INVOLUTION. 329 



energy. Whence then the social energies? The 

 answer is as before. Whence the physical energies ? 

 And Science has only one answer to that. " Consider 

 the position into which Science has brought us. We 

 are led by scientific logic to an unseen, and by scienti- 

 fic analogy to the spirituality of this unseen. In fine, 

 our conclusion is, that the visible universe has been 

 developed by an intelligence resident in the Unseen." ^ 

 There is only one theory of the method of Creation in 

 the field, and that is Evolution ; but there is only one 

 theory of origins in the field, and that is Creation. 

 Instead of abolishing a creative Hand, Evolution de- 

 mands it. Instead of being opposed to Creation, all 

 theories of Evolution begin by assuming it. If Science 

 does not formally posit it, it never posits anything 

 less. " The doctrine of Evolution," writes Mr. Huxley, 

 " is neither theistic nor anti-theistic. It has no more 

 to do with theism than the first book of Euclid has. 

 It does not even come in contact with theism con- 

 sidered as a scientific doctrine." But when it touches 

 the question of origins, it is either theistic or silent. 

 " Behind the co-operating forces of Nature," says 

 Weismann, " which aim at a purpose, we must admit 

 a cause, . . . inconceivable in its nature, of which 

 we can only say one thing with certainty, that it nmst 

 be theological." 



The fallacy of the merely quantitative theory of 

 Evolution is apparent. To interpret any organism in 

 terms of the organism solely is to omit reference to 

 the main instrument of its Evolution, and therefore to 

 leave the process, scientifically and philosophically, 



1 Balfour Stewart and Tait, The Unseen Universe, Gth edi'Jon, 

 p. 221. 



