CHAPTER X.

^ A QUESTION m SCIENCE.
Does Nature embrace a purpose?
Here is a question of greater moment to the well-being and happiness of intelligent man than is a mere knowledge of Na- ture's scientific processes.
Upon this question the findings of physical science and those of Natural Science radically disagree.
Physical science concerns itself with the evolution of the physical man. It seeks only to analyze the physical processes by which the physical body is evolved. It seeks only to trace the physical causes which give rise to the phenomena of sensa- tion and intelligence.
It does not concern itself to discover any ultimate purpose of Nature in these processes. It does not seek to know why Nature has finally produced this complicated physical, intellectual and moral being — man.
It finds no other uses for man in Nature than his operation of those functions by which the physical body is sustained and the species propagated and improved. The entire range of physical science leaves no other impression upon the mind than that Na- ture exists for the sole purpose of physically improving species.
This, indeed, is the entire argument and intent of physical materialism.
Natural Science, on the contrary, does something more than to enumerate facts and analyze processes, whether those facts and processes be physical or spiritual. It is not content to in- vestigate material phenomena alone. It is not satisfied to simply discover the physical and spiritual processes involved in the build-
184
A QUESTION IN SCIENCE. 185
ing of the body and the individualizing of intelligence. The higher science seeks to know the why as well as the how. It aims to know why man exists in two worlds as well as how he exists. Natural Science, like physical science, is concerned with the study of natural phenomena. Unlike physical science, how- ever, it is even more deeply engrossed with the study of the higher ethical phenomena attaching to intelligent life.
Physical science has one motive. The higher science has two. Where physical science ceases its inquiries Natural Science goes forward. Where physical science presents only the past physical history of man upon this planet, Natural Science fore- casts his spiritual, intellectual and moral possibilities in two cor- related worlds of life.
Darwinism declares that the seemingly purposeful in Nature is merely a series of adaptations forced upon species in the struggle for nutrition in the midst of a hostile environment. It perceives nothing in evolution which indicates anything that could be properly called an intelligent purpose. It foreshadows a result, truly, but simply a result affecting physical life. It does not contain one hint of any natural purpose which meets the natural intuitions and aspirations of human life and intelligence.
"Natural Selection," as laid down by Darwin, foreshadows simply and only a "physically improved species" brought about through the "survival of the fittest" in that universal battle of the physically strong against the physically weak. This "physically improved species" is held to be the "fittest" under Nature's fundamental principle of hostility. A physically improved species is, therefore, accepted as the noblest result possible under Nature's working formula.
Darwinism finds in Nature no more subtle principle than physical appetite. It finds no higher struggle than a physical one. It conceives no higher standards than physical improve- ments. It forecasts no higher evolution than a physically strong and healthy race. With one-half of Nature obscured from his senses, it is little wonder that the physical scientist promulgates
186 HARMONICS OF EVOLUTION.
a doctrine which is, at once, a stultification of intelligence and the death knell of human ambition, hope and aspiration.
Absorbed in the examination of purely physical facts and functions, physical science ignores, as far as possible, the uni- versal accompaniments of physical life, viz., spiritual and psy- chical phenomena. Accepting the organs of digestion as the pri- mary cause of the evolution of man, it becomes necessary to refer all super-physical phenomena attaching to the evolution of man to the same cause. As a result, physical science passes over the spiritual and psychical implications attaching to human life, as minor issues, or as a mere efflorescence of physical feeding, breeding and battle.
Darwinism considers the individual solely as an agent for the perpetuation of species. He defines the individual as a mere re- sult of past condition incident to the struggle for nutrition. His destiny is completed in what he may contribute to the physical improvement of species.
This is what a man counts, and all that he counts in Darwinian doctrine.
The value of individual life under this theory is summed up in the general assumption that the sole intent of Nature is the improvement and preservation of species. Upon this fallacious premise Darwinism argues, first, that philanthropy which cares for the weak and unfit children of men, is a violation of natural law. Next, it declares that the highest duty of the individual man is "the rearing of the greatest number of improved prog- eny."
Thus, in a physically improved species we find the ultimate object of Nature. In the rearing of the largest number of im- proved progeny, we discover individual destiny — according to Darwin.
Darwinian doctrine, reduced to a decalogue, declares:
(1) Life is a struggle for nutrition and physical benefit.
(2) The business of life is the struggle for nutrition and a struggle for reproduction.
A QUESTION IN SCIENCE. 187
(3) The purpose of evolution is the physical improvement and preservation of species.
(4) The individual exists for species.
(5) There is nothing to live for except physical posterity.
(6) Intelligence is an emanation of food combinations.
(7) Love is essentially lust.
(8) Philanthropy is unnatural and therefore is a disease.
(9) The expectation of life after death is a superstition.
(10) Individual ambitions, hopes and aspirations which transcend the requirements of nutrition and reproduction, are delusions and dreams based in superstitions or indigestion.
These are deductions and dogmatisms which are rejected as insufficient by the common intuitions and the common experi- ences of human intelligence. These are doctrines which the in- telligent soul of man denies. These denials of the soul are sup- ported, analyzed and explained by a broader science. The limi- tations of physical science are responsible for the theory that evo- lution is based in digestion and conducted by competition. Those limitations are responsible for the idea that intelligence is merely an emanation of physical food, that love is an efflorescence of lust and that morality and philanthropy are abnormal.
Inevitably this out-of-focus view levels man to the needs and requirements of his physical body. Inevitably such deductions end in gross materialism. Scientific skepticism does not contain the merest shadow of a purpose in Nature that appeals to either an intelligent or a moral being.
The protest against Darwinism has never been on account of the facts set forth. It was the appalling theories which accom- panied those facts that shocked the spiritual intelligence of the world. Even average intelligence has not found it so difficult to accept the physical facts which show the gradual evolution of the physical body. It is the intelligent soul which refuses to ac- cept the explanation which Darwin makes in connection with the physical facts. The man of keen spiritual intuitions does not reject Darwinism because it allies man, structurally, to the
l88 HARMONICS OF EVOLUTION.
ape. He rejects it because it reduces man to the kingdom of the ape, makes him the plaything of blind physical forces and limits his destiny to improvement of species. He rejects it be- cause it levels life, intelligence and love to the gross needs of the body, and passes the death sentence upon the living soul.
After the first shock to its spiritual faith, the church began to consider Darwinism in the light of cold reason. To-day an en- lightened clergy, for the most part, have laid the terrors of the theory and accepted the facts of Nature as recorded in "The De- scent of Man." The enlightened Christian world now agrees that the evolution of the physical body from lower forms does not necessarily mean that man is merely an improved animal, that life has no other purpose than feeding and breeding, that compe- tition is the principle of progress and that death ends all.
That new moral philosophy (already referred to), based alike upon the facts and theories of Darwinism, finds what it believes to be a purpose in Nature. The reading of Nature by the moral- ist embraces certain improvements upon Darwinism. It does not, however, touch upon the fundamental errors of physical ma- terialism.
"The Descent of Man" postulates a physically improved species as the best result obtainable under evolutionary law. "The Ascent of Man" declares that the great purpose involved in evo- lution is the creation of a family.
The moralist who seeks to both support and criticise Darwin- ism has a difficult task. He is right when he declares that love, and not warfare, is the greatest thing in the world. He is wrong, however, in the pathway he selects for love. He is wrong when he introduces love into the world "at the point of the sword." He is mistaken when he formulates a principle of sacrifice as the true principle of love. He is wrong when he declares that the creation of a family is the purpose of evolution.
He finds that the great moral task of Nature, as revealed in evolution, consists in forcing love upon the world "at the point of the sword." This end, he claims, is effected by and through
A QUESTION IN SCIENCE. 189
the endless pain and sacrifices of maternity. That is to say, love is forced upon the world through the physical disabilities of the female half. To achieve this moral result it is claimed that Na- ture is, therefore, principally engaged in the manufacture of mothers. This manufacture of mothers is explained as the neces- sary process in achieving the final, moral purpose of human life and earthly development, viz., the creation of a family.
The moralist, along with Darwin, accepts Nature as a series of compulsions. He agrees with his adversary, that physical competitions accomplish all physical and intellectual results. He insists, however, that the enforced physical sacrifices of woman accomplish the moral results. He finds, as it were, a double pur- pose in Nature, viz., the manufacture of mothers and the cre- ation of an improved family. It is not always clear which he regards as the more important, since at different points he assigns each to the leading role. The preponderance of argument, how- ever, indicates that he regards the family as the ultimate pur- pose in the evolution of man.
The place assigned to woman in Nature is frequently ex- plained by the moralist through analogies. One of these inter- esting analogies is presented when seeking to show the moral intent of Nature, even in the lower kingdoms.
"For reproduction alone is a flower created; when that proc- ess is over it returns to the dust." This is what the moralist says when considering the endless sacrifices of maternity and the uni- versal office of the female in Nature. A natural corollary to this would read: For reproduction alone is a woman created. When that office is discharged her usefulness to society is ended. The moralist does, in reality, say the same in effect when he declares that a woman fulfills her destiny "in paying the eternal debt of motherhood."
Again the moralist discusses the natural office of the female, by analogy, when he says:* "No one * * * reverences a
*"The Ascent of Man," p. 248.
190 HARMONICS OF EVOLUTION.
"flower like a biologist. He sees in its bloom the blush of the "young mother; in its fading the eternal sacrifice of maternity. "A yellow primrose is not to him a yellow primrose. It is an "exquisite and complex structure added on to the primrose plant "for the purpose of producing other primrose plants."
Logically applying this analogy to human life, it would read: No one reverences a woman like a sociologist. He sees in her bloom but the blush of the young mother, in her fading the sign of past usefulness. A woman, to him, is not a woman, but a group of complex female organs added on to the woman for the purpose of producing other human beings. Or again, this means about what it would to say: No one reverences man like the anatomist before the dissecting table. To him man is not a man, but a highly specialized complex organism of bone, tissue, muscle and nerve, which was previously occupied by an intelli- gence for the purpose of feeding and breeding and operating that mass of bone, tissue, muscle and nerve.
When the moralist leaves the vegetable kingdom and reaches man, his vision as to the purposes of Nature is not enlarged. In the midst of this nineteenth century development, in close acquaintance with women of individual genius and of individual aspirations, the propounder of this new philosophy found it pos- sible to say:* "In as real a sense as a factory is intended to turn "out locomotives or clocks, the machinery of Nature is designed "in the last resort to turn out Mothers. You will find Mothers "in lower Nature at every stage of imperfection; you will see "attempts being made to get at better types; you will find old "ideas abandoned and higher models coming to the front. And "when you get to the top you find the last great act was but to "present to the world a physiologically perfect type. It is a fact "which no human mother can regard without awe, which no "man can realize without a new reverence for woman and a new "belief in the higher meaning of Nature, that the goal of the
*"The Ascent of Man," p. 268.
A QUESTION IN SCIENCE. 191
"whole plant and animal kingdoms seems to have been the cre- "ation of a family."
Had the writer of this curious theory really possessed any exact or definite knowledge concerning the principles of evolu- tion, he had possibly been able to perceive that part of the intent of Nature is the evolution of a woman. He had then perceived that this intent necessarily involves not merely mothers, but also wives, sisters, aunts and other female relatives in every stage of imperfection.
With such a reading of Nature it was inevitable that the au- thor should say in so many words: "A woman completes her destiny in her children." The moralist, of course, in this in- stance, refers to earthly destiny. But even in this limited sense, such a deduction offends against the intelligence of woman her- self.
It is a common error of the masculine mind, however, to as- sign woman to her particular place in the order of Nature without consulting woman herself. The assumption of the moralist upon the question of woman's place in Nature, is one which woman — generally speaking — is alone qualified to endorse or contra- vene.
This new moral philosophy, if reduced to its basic proposi- tions, would read something as follows, viz.:
(1) Life is a struggle for physical and moral benefit.
(2) The struggle for physical benefit is egoistic and selfish; the struggle for moral benefit is altruistic and sacrificial.
(3) The business of evolution is the manufacture of mothers.
(4) The object of Nature is an improved family.
(5) Life is controlled by its functions, and the destiny of the individual is fulfilled in following lines laid out by nutrition and reproduction.
(6) The female is created for reproduction.
(7) Love is forced upon the world through the physical dis- abilities of the female.
(8) Sex is the physical device for reproduction.
IQ2 HARMONICS OF EVOLUTION.
The difference between Darwinism and Drummondism, thus appears to be a difference only in degree. The one subordinates both man and woman to the struggle for nutrition, while the other subordinates man to nutrition and woman to reproduction. The moralist plainly says:* "Man's life, on the whole, is de- termined chiefly by the function of nutrition; woman's by the "function of reproduction. Man satisfies the one by going out "into the world, and in the rivalries of war and the ardors of the "chase, in conflict with Nature, and amid the stress of industrial "pursuits, fulfilling the law of Self- Preservation ; woman com- "pletes her destiny by occupying herself with the industries and "sanctities of home and paying the eternal debt of Motherhood."
If these words mean what they say, they do not remotely suggest the realization of those ideals and aspirations which are individual to the intelligent soul itself. Were this, indeed, the case of Nature, then the individual man must accept as fulfillment of his destiny the most successful struggle for nutrition and phys- ical benefit which he can make. Woman, on the other hand, should cease to look to a more personal and individual destiny than that of paying the debt of motherhood.
Here we have graphically presented two great struggles said to be taking place in Nature, viz.: "The Struggle for Life" and "The Struggle for the Life of Others." The first is a purely ego- istic struggle for physical benefit. The other is an enforced physical sacrifice for posterity, which process the moralist defines as altruistic.
These are held to be the two great struggles of all living Nature, the two main activities of intelligent life, the two great motives of action, the two sources of inspiration to human en- deavor. Here, in brief, are shown the two factors of evolution, the physical causes of all we know as life, of all we admire as in- telligence and of all we reverence as love.
The first theory, as will be seen, conceives Nature as working
*"The Ascent of Man," p. 257.
A QUESTION IN SCIENCE. 193
out its physical and material benefits under a law of self-defense. The second theory conceives Nature as working out its moral purposes and benefits under a law of self-suppression and self- sacrifice. Neither of these theories finds a purpose in Nature which justifies these physical competitions for life, nor these phys- ical sacrifices for the life of others.
Both of these doctrines agree that Nature is a monster. The one theory sees Nature improving species at the expense of the individual man and woman. The other holds that Nature is im- proving the family at the expense of the individual woman.
Neither materialistic science nor materialistic theology per- ceives a principle in Nature that impels but does not compel. In neither struggle depicted is there a hint of that higher struggle which sustains intelligence during its struggle for nutrition and its struggle for reproduction. Nowhere in these doctrines is there any recognition of that universal motive which inspires every created thing to action, from atom to man. Nowhere is there any recognition that intelligent human nature embraces a principle of life, of progress and of love, which is neither com- petition nor sacrifice. Nowhere is there recognition of the prin- ciple of co-operation and fulfillment, which is the principle of in- dividual content.
The failure to recognize the universal principle of affinity in human life is especially surprising, since the moralist so clearly observes it in the under-world of unconscious substance. Not until he closes his work does he really discover the principle upon which his argument should have been based. Here he catches a glimpse of that universal law which governs the evolution of love from its faint foreshadowings, in the mere rest or equilibrium of two unconscious atoms, to the self-conscious happiness of two intelligent souls.
In his closing chapter the moralist says :* "The earliest con- dition in which science allows us to picture this globe is that of
*"The Ascent of Man," p. 337. 13
194 HARMONICS OF EVOLUTION.
"a fiery mass of nebulous matter. At the second stage it con- "sists of countless myriads of similar atoms, roughly outlined into "a ragged cloud-ball, glowing with heat, and rotating in space "with inconceivable velocity. By what means can this mass be "broken up, or broken down, or made into a solid world? By "two things — mutual attraction and chemical affinity. The mo- "ment when within this cloud-ball the conditions of cooling "temperature are such that two atoms could combine together "the cause of the Evolution of the Earth is won. For this pair "of atoms are chemically 'stronger' than any of the atoms im- "mediately surrounding them. Gradually, by attraction or affin- ity, the primitive pair of atoms — like the first pair of savages — "absorb a third atom and a fourth and a fifth, until a 'Family' of "atoms is raised up which possesses properties and powers alto- gether new, and in virtue of which it holds within its grasp the "conquest and servitude of all surrounding units. From this "growing center attraction radiates on every side, until a larger "aggregate, a family group — a Tribe — arises and starts a more "powerful center of its own. With every additional atom added, "the power as well as the complexity of the combination in- "creases. As the process goes on, after endless vicissitudes, re- pulsions, and readjustments, the changes become fewer and "fewer, the conflict between mass and mass dies down, the ele- "ments passing through various stages of liquidity finally com- "bine in the order of their affinities, arrange themselves in the "order of their densities, and the solid earth is finished.
"Now recall the names of the leading actors in this stupendous "reformation. They are two in number, mutual attraction and "chemical affinity. Notice these words — Attraction, Affinity. "Notice that the great formative forces of physical evolution have "psychical names. * * * In reality, neither here nor any- " where have we any knowledge whatever of what is actually "meant by Attraction. * * * To Newton himself the very "conception of one atom or one mass, attracting through empty "space another atom or mass, put his mental powers to con-
A QUESTION IN SCIENCE. 195
"fusion. And as to the term Affinity, the most recent chemistry, "finding it utterly unfathomable in itself, confines its research at "present to the investigation of its modes of action. * * * "Here, as in every deep recess of physical nature, we are in the "presence of that which is metaphysical, that which bars the way "imperiously at every turn to a materialistic interpretation of the "world."
Thus, the philosophy of the moralist recognizes a meta- physical principle in unconscious Nature which he has previously denied to conscious Nature. He recognizes the affinity of atoms as the impelling power in the lowest kingdom, yet postulates com- petition and sacrifice as the compelling forces in the highest kingdom. The author of "The Ascent of Man" was evidently inspired by the vision of a solid earth, slowly evolved by individ- ual atoms settling in the order of their affinities. At the same time he turns with disdain from the suggestion that a spiritualized and moral humanity was evolved by individual intelligences unit- ing in the order of their affinities. He recognizes a "psychical affinity" between mineral atoms, but he finds only physical pas- sion as the bond uniting man and woman.
Here, in brief, are set forth two popular theories which rest wholly upon the physical functions of Nature. The first theorist, absorbed in the struggle for nutrition, declares that a physically fittest species is the highest result attainable through evolution. The other theorist, concentrating upon reproduction, declares that a morally improved family is the object sought in evolution.
It will be observed that both theories ignore Nature in one important particular. Neither considers that which forms the very basis of the physically improved species and the morally im- proved family, viz., the Individual, through whom Nature must improve species and perfect the family.
This, indeed, is the fundamental error of science and philos- ophy which seek to interpret man as a result of the physical functions. It is just here, and in this particular, that human intelligence rebels. It is here that the highly developed man finds
196 HARMONICS OF EVOLUTION.
himself unable to accept the reading of physical materialism and of so-called rationalism. He admits the physical facts of Na- ture as reported by physical science. He accepts the doctrine of a physical evolution from lower to higher forms. He perceives in Nature a struggle for nutrition. He perceives, also, a struggle for reproduction. He may even attempt to force reason to accept the theories which attempt to explain how those facts came to be.
The common intuitions of man, however, revolt at the final conclusions of scientific skepticism. His intelligence refuses to accept those interpretations of himself which level him to the needs and requirements of his physical appetites and passions. He refuses to abide by those decisions which leave him a mere contribution to species or the mere progenitor of a family.
Against such interpretations of human life and destiny, the common intuitions, the common experiences and the common sense of man rebel. The self-conscious intelligent Ego knows itself to be an individual. Man feels and knows that every im- pulse of his nature, every concept of the brain, every act of his life, every aspiration of the soul, emanates from himself and has its effects upon himself as an individual.
Theories to the contrary, there is something in man which seeks explanation of himself as an individual, which seeks to wrest from Nature the cause of that individuality and the final purpose and destiny of his own being. Physical science and moral phi- losophy to the contrary, no theory of evolution of either the body or the intelligence or of life will be accepted if such theory ob- scures the individual as the mere contribution to species or to family. The individual intelligence will finally reject every theory that limits the destiny of man to the struggle for nutrition, and the destiny of woman to the struggle for reproduction. Individual intelligence demands of science some rational explanation for man, as he is, in his present stage of development. It demands of science that it shall analyze and intelligibly explain a being who possesses individual motives, impulses, aspirations and pow-
A QUESTION IN SCIENCE. 197
ers; one who believes that he has an individual place in Nature and an individual destiny to fulfill.
To this demand of intelligence physical science has not re- sponded
Neither the theories of physical materialism, nor philosophy built upon those theories, has thus far recognized the individual principle in Nature. Neither has thus far suggested the true fac- tors and causes which create an individual. Neither do these theories contain a hint as to the true destiny of the individual. The intelligence of man will no more accept a "physically im- proved species"' as the highest result obtainable in Nature, than it will accept a "morally improved family" as such. These are theories which simply bewilder intelligence and leave man a greater puzzle to himself than he was before science and philos- ophy undertook to account for him.
Men and women demand of science that it shall furnish the key to the existence, the office, and the destiny of men and wo- men as individuals. Science is asked to trace the path of in- dividual evolution, to discover the purposes of individual life, and to forecast the possibilities of individual powers. Highly de- veloped men and women find it impossible to accept themselves, with all of their individual impulses, ambition, aspiration and ac- quirements, as either the automatic results of nutrition or as in- cidental promoters of reproduction. Man refuses to believe that his individual destiny, as a man, is fulfilled and completed in the activities of nutrition and by contribution to species. Woman also refuses to believe that her individual destiny, as woman, is completed in "paying the eternal debt of motherhood."
Such, indeed, is the attitude of thinking men and women of to-day. Evolution has so far refined a large proportion of our western people that they will not accept physical materialism, even though it is clothed in the garb and authority of science. The natural processes of physical refinement have so far spirit- ualized and sensitized the average man and woman as to develop
198 HARMONICS OF EVOLUTION.
spiritual intuitions of other forces and conditions and purposes than the physical.
Such as these, having only intuitions to guide them, never- theless, refuse to accept theories which reduce life to the level of its physical functions, even when such theories appear to have a substantial basis of fact. Such as these who have no actual or rational proof of the spiritual side of Nature, who have only in- tuitions to support them, are still withholding judgment. They are looking eagerly to science for confirmation of those intuitions which declare that individual life is more than feeding and breed- ing and that individual destiny is not fulfilled in species nor in family.
Such as these are looking to the self-declared students of Nature for more rational answers to those universal questions: "Why I am It" and "For what am I created?"