passage in our author's work on species, indicating his view of the relation of all to the supernatural. It is in these words "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving,* namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." On this passage, Schmidt has remarked-"In this concession, Darwin has certainly been untrue to himself; and it satisfies neither those who believe in the con * Referring to organized being. tinuous work of creation by a personal God, nor the partisans of natural evolution." In this criticism we have a good example of the manner in which an impression of conflict is fostered. The rejoinder to Schmidt is obvious. Those who value religion seek no concessions, but desire to banish from scientific and philosophic writing all thought tending in this direction. If, however, needless complications are to be avoided, we must have exact statements of the relative positions. The sentence just quoted involves a misrepresentation equally of religion and science. Belief in the supernatural does not imply belief in a continuous work of creation, and therefore does not carry any thing inherently antagonistic to the conception of evolution under natural law. On the other hand, belief in evolution of species under the action of natural law does not decide the question, concerning the origin of life, just as a science of nature can decide nothing concerning the supernatural. Professor Schmidt is, however, so far from clearly and consistently recognizing the exact limit of the theory, that within the compass of a single page he first affirms the limitation, and then denies it. First vindicating Darwin from the attack of Max Müller as to beginning and end of living organism, he says, The origin of life has in fact nothing to do with actual Darwinism, or natural selection, unless the principle of selection be extended to the inorganic world of matter, an entanglement which Schmidt is willing to avoid, and which Darwin carefully shuns, distinctly stating that "Science in her present state does not countenance the belief that living creatures are now ever produced from inorganic matter." But Schmidt has no sooner placed himself behind this line of defence, than he attacks Darwin for acknowledging origin of life by creation, maintaining that "it is directly incompatible with the doctrine. of descent." The theorist must take either one side or the other. Either he must maintain that the theory of descent has "nothing to do with the origin of life," and in that case there is no conflict with religious thought; or that the theory of descent is incompatible with creation, and in that case there is conflict with religious thought, and at the same * Doct. of Descent, p. 161-2. † Origin of Species, 4th ed. p. 143. time inconsistency with science, in respect of its own definition as an explanation of nature, and in respect of its own results which do not involve "spontaneous generation," but do include the position that not a single particle of matter can be originated or destroyed by any power recognized in operation. No one will dispute the claims of the investigation of nature to its logical inferences," but "where the material substratum is deficient," most reasonable men will demand that distinct acknowledgment be made of the fact, and that the boundaries of science be defined accordingly. If, however, any one be inclined to maintain that "where the material substratum is deficient," all inquiry must terminate, and human thought must refuse to go further, or to attempt to rise higher, this certainly is not science, but an illogical attempt to make the science of nature commensurate with the boundaries of thought, an arbitary declaration that "the causal series" within the material universe is the sum total of causality. Such an affirmation can not warrantably attach itself to a theory of descent, as it can not be tested by observational methods, but altogether by reference to the laws of thought |