246 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED 



road of evolution are so many and so great that we 

 see no possibility of passing over them. 



Take Darwin's definition of a moral being and see 

 what an infinite distance it elevates man above the 

 brutes. "Amoral being is one who is capable of 

 comparing his past and future actions or motives, and 

 of approving or disapproving of them." This defin- 

 ition involves the consciousness of one's own exist- 

 ence, the knowledge that he existed in the past, that 

 he acted from motives, that he now has motives, that 

 he can compare these two sets of motives and apply 

 the "imperious word ought" or ought not, to his con- 

 duct, that conscience approves or disapproves, and 

 that he expects to exist in the future. 



Are we to be told that these high powers, which 

 animals do not possess, are the fruit of animal in- 

 stincts? On what ground 'are we to believe it? 



The evolution of the mind of man from the in- 

 stincts of animals involves ultimately the evolution of 

 all psychic phenomena from simple sensations of 

 low forms of life, and these again from matter desti- 

 tute of sensation. 



Mr. Spencer's " experiences of utility" began, I 

 presume, with the inorganic matter involved in spon- 

 taneous generation, and pushed on up to man. 



Are we to regard all psychic phenomena as one in 

 quality, so that one faculty may be derived from an- 

 other? Are touch, taste, sight, hearing, memory, 

 imagination, the power of abstract reasoning, self- 

 consciousness, conscience, faith, hope and love, all 

 essentially alike, and can one be evolved from the 

 other? Evolution assumes that they are essentially 

 the same, and it is her task to prove it or fail. How 

 can memory, or conscience, or reason be evolved from 

 any or all the senses? If the power to reason is dif- 



