332 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 
But as evolution denies creation, it may hold that there never was this. 
semblance of it, but that force has existed from all eternity in an organized 
form, oscillating between a definite heterogeneity as we see it now, and an indefinite 
comparative homogeneity as in the nebulous state. This appears to be the 
doctrine really taught. Let this be granted and a different deduction applies. 
‘For in that case force exhibits an infinite variety of conditions, qualities and 
determinations. As infinite and absolute being it must be held to determine 
from time to time, and from form to form, the conditions, qualities and determina- 
tions to be assumed, which necessarily involve the constant exercise of absolute 
will and intelligence, hence consciousness, hence personality, and hence the 
conception of force as personal deity, infinite and absolute. 
But it may be held that these conditions, qualities and determinations are 
not thus established, but are imposed upon force by the concrete and dependent 
forms it assumes, in which case we must conceive dependent being as having 
power to condition independent being, which is absurd. But if it were true, 
the conditions, qualities and determinations could be imposed only by consent 
of the independent being, and consent implies intelligence to consider and will 
to yield, hence consciousness, and hence a conception of force as personal deity 
infinite and absolute. 
Or it may be held that the conditions, qualities and determinations are not 
the result either of self-establishment or of establishment by the dependent 
forms, but are the result of inter-action between the different forms. If this 
were true, it would yield us the conception of a world ruled by chance, which is 
manifestly not true, or force us to abandon all conceptions of force as the ulti- 
mate principle of nature. 
But had this philosophy adopted any or all of these inductions and deductions, 
which are here shown to be possible to it, it would still be open to the fatal 
objection that force is known to be, not a thing in itself—a real entity—but only 
a quality of being. As motion is the sign of something that moves, so force 
is the quality that makes it move. Here the question arises, why is force 
of all the qualities of being, assumed as ultimate being itself? It is one of the 
best known of the qualities of being, as this philosophy shows in formulating its 
laws. Itis also one of the most variable qualities, for some forms of being 
possess it in high degree, as dynamite, while others possess it in such low degree 
that to determine that they have more than mere gravitation, it is necessary to 
put them through a metamorphosis, whereby we cannot be certain if the force 
we develop resided primarily in the thing or was communicated to it by the 
metamorphosis. It is far less constant than thé quality of existence, which 
belongs to all being equally, and it is less inscrutable, for existence can be defined 
only in terms of itself. To erect this quality into ultimate being would be as 
absurd as those primitive Grecian philosophies that thus erected fire, air, water — 
and number into ultimate being, but not so absurd as thus toregard force because 
force is so much less constant. 
