LIGHT, LUMINARIES AND LIFE. 213 
broader perspective, have surely a right to be heard; and I should 
reckon Professor George Henslow among “accredited authorities,” 
as well as Professor A. H. Church, F.R.S., from whom he borrows 
the word “ directivity.” 
The only ultimate logical conclusion, to which evolution 
without directive power can lead, is blank “determinism” (the 
result of blind fortuity) which refuses to recognize that “working 
for ends,” for which such “authorities” as Asa Gray have 
contended, and which even Professor Starling tacitly recognizes, 
as I have pointed out in my paper. If Mr. Woods Smyth is not 
prepared to deny that the mind of the chemist directs the reactions 
of the laboratory to synthetic ends,* how can he refuse to recognize 
similar or analogous working of Creative Mind in the vast laboratory 
of the universe? But his contention and that of his ‘‘authorities ” 
really amounts to a negation of a Divine Providence and the 
reduction of prayer to an absurdity ; and that is, I am sure, far 
from what he intends. 
(5) As to the idea of “ Interference in Man’s Evolution” (which 
I hold to be special creation), lam glad to know that I have the 
support of Wallace, as I most certainly have of the writer of the 
early chapters of Genesis and of the Bible passim. But I do not 
borrow from Wallace. I have held and taught it on scientific and 
philosophical grounds for years past, as I stated a short time ago in 
the discussion of Professor Orchard’s paper on “ Philosophy and 
Evolution.” Seventeen years ago, as I wrote, “the projection of 
life into the world of matter from ‘the unseen universe’ is the only 
theory that meets at once the requirements of religion and science,” 
so I wrote also, “ the catholic idea of the projection of the spiritual 
life is after all but the logical counterpart of the projection of the 
natural life into the world of matter, which (with its energy and 
properties) has existed, and may exist again, without being 
* Iam glad to find that Professor Church had anticipated me in the 
use of this illustration in my previous paper, “ Evolutionary Law, etc.” 
S$ ID). 
Sn Fike Vict. Inst., vol. xl, pp. 186 ff. Some very sane and cogent 
remarks for our present purpose were contributed to that discussion by 
Professor George Wright of America, to which most of us would 
probably subscribe. 
