PHILOSOPHY AND “ EVOLUTION ” : AN INQUIRY. 129 
festation of a virtuous character,” which “ virtuous character ” is 
an adapted correspondence between a man and his environ- 
ment, formed not by him, but /or him ; “ morality is simply the 
most important qualities of the social tissue,”* and, though “a 
code of personal conduct cannot be definitely formulated,” an 
individual is to follow “ the most persistent instincts,” these 
being supposed to lead him to seek his own welfare, and (so 
far as coincident with this) that of others ; he is “ to discern 
that any given set of instincts corresponds to certain permanent 
conditions,” since “ human happiness is the product of a long 
series of processes of adaptation or adjustment acting either 
upon the individual or the social organism.” 
Evolutionist Moral “ Philosophy ” a failure. — With regard to 
evolutionist moral “ philosophy,” it may be remarked that it 
confuses the moral with the unmoral (e.g., justice is a notion 
supposedf to be a result from the associations of animals, or 
from those of circumstances). It gives no explanation of the 
principles of right and wrong, of belief in GOD, of the 
religious sentiment and moral responsibility ; and supplies no 
adequate practical guidance and incentive for moral and 
religious progress. 
We conclude that evolution does not explain man’s bodily 
cructure, and does not explain his mental faculties, and does 
not explain his moral and religious faculties. 
One of the leading facts in nature is that of Life. How do 
evolutionists try to account for life ? Some (including Spencer 
and Weismann) admit frankly their inability. By others it is 
imagined to result somehow from physical and chemical forces. 
Max Verworn, of Jena, asserts that “ the life-process consists 
in the metabolism of proteids ” ; because these chemical 
compounds are not present in non-living bodies, but are always 
present in living organisms. Here he appears to confuse a 
form of life-activity with life itself. The teaching of evolu- 
tionists is that life has resulted from “ dead matter ” — some- 
thing entirely devoid of it.J This teaching is opposed to all 
our knowledge on the subject. 
Huxley and Lionel Beale, — Huxley affirms that the great 
doctrine of biogenesis is “ victorious all along the line.” So 
* Idem. 
t Idem. 
f Bastian (in Nature and Origin of Living Matter ) has the temerity to 
assert that “ Archebiosis ” is continually going on now (1906). The wish 
is too obviously “ father to the thought.” 
