Progressive Creation. 7 



hovels and children were being sent starving to school — if they 

 found out things like that the religion of the country was becoming 

 dead. If they in the present generation left all their social duties 

 on the one side, if they allowed children to starve and die in their 

 slums, were they virtuous or vicious ? He thought future genera- 

 tions would find out new virtues and new crimes. They would 

 find that as their education went on, and as evolution advanced, 

 things which were of no harm to-day would become the crimes of 

 the future. They might say the evil of the slums was due to 

 drink ! No one would deny that, but when they tried to settle 

 the responsibility they often went wrong, because the responsibility 

 was left on the man who drank. Before considering what that 

 man's environment was in childhood, and later in manhood, when 

 he took to drink, and having no one to lead him in the right 

 path, they should not attach the blame on the one side, but should 

 consider who was the real culprit, the ignorant man who never had 

 proper teaching, or the persons at the top of society. In con- 

 clusion, the lecturer said in considering the origin of life they had 

 to keep in mind an absolutely barren world with the sun beating 

 down upon it. They were not to expect such things as bacteria' 

 occurring in a few hours ; the processes of nature were very much 

 slower than that, and it was a jump in nature that, from all their 

 other knowledge of nature, they should never expect. Thousands 

 and thousands of years would in all probability be occupied in 

 following up more and more complex colloids. From the point 

 of view of natural science they had simply to say with regard to 

 the matter of the mind and soul that they could not tell; it was an 

 open matter altogether. They were progressing, and in a few 

 centuries they might know things which they did not know at 

 present as to the connection between matter and mind and soul. 



On the motion of Professor Milroy, seconded by Sir Otto 

 Jaffe, and supported by the Chairman, a hearty vote of thanks 

 was passed to the lecturer for his address, and Professor Moore 

 briefly replied. 



