354 The Philosophy of Evolution. 



a distrust of individual consciousness, on the other hand, 

 forces us to the wide comparisons of modern science, and 

 the trustworthy conckisions on which all instructed men 

 agree. And on this the Philosophy of Evolution rests, — 

 not on what feeling says, but upon what corrected feeling 

 finds to be true of the units of force. 



Of course this doctrine is downright materialism; but 

 then the doctrine of Evolution seems to many and probably 

 really is materialistic to the core. Nor need this be deemed 

 strange when we recall that this Philosophy was first dis- 

 covered in the material world. It was found among the 

 fowls of the air and the beasts of the field. It was cradled 

 in the manger where cattle were feeding. It had for its 

 nurses the naturalists, and it was brought up at the hearth- 

 stone of physical science. And its stronghold and play- 

 ground is still the material world. Because it places suns 

 and planets in their orbits without hands, because it arranges 

 the strata of the earth without design, because it traces the 

 genesis of crystal, plant, animal and man, step by step 

 without break and without miracle, it is accepted, and only 

 because it does so. Were it not for its incontestable fa- 

 miliarity with the history and Avays of material nature, the 

 spiritualists would long ago have remanded it to the dirt 

 from whence it sprang. But it holds to its visible facts, 

 snaps its fingers at metaphysical disproofs, and riots in its 

 tangible demonstrations, now become so profuse and all- 

 convincing. It finds no need for ratiocination, for here is 

 the daily process of nature repeating its propositions and 

 enforcing its ])hiloso])hy upon all men. And if there is 

 any work of God which is his incontestably, it is this same 

 Nature which furnishes such proofs to Evolution, and sus- 

 tains its head amid the querulous complaints of idealists, 

 spiritualists and dreamers of every feather. 



But having been so born, of materialistic parentage, 

 nursed by materialistic students, reared among materialistic 

 studies, and crowned by materialistic proofs, it seems hardly 

 likely tluit it can now be sustained in any other than ma- 

 terialistic relations. Vain is it to try, as some do, to marry 

 it now into the fine old family of spiritualism* in order to 

 give it credit with minds still loyal to the old opinions, and 

 ready to fight to the death for the old tiag which has flaunted 



•Tlieword S]>irit\ialifin is lien' ui^cd to denote the advocacy of Spirit as aa 

 imiuutcrial bouicwliat, distinct from Matter. 



