Conclusion 369 



carries back the evidence of purpose to the mind of the Creator 

 Himself, and so assists religious belief The religious difficulty 

 in welcoming this proof arises from a different source- — namely, 

 from our moral valuation of the natural order. This belongs to 

 a later stage of our discussion. 



Here, however, it is necessary to point out again that Naturalism 

 and Darwinian evolution do not agree together. There is, of 

 course, a vulgar Darwinism which is exactly the jumble of 

 Naturalism with pieces of other and incompatible philosophies 

 already mentioned. Darwin himself no doubt accepts the naturalist 

 philosophy as true within the sphere of his own studies ; he took 

 no interest in metaphysics. He denies purpose as a factor within 

 nature. Natural selection is for him a sieve through which those 

 forms of life which happen to be adjusted to their environment pass. 

 In theory, all valuation is excluded. There is no reason why the 

 better should survive, even if the words better and worse had any 

 relevant meaning. But several expressions in Darwin's writings 

 leave us in no doubt that he shared the confidence in progress which, 

 arising from very unscientific sources, dominated the minds of his 

 generation. And if natural selection leads to the survival of the 

 better or more valuable stocks, it is difficult to attribute so beneficent 

 a result to blind unconscious forces with no intelligence behind 

 them. 



The legacy of Darwin is now in a state of chaos. Some reject 

 natural selection and the struggle for existence altogether as ex- 

 planations ; indefinite variation is opposed by orthogenesis, slight 

 variations by saltatory mutations. There are neo-Lamarckians 

 and neo-Vitalists. But besides this, reflection on Darwinism 

 proper, when treated as a philosophy, shows that its outcome is not 

 Naturalism, but something more like sceptical pragmatism. The 

 common notion is that Darwin teaches that all history is develop- 

 ment towards a goal, and that therefore the strongest must be the 

 best. So, I suppose, the ideas which prevail must be true. But 

 although Darwin may have held this comfortable opinion, it is no 

 part of his system. All he has a right to say is that the ideas by 

 which humanity has progressed so far are called true, and that while 

 using the same ideas there is some probability that we shall con- 

 tinue to go on in the same direction. The true idea is the idea 

 which prevails ; truth, in this system, can haVe no other meaning. 

 As Bradley says, " The one criterion for Darwinism is the abstract 



