EVOLUTION AND SOCIETY 



quivocally stated as the conclusion of scientific his- 

 tory, which aroused the persistent opposition of the 

 Evolutionists to Buckle. They would have approved 

 of his scientific method. But he damaged the cause of 

 evolution far more than he aided it: they could read- 

 ily excuse the errors of fact of a pioneer, but they 

 could not forgive his separation of mental and nat- 

 ural laws. Still worse was his division of the agencies 

 of morality and intellectuality and the complete sub- 

 ordination of the former. They knew it would be a 

 rash thing to expect success for a philosophy which 

 openly denied morality to be the supreme goal of 

 progress; on the other hand, if our moral attributes 

 were known and practised thousands of years ago in 

 a period of barbarism, how could they compel accept- 

 ance of the doctrine of a continuous evolution of the 

 mind from physical phenomena, and of moral self- 

 consciousness from the mind^ How could Spencer's 

 evolution of altruism from egotism be a steady pro- 

 gress from the ape to man as he is today, if the high- 

 est forms of altruism were taught thousands of years 

 ago and we have never improved them"? Buckle may 

 have originated the science of history, but he dealt a 

 horrid blow to progress and evolution. The great les- 

 son to us should be that he told the truth about our 

 attainment of morals and was a far better prophet 

 of the consequences of scientific evolution than were 

 the Evolutionists. Unfortunately we have subscribed 

 to the doctrine of evolution and we are its products; 



[ 317 1 



