8 SCIENCE AND MORALS 



sequence that, if you have a law, someone must 

 have made it, and if you look upon something as 

 " a phenomenon of arrangement," someone must 

 have arranged it. But for reasons not obvious 

 nor confessed, there is an objection to make any 

 such admission. Perhaps it is the taint of the 

 monism of the latter half of the last century 

 which still persists. 



At any rate, as I have elsewhere pointed out, 

 there is a most curious passage in another paper 

 by the same author in which he says : " With 

 the experimental proof that variation consists 

 largely in the unpacking and repacking of an 

 original complexity, it is not so certain as we 

 might like to think that the order of these events 

 is not pre-determined." The writer hastens to 

 denounce the horrid heresy on the brink of which 

 he finds himself hesitating, by adding that he 

 sees " no ground whatever for holding such a 

 view," though " in the light of modern kf research 

 it scarcely looks so absurdly improbable as be- 

 fore." l It is curious that the writer in question 

 does not seem to have been in any way influenced 

 by the eliminative argument so potent in con- 

 nection with the discussion on Vitalism. We 

 ask for an explanation of the occurrences say of 

 regeneration. We find that no physical explana- 

 tion in the least meets the needs of the case, and 

 we are consequently obliged to look for it in some- 

 thing differing from the operations**^ chemistry 

 and physics. Of this argument I DrJ John- 



1 In an article in the volume Darwin and Modern Science, 

 p. ioo t 



