556 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



and heredity are all within the limits 

 of human knowledge ? Can we then 

 he sure that the knowledge of why 

 evolution has worked as it has is un- 

 attainable ? " 



It is really somewhat lamentable 

 that a man who has evidently had 

 some training in science, and who 

 perhaps either is, or is about to be- 

 come, a teacher of it, should reason 

 in this way. Because a certain line 

 of inquiry, dealing with natural 

 causes, has proved eminently fruit- 

 ful, therefore we may such is the 

 argument reasonably suppose that 

 another line of inquiry, dealing not 

 with natural causes at all, but with 

 the supposed motives of an Abso- 

 lute Being, will also prove fruitful. 

 When will our institutions of learn- 

 ing knock a little common logic into 

 the heads of their graduates, so that 

 they shall not be at the mercy of the 

 first idle and misleading analogy 

 that happens to flit through their 

 brains ? We should like to know 

 whether Mr. Clark has ever tried to 

 form any clear idea of what he means 

 by attaining to a knowledge of the 

 why what, exactly, it would be like 

 to see into the mind of a Divine Be- 

 ing, and acquire an understanding 

 of his thoughts and purposes. Strain- 

 ing his imagination to the utmost, 

 can he give us any hint as to the 

 steps by which such knowledge as 

 he aims at could be approached ? In 

 all the ages that have passed, has the 

 smallest commencement been made 

 toward an insight into the "Why" ? 

 The religions of the past have all, in 

 their manner, grappled with the ques- 

 tion, but with what result ? Abso- 

 lutely none. We know no more on 

 this subject than our ancestors of a 

 hundred generations ago ; but we 

 differ a little from our ancestors in 

 being more content than they to 

 abide in a necessary ignorance. We 

 find, moreover, that a knowledge of 

 the How renders in many cases a 



knowledge of the Why not only un- 

 necessary but inconceivable renders 

 the very idea of such knowledge ab- 

 surd. When we have once grasped 

 the law of gravitation in its appli- 

 cation to the solar system, do we 

 feel any special need to ask why it 

 was arranged that the attraction ex- 

 erted by the sun and the planets 

 upon one another should be directly 

 as mass and inversely as distance ? 

 When we learn the properties of 

 oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, do 

 we feel as if we must also know 

 why they are endowed with such 

 properties ? When we see how run- 

 ning water sifts earthy materials, 

 how the action of the waves furrows 

 the sand, wears away rocks, and 

 smooths pebbles, do we exclaim, 

 " But why ? oh, why ? " When we 

 study the laws of mechanics and 

 grasp the simple formulas which ex- 

 press the action of the lever, the 

 screw, and the inclined plane, do we 

 feel that it would elevate us greatly 

 in the scale of being to know T why 

 these things are so ? It may be 

 said, perhaps, that these are not the 

 phenomena which suggest the ques- 

 tion Why ? If so, we reply that if 

 we would know the true nature of 

 that question we must apply it to 

 such matters as these. Applied to 

 these, we see that it is a silly and 

 meaningless question ; but none the 

 less is it silly and meaningless when 

 applied to other matters. Men want 

 to know why a pestilence or fam- 

 ine was sent (as they say) at a par- 

 ticular time; they do not trouble 

 themselves with the prior question 

 whether it was sent at all in any 

 proper meaning of the word. What 

 we know is that sanitary science is 

 showing an admirable power of con- 

 trolling pestilences, and that famines 

 only occur where there is defective 

 knowledge and inferior social or- 

 ganization. Here again, therefore, 

 a knowledge of the cause renders 



