xx SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 261 



and finally banishes, natural selection. We have further 

 seen that, while faithful to the conception of progress 

 by elimination, Mr. Sutherland does not himself succeed 

 in assuming the kind of elimination implied in true 

 natural selection, viz. starvation or violent slaughter due 

 to struggle. 



Drummond did not definitely challenge natural 

 selection. Probably he was a believer, and had no 

 intention of excluding its operation from human society. 

 He tried to show, mainly in the brute world, that it 

 had limitations. The argument as he states it seems 

 precarious, inadequate, and, in the light of a better 

 philosophy, unnecessary. 



We again find pure Darwinism, or rather pure 

 natural selectionism hyper -Darwinism, a Darwinism 

 that goes beyond the master asserted by Mr. Kidd 

 following the lines of Weismann. We held his physio- 

 logical basis to be insecure, and his sociological infer- 

 ences illegitimate, even if it were possible to treat the 

 problems of morality and sociology in an appendix to 

 biology. But in point of fact Social Evolution turns 

 as much upon the writer's private opinions regarding 

 reason and religion as upon its view of struggle ; * and 

 that view, dissociating struggle from elimination, is not 

 Darwin's view. 



On the whole, then, this is what we have seen. The 

 one attempt to give authority to biology as a guide for 

 human conduct is the doctrine of evolution. The only 

 accredited theory of naturalistic evolution is natural 



1 Professor Baldwin's Social and Ethical Interpretations furnishes a 

 valuable criticism upon Mr. Kidd. Some of Mr. Baldwin's own positions 

 seem obscure or questionable. But as he decisively subordinates the 

 appeal to biology, he does not form part of the proper field of our 

 present study. 



