From the Unconscious to the Conscious 



creation, and less from the ulterior acts of providential 

 governance; there is thus, on the one hand, more 

 of God's foresight, and on the other fewer interven- 

 tions; and what is taken from the latter, is added 

 to the former.' 



On this theory the responsibility of the Creator for 

 evil is diminished but not abolished, for it cannot be 

 admitted that God in His omniscience would not have 

 foreseen the future predominance of evil. 



Deists are then led to the conclusion that evolution 

 could not have been directed differently because evil is 

 the condition under which evolution acts, containing 

 in itself the germ of future good. 



This involves a curious restriction of Divine omnipo- 

 tence, although, by definition it cannot be conditioned 

 by anything. 



Further, it is by no means demonstrated that evil 

 is an indispensable factor in evolution. Many con- 

 temporary naturalists think differently, basing their 

 conclusion on the impartial examination of facts, and 

 not on preconceived ideas. 



What do these facts prove ? That new variations 

 appear and prosper most readily where the surrounding 

 conditions demand the least effort to survive. 



Kropotkine, studying the Siberian regions, remarks 

 that life there is scanty, and that periods of hard climatic 

 conditions are followed, not by progressive evolution 

 but by regression in all directions. 



The Russian botanist Korschinsky 1 reaches similar' 

 conclusions. New forms do not appear under adverse 

 conditions of life, or, if they do appear, they immediately 

 perish. Variation is most frequent when the environ- 

 ment is favourable, and inclement conditions, far from 

 favouring evolution, slow it down by restraining 



1 Korschinsky ;. H6terogentse el Evolution, Contribution a la Theorie 

 de 1'Origine des Esp^ces (Mem. Acad. Petrograd, ix. 1899). 



152 



