132 THE FOUNDATIONS OF ZOOLOGY 



act differently; nor, so far as I can see, would proof that all 

 nature is mechanical, from beginning to end, be inconsistent with 

 belief that everything in nature is immediately sustained by Provi- 

 dence; nor am I able to see how it would be inconsistent with my 

 conviction that my volition counts for something as a condition 

 of the course of events. 



I have tried to show, page 59, that, while the responsive 

 activities of living things do not take place unless they are called 

 forth by a stimulus, the things which they do under a stimulus 

 are no more than their organic mechanism would lead one to 

 expect; and that there is no necessary antagonism between those 

 who attribute the development of the germ to mechanical con- 

 ditions and those who attribute it to the inherent potency of the 

 germ itself. 



I have also tried to show, page 70, that there need be no 

 more antagonism between those who attribute knowledge to expe- 

 rience and those who attribute it to our innate reason ; for, while 

 knowledge does not arise in our minds without a sensible occasion, 

 the knowledge which does thus arise may be no more than one who 

 knew the whole natural history of our minds might have expected. 



We must now ask whether proof that all nature was latent in 

 the cosmic vapor would be inconsistent with belief that every- 

 thing in nature is immediately intended rather than predeter- 

 mined. 



Certain monists tell us that the scientific doctrine of evolution 

 is the same as Pantheism, for '* since the simpler occurrences of 

 inorganic nature and the more complicated phenomena of organic 

 life are alike reducible to the same natural forces, and since, 

 furthermore, these in their turn have their common foundation in 

 a simple primal principle pervading infinite space, we can regard 

 this last [the cosmic ether] as all-comprehending divinity, and 

 upon this found the thesis : Belief in God is reconcilable with 

 science."^ 



They who agree with Haeckel may worship stones, if they see 

 fit; but they seem to me to fail as completely as any South Sea 

 islander to understand the nature of scientific evidence ; for it is 

 one thing to find sermons in stones, and quite another to see a 



1 Haeckel, "Monism." 



