Scope and Purport of Evolution 61 



very different way from what the author intended. 

 I am inclined to explain in this way the passages 

 in &quot; First Principles &quot; which are perhaps chiefly 

 responsible for the charge of materialism that has 

 so often and so wrongly been brought up against 

 the doctrine of evolution. 



As regards the theological implications of the 

 doctrine of evolution, I have never undertaken 

 to speak for Mr. Spencer ; on such transcendental 

 subjects it is quite enough if one speaks for one s 

 self. It is told of Diogenes that, on listening 

 one day to a sophistical argument against the pos 

 sibility of motion, he grimly got up out of his tub 

 and walked across the street. Whether his ad 

 versaries were convinced or not, we are not told. 

 Probably not ; it is but seldom that adversaries 

 are convinced. So, when Professor Haeckel de 

 clares that belief in a &quot; personal God &quot; and an 

 &quot; immortal soul &quot; is incompatible with acceptance 

 of the doctrine of evolution, I can only say, for my 

 self however much or little the personal experi 

 ence may be worth I find that the beliefs in the 

 psychical nature of God and in the immortality of 

 the human soul seem to harmonize infinitely bet 

 ter with my general system of cosmic philosophy 

 than the negation of these beliefs. If Professor 

 Haeckel, or any other writer, prefers a materialistic 



