The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-13

are subject to the same logical process.
Logic is the science of the laws of thought,
not OF philosophical thought merely, but
of scientific thought as well-indeed of
all thought. Now there may be fallacies
in the logic of the scientist as well as of
the philosopher The inductions and de-
auctions OF science may be as imperfect
as those of philosophy. When one pur-
sues the theory of Evolution until it leads
him into Materialism, it is not philosophy
which has misled him, but false science.
and bad logic.
But not to dwell longer on this side
issue, the naotive of the article in the
Princeton Revieao is revealed in the fol-
lowing extract: eve have said that the
age is materialistic; that this is especially
true of modern science; that among sci
ences, it is true in peculiar degree of
biology and finally, that in biology this
tendency reaches its acme in the doctrine
OF Evolution of the organic kingdom.
This doctrine, therefore, may be regarded
as the stronghold of modern Materialism.
1t is here, therefore, that I wish to attack
it." He does not, however, attack Evo-
luton by attempting to destroy it, or
even by denying its truth. On the con-
trary, he embraces it; he says, p. 159,
- frankly ayow my belief in Evolution,
as a scientific theory" He adopts the
theory of Evolution, which he confesses
to be tainted with Materialism, and en-
deavors to extract its poison. He says
wish to show that Evolution not only
does not imply Materialism, but it does
not add feathers weight to the argu-
ment In its favor; that theistic Evolu-
ton is not only the highest and truest,
but is also the most religious philosophy. T"
DIR. lie Conte was not always so com
pletely enamoured of Evolution, as he
now processes himself to be. On the con-
trary he tells us that he "came to this
conclusion" Chat Evolution is true sci
entific theory after much thought, and
at first with much reluctance. AS a
pupil OF Prof. Agassiz, I had deeply SYM
pathized with his views of development.
1t seemed, and still seems to me, avery
noble conception; but now regard Evo-
luton by derivation as far nobler con-
ception." Has it never occurred to our
friend, that Evolution" like develop
ment, may be passing "fashion OF
thought that in another cycle of seven
years, it too, may give place to a newer
and "nobler conception" of the derivation
of species.
He himself intimates as much in his
book on Religion and Science" pub
lished in 1874. Then he regarded Evo-
luton as only "a probable theory, but
by no means proved" He says, p. "a
My own very strong conviction, (and ]
think many others are coming to the
same conclusion) is that no theory of Evo-
luton yet proposed explains the origin
of species, that the factors mentioned
above a. e., several theories, evolution
among the rest "may produce vap5eties
but not species, much less genera, orders
and classes; that the great factor OF
change and the real cause of Evolution is
still unknown"
How do we know that in seven years
more this great factor" will not be dis
covered, and overthrow the Evolution
theory of Darwin, as that has overthrow
the development theory of Agassiz? Let
US wait and see.
The theistic use Of Evolution by DR..
lie Conte, may be exhibited in another
article.
For the Central Presbyterian.