THEISTIC EVOLUTION l63 



beings from one another are not unlike those we have 

 already criticised, and are not so much based on his 

 own science as on the supposed analogies between | 

 the development of the individual and the species inj 

 biology. We need not deal with these, but may* 

 rather notice what is special and peculiar in his view 

 of the matter. 



His definition of evolution is somewhat different 

 from that of Spencer and the ordinary Darwinians. 

 Evolution, he says, is (i) continuous progressive* 

 change; (2) this is according to certain laws; (3) it A 

 is by means of re^nfjorccs, that is, forces natural 

 to or inherent in the object and its environment.* 

 These are, however, forces emanating primarily from A 

 a divine rjovver. 



Under his first head he unfortunately appears to 

 involve himself in the confusion of the ordinary 

 evolutionists. He states that there are in regard to 

 organic beings three kinds of progressive development. 

 The first is that of the individual from a simple uni 

 cellular germ. The second is that implied in the 

 similar gradation from the simplest to the most com 

 plex adult animals and plants. The third is that in 

 geological time from the earliest to the modern living 

 beings. It seems here to be taken for granted that 

 all three are similar instances of progressive change 

 of one being into another. Admitting this, of course 

 we at once, as we have already seen, concede all that 

 the evolutionist should fairly be required to prove. 



