45 
And that Power, in the last place, was Mind, because every 
adaptation of organs to their functions, every reappearing 
analogy of structures in successive cosmical periods, every 
relation instituted between the individual and its environment 
or its fellow-creatures, discloses thought. But evolution is 
claimed to be only a physical process. 
Such is the use of the observed facts of the animal kingdom, 
as sanctioned by the true principles of the inductive logic. 
The result of this correct colligation is to show that evolution 
cannot be true. 
Let us make another application of these logical principles, 
and that the most important of all. It concerns the hmits of 
the @ posteriori inference from similarity of results to identity 
of cause, concerning the origin of the structures composing 
the crust of our earth. If theism is admitted to be, not 
demonstrated, but even possible, then, according to the rules 
of induction, such inference from naturalness of structure to 
natural origin is inconclusive. This follows from two of its 
rules: first, the analogical argument from similarity of result 
to identity of cause, must give way before competent and 
credible parole evidence. The supposed but invalid argu- 
ment is,—we see natural agencies producing this and that 
structure; therefore, all similar structures are of natural 
origin. But if there may be a creative God, there is a 
different sufficient cause for the origin of the earlier. And if 
a witness appears who may be naturally competent to testify, 
his testimony wholly supersedes the evidence of the supposed 
analogy. ‘The only way to uphold it is to attack the 
credibility of that witness. If his credibility is not success- 
fully impeached, the analogical argument must yield before it. 
But such a parole-witness appears in the book known as 
the Christian Scriptures. It assumes to testify that there is a 
Creator, and that he here gives his own witness to his super- 
natural creation of the first structures. The value of any 
induction from naturalness of traits to a natural origin of 
those structures, must depend therefore upon the other ques- 
_tion: whether this witness is competent and credible. Some 
persons attempt to evade their logical obligation here by 
saying that these are theological questions with which physical 
science, as such, has no concern ; that they restrict themselves 
properly to the lights of this department, and, in assigning a 
natural origin to these structures, speak only for science. 
But this is a violation of the principles of natural induction, 
which must necessarily include some adjustment of the rela- 
tions between analogy and testimony ; seeing the truth of the 
very facts, claimed as analogical, itself rests on testamony. 
