that the theory of evolution suggests a modal interpretation within the scientific universe of discourse, while the other view gives up even the possibility of scientific re-description, and suggests a transcendental formula as alone possible. It is quite certain that there is no manner of use in pitting a scientific formula against a transcendental one: that always means a false antithesis and intellectual fog. They are incommensurables. The true antithesis is between a scientific interpretation and maintaining that it is impossible to give one.

There is an intricate, beautiful, rational pattern before us in nature: are we to think of it as woven, thread by thread, by invisible hands in a way past finding out scientifically; or was there so much mind put into the original institution of things-an apparently simple loom-that thenceforth the web has been worked out automatically in a manner that admits of scientific formulation? When we finally discover that the doctrine of descent and all the theories of evolution do not fundamentally explain what they formulate,1 we

66

66

1 This expresses the modern view that science is re-description in simpler terms "—which, however, are not themselves explained." The object of science is "the complete and consistent description of the facts of experience in the simplest possible terms." As Prof. Poynting put it, a law of nature explains nothing, it is but a descriptive formula." "We explain an event not when we know 'why' it happened, but when we know 'how' it is like something else happening elsewhere or otherwise—when, in fact, we can include it as a case described by some law already set forth. The causes that Science seeks after are secondary causes, not ultimate causes; effective causes, not final causes." But scientific description differs from ordinary description in depth, order, connectedness, and continuity. See "Introduction to Science " (Home University Library), by J. Arthur Thomson.

shall be able, perhaps, to return to the transcendental formula with intelligence.

In regard to the proposition that science offers not explanations but formulations, it is important to bear in mind (1) that the biologist, for instance, postulates simple living creatures with which to start his story of evolution, for he does not know how they began; (2) that he takes for granted certain primary qualities of living matter, notably "irritability"; (3) that he does not account, as yet, for the "big lifts" in evolution, or for the general progressiveness, e.g. in complexity of organisation and freedom of life-the tree having grown vertically, so to speak, as well as horizontally; and (4) that the biologist's causal equation is not like those of mechanics, where causa aequat effectum. Bergson distinguishes (a) a cause acting par impulsion, as when one billiard-ball strikes another (where the quantity and quality of the effect vary with the quantity and quality of the cause); (b) a cause acting par délanchement, as when a spark makes the powder explode (where the invariable effect has no relation to the quantity and quality of the cause); and (c) a cause acting par déroulement, as when the spring which works the gramophone unrolls the tune on the cylinder (where the quantity of the effect is proportionate to the quantity of the cause). In the first case only does the cause explain the effect, but living is not such an effect.

DARWIN'S ARGUMENT.-What did Darwin really do in regard to the general doctrine of organic evolution? He showed that it rationalises our whole outlook. He took a wide sweep of things as they are and showed that they admit of evo

lutionist interpretation. There are no locks which its key does not fit. As there is often misunderstanding in regard to the so-called "evidences of evolution," we must note that Darwin's magistral work was not of the nature of an induction leading up to the doctrine of descent as its conclusion. It was a deductive vindication of the doctrine that he gave us "a cumulative justification showing how well the formula fits a vast series of facts." We cannot agree with the statement that Darwin proved in 1859 what Lamarck had only suggested fifty years before, for there is no logical proof of the doctrine of descent. It must be allowed, however, that Darwin's illustrationswhat some would call his cumulative evidencewere so carefully chosen that they left few openings for effective criticism. The basis of fact which the formula was shown to fit was solid, broad, and representative.

(a) Darwin pointed to the evolution which is going on in domesticated animals, such as sheep and cattle, and in cultivated plants, such as cabbages and apples, and used the argument: If Man has been instrumental in fixing all these varieties in a short time, what may not Nature have effected in a very long time? This line of argument has been greatly strengthened of recent years by cases like De Vries's mutations of the Evening Primrose (Enothera lamarckiana).

(b) There is significance in the broad fact that it is possible to arrange the animal kingdom in a provisional genealogical tree, showing stages in progressive organisation from lower to higher

1 Lamarck's "Philosophie Zoologique" was published in 1809, when Darwin was born.

DOMESTICATED RACES OF PIGEONS EVOLVED FROM ROCK DOVE. 1. Wild Rock Dove, Columba livia; 2. Pouter; 3. Owl; 4. Fantail; 5. White Jacobin.