IOO THEOLOGIANS AND NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS. 



" It is quite certain that we cannot become sufficiently acquainted 

 with organized creatures and their hidden potentialities by aid of 

 purely mechanical natural principles, much less can we explain 

 them ; and this is so certain, that we may boldly assert that it is 

 absurd for man even to conceive such an idea, or to hope that 

 a Newton may one day arise even to make the production of a 

 blade of grass comprehensible, according to natural laws ordained 

 by no intention; such an insight we must absolutely deny to 

 man." 



As Haeckel observes, Darwin rose up as Kant's 

 Newton ; for he offered an explanation of the pro- 

 duction and of the development of those very 

 structures and* adaptations in Nature, which re- 

 mained wholly unexplained until 1858. Haeckel 

 expresses evident disappointment at Kant's posi- 

 tion; yet this position may be regarded as rais- 

 ing Kant higher in the scale of science, if not of 

 philosophy. If he could not even conceive of any 

 natural law whereby these beautiful adaptations of 

 Nature could be explained, he was not justified in 

 making a bold assumption of the existence of such 

 a law. The feeling that Newton and other physi- 

 cal philosophers had supplied the inorganic world 

 with its regulating principles would have made it 

 logical for Kant, like Descartes, to carry his reason- 

 ing a step further into the world of life. But his 

 logic and philosophy were held back by his scien- 

 tific instinct for evidence, and evidence was then 

 wholly lacking ; for even the explanation offered by 

 Lamarck was not available. 



Kant was undoubtedly familiar with the writings 



