12 EVOLUTION AND ETHICS I 



that, such being the case, the cosmic process can- 

 not be in antagonism with that horticultural pro- 

 cess which is part of itself I can only reply, that 

 if the conclusion that the two are antagonistic 

 is logically absurd, I am sorry for logic, because, 

 as we have seen, thfi fact is so. The garden is in 

 the ^ame position as every other work of man's 

 art; it is a result of the cosmic process working 

 through and by human energy and intelligence ; 

 and, as is the case with every other artificial' 

 thing set up in the state of nature, the influ- 

 ences of the latter are constantly tending to break 

 it down and destroy it. No doubt, the Forth bridge 

 and an ironclad in the offing, are, in ultimate re- 

 ^ i> sort, products of the cosmic process ; as much so as 

 r~ the river which flows under the one, or the sea- 

 water on which the other floats. Nevertheless, 

 every breeze strains the bridge a little, every tide 

 does something to weaken its foundations ; every 

 change of temperature alters the adjustment of 

 its parts, produces friction and consequent wear 

 and tear. From time to time, the bridge must be 

 repaired, just as the ironclad must go into dock ; 

 simply because nature is always tending to re- 

 claim that which her child, man, has borrowed 

 from her and has arranged in combinations which 

 are not those favoured by the general cosmic 

 process. 



Thus, ii_is^ not only true that the cosmic 

 energy, working through man upon a portion of the 



