The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1878-10-10
SCIENCE
ORDER OF MENTAL PROcRE SIS
SCIENCE-WARD

0SIcNA6-VvAND
In summing up the points Of his re.
view OF what we may call the evolu.
ton of science, before the sci.
ence association at St. Louis. August
%, Prof. Newcomb traced the gradu.
al ascendancy of scientific over teleog.
ical thought, as fellows:
First, when men study the opera.
tiOns Of the world around them, they
find that certain of those operations
are determined by movable antece-
dent conditions, and go on with that
blind disregard of consequences
which they call law. They also iud
certain other operations which they
are unable thus to trace to the opera
ton of law.
Secondly, men attribute this latter
class to anthrOpomorphic beings, or
gods having the power to bring about
changes in nature, and having GER
tain objects, worthy or ignoble, in
view, which they thus endeavor to
compass. Men also believe them
selves able to discern these objects,
and thus to explain the operations
which bring them about. The OBJ
jects aimed at by these supernatural
beings are worthy or ignoble, accord
ing to the state of society; in ancient
times they were often the gratifica-
ton of the silliest pride or the lower
lusts.
Thirdly, as knowledge advances,
one after another of these operations
are found to be really determined by
law, the only difficulty being that the
law was before unknown or not COM
pretended, or that the circumstances
which determined it's action were too
obscure or too complex to be fully
grasped by the mind.
FOurthly. final causes having thus,
one by one, disappeared from every
thicket which has been fully explored,
the question arises whether they now
have or ever had any existence at all 4.
On the other hand it may be claimed
that it is unphilosophical to believe in
them when they have been sought
IN vain in every corner into which
light can penetrate. On the other
hand we have the difficulty of &C.
counting for these very laws by which
we find the course of nature to be de.
termined. Take, as single example,
the law of hereditary descent; how
did such law, or rather. how did
such a process; for it is a process.
first commence If this is not as lie.
climate a subject for inquiry as the
question, how came the land. the eye,
or the first germ into existence it is
only because it seems more difficult to
investigate. If, as the most advanced
scientific philosophy teaches, crea.
ton itself but growth, how did
that growth originate We here
reach the limits of the scientific
field, OH ground where they are less
well defined than in some other direc.
tions; but shall take the liberty of
making single suggestion respecting
a matter which lies outside Of them.
When the doctrine Of the universally
OF natural law is carried SO far as to
include the genesis of living beings
and the adaptations to external cir.
cumstances which we see in their or.
gans and their structure. it is often
to be atheistic. Whether this Judge
ment is or is not correct. l cannot
say, but 1t is very easy to PROFOUND
the test question by which its cor.
rectness is to be determined: "Is the
general doctrine of causes acting in
apparently blind obedience to invaria.
BILE law in itself atheistic -. If it is,
then the whole progress of our
knowledge Of nature has been in this
direction, for it has consisted in re.
ducing the operations of nature to
such blind obedience. OF course,
when l say blind, you understand
that mean blind SO far as a scrutable
regard to consequence is concerned
blind. like justice. in fact.
If the doctrine is not atheistic,
then there is nothing atheistic in any
phase of the theory of evolution, for
this consists solely in accounting for
certain processes by natural laws.
do not pretend to answer the ques
ton here involved, because it belongs
entirely to the domain of theology
All we can ask is that each individual
shall hold consistent views on the
subject.
EXCAVATIONS At OF YMplA