262 A Review of the Modern Doctrine of Evolution. (April, 
in the increase of brain power; and familiarity with the education 
of the lower animals shows that this is the case with them also, 
though in a lesser degree than in man. 
If, then, we grant the propositions, first, that effort and use 
modify structure ; and second, that effort and use are determined 
by mind in direct ratio to its development, we are led to the con- 
clusion that evolution is an outgrowth of mind, and that mind is 
the parent of the forms of living nature. This is, however, to 
reverse a very usual evolutionary hypothesis, viz: that mind is 
the product and highest development of the universe of matter 
and force. The contradiction is, however, not so absolute as at 
first appears. By mind, as the author of the organic world, I 
mean only the two elements, consciousness and memory. But it 
is the view of some thinkers that consciousness is a product; that 
it is not only a correlative of force, but a kind of force. To the 
latter theory I cannot subscribe; when it becomes possible to 
metamorphose music into potatoes, mathematics into mountains, 
and natural history into brown paper, then we can identify con- 
sciousness with force. The nature of consciousness is such as to 
distinguish it from all other thinkable things, and it must be 
ranged with matter and force as the third element of the uni- 
verse. 
It is true that unconsciousness does not imply absence of life 
as generally understood. A majority of the processes of life are 
performed unconsciously by living creatures; mind itself being 
no exception to this rule. There is another class of acts whose 
performance produces sensation, but consciousness is not con- 
cerned in them as an immediate cause. Therefore, it is a com- 
mon endeavor to associate reflex and unconscious acts with the 
molecular movements of inorganic and non-living substances. 
But the one great difficulty in making this identification has 
never been surmounted. This is the different nature of the 
movements in the two cases. In non-living matter they are sim- 
ply polar, nothing more. In living beings they display design. 
Perhaps I use the word “ design” in a new-sense, but the expres- 
sion is nevertheless appropriate. What I mean is, that the move- 
ments of living things have direct reference to consciousness, to 
the satisfaction of pleasures, and to the avoidance of pains. The 
molecular movements within animals of the simplest class are the 
digestion of food and the elaboration of the materials of repro- 
fen 
