368 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



tliat U is not scientific — that it lias no proper place in tlie scheme 

 of our acquired and organized knowledge. If a scientific opin- 

 ion is not established, if it is not demonstrated beyond all possi- 

 bility of cavil, why concern one's self about it, except to invali- 

 date the claims that may have been wrongly put forward on its 

 behalf ? To discuss its bearing on religion is merely to suggest 

 that it is true, but that " pity "tis 'tis true," and to offer a premium 

 to weak souls to try to persuade themselves that it is not true. If 

 a doctrine is true, and yet inconsistent with a certain theological 

 scheme, what is going to be done about it ? Will whole books of 

 lamentations nullify it ? Will it be disproved by the most dif- 

 fuse argumentation designed to show that, if it holds its ground, 

 something else will have to give way ? Of course it will hold its 

 ground if it is true ; and of course whatever is inconsistent with 

 it must give way, and the world must adapt itself as best it can 

 to the change. 



But let us consider in detail some of the accusations brought 

 against modern science and its professors by the critics whose 

 names we have mentioned. " Darwinism," says M. de Laveleye, 

 " applied to social sciences, sets aside all notions of equality, and 

 simply glorifies the triumph of the strongest and the cleverest." 

 Darwinism is properly a form or phase of biological doctrine, and 

 as such does not glorify anything particularly. Even in the realm 

 to which it strictly applies there is no glorification of natural se- 

 lection, merely a recognition of the fact that natural selection is 

 an active agency in the production of results that come under 

 our observation. The only possible application of Darwinism to 

 " social sciences " would lie in a close examination of social phe- 

 nomena, in order to see whether there also a principle of natural 

 selection might be found to be at work. In this sense Darwinism 

 may be said to have been applied to the social sciences, and with 

 good results so far as our comprehension of social phenomena is 

 concerned. But is it a sin to understand social phenomena ? In 

 all other departments of observation we esteem it a great advan- 

 tage to get on the track of Nature's operations, to be able to follow 

 her secret processes ; and it is really difficult to see why we should 

 debar ourselves from understanding, as far as it may be given to 

 us to do so, the course of things in the social order. The true 

 Darwinian does not seek to impose a law on things — he leaves 

 that to his theological censors ; he is content to discover law in 

 things. There is simply no sense, therefore, in talking of the 

 Darwinian exulting in force, or glorifying "the triumph of the 

 strongest and the cleverest." At the same time it may be remarked 

 that it is hard to understand how, except by some very special 

 and extraordinary interposition of Providence, " the strongest and 

 the cleverest" are to be prevented from triumphing; and upon the 



