Appendix.

On Initiation Through Baptism of Cloud.

Take the famous evolutionary phrase—vox signata—"spontaneous generation." This is said of the process of nature in the first introduction of life into our world. As a definition it is loose metaphor instead of scientific exactness. It shows a surface of smooth familiar meaning which really is a slide from seeming sense to no-sense, constituting a case in point of Campbell's question (Philosophy of Rhetoric), Why so frequently nonsense passes undetected? The adjective "spontaneous" here is not simply Latin for "spec's I growed," ascribing the origination to a process of nature. It is also and especially intended as meaning, that the origination is not from any life previously existing. But this, in the same breath, is contradicted by the substantive "generation," which has no meaning except as descriptive of an origination that is from a previously existing life—parental. Here there is nonsensical incoherence of adjective to substantive. This comes clearly into view if we throw out the "generation," and say "spontaneous evolution." That in a proposition has a fairly tolerable meaning; but as a definition it is mere mist, sheer vapour-bath of tautology or truism; as if one had said,] spontaneous spontaneity, evolutionary evolution, a process of nature in which nature proceeds-cloudy baptism that would be meet initiation to worship of a calf in the wilderness, or veiled Isis of the Egyptians.

Further, the mist is effective mystification The logical or verbal confusion has the' rhetorical effect of delusion. It misleads from the solid way of truth by concealing or obscuring that distinctive, which is the one thing that in definition ought to be placed in clear light, as a guiding pillar of flame. A chain, which hitherto has been copper or zinc, henceforward is bronze. Inquiring after truth regarding origin of bronze chain, we have no way of truth but concentration of mind upon the distinctive, that peculiar process through which bronze comes to be now where there was only zinc or copper before. Baptism of cloud, throwing dust into the eyes of inquiry, leading the feet astray from the path of light, is made by verbiage drawing attention away to irrelevant commonplace, the general process of the prolongation of all chains by addition of link after link. Though "genera- page 19 tion" had not been impossible in this case, yet to speak of it here would have been misleading. It creates a confused impression that Nature's process, in the wondrous transition from lifeless to life, is merely a something like her familiar process in origination of life from previously existing life of parentage. And it effectively clouds from view the fact, which here is the vital point for expiscation, that the process must needs be essentially different from ordinary generation, and from every other thing in nature; as formation of new metal is essentially different from prolongation of old chain, and from everything else in art metallurgic. So of the other famous phrase of Evolutionism,—"Natural Selection." It is sometimes printed thus with capital initials, as if it had been the proper name of an evolutionary deity. In argument—-not to say, reasoning—it some-times plays the part that would have become a word of power creative and divine. It is famous exceedingly, as a very Diana of the Ephesians. But it is in effect a double—faced Janus of the Romans, if not a double-tongued oracular Apollo of the Delphians. It is, moreover, a variable Proteus or chameleon, changing its aspects of meaning, even as emanating from the great original enunciator of it—who was not the original enunciator of it. And withal, both on the face of it, and in the heart of it, it is a simple foolish calf. For a controversy about the meaning of it means, that it has not a meaning "clear and distinct" as becometh science; while Darwin's variation in his exposition of it shews, that it had no firmly—defined significance in his mind. Here, too, loose metaphor usurps the place of exact definition; with a surface of smooth familiar sense there is a slide from seeming sense to no-sense; there is nonsensical incoherence of self-contradiction of substantive to adjective. And the effect of the logical confusion is practical delusion, leading the mind away from the true point in question by intrusion of what really has nothing to do with the question, of the truth or falsehood of evolutionism, in relation to which it has been made to play so great a part.

"Selection" has no meaning except as implying intention, directing intelligence, in the choice of means for fore-ordained end. That meaning is here pointed by the reference here implied to the case of producing a new variety of animal or plant, through directing intelligence of man adjusting the conditions for that purpose. But that meaning is here excluded, pointedly and with emphasis of contrast, by the adjective "natural." By this is meant here, pointedly and emphatically, that the origination of species is to be regarded as taking place by process of nature alone, to the exclusion of such directing intelligence as that exercised by man in adjusting the conditions for producing new species. The incoherence is thus in the very mind and heart of the speaker, as if the drift of his thought had been into such nonsense as, non-rational selection, intelligent mechanism, designing free-agency of blind physical necessity. And the logical incoherence leads into practical mistake.

The baptism of cloud here begins with a confused impression that somehow the absence or presence of directing intelligence, adjusting the conditions for the process of nature, makes a difference in the intrinsic nature of the process of origination of species as compared with production of variety. That impression is a delusion. It is true that if it had not been for the adjustment by man's directing intelligence, the variety might not have been produced at all; as also it is true that the origination of species may not have been without adjustment of the conditions by another intelligence, like man's, distinct from physical nature, while working through her and her process. But the presence or absence of intelligence, as thus extrinsically occasioning the process, really has nothing to do with the process intrinsically, as it is in itself. In itself it is unchanging as nature, no matter what may be the extrinsic occasion,—e.g., design, or accident, or fate. The intrinsic occasion of the formation of zinc may, tautologically speaking, be "artificial selection," designed adjustment of conditions: say, by human artificer placing copper and zinc together in the furnace for his purpose; or say, if you will, by agency superhuman, angelic, or divine, perhaps in manifest miracle, fusing the two metals into one without fire. Or, nonsensically speaking, the occasion may be "natural selection," as if, undesigned adjustment of conditions: whether, as we say, accidentally, as by chance incidence of lighting flame on copper and zinc in fortuitous juxtaposition; or, fatalistically to our apprehension, by sheer irresistible necessity of nature. But in any case, and in all cases alike, the natural process, no matter what may be the page 20 varying occasions of it, is itself unchanging as nature: if employed at all, it is always the same physical process—simply fusion of copper and zinc. So in the present case. The difference referred to in the nonsensical phrase, "natural selection," really has nothing to do with the inward nature of the process in origination of species, as compared with the process in production of variety. The impression that it has, is a confused hallucination, to which the use of that phrase has conduced as a baptism of cloud. And this initial confusion leads to further delusion.

The thing in Darwin's view, in his use of the expression, was a distinction in respect of the manner in which nature, when originating species, makes her contribution of specific difference. Supposing that in fact she makes the contribution at all, that in physical nature there really is any such process, then there are two conceivable modes in which the natural evolution may take place. It may be either by, so to speak, direct evolution, or by indirect evolution—a distinction reminding us of that between immediate creation and mediate, only thus far putting dead nature in place of living God and Creator. In the indirect evolution nature contributes the specific difference through the medium of parentage with generation, or of previously existing specific nature with its process—working on the individual body previously existing to the effect of transmutation of old species into new. The previously existing specific nature is thus regarded as having always had in itself the true seed of the new species; only the seed has hitherto lain dormant and latent, as the mummy seed in the Egyptian pyramid, until now at last it breaks out into manifested life, perhaps under the influence of favourable conditions in the general system of the world around, as the mummy wheat is made to shew itself in life when it is taken out into air, and sunshine and rain, with the coffin which imprisoned it now crumbling into a fruitful soil to cherish it into futurition of life manifested. The other view of the evolution, as direct, which is the one contended for by Darwin, makes the contribution of specific difference to come simply from the system of nature, assuming the character of cosmical conditions, of fitness for working not simply on the previously existing individual body of a specific nature, but "in, along with, or through"—in, cum, vel sub—the parentage with generation, to the effect of a naturalistic transubstantiation of one species into another species. The parentage with generation is thus only as the soil and sunshine and rain are to the mummy wheat; or as the sparrow and her nest are to the cuckoo's egg.

The two views thus differ as to the location of the true seed, or efficient cause of the of the specific differentiation. The one view places it in the individual body of previously existing specific nature, making the surroundings of cosmical condition to be only the occasion of calling it into patent operation. The other view places it in the cosmical conditions of general nature around, operating upon the parentage with generation as a sort of naturalistic hoc est corpus, for which the corrupt vulgar English is hocus pocus. The two views can easily run into one another in the mind of men who do not see any real essential distinctness of species in nature. And Darwin's variation on Darwinism appears to have consisted in his latterly coming to recognise the individual body of previously existing specific nature as making some part of the contribution of specific difference, which at first he ascribed to the cosmical conditions exclusively.

But all this has really nothing to do with the question of the truth or falsehood of evolutionism. On the contrary, the two views alike proceed upon the supposition that evolutionism is true. They both imply that species are originated by evolutionary process of nature, that the contribution of specific difference is made by physical nature. And if that is assumed, then, so far as the truth of evolutionism is concerned, it matters not how, precisely, that contribution is made, whether directly from the general system of nature, or indirectly through a previously existing specific nature. But the result of raising great discussions here about the mode of evolution has been, the mistaken impression that somehow the fact of evolution has been shewn, while in reality there is effective concealment of the question of fact as being the real onecalling for an answer.

A very large part of what has made go j much noise in the world will thus take rank in history as a memorable sample of fallacia plurium inlerrogationum—seeking a verdict on one question through vehement declaration on another which is essentially different from it. So that here again there is initiation through baptism of cloud into delusive idolatry of a wilderness calf.