New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-09-22
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
EVOLUTION. PHILOSOPHY AND PSY-
GEOLOGY.
GEOLOGY.

evolution in the strict sense OF Darwinism mas 70
do with the theme. The word is used to describe
the organic processes Of change which tit AMI
mails in the course Of time and after many
unfortunate generations for a new environ
ment 1t involves the inference now held
for certainty by the majority Of scien-
tifc Observers that these organic changes
produce all the differences Of species. But
everywhere these changes imply resistance
70 death: that is. 10 o breaking up Of the organs;
and they point back alphabetically TO a time
when death was not. because life was confined to
organisms that could not dissolved except or
their OWL motion. They must point forward also
10 the same sort of Immortality in the cells or
the disintegrated organs which have been worn
out in the service Of a composite living creature
But they give of themselves no fint OF an in
organic existence The soul is absolutely un-
known to evolution. All that can be said is that
the soul and Immortality are not contradicted 10y
the evolutionary theory. Or. Smyth can use
modern biology only by way of analogy. The
continuity Of nature leads to the legitimate in
ference that the processes of life are not com
plet ed in mortal man. But on the other hand. the
Inference that evolution is q movement toward
perfection seems questionable. Is this so IN
varably true that it can be used as an axiom
II certainly seems to require proof from some
where outside Of the evolutionary theory II thdl
is the case. then the whole theory OF pe''er
life after what is called death rests on evidence
OF which evolution has no knowledge. The au-
thor. indeed. points out a striking concurrence
between the teaching of biology that sex ana
death come into the world together as prerequl-
sites of the rise Of life TO a higher order OF be-
ings ard the teaching of the New Testament
that both will be unknown to the world to come
Fission. which corresponds in cell life to bo;h
birth and death among the higher animals Is
not reckoned by biologists as an interruption
OF life Yet the cell. after it has divided into
two cells. is not the same that 1t was. II
there were such a thing as a conscious cell, could
It be imagined enduring the rupture OF It's
parts without the complete death Of its con-
seriousness? 1t must seem that the biologists in
coupling sex with death have yielded to poetic
ideas of symmetry. while on the other hand. the
doctrine Of the New Testament is simply that
the future life will be incorceivably different
from the life that now is. Practically the lat
ter puts a negative upon all analogies. and Dr.
Smyth. the moment he really sets about imagin-
ing what the future life must be- does the same
thing. Evolution in this world is process OF
differentiation. 1t takes advantage Of all vari-
atoms either to destroy or TO build up the species
in the individual 1t might be thought that the
same process would continue in the next world
But DR.. Smyth insists that 1t will not and he
maintains that the fxity already attained by
humanity physically proves that in the spiritual
world there will be no change such as is implied
in birth and death. Already man is spiritual
being rather than physical: his development has
ceased to be an organic process, and it must be
this development that will be continued after
death. On the whole. Dr. Smyths argument
while less strict and more POLITICALLY put. is for
modern materialists what Bishop Buffers was
to the deists of earlier time. 1t accepts the
facts of science and then shows that materialism
cannot deal with them, and that any solution Of
the problem requires theism to make it come
out right.
Another work on evolution is Edward Clodd's
pioneers Of Evolution from Thales TO Huxley"
Cd. Appleton & Coz. in which prominent two
features-diske of the Church and preference
for materialism pure and simple. AS Mr.. Clodd
puts the case. the principles Of modern science
are still very close to those set forth by Luz
cretus. One would think to read his volume
that science presented solid, united front on
the lines laid down by Darwin and Spencer and
Huxley a generation ago. But to an outsider ii
looks as If there good many sects. To
call Huxley evolutionist In the same sense
that Spencer is one would be a misuse of words
Then there are Weissmanism neo- Darwinlans
neo-LamarcKians, the followers Of Wallace and
so many other varieties OF opinion that ortho-
doxy is hard to determine in science as IL is
nowadays in religion. Nevertheless If the fact is
kept in mind that things are not at all settled
Mr.. Clodd's book furnishes excellent reading
A noteworthy addition to 1.-THE University
Series IS Elements of General Philosophy"
Charles Scribner's sons, edited by Caroline
A. F. Rhys Davids NJ. A. from notes Of lectures
delivered by the late George Groom Robertson
The book is compact history Of philosophy
with criticism, and its most salient feature is
the clearness with which it brings out the fact
that high philosophical activity is shown only
at long intervals in history. In fact Professor
Robertson only allowed three great revivas in
philosophy that Of Greece. that Of the School
men. and the one which has characterized the
nineteenth century. He was kind enough 10
prolong the last one into the present generation
but there is shrewd suspicion abroad that all
the great neutrality-suspicious. are dead. and that
the world has turned in for another nap far
as philosophy is concerned. The less compre-
hensive sciences. like psychology have over
Swallowed II for the present.
The popularity OF IAN Outline Of Psychology"
CThe Macmillan Company. by Professor Z. b.
kitchener. of Cornell University, shows what
hold has been gained by the theory that mind
is sum of mental processes rather than per-
manent thing in itself This theory is based on
observation. which. at least yet, can find no
continuity in mental life. Why nevertheless.
the mind insists its own actually is a prob
lem which Professor kitchener leaves to meta
physics. with an appeal to the idealism OF Lotze
who declared that train OF processes presup-
posed something more than the processes them
selves The comparison of two ideas like or I'M
like could never be without an indivisible some
thing TO compare them. Apparently Professor
kitchener would not deny this What he denies
L. tlAatx