324 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



of being ? If that in us wliicli is to oppose and correct the cosmic 

 process is not itself a product of the cosmic process, whence does it 

 come ? To the consistent evolutionist there could seem to be but 

 one answer to this question. As such, Prof. Huxley would hardly 

 fall back upon the discredited dogma of special creation, and no 

 other refuge is left him from the logic of that conclusion which 

 he has so persistently ignored. 



Leaving out the Oriental imaginings and metaphysical specu- 

 lations which so largely tinge and illustrate the thought of Prof. 

 Huxley, and confining ourselves to what science definitely as- 

 sures us regarding the cosmic process as illustrated in our own 

 little earth, we are surely justified in viewing it as the exponent 

 of something more and different from a merely cyclical alter- 

 nation of evolution and degeneration. Whether viewed in its 

 purely physical or in its biological aspects, the process of evolu- 

 tion on this planet has been one of progressive refinement, devel- 

 opment, and progress from a molten ball to a solid globe ; from 

 the theater of terrific Plutonic activities to a condition where 

 such activities are rare and exceptional ; from the coarse and 

 rank vegetation of the Carboniferous era to the more delicate 

 and beautiful growths of our own time; from lower to higher 

 forms of life, from moneron to ape and from ape to man ; from 

 savagery to barbarism and from barbarism to civilization : such 

 is the story of evolution as written in rock and soil, the rude 

 inscriptions of the earlier races, and the nature of man himself, 

 so plainly that he who runs may read. Occasional lapse and 

 degeneration have indeed been incidental to this progress, render- 

 ing it rhythmical rather than serial in its method ; but this does 

 not detract from the impressive reality of evolution^s majestic 

 march through the centuries. 



Not only has Prof. Huxley erred, as it appears to me, in giv- 

 ing a partial interpretation of the trend and meaning of the 

 cosmic process in inanimate Nature, he seems to be still more 

 grievously at fault in interpreting its significance when it mounts 

 to sentiency in animal and human organisms. One is forced to 

 wonder by what curious mental bias he was led to debit Nature 

 with all the pain, misery, and suffering that sentiency implies, 

 without crediting it with the conscious satisfactions, pleasure, and 

 hapx)iness which are equally the product of the evolutionary pro- 

 cess. Mr. Spencer has shown by arguments which I believe to be 

 unanswerable, and to which Mr. Huxley does not even allude in 

 this address, that that " fullness of life," which is the final evolu- 

 tionary test of genuine advancement in mental capacity^ individ- 

 ual character, and progressive social amelioration, is directly pro- 

 portionate to the relative amount of subjective satisfactions in 

 sentient organisms, and that all progress is conditioned upon the 



