x. =“ >.’ =. ~~ " awe! CUCL oe Wer = 
30 UNEXPLAINED ORIGINS. 
The Origin of the Universe. 
Scientists as a rule disclaim any intention to account, 
on the basis of their hypothesis, for the origin of matter. 4 
When it is suggested to them that any theory of origins qi 
should also account for the FIRST ORIGIN, the be- 4 
ginning of things, they direct us to philosophy: “Evo- , 
lution is not concerned with the origin of matter; it 
takes matter for granted; the origin of matter is properly 
a philosophical and not a scientific problem.” | 
Let us note the fallacies of this position. In the 
first place it is not proper to introduce the word “science” 
into this plea. Science is, indeed, only concerned with | 
things that can be demonstrated by observation and from 
experience ; and since no one has seen the beginning of 
matter, science is very properly not concerned with it. 
But evolution is not a science. It is a hypothesis, a 
theory. It is an explanation proposed for certain phe- 
nomena. ‘And we have a right to demand that, if it wants 
recognition even as a theory, it must explain those phe- 
nomena. Now the principle of evolution is: All things 
have developed through certain forces which inhere in | 
matter. In other words, without being acted upon from 
the outside, (without a creative word of God; for in- 
stance,) the unvierse has come to be what it is to-day. 
In matter there are from the beginning certain forces 
inseparable from matter. These acted in such a way 
that very simple plants and animals became very com- 
plex; and this without any directing Intelligence. This 
is the evolutionary theory. Now, we hold that a theory 
which claims to account for the beginning of all animal 
life (and every species of animal life), for the beginning 
of plant life( and of every species of plant life), for the 
beginning of life germs, of the globe, of the sun and 
stars, cannot stop short when we press our questions 
7s.” 
