34 THE HISTOEY OF CREATION. 



every individual species of animal and plant an " embodied 

 creative tliouglit," the material expression of a definite first 

 cause (causa finalis) acting for a set purpose. They must 

 necsssarily assume supernatural (not mechanical) processes 

 for the origin of organisms. With justice, we may therefore 

 designate their scheme of the world's gTowth as the Super- 

 natural History of Creation. Among all such teleological 

 histories of creation, that of Moses has gained the gTcatest 

 influence, since even so -distinguished a naturalist as Lin- 

 na3us has claimed admittance for it in Natural Science. 

 Cuvier's and Agassiz's views of creation also belong to this 

 group, as do in fact those of the great majority of both 

 scientific and unscientific men. 



On the other hand, the theory of development carried out 

 by Darwin, which we shall have to treat of here as the Non- 

 Tiiiraculous or Natural History of Creation, and which has 

 already been put forward by Goethe and Lamarck, must, 

 if carried out logically, lead to the monistic or mechan- 

 ical (causal) conception of the universe. In opposition to 

 the dualistic or teleological conception of natm-e, our theory 

 considers organic, as well as inorganic, bodies to be the neces- 

 sary products of natural forces. It does not see in every in- 

 dividual species of animal and plant the embodied thought 

 of a personal Creator, but the expression for the time being 

 of a mechanical process of development of matter, the ex- 

 pression of a necessarily active cause, that is, of a mechanical 

 cause (causa efiiciens). Where teleological Dualism seeks 

 the arbitrary thoughts of a capricious Creator in the miracles 

 of creation, causal Monism finds in the process of develop- 

 ment the necessary efiects of eternal immutable laws of 

 nature. 



