26 THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 



the simplest things we know it must be carefully scruti- 

 nised. We may be making the same mistake as the China- 

 man. The law of evolution runs from end to end of the 

 universe. 1 From the primitive nebula upward we find the 

 whole contents of our solar system growing into shape. We 

 find the pre-existing elements entering into more and more 

 complex combinations, and so forming objects that seem 

 infinitely removed from them. Midway in this scheme of 

 cosmic development the first living things appear. All before 

 them was evolution. Ever since they have been subject to 

 evolution. Have we not an immense presumption, from 

 analogy, that they, too, were only a re-arrangement of pre- 

 existing elements ? Shall we not require very rigorous proof 

 from the man who says they cannot have been evolved, and 

 that we must leave our familiar agencies and turn to a 

 mystic, immaterial world for the explanation? We shall 

 see how lightly Sir Oliver Lodge meets this stringent obli- 

 gation. 



The law of parsimony, one of the first laws of thought, 

 compels us to the same attitude. Once more, a law of 



1 For a few readers it may be necessary to point out that we speak 

 of "law " by analogy. A " law " of science is only a summing-up of 

 the way in which things are done, not a force compelling them to obey. 

 I have not yet met the thoughtful man or woman who has any illusion 

 on the matter, but I see that religious writers are fond of assuring their 

 readers that Rationalists are commonly guilty of this ridiculous con- 

 fusion. When we talk of an " iron " (as Goethe did) or " inexorable " 

 law of evolution, we mean that our experience of things coming about 

 in this way is so vast and so uniform that exceptions must arouse 

 suspicion. Especially as the loose old habit of imagining things to 

 appear ready-made, like Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter, 

 still lingers among our neighbours. 



