The Doctrine of Evolution. 459 



their cerebral concomitants distinct in his argument, this 

 colloquial use of the word " nervous " was liable to puzzle 

 the reader, and give querulous critics a chance to charge 

 Mr. Spencer with the materialistic implications which it was 

 his express purpose to avoid. Accordingly, in my quotation I 

 changed the word " nervous " to " psychical," using brackets 

 and explaining my reasons. On showing all this to Mr. 

 Spencer, he desired me to add in a foot-note that he thor- 

 oughly approved the emendation. 



I mention this incident because our common, every-day 

 speech abounds in expressions that have a materialistic 

 flavor ; and sometimes in serious writing an author's sheer 

 intentness upon his main argument may lead him to over- 

 look some familiar form of expression which, when thrown 

 into a precise and formal context, will strike the reader in a 

 very different way from what the author intended. I am 

 inclined to explain in this way the passages in First Princi- 

 ples which are perhaps chiefly responsible for the charge of 

 materialism that has so often and so wrongly been brought 

 up against the doctrine of evolution. 



As regards the theological implications of the doctrine of 

 evolution, I have never undertaken to speak for Mr. Spencer ; 

 on such transcendental subjects it is quite enough if one 

 speaks for one's self. It is told of Diogenes that, on listen- 

 ing one day to a sophistical argument against the possibility 

 of motion, he grimly got up out of his tub and walked across 

 the street. Whether his adversaries were convinced or not, 

 we are not told. Probably not ; it is but seldom that adver- 

 saries are convinced. So, when Prof. Haeckel declares that 

 belief in a " personal God " and an " immortal soul " are in- 

 compatible with acceptance of the doctrine of evolution, I 

 can only say, for myself however much or little the per- 

 sonal experience may be worth I find that the beliefs in 

 the psychical nature of God and in the immortality of the 

 human soul seem to harmonize infinitely better with my 

 general system of cosmic philosophy than the negation of 

 these beliefs. If Prof. Haeckel, or any other writer, prefers 

 a materialistic interpretation, very well. I neither quarrel 

 with him nor seek to convert him ; but I do not agree with 

 him. I do not pretend that my opinion on these matters is 

 susceptible of scientific demonstration. Neither is his. I 

 say, then, that his fifth thesis has no business in a series of 

 scientific generalizations about the doctrine of evolution. 



Far beyond the limits of what scientific methods, based 



