objective validity, is to declare the biological sciences impossible, except as a series of observations. For we know almost nothing of the causes which produce the organism, and it is not probable that we ever shall know much. We know what purpose the eye, the ear, the blood, the reproductive organs, etc., serve; but we have not the slightest insight into the mode of their production. We know, too, that this purpose contains the ground why the organs should be as they are; so that, even while we deny a mind which conceived these ends, we have still to assume them in order to make investigation possible. And every-where this necessity appears. We speak of the members of a species as perfect or imperfect specimens. But this language, again, acquires meaning only from the assumption that there are certain forms and functions which every member of the species ought to reach. Now however these ends may have been brought about, it is impossible to deny their existence as facts which condition both scientific investigation and the organs which realize the ends. Had there been no such end as vision, the eye would never have been as it is. Hearing, as an end, has conditioned the structure of the ear. Motion and sensation, as ends, have conditioned the structure and disposition of the muscular and nervous systems. No matter how this conditioning has taken place, the fact is unquestionable, and the organs can be understood only in the light of their functions. Some claim that there was no foresight of ends; but, pressed by the difficulties of any mechanical explanation, they take refuge in the notion of an unconscious intelligence

which does every thing with infinite wisdom, but without consciousness. Others hold that an end, as such, has only an ideal existence, and, therefore, can condition the means only as it exists in a prearranging mind. They also insist that the phrase, unconscious intelligence, is a sheer absurdity, devised for the sole purpose of recognizing ends in nature without admitting the correlated thought of an adapting mind. We believe these points well taken; but, instead of deciding the question, we are content with reaffirming our position, that science must assume that nature is founded in purpose. Many points we reserve for future discussion. In particular, we expect to show in the next chapter the untenability of the claim that mechanical forces might in indefinite time realize universal adaptation without any basal intelligence.

In ethics and social science the notion of an end is equally controlling. No theory of duty or of rights is possible without assuming some end for which man exists. No theory of government can be stated which is not teleological. In proportion as we think highly of man's destiny will his duties appear great, and his rights sacred. In the previous chapter we have sufficiently illustrated the teleological nature of all worldtheories. We have seen that pessimism and materialistic evolution are as fully, though not as frankly, teleological as the most optimistic theism, the only difference being that theistic teleology gives some dignity and value to life, while atheistic teleology is revolting in the ends it assumes, and stupid in the method of their realization. We come, then, to this point: Materialism,

materialistic and necessary evolution, and all empirical theories of mind, are fatal to science; and as atheism necessarily leads to these doctrines, atheism is fatal to science. The materialist and atheist, therefore, may be valuable as day-laborers in science, but, left to themselves, the outcome must be a scientific Babel. Further, we must assume, (1) the universal rationality of nature; (2) the fairness and condescension of nature; (3) a universal rational adaptation of every thing to every other in nature; (4) the reality of ends in nature, which have conditioned the means of their realization; and, (5) that nature, as a whole, is founded in purpose. Without these assumptions, science falls a prey to skepticism. We conclude, therefore, (1) from the skeptical outcome of atheism and pantheistic substantialism; and, (2) from the positive necessities of scientific theory, that God is as much the postulate and support of science as he is of religion.

A

CHAPTER IV.

MECHANISM AND TELEOLOGY.

LL theoretical science is built upon some form of the atomic theory. Those who disclaim belief in the reality of atoms, are still forced to assume some molecular unit which is the substantial reality of material things, and whose properties condition all material manifestation. Accordingly those who adopt the notion that atoms are vortical rings in a frictionless fluid, can do nothing with said fluid until they get their vortical rings; that is, until they get their atomic units. We may, then, abandón the Democritic notion of the atoms as little lumps secure forever in solid singleness against destruction; but we cannot dispense with the notion of discrete material units of some kind. It may be that these units are but discrete activities of some allembracing power; but whatever they may be, they are the basis of all current scientific theory. We shall, then, until further notice, argue upon the assumed truth of the atomic and molecular doctrines of matter. All mechanical theories of nature assume that the visible universe can be explained by the various grouping of these atomic units, and that these groupings take place in accordance with the simple laws of motion and the principles of mechanics. Hence the name. In such theories every problem is one of either molar or mo

lecular mechanics. We propose to examine the relation of this theory to the doctrine of purpose in nature; as it is often held that the two are incompatible. We have already shown, from the side of theory, that science must be teleological if it is to avoid skepticism. We now aim to show, from the side of the facts, that mechanism can never affect teleology.

The belief that the order of nature cannot be explained without assuming an intelligent creator, has never held undisturbed possession of the human mind. Very early the attempt was made to explain the world. by referring it to physical causes; and every generation since has seen the attempt renewed. But the belief in purpose or nature, while always more or less militant, seems of late to have fallen into unusual discredit. Strangely enough, too, this distrust always springs up among just those men who are best acquainted with the facts commonly urged to prove the reality of design in nature. A good part of the blame in this connection is popularly attributed to Mr. Darwin. It is a wide-spread conviction that Darwinism is a Medusa head upon which no teleologist can look and live; for in the doctrine of natural selection we have at last a means of accounting for the nicest adaptations without referring to any adapting intelligence. In truth, however, the controversy lies back of Darwinism. The facts gathered under this theory are quite susceptible of a teleological interpretation. The objections based upon this theory are but special phases of a long-standing dispute between science, as such, and the