EVOLUTION' AND THE DESTINY OF MAN. 461 



the text, with no doubtful or misleading metaphors, with no unwar- 

 ranted suggestions. We have intelligible views, plainly and can- 

 didly expressed. The destiny of man is fairly considered in the light 

 of his origin ; but, as his origin occurred on earth, so in what precedes 

 his " destiny " is discussed as a question of development and progress 

 on the earth. It is modestly suggested, by no means dogmatically 

 affirmed — the author herein agreeing with Mr. Spencer — that the in- 

 fluences that have raised mankind from brutehood to his present con- 

 dition have not yet expended their force, but will carry him forward 

 to further and indefinite developments of intelligence and morality. 



Pass we now to consider the ideas presented, as it would almost 

 seem, by a second Mr. Fiske, who undertakes the task of rendering 

 innocuous or even edifying all that the first has put forward. Here 

 we find what may perhaps best be described as a constant attempt to 

 cut a larger garment than the cloth will allow. It is science that is 

 supposed to sujiply the cloth, but, when science stints the measure, 

 l^oetry and sentiment are laid under contribution. Much is done by 

 way of suggestion, and points are so skillfully made that we need to be 

 constantly on our guard lest we be led to mistake for knowledge what 

 in reality is mere conjecture, or the expression of emotional longing. 



But to proceed. In the preface we have a full admission that the 

 question of a future life lies " outside the range of legitimate scientific 

 discussion." At the same time it is maintained that we may have an 

 " opinion " on the subject, and that our opinion on such a question " must 

 necessarily be affected by the total mass of our opinions on the ques- 

 tions which lie within the scope of scientific inquiry." Here issue 

 may be joined. If " the total mass of our opinions " on questions lying 

 " within the scope of scientific inquiry " can guide us to an opinion 

 on the question of a future life, then that question itself can not be 

 said to lie "outside the range of legitimate scientific discussion." If, 

 on the other hand, the laws and analogies which science reveals do not 

 bear upon this question, then it is vain to talk of our conclusions 

 thereon being affected by the total mass of our opinions, upon matters 

 falling within the domain of science. In other words, there either is 

 or is not a bridge between such questions as science commonly deals 

 with and this question of immortality. If there is, let us walk over 

 it and possess the farther land ; if there is not, let us recognize the 

 fact, and not pretend that the laws of the physical region throw any 

 light on questions lying beyond that region. An " opinion " on such 

 a matter, moreover, is not worth entertaining unless we can hope for 

 some verification of it ; and we only cheat ourselves by framing 

 " opinions " and trying to think that in some remote way they have 

 the sanction and support of science. It might also, with some show 

 of reason, be maintained that mere opinions on such a point are likely 

 to do a great deal of harm, since they are apt to stand in the way of 

 the following out of a consistent line of thought and conduct. A man 



