The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-07

velop toward man. Now, II on sec
ond throwing of the dice double SKIES
again appeared, any critical mlnd
would begin to suspect that they were
loaded; and If, on hundreds OF casts,
like result invariably appeared, he
would have the most absolute proof
that can possibly be had TO show that
chance did not determine the occur
rences, or, in other words he Would
be compelled to support the existence
of some kind of control leading to the
particular result. This, in effect:
is what we find in the development OF
the series of animals which leads to
man. If we are to judge that work by
our intelligence we are led to the con-
clusion that the succession was deter
mined in substantially the same way
that we determine the results OF our
own contrivanCeS. 1t is, of course,
open to those who have a mind to
adopt the position to choose the other
horn of the dilemma, claiming that the
result is after all due to mere law. or,
what comes to the same thing. that II
arises from the mechanics of uni
verse without intellectual control. But
such a conclusion is Illogical. for the
reason that il does not account for the
existence of something that dominated
chance. II is not likely to be adopted
by anyone who has the spirit of en-
quiry in him.
The facts connected with the or
ganic approach to man afford what is
at least the most condensed, in favor
of the opinion that there is an intel
ligent principle in control of the uni
verse. To those who have devoted
themselves to natural enquiry, at the
same time keeping their minds open
to the larger impressions which that
field affords, there generally comes
conviction as to the essential ration
ality of the operations. They have to
consider facts which cannot be other
wise explained except on the suppo-
sition that a mighty kinsman of man
Is at work behind ii all. Again ana
again the naturalist feels that TINS
or that feature OF the order exactly
satisfies him. just as he feels that the
turn of a phrase or the shane of
thought in an author is after his own
mind"
II is this feeling of satisfaction in g
theory. of which Prof Shaler speaks
which is, after all, one OF the strongest
proofs of its truth. 1t seems reasonable
that is, first and last, our only reason
for accepting any statement. If it be
said that, to the savage, his own ex-
PLANTATION of the universe also seems rea-
sonable the scientist will reply, first, that
the savage's idea may approach more
nearly to absolute truth than did that OF
his progenitor and, what is more impor'
tant. while the civilized mans theory in
cludes and explains that of the savage
the savage cannot comprehend that OF
the civilized man. The great proof OF
the truth Of the theory of evolution ant
the tremendous train of theories which
it brought in its wake was, when all is
said and done, the fact that while it could
explain and include theology. theology
could not explain it. The evolutionist
could see, step by step, how the Church
grew up; the Church could not explain OF
refute Darwin. 1t ended by accepting and
including him, and adapting itself to him
which is not at all the same as refuta-
ton. (New York: D. Appleton & Co
S1.50)