'!(■)•} Till' I'hllosnjili 11 of Evolution. 



sion of Darwin's great theory of the Descent of Man into a philos- 

 ophy of evolution; and I tliink that in ne^letting the mental 

 aspects of the subject, the lecturer has lost an opportunity of 

 making a symmetrical presentation of his great theme. In the 

 narrow limits of this criticism, it is possible only to suggest the 

 vast proportions of the theory of evolution. For humanity the 

 central fact of evolution is the nature of language. In language 

 we have the connecting link between mind and matter, the agency 

 which has raised man to the position he holds above other related 

 orders of living beings. Language is thought, language is sympa- 

 thy, language is interaction. In comprehending its nature we 

 command the true perspective of existence, we reach the zenith of 

 intellectual life. Its categories of perception and expression are 

 universal. Gravitation and affinity and love all lead to and explain 

 it; even in the cold, clear atmosphere of thought its metaphors 

 and symbols bear out the endless analogy. The verb, the symbol 

 of activity, is the soul of language, the central fact in every sen- 

 tence, and all the other parts of speech denote simply the times 

 and places of the action or being. The sentence is the molecule 

 of thought ; it is complete in itself, containing all the elements of 

 being. It is the sentence which transforms facts into symbols, it 

 is the sentence which enables physical life to rise into intelligence 

 or spirituality. This is the ultimate analysis. It shows how social 

 development is primarily expressed in the growth of language, 

 which renders mental and moral development possible. It shows 

 us that mind and spirit are not ultimate facts, but aspects of Life» 

 and that Life means Evolution. 



Dr. Robert G. Eccles: — 



In the lecture and the criticism we have an illustration of the 

 danger of looking exclusively on one side of a problem. The ma- 

 terialistic mind looks only at the static side, and sees that alone ; 

 the spiritualistic mind looks only at the dynamic side, and fancies 

 that is all-inclusive. Mr. Xichols and Mr. Perrin represent two 

 kinds of evolutionists: the one materialistic, repudiating the ideal; 

 the other idealistic, repudiating the material. Each has a half- 

 truth, and each needs the other to supplement and complete his 

 own view. But the Unknowable is the true basis of the whole 

 subject. The philosophical docti-ine of the Unknowable is not 

 concerned with knowledge that can ever be known. The phenom- 

 enal universe is infinitely knowable, but gives us no hint as to the 

 essential nature of Absolute Being. As the scientific problems 

 lying at the basis of this discussion are largely questions of physi- 



