HEREDITY AND EUGENICS. 293 
from those lower regions of form and physical life which are the 
proper province of evolution, and in which that truly manifests 
itself to the student of science. Within that region it is (as 
Whately points out) “the true work of reason so to clarify and 
systematize the various items of our belief that the God-conscious- 
ness automatically draws them within its own circle ” (p. 207). Again, 
“we need a philosophy that instead of subsuming religion under 
evolution, shall subsume evolution under religion—a higher, deeper, 
and broader doctrine of experience” (p. 222). So “the scientific 
man who knows little of religion is not competent to criticize it 
from the standpoint of science, any more than the schoolmen were 
justified in deciding physical questions on grounds of theology. 
The mere evolutionist is the victim of an arrested apper- 
ception” (p. 224). Once more, “The discovery of our deepest 
selfhood affords the only true reconciliation between the flux of 
human thought and the need of the individual for a foothold 
beneath his feet and an abiding object for his grasp. . . . Chris- 
tianity is no product of evolution; for evolution itself has its 
significance within the synthesis of Christian Theism ” (pp. 232-3). 
We cannot study “heredity” apart from evolution; and the 
above quotations from a deep thinker go a long way to strengthen 
Dr. Caldecott’s rejection of Professor Bateson’s empiricism, when he 
‘«jumps at” the opening which Mendelism seems to offer for making 
evolution and heredity commensurate with the whole of that range 
of Being which is comprehended in human life and consciousness. 
They clinch Professor Caldecott’s contention (p. 288) that “‘ We are 
called upon to decline to follow any attempt to claim heredity for 
the personal spirit of man in its own central selfhood, and in its 
large power of taking up and controlling the lower processes of 
consciousness.” We are of course here in the region which belongs 
to Volition, the essential factor of Personality. As a serious 
student of science, who in the years that are past has become more 
and more impressed with the limitations of natural science, and its 
insufficiency of itself to serve asa basis for either philosophy or 
religion, though it can and does throw much light on both, one can 
go thoroughly with Professor Caldecott, when he says :—“ Con- 
sciousness is not self-explanatory, as it appears in finite experience ; 
we must perforce look beyond experience,” and conclude that “a 
super-finite consciousness, from which we come, may be said to 
