THE

IIRSE OF NATURE:

A.I3DRES8

DELIVERED BEFORE THE

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE,
St. Louis, August 22, 1878,

SIMON yNEWCOMB,

Retiring President of the Association.

r

SALEM:
PRINTED AT THE SALEM PRESS,

1878.

GIFT OF

THIS

COURSE OF NATURE

A.3ST .ADDRESS

DELIVERED BEFORE THE

AMEEICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE,
St, Louis, August 22, 1878,

BY

SIMON NEWCOMB,

M

Retiring President of the Association.

SALEM:
PRINTED AT THE SALEM PRESS.

1878.

ADDRESS

OF

PBOFESSOE SIMON NEWCOMB,

THE RETIRING PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR
THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE: —

IN imposing on its retiring President the duty of delivering an
address, the constitution of this society sets no limits to his choice
of a theme. Both in these and in the corresponding addresses
delivered before the sister society of Great Britain, it has not been
uncommon for the speaker to choose for his subject the general
progress of scientific research during the year. This course is
now less common than formerly, because, owing to the immensity
of the field of research, it has become impossible for any ordi-
nary mind to follow its progress in all its branches. I have
thought, therefore, that a higher interest would attach to a theme
chosen from the field of modern scientific thought, and, by a
process in which I have been the follower rather than the leader of
my own contemplations, I have been led to present to you some
thoughts on the Course of Nature as seen in the light of modern
scientific and philosophic research. Though I have but a single
central idea to present to you, namely, that of the simplicity and
universality of the Laws of Nature, yet so great is the confusion
of thought whiph prevails on the question, What are the Laws of

A. A. A. S., VOL. XXVII. 1

2 ADDRESS OP

Nature, that it is necessary to approach my idea from more than
one standpoint, and to illustrate it in more than one way.

We all know that the history of the Caucasian race, during the
last three centuries, has been marked by a kind of intellectual
development so entirely without precedent that some might call
it miraculous ; in fact, by such a development of the understanding
of the course of nature as has revolutionized human society in
many of its phases. You also know that thi^s development has
been marked by frequent collisions of opinion between the inves-
tigators of the material manifestations of nature on the one side
(if I may be allowed to use the expression), and philosophers and
theologians on the other, respecting the true theory of the course
of nature. My desire in entering this field is to act the part of
the peacemaker rather than that of a combatant, not sustaining
any other propositions than those which are actually believed in
by the large majority of educated men at the present time ; but
the confusion of thought on this subject, to which I have just
alluded, is so great that, although I may combat no opinions
actually held, it may be necessary to greatly modify their applica-
tion, and to criticise the forms in which they have found expres-
sion.

The key-note of my discourse is found in a proposition which is
fundamental in the history of modern science, and without a clear
understanding of which everything I say may be entirely misun-
derstood. This proposition is, that science concerns itself only
with phenomena and the relations which connect them, and does
not take account of any questions which do not in some way admit
of being brought to the test of observation. The only universe it
knows is that made known by the telescope, the microscope, and
other appliances of observation. That this is the whole universe
we should all be very sorry to suppose, and none more so than he
who has the honor to address you. But, should I pretend to a ,
scientific knowledge of what lies behind this visible frame, I should
be acting the part of the rash speculator rather than of the cau-
tious thinker. Only into a single field of thought do I dare to
venture. When we trace the efforts of men to penetrate the
secrets of nature, we find them clearly divisible into two classes :
philosophic speculation, and scientific investigation. We find the
objects of thought equally divisible into two classes : phenomena
and their hidden causes, those unknowable entities out of which

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 3

they proceed. The great progress which the last three centuries
have witnessed has been wholly in the field of phenomena, and it
is to this field, and to the results of scientific' investigation in it, to
which I ask your attention this evening. But, it is to be expected
that, in this brief characterization of our field of thought, I have
failed to convey to your minds any clear conception of its bounda-
ries. The progress here alluded to has been rendered possible
only by entirely rejecting the mode of thinking about nature which
was prevalent in former ages, and into which the untrained mind
is almost sure to fall at the present day. The distinction will be
evident to one mind at a glance, while another may be unable to
comprehend it after all the explanations which it is possible to
give. As my whole discourse will be misleading unless all my
hearers have a clear conception of it, I shall endeavor to present
you with the materials of such a conception, rather in the form of
concrete illustrations in familiar language, than in that of abstract
general definitions.

As one mode of expression, we might say that modern science
introduces into the higher modes of thought about nature that
same kind of practical good sense which characterizes the success-
ful man of business. Scientific investigation is, in a certain sense,
purely practical in both its methods and its aims. There is a
mental operation, with which all are well acquainted, under the
familiar term "theorizing;" to this operation all scientific investi-
gation «is so much opposed that the mere theorizer and essayist
can never make any real advance in the knowledge of nature. To
speak with a little more precision, we may say, that as science
only deals with phenomenon and the laws which connect them, so
all the terms which it uses have exact literal meanings, and refer
only to things which admit of being perceived by the senses, or,
at least, of being conceived as thus perceptible. This purely lit-
eral meaning of all scientific language is in strong contrast to the
metaphorical and poetical forms of expression into which we are
apt to fall in discourse upon abstract subjects generally, where
our ideas cannot be at once referred to sensuous impressions.

We might also say, that no question is a scientific one which
does not in some way admit of being tested by experience. The
single object of scientific research is to predict the course of
nature, or the results of those artificial combinations of causes
which we call experiments ; and no question is a scientific one

4 ADDRESS OP

unless its solution will in some way advance this object. I must
not, however, be understood as saying that the test of experience
can always be immediately applied, because then no disputed
question could be a scientific one. For example, the question
whether man existed on the earth 50,000 years ago is a scientific
one, because it is one respecting actual historic occurrence of
scenes evident to the senses. It could at once be settled by
simple inspection, could we in any way form a picture of the earth
as it then looked, and it may actually be settled in the future by
the presence or absence of sensible traces of the existence of man
at those times. Should we, however, go farther, and inquire
whether such men had souls, our inquiry would not be a scientific
one, nor one in which science could in any way concern itself with
profit. The soul can neither be seen, nor in any way made evi-
dent to the senses of others. From the very nature of things, it
could leave no material trace of- itself to be unearthed by the geol-
ogist or antiquarian of a future age. So far are we from forming
any conception even of our own souls, as sensible existences, that
no question affecting them, even now, is a scientific one ; milch
less can science consider those of past generations.

There is thus a quite well defined limit between questions which
are scientific ones and those which are not scientific, and with
which, in consequence, science has no concern whatever. You
must not understand me as in any way claiming that questions of
this last class are not worth thinking about. They include many
which are of the most absorbing interest to the human race, and
about which men will think the more as they become more thought-
ful. But to mix them with scientific discussions will only introduce
confusion of thought respecting sensible things, without in any
manner advancing their solutions. The current desires that^ sci-
ence shall consider man as something more than an animal are as
unreasonable as if we wanted to make algebra a help to moral
philosophy.

This limitation of all scientific research to a single specific field
is something so little understood, that I may have occasion to call
it to mind in other connections. But, there is another equally
essential maxim of science which I must explain in order that you
may understand the spirit which animates scientific investigation.
It is, that the man of science, as such, has no preconceived theories
to support, but simply goes' to nature to find out and interpret

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 5

what she has to say according to her exact meaning. What he
may desire to be true has no bearing at all on the question what
really is true. • Here arises the inability of men of science to view
theological questions in a light which shall be satisfactory to the
theologians, and the corresponding inability of the latter to appre-
ciate the spirit in which men of science discuss the problems of
life and being. We hear much at the present time of a supposed
conflict between science and religion, but it is rather a conflict
between two sets of men who view nature from opposite and ir-
reconcilable standpoints. It is essential, to the understanding of
our theme, that we should see in what this difference of view con-
sists ; I shall, therefore, endeavor briefly to explain it.

The theologian looks upon the doctrines he has been taught, as
something the truth of which is essential to the welfare of hu-
manity, and, we might almost say, to the supremacy of the Creator.
He thus invests them with an attribute of moral excellence, im-
plied rather than expressed in the term orthodoxy, and looks' upon
those who attack them, not simply as men who are mistaken, but
as men who are seeking to do a great injury to the human race.
Hence, the idea of weighing the arguments on both sides with
entire indifference to the result, is one which he cannot be expected
to receive with favor, or even to readily comprehend as received
by others. His idea of truth is symbolized in the pure marble
statue which must be protected from contact with profane hands,
and whose value arises from its beauty of form and the excellence
of the ideas which it embodies. He therefore looks upon those
who attack it, with feelings not unlike those of the keeper of the
statue upon a chemist, who refuses to see anything in the statue
except a lump of carbonate of calcium of peculiar form, and who
wants to handle it, weigh it, determine its specific gravity and its
cohesive power, and test its substance with acids. The correspond-
ing idea of the scientific investigator is symbolized by the iron-
clad turret, which cannot be accepted until it has proved its invul-
nerability. Instead, therefore, of being protected from violence
as if it were a product of the fine arts, violence is invited. Its
weak points are sought out by eyes intent on discovering them,
and are exposed to the fire of every logical weapon which can be
brought to bear upon them. A scientific theory may thus be
completely demolished ; it may prove so far from perfect that its
author is glad to withdraw it for repairs or reconstruction ; or it

0 ADDRESS OF

may be hammered into an entirely new shape. But however com-
pletely it may stand the fire, it maintains its position as a scientific
theory only by being always in the field ready to challenge every
new comer, and to meet the fire of every fact which seems to mili-
tate against it. A countless host of theories have thus been
demolished and forgotten with the advance of knowledge, but those
which remain, having stood the fire of generations, can show us a
guarantee of their truthfulness which would not be possible under
any other plan of dealing with them.

As a consequence of this way of viewing theories, the scientific
man recognizes no such attribute as orthodoxy in his doctrines.
There is nothing at all which he says you must believe to be true
as a condition of scientific recognition. There may, indeed, be
many propositions to doubt which would indicate extraordinary
incredulity, or down-right folly, or even insanity, and he might,
therefore, regard a skeptic as possessing a pitiful feeblenesss of
intellect, and, in consequence, refuse to listen to him ; but he
would refuse, not because the man disbelieved something which
was undoubtedly true, but because he was not worth listening to.
Perhaps the point which I am striving to make clear may be most
readily grasped by the reflection that science offers its highest
, rewards to him who will overthrow and supplant its best estab-
lished and most widely received theories. Thus, the names of the
men who disproved the theory of epicj^cles in astronomy, and the
doctrine of phlogiston in chemistry, occupy the most honorable
positions in the history of science. Of course, no such thing as
authority in science has anything more than a provisional recogni-
tion. If a man of good repute says that he has investigated a
certain subject and reached a certain result, the latter may be ac-
cepted on his authority, in the absence of other evidence. But
this gives no reason at all why anyone else should not reach a
different result, and it would be no argument at all to cite the
mere authority of the first against the second. In case of a dis-
crepancy of this kind, the whole question would have to be reinves-
tigated. The dictum, "It is written," has no terror whatever for
the investigator of nature ; he can recognize no authority for any
feature in the course of nature, except nature herself as he sees
her.

These principles are of so much importance in the philosophy
of science, that I may be pardoned for viewing them in yet another

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. <

light. In reading those discussions with scientific men on certain
theories recently advanced by the more advanced students of phi-
losophic biology into which the representatives of theology some-
times enter, I have often noticed, that if the representative of
science propounds, discovers, or brings forward any fact or princi-
ple which seems to tell against his side of the question, the Other
calls it an "admission," or "concession," just as if his opponent
had first selected his side for the love of it, and was then unwilling
to concede or admit anything which might militate against it.
Now, to go into the philosophy of the subject a little deeper than
heretofore, allow me to say that the man of science professes no
ability to recognize truth on sight, as he would recognize a house
or an animal. The question whether any given proposition is or is
not true, is necessarily to be decided by the human judgment, co-
ordinating all the facts which bear upon it. There is no such
thing as a revelation of scientific truths, and even if one should
claim that there was, the admission or rejection of the claim would
be an act of the judgment, which thus becomes the1 ultimate ar-
biter in any case. Hence a proposition is to be proved probable or
true, not by anything in itself, but by a more or less long and
painful examination of the evidence for and against it. Every-
thing that can be found to militate in favor of it is put into one
scale, and everything that can be found to militate against it is
put into the other. If the investigator is imbued with the true
spirit of science, his search is equally vigorous for arguments to
go into the two scales. When he says that the proposition is
worthy of being received as true, he means, not that it bears any
recognized seal of truth, but that the evidence in favor of it en-
tirely preponderates over all that can be brought to bear against
it.

You will not understand me as maintaining that every individual
man of science constantly maintains this spirit of impartiality
any more than that every Christian constantly lives up to the
highest standard of his profession. Hot conflicts have sometimes
raged, and there is no reason to suppose that they have entirely
Ceased, even now, in which each combatant could only see one
scale. But the spirit I have described is that in which science
exhorts her votaries to approach every question, and in which they
will constantly endeavor to approach it if they are worthy of their
profession.

8 ADDRESS OF

' '

Let us now approach our main theme, the course of visible
nature. Let me again remind you that of the two universes, the
seen and the unseen, I am only going to speak of the former. We
find ourselves placed in this world in the midst of a vast theatre of
. activity. We see an atmosphere agitated by storms ; great masses
of water rising in the«air to form clouds, and, after falling to the
earth, flowing as mighty rivers to the ocean ; countless forms of
vegetation rising from the earth, and then returning to it ; a sun
supporting all life on our planet with its heat ; an infinitude of
chemical changes going on around us ; countless stars moving
through space with velocities which transcend all our conceptions.
To all appearance these operations have been going on for millions
of ages past, and may continue for millions of ages to come. As
the thinking man contemplates them, he is led irresistably to the
conclusion that they do not go on at random, but that they are
joined by connecting links, or are in some way the product of
knowable causes. From his earliest infancy he sees connections
between them which enable him to foresee results. He finds that
fire burns, that the sun warms, that food satisfies his hunger, and
that heavy bodies fall with a certainty which shows the forces at
play to be invariable in their action. To penetrate the mystery
in which these forces are enshrouded, he has exerted the efforts of
his intellect from its first dawn until the present time. What
general conclusions has he reached?

From the earliest times at which man began to think, two modes
of explaining the operations of nature have presented themselves
to his attention. These modes are sometimes designated as the
teleological, and the mechanical.

The teleological explanation of nature, presupposes that her
operations are akin to human actions insomuch as they are under
the control of, and directed by one or more intelligent beings
having certain ends in view ; that the events are so directed as to
compass these ends ; and, finally, that the relation of the events
to the ends, admits of being discovered by observation and study.
This last condition is a very important one, because, without it,
the teleological explanation of the cause of nature would not be
a scientific one. The doctrine that the Author of Nature has
certain ends in view, and directs the whole course of events so as
to bring them about, will not enable us to explain and predict the
events unless we know what those ends are. But, as I have

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 9

I

already said, the test of scientific advance is the power of fore-
sight— of foreseeing what result any combination of circumstances
will lead to. If we always had to wait for the result, and could
then only say, I know this is the result which was intended, be-
cause it has happened, no actual foresight would be possible ; and
however excellent the doctrine might be SOB a theological one, it
would not admit of being tested by observation and experiment,
and the question of its truth would, therefore, not admit of being
settled by scientific investigation.

You may recall the remark of a satirical philosopher, when he
saw the gifts which those who escaped the dangers of a certain
treacherous and stormy sea offered up to the goddess who had this
sea at her command: "I see no offerings from those who were
lost," said he. It was not till the voyager had got safely to shore
that he found himself under the protection of the goddess.

It must be well understood that the teleological theory of nature,
or, as it is now familiarly called, the explanation of natural phe-
nomena by design, has two distinct forms, the scientific, and the
theological. These forms are not antagonistic ones ; the one
held by scientific men, and the other by theologians ; for, as you
may well know, the scientific form is the one in which scientific
men almost universally reject the teleological theory, while they
have nothing to say against the other forms. The forms refer
only to the fields to which the theory may belong, the scientific
and the theological. The distinction turns, on whether we sup-
pose the ends which the Creator has in view to be discoverable by
scientific investigation, or to be inscrutable. Only in the former
case have we, as scientific investigators, anything to do with the
question. The theory, as we have to consider it, is in brief this : —
that the course of events in inanimate nature is from time to time
modified by invisible intelligences just as it is modified by man
when he changes the course of a river or plants a forest.

The other explanation of nature is the mechanical one. It
assumes that her processes go on in accordance with certain laws
which admit of being fully comprehended by the human mind so
far as their effects are concerned. Each state of things is the
effect of the state which immediately precedes it, and the cause of
that which immediately follows it. The course of nature is thus
considered as an endless chain, of which the work of science con-
sists in making out the forms of the links, and the modes, in which

10 ADDRESS OF

if

they are connected. In this work we have to be concerned with
two things ; the general laws of nature, as they are familiarly
called, and the facts or circumstances which determine the oper-
ation of these laws. This distinction is most clearly seen in hu-
man laws. Thou shalt not steal, is a law ; that John has stolen,
is a fact. The1 combined result of the law and the fact is that
John is locked up in jail. So, that all bodies near the earth gravi-
tate toward it with a force directly as their mass, and inversely as
the square of their existence from its centre, is a universal law of
nature. The Niagara river and the precipice are facts ; and the
cataract is the result.

But the general explanation of the course of nature, on the me-
chanical theory, is not of this simple kind, because the laws of
nature do not act singly, but in combination ; so that the result of
each is modified by the action of all the others which come into
play. The law of gravitation is not that all bodies must fall, but
only that they tend to fall, and, therefore, will fall unless held up
by some sufficient opposing force. So long as I support this weight
in my hand it does not fall, because the force of gravitation and
the resistance of my hand neutralize each other. But the instant
I let go, the weight drops, according to' a certain law known as
that of uniformly accelerated velocity.

The doctrine I am endeavoring to elucidate is this : knowing a
few simple laws of nature, of which gravitation is one ; knowing
also the arrangement of material things within the field of investi-
gation ; that is, knowing the facts, we can predict with unerring
certainty what the result will be : .Or if we cannot predict it, it is
not because of any quality of the thing itself, but only because of
the insufficiency of our powers. Moreover, these results will be, as
it were, another layer of facts, from which it is possible to. predict
new results to follow them, and so on without limit, unless some
force from without intervene to change the course. If we include
the whole of nature in our field, no outside facts can come in, and
her course, therefore, admits of being predicted with entire cer-
tainty from beginning to end.

Now the point which I wish to bring to your attention is, the
revolution which modern science has brought to pass, in the opin-
ions of mankind, respecting the relations of the two classes of
causes, or supposed causes, which I have described. That all
events could be explained on teleological principles, it is not

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 11

likely that anyone ever supposed. That the falling of heavy
bodies, the running of rivers, the changes of seasons and the
revolutions of the heavens, were all in accordance with mechanical
laws, at least so far as the phenomena are concerned, no one ever
knowingly denied. But it was thought that the action of these
causes was from time to time modified by the introduction of
causes of the teleological class, just as a rock might be kept from
falling by the force of cohesion. The general rule has been that
the more ignorant the age, the more minute and immediate was
supposed to be the action of those beings who were modifying the
course of nature in order to compass their ends.

As illustrating this I might commence with the age of image
worship, when the fate of the individual is supposed to be at the
mercy of certain spiritual entities, symbolized by forms of wood,
stone, or wax. But, leaving out of consideration ideas so differ-
ent from those which prevail among us, let us come nearer home. .
It i's not many generations since men, who knew that the regular
course of nature went on in accordance with mechanical laws, be-
lieved, nevertheless, that occurrences of a terrific or extraordinary
character were specially brought about to compass some end of
Providence. Not only so, but, what is most essential to our theme,
this end was supposed to be a scrutable one. The motions of
stars and planets had gone on from age to age, until no new aspect
of them inspired alarm. But a comet was looked upon as a
messenger specially sent to give warning of a coming calamity.
.The scrutable end was, in this case, the warning of mankind. Ordi-
nary cases of sickness and accident, whatever their result, always
have been looked upon as a part of the regular course of events.
But it is not many centuries since the pestilence was believed to
be specially sent by Heaven to punish mankind for their wicked-
ness. Punishment and terror were here the ends whicK Providence
was supposed to have in view. The regular daily breezes and
showers were supposed to be tRe result of natural laws. But these
laws were not supposed to be entirely adequate to the production
of the tornado, which was again a special messenger, and they
were suspended, or their action was modified in times of extreme
drought, threatening mankind with famine.

These special messengers of Heaven have, one by one, yoked
themselves to the car of natural law, so that I think I can hardly
be'Vrong in saying that the supremacy of mechanical law, ajad its

12 ADDRESS OF

adequacy to account for the whole course of nature, as we see it
going on before us, is now the almost universal opinion of edu-
cated men. This revolution in human thought is, perhaps, clearly
brought out in the different view we now take of certain religious
observances introduced by our ancestors, whose ideas would now
be considered as approaching the irreverent. Take, for example,
the prayers, for the right kind of weather, which we find in our
prayer-books. When they were first composed and inserted, their
object was a purely practical one. As the farmers now sometimes
fire off cannon to make the black cloud break and discharge its
contents upon the parched field, so the prayers were to be offered
up in order that the aqueous vapor in the air might be made to
condense and fall. That a much more exalted view of prayer than
this is now taken by the more enlightened portion of the religious
World, I think we have every reason to believe.

Although we can hardly entertain a serious doubt that the me-
chanical theory of natural operations, or, as it is sometimes called,
the doctrine of the uniformity of nature, is generally acquiesced
in by the mature thought of intelligent Christendom, yet objections
are frequently made to it because it seems to run counter to some
of our most cherished ideas. If it were not paradoxical to make
the assertion, it .might be said that we hold, or at least express
entirely inconsistent views on the subject. The fact is that we
are pupils of two opposing schools, which are, in a certain degree,
antagonistic, one of which we cannot, and the other of which we
will not, give up. In one of these schools the chief teachers are
observation and experience. All sentiment and emotion are ban-
ished from its curriculum, which admits only the hard realities of
the outer world. The older we grow the more we see and hear .of
this school, and the more unreservedly we accept its teachings.
It tells us fhat the whole course of nature takes place in accord-
ance with certain laws capable of expression in mathematical lan-
guage ; that these laws act with more than an iron rigor, and
without any regard to consequences ; that they are deaf to prayer
or entreaty, and know no such thing as sympathy or remorse ; that
if we would succeed we must study them, and so govern ourselves
that their action shall enure to our benefit.

The other school is that of sympathy, emotion, and religious
faith. In it, as children, we receive our first teachings. It shows
us ourselves placed, as it were, in a forest of mystery, surrounded

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 13

by forms over which we have no control, and able to penetrate so
little into the surrounding darkness, that we cannot tell what shall
happen to us on the morrow. It has, in all ages, peopled the
thickets with invisible beings having an interest in our welfare or
our injury, or with providential interferences designed to compass
ends of which we, in advance, have no conception. Its teachings
are nearest and most welcome in times of affliction and fear. Its
objections to the teachings of the other school, are heard far and
wide through the land. Notwithstanding the number of forms
which these objections take, their essence may be condensed into a
very few sentences. The following will probably be accepted as
a fair rendering of their substance.

You take a contracted and unphilosophical view of nature when
you say that the world is governed by inexorable laws. These
laws are not governors, but only the instruments of government
by which the real governor executes his purposes. With them,
but without subverting or violating them, he can reward or punish,
bring on prosperity or call down disaster, according to the dictates
of his sovereign will. The child and the peasant call the thunder
the voice of God. The modern philosopher attempts to correct
them by showing that it is the product of evaporation and of
atmospheric electricity. But the view of the child is really the
more correct of the two, because he ascends at .once to the first
cause, and thus sees further than the philosopher who corrects him
because the latter stops short at the immediate or secondary cause
without even trying to raise his eyes to the higher source of power.
I think I am not far wrong in giving this as the substance of the
most cogent objections which may be anticipated in any quarter
against the mechanical theory of the course of nature.

Now, if these views referred only to inscrutable first causes of
things, or to the intelligent but invisible substratum which under-
lies the whole cause of nature, we should have no occasion to
discuss them, because they would lie outside the field I have
assigned as that of our contemplation at the present time, and
which I have sought to describe as the field of phenomena. The
doctrines that all things go on in exact accordance with the will of
the Creator ; that he has certain ends which the laws of nature are
designed to bring about ; and that an intelligent cause lies behind
the whole universe of phenomena, are of a class which science has
no occasion whatever to dispute. If it were made clearly to appear

14 ADDRESS OF

that the field of the teachings in question was thus limited, and
was entirely distinct from that of phenomena, with which alone
•science is occupied, there would be no occasion for dispute between
the two schools. I' have no disposition to throw a single stone
across what I consider the sacred boundary line, nor to enter a
field which I am by natural and acquired habits of thought, unfitted
to cultivate. As men of science let us by no means attempt to
penetrate a region in which the eye of science can see nothing but
darkness. If we thus subject ourselves to the imputation of being
" of the earth, earthy,'*' we may console ourselves that our edifice is
firm and durable because it does not seek to rise into regions of
serener air, nor to rear its dome above the clouds.

I can hardly be mistaken in saying that the objections to the
mechanical theory of nature, which I have just tried to formulate,
are not always confined to the field of inscrutable first causes.
There is a part of the boundary line over which the stones are
flying very thickly. While some of the combatants may profess
to make no attack on the doctrine of the uniformity of natural law,
I cannot but think that these professions often arise from a misap-
prehension of the scientific side of the question. Indeed, I must
confess that I have met with a difficulty from my inability to form
a clear idea of the views really entertained by the school now
tinder consideration. I have made a somewhat careful study of
some of the most elaborate works of the writers of the theological
school, devoted to this very topic, and I have left them without
being able to decide in my own mind, whether the writers do or
do not hold unreservedly to the mechanical theory of the course of
nature. That nearly all intelligent men really believe in this
theory, at least so far as the present time and dispensation are
concerned, we have abundant reason for believing. Nor is there
even among advanced .theologians any lack of profession of a
belief in the uniformity and supremacy of the laws of nature.
But, when thinkers of the other school maintain the doctrine,
and trace it to its logical consequences, undisguised by senti-
mental language or figure of speech, they are met with criticism
which I can account for only by supposing that the theologian un-
derstands by laws of nature something different from what is
understood by the man of science.

Let us try to condense the questions at issue into the smallest
possible space. The scientific philosopher maintains that the natu-

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 15

ral course of events goes on in invariable accordance with certain
knowable laws. He asks the theologian in the words of Pope :

" Think'st thou like some weak Prince the eternal cause
Prone for his favorites to reverse his laws ?
Shall burning ^Etna, if a sage requires,
Forget to thunder and recall her fires ?
On air or sea new motions be impress'd,
O blameless Bethel to relieve thy breast?
When the loose moimtain trembles from on high
Shall gravitation cease if you go by ?
Or some old temple, nodding to its fall,
For Chartres' head reserve the hanging wall?"

To all these questions the other answers, no, and thus all occa-
sion for dispute ought to end. But it does not end, by any means ;
for he proceeds to criticise the views of the questioner on the .
ground of their narrowness, and to inform him that the Creator
can, (and, by implication, that he does) so arrange things that
any result he may wish shall be brought about by the action of
natural laws themselves. "We do not expect ^Etna to recall her
fires when a sage is near ; or the air and ocean to acquire new
motions to preserve a saint from danger." * * * " Should these
individuals not be rushing recklessly against the known laws of
Heaven, or should it be the will of God to preserve them, it will
be found that provision has been made for their escape, and that
not through the powers of nature disobeying their own laws, but
through other powers in nature opportunely interposing to stop,
to turn aside, or otherwise to modify their operation."

Now, always supposing that such remarks as these are intended
to apply to the domain of sight, hearing and understanding, they
differ fundamentally from the scientific theory in their view of what
constitutes the laws of nature. The school seems to look upon
causes and effects in nature as belonging to two different classes
of things. They see an immense collection of causes, to each of
which the appropriate effect is tied. So long as the cause is fol-
lowed by its effect, the laws of nature are satisfied. So, if the
Ruler wants to reward, punish, kill, or rescue, He has only to bring
into operation the appropriate cause at the proper moment ; the
natural effect follows, and His will is executed without any viola-
tion of the laws of nature. I am not sure that this is an exact
statement of the views to which I refer ; but it is the best I can
gather from the study of the forms in which they have found
expression. Supposing this to be the view really entertained, it is

16 »-'•-_ ADDRESS OF

essentially different from that held by the scientific philosophy.
The course of Nature as it presents itself to the eye of science is
not a collection of isolated causes, each with its effect attached to
it, but it is rather to be symbolized by a chain in which each link
is connected with the link which precedes it and with the one
which follows it. At each moment of time, the state of the uni-
verse is the effect of the state which immediately preceded it, and
the cause of the state which immediately follows. There are no
such things as distinct causes and effects, but only laws of prog-
ress which connect the successive links of the seemingly endless
chain.

As an illustration of this, let us take the falling of the rock.
To the mere observer there is no evident reason why it should fall
at one time rather than another, he may, therefore, feel that there
is room for speculation as to the cause which made it fall at the ex-
act moment it did. But science teaches that it will fall at the very,
moment when the cohesive extraction which binds it to the moun-
tain behind, becomes less than the weight of the rock. We might
suppose a power to so adjust the causes which effect the cohesion
that the rock shall fall at some desired moment. But any such
adjustment would be as complete a change of the course of nature
as if the power should hold the rock up after it had begun to
fall. The natural processes by which the cohesion of the rock is
*slowly diminished, though largely hidden from our view, are gov-
erned by laws as precise in their action as those which regulate
the motion of the planets. The water which falls from the clouds
slowly percolates through the ground, and enters a crack in the
supporting mass. It wears it away at a rate dependent on the
solubility of the material and the quantity of water which falls.
A constant, but certain molecular action goes on without ceasing
between each molecule of water and each molecule of rock. The
strength of the latter is thus weakened according to some law ad-
mitting of precise mathematical statement. Thus, a mind pos-
sessed of sufficient mathematical ability, knowing how much water
runs over the rock from time to time, and knowing also the laws
of molecular action between the rock and the water, could deter-
mine long in advance the very moment at which the rock would
fall.

Going back another step, we see that the quantity of water
which runs over the rock depends on antecedent circumstances in

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 17

the same way, namely,, upon the quantity of the rainfall and the
arrangement of the crevices in the ground. However the latter
may have been produced, the cause is still another link in the end-
less chain which we can trace back to preceding links as far as we
please. Equally is the rainfall a fixed element, determined by the
course of the winds and the amount of moisture which they carry.
Thus we have a network of causes, too complicated for the human
mind to trace in detail, but which the philosophy of science teaches
us act with mathematical certainty. No tempering, modifying, or
adjusting action comes in at any stage of the process, so far as we
can see ; if we admit such action, we have to keep placing it
farther back as our knowledge increases.

Now there is one feature of these causes, the admission or re-
jection of which constitutes the main point of difference between
the two schools of thought which I have before indicated. All are
agreed that the course of nature is determined by what we may
call causes or laws, but all are not agreed as to the scope of action
of these laws. The great and distinguishing feature which the
school of sciences recognizes, and which the other school does not
recognize, is that all the laws of nature act without any scrutable
regard to consequences. I qualify my statement by the word
scrutable, because it is entirely outside the pale of scientific re-
search, to speculate upon possil^e inscrutable ends in nature. This
being a subject of which the man of science, speaking as such, can
affirm nothing, so he can deny nothing. Having found that no
trace of regard for consequences can be seen in the mode of action
of the laws which he investigates, but that the whole course of
things, so far as his eye can penetrate, may be explained and
predicted without supposing any such regard, the demands of
science are satisfied, and he must there stop.

Let me illustrate this by going over the train of thought which
has just occupied us in the opposite direction, starting from the
rainfall, and tracing the succession of causes to the fall of the
rock. The spot at which each drop of rain shall fall is determined
by antecedent conditions entirely, by gravitation, and the winds.
The drop neither seeks nor avoids the crevices, never asks in any
way what shall be its destiny after it reaches the ground. It
strikes the ground wherever gravity and the winds bring it, per-
colates through the soil according to the law of least resistance,

A. A. A. S., VOL. XXVII. 2

18 .. •• ADDRESS OP

and dissolves the rock according to the laws of chemical affinity,
without any respect to the consequences, immediate or remote. At
length a moment arrives at which the cohesive force of the rock be-
comes less than the weight which urges it downward. This mo-
ment is fixed entirely by antecedent circumstances, such as the
solubility of the rock and the amount of water which percolates
over it. At this very moment the rock begins to full. . It falls six-
teen feet the first second, three times that distance the next, and
so on, accord ing to the mathematical law of falling bodies, without
any respect to the lovely character of the beings it may destroy,
or the disasters with which it may crush the fondest hopes of men.
The region may be the wilderness; the passer-by may be a babe
in its nurse's arms, an angel of charity, fulfilling her mission of
good will, or a murderer aiming the deadly blow at his victim ; but
under no circumstances can we see that these conditions in any
way affect the chain of causes which lead to the falling of the rock,
or cause it to wait a moment or swerve a hair's breadth from its
inevitable course.

According to the theory of the course of nature, which I am
trying to elucidate, the chain of causes which we have described,
each cause acting according to antecedent conditions, but without
any regard to consequences, is the type of the whole course of
inanimate nature as far in space as the telescope can penetrate,
&nd as far back in time as the geological record can be deciphered.
An essential feature of the theory is, that the laws which connect
the several links of the chain, and thus determine the progress of
events, do not possess that character of inscrutability which
belongs to the decrees of Providence, but are capable, so far as
their sensible manifestations are concerned, of being completely
grasped by tbe human intellect, and expressed in scientific lan-
guage. Without this, the theory would have no practical bearing
whatever, because to say that the course of events is fixed, but by
laws which we can never grasp, would give us no clew at all to
learning what that course shall be, and would be equivalent to
telling us that it is enshrouded in the same impenetrable mystery
with first causes. A very important feature of the progress of
science is found in the constant resolution of the laws of nature
into more simple and elementary ones, until we reach principles so
simple that it is impossible to analyze them farther. Let us take

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 19

as an instance of this the laws of the celestial motions. When
Kepler discovered that the planets moved round the sun in elipses,
having the sun in one focus, he found what were, for his time,
simple and elementary laws. They were entirely comprehensible,
admitting of being expressed in mathematical language. They
enabled hfm to predict the motions of the planets, and, so far as
the intellect of the time could penetrate, they could not be resolved
into more simple expressions.

But when Newton appeared on the scene, he showed that these
and other laws could be expressed in the simple and comprehensive
form of gravitation of every particle of matter toward every other
particle with a force inversely as the square of the distance which
separates them. All the laws of planetary motion which had
before been discovered were shown to be reducible to this one
simple law, combined with certain facts respecting the directions
and velocities of the planetary motions. The most essential of
these facts is, that the velocities of the planets in their orbits are
such that these orbits, under the influence of the sun's gravitation,
are nearly circular.

By this grand generalization Newton reduced the laws of the
celestial motions to a form so elementar}^, simple, and comprehen-
sive, that no -further reduction seems possible in our present state
of knowledge. Attempts have been made to show that gravita-
tion is itself the result of discoverable causes, but they appear to
me entirely unphilosophical, since the causes into which they would
resolve gravitation are more complex than gravitation itself. But
for our present purpose it is not necessary to concern ourselves
whether gravitation may arise from some more subtile principle, as
yet undiscovered. The point which I wish you to grasp is the
entire comprehensibility of the law, as it now stands. There is
no mystery surrounding it. When I say that any body left un-
supported will fall toward the centre of the earth until it meets
with the earth itself, or some other obstacle to its farther fall, you
know exactly what I mean, and what are the results of the law
which I enunciate. In a certain sense we might say that the laws
of nature are simply general facts, distinguished from special facts
by their dependence upon certain antecedent conditions. Consid-
ered as such, there can never be any doubt as to their meaning or
results. There is no profound philosophy involved in their action

20 ADDRESS OP

or expression any more than there is in such statements as that all
unsupported bodies fall toward the centre of the earth ; that gun-
powder, when touched by fire, suddenly changes to an incandescent
gas ; that water, at ordinary pressure, changes to steam at a
temperature of 212°.

Now, scientific investigators are earnestly endeavoring, each in
his own sphere, to do for the whole of nature what Newton did for
the laws of planetary motion, to find and announce the elementary
principles which connect all the links of the endless chain which
symbolizes her course. The student of chemistry cannot doubt
that the innumerable properties of the various compounds which
he studies arise from the play of certain attractive and repulsive
forces among the elementary molecules of the matter of which
these compounds are formed. Could he only learn the law ac-
cording to which these forces act, chemistry might become very
largely a deductive science, and the properties of compounds
might be predicted in advance, as the astronomer predicts the
conjunctions of the planets. The idea now entertained by those
who see farthest in this direction is that all the physical properties
of matter depend upon and may be reduced to certain attractive
and repulsive forces acting among the ultimate atoms of which
matter is composed.

It may also be supposed that all the operations of the vital
organism, both in men and animals, depend, in the same way,
upon molecular forces among the atoms which make up the organ-
ism. The operation of forces unknown to chemistry must, indeed,
be presupposed, but there is no reason to suppose that these
forces are less simple than chemical ones. Some would even go
so far as to explain the facts of consciousness in this way. The
philosophy of this explanation belongs, however, to another de-
partment of thought — that of scientific materialism — into which
we cannot at present enter.

The most startling attempts, in the direction I have indicated,
are those which are designed to show that those wonderful adap-
tations which we see in the structure of living animals, and which
in former times were attributed to design, are really the result of
natural laws, acting with the same disregard to consequences which
we see in the falling rock. The philosophy of Darwinism, and the
theory of evolution, will be at once brought to your mind as form-

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 21

ing the modern system of explanation tending to this result. On.
these, theories, the eye was not made in order to see, nor the ear
in order to hear, nor are the numberless adaptations of animated
beings to the conditions which surround them in any way the
product of design. Absurd as this theory appears at the first
glance, and great as is the anxiety to secure its rejection, the
question of its truth is to be settled only by a careful scientific
study of the facts of nature and the laws of hereditary descent.
The principle which is to aid in its settlement is universally ad-
mitted in quarters where it is fully understood. We are not to
call in a supernatural cause to account for a result which could
have been produced by the action of the known laws of nature.
The question then is whether these laws of hereditary descent and
of natural selection are adequate to account for the gradual growth
of such organs as the hand, the eye and the ear, and for all the
adaptations which we see in nature. If they are, it would be idle
to call in any other cause, except we place it behind the laws, and
if we place it behind those laws we must equally place it behind
all others. Of course, such a cause lies beyond the field of sight,
and does not, therefore, belong to scientific observation. Granting
the theory, then, so far as the eye of science can penetrate, the
whole result is brought about by laws acting in seemingly blind
disregard of consequences.

Let us now turn once more to the theory of scrutable design,
which supposes at least the occasional action of causes which the
human intellect can perceive to have been intended to produce
certain effects, such as the salvation of the righteous, the punish-
ment of the wicked, the warning of the indifferent, or the preser-
vation of the race. Studying this theory from the purely scientific
standpoint in all the varying forms in which history presents it,
we see its distinguishing feature to be the idea of causes acting so
as to bring about certain results.

When Pallas inspired Diomed with renewed strength, and gave
superhuman accuracy to his aim, it was in order that he might be
able to pierce his Trojan enemies. Ordinary investigation might
fail to show that his hand trembled less than usual as he raised his
javelin, but the goddess took care that the last tremulous motion
of his hand, as the weapon left it, should be in the direction to
send it into the breast of the foe. The utterances of the oracles

22 ADDRESS OF

were determined, not by the past or the present, but by events
still in the future. The blazing comet appeared, not in obedience
to a chain of causes commencing with the creation, but in order
that man might be warned of the coming calamity. When the
prayers of the righteous averted the coming storm, the cloud
moved aside in order that their fields and houses might be saved,
and when they brought down the gentle rain upon the parched
fields, the rain fell in order that famine might be averted.

These supposed causes differed from what enlightened minds
now understand by the term Providence, in being amenable to
scientific investigation, and in not being included in the regular
chain of natural phenomena. The designs of Providence are
inscrutable, but those of. Pallas and Juno were not. Careful ex-
perimental investigation, such as might have been undertaken by
a Helrnholtz of that time, would have sufficed to show just how-
Pallas wanted the spear thrown, if the view of the Homeric age
was the correct one. When the King died, or the enemy was vic-
torious, men thought they knew exactly why the comet appeared
when it did.

These views having so far vanished into thin air, I do not see
how we can avoid recognizing the reality of the revolution which
modern science claims to have made in the views of men respect-
ing the course of nature. And yet, as I have already shown, there
are many tendencies in our being which make us unwilling to
admit the revolution, and lead many to look upon the old theory
as correct, provided it were only considered as tracing causes to
the will of the Creator. On what is this view founded at the
present time? Entirely, it seems to me, in ignoring the distinction
between the scrutable and the inscrutable, between the seen and
the unseen, worlds. Science has, to a greater or less degree, ban-
ished final causes from the visible universe ; but they act with un-
diminished vigor in the invisible one. Such a translation may not
be a great revolution in thought from a theological point of view,
but it certainly is from a scientific standpoint, which considers
only visible things.

I can readily imagine your asking if teleological causes can be
really considered as absolutely banished from the whole domain
of visible nature, if, considering how limited our knowledge, and
how vast that part even of the visible universe which we do not

PRESIDENT NEW COMB. 23

know, it is not rash to assert that we know the true theory of
n,ature. even in the field of phenomena. This question may lead
us to look, a little more carefully than we have hitherto done upon
the exact standing of the doctrine of the uniform course of nature
according to antecedent causes, and the relation of this doctrine to
modern scientific investigation. And this leads me to say that it
would be entirely unphilosophieal to regard the revolution I have
described as a scientific discovery or induction. It may be doubted
whether the scientific mind is really any less disposed to believe in
final causes than the ordinary mind. Nor can the theory that the
course of nature is symbolized by the chain of cause and effect, as I
have descried it, be considered as a product of modern investiga-
tion simply, or as belonging especially to the present age. It is a
theory which has been, in a limited sphere, recognized by all men
at all times. The reason why modern science has so greatly ex-
tended its scope is, that modern science has acquired a vastly more
extended view of nature than has before been obtained. One of
the most curious and suggestive features of the teleological the-
ory has been that the action of teleological causes has always
been ascribed to operations into which human investigation could
not penetrate, although their ultimate effects might, be plainly
seen. Whenever the subject becomes so well understood that the
chain of natural causes can be clearly followed, miracles and final
causes cease, so far as the scientific explanation of things is con-
cerned. That a ball or spear thrown in one direction would bend
its course into an entirely different direction no one ever supposed.
Homer never imagined Pallas as changing the course of the jave*
lin after it had left the hand of Diomed. But those states of the
nervous system which result in a certain and accurate aim, or in a
tremulous or uncontrolled arm, lay beyond the pale of physiologi-
cal knowledge in the time of Homer, so here it was that the
goddess intervened. When nervous action became fully under-
stood, the final cause receded and took refuge in some deeper
arcanum of our ignorance. Jove was never expected to make
thunder and rain without clouds, nor was the falling of the rain
ever ascribed to his interference, because every one believed that
if the drops were once formed they would fall at once to the ground
without any action on his part. But the mixing currents of moist
and cool air, and the processes of condensation which lead to the

24 ADDRESS OF

formation of rain and electricity, were not understood, so here
Jupiter had a chance to work unseen by man. When the mode in
which clouds were formed was once understood, the god of thunder
left his seat upon Mount Olympus for a more distant abode. From
the earliest historic times the man who took a large dose of poison
has died, as a matter of course ; neither good nor evil spirit had
anything to do with it. But if brain disease bereft him of reason,
the malevolence of an evil spirit was called in to account for the
result.

Now, I beg you to notice that in all these cases, the only dis-
tinction we can make between, those effects which were supposed
to be produced by natural causes, and those which were produced
b}7 the will of some higher power acting with a scrtuable end in
view, is this : in the first class of cases we can clearly see the ef-
fect to have been produced by the action of natural causes, and in
the second we cannot. This distinction, depending as it does
upon the extent of our knowledge, cannot be regarded as a logical
one. Yet, in so far as a belief in that class of final causes which
we have been considering exists at the present day, I see no other
definition of the limits within which these causes are supposed to
act. Let us take an illustration from the plague now desolating
our southern cities. No one would believe that under any circum-
stances any superior power'would build a yellow fever hospital, and
supply it with the best medicines. If we should sny that the
prayers of the whole nation for the immediate erection of such
buildings would have no effect whatever, we should not be accused
pf unbelief or irreverence in any quarter, for every one would
fully agree with us. But there are great numbers of people who
believe that, if the whole nation should pray for frost, frost might
be sent in answer to the prayer when it would not have come oth-
erwise. And to many who do not share this belief, the denial of
any possibility of an influence of this kind would seern to savor
much more strongly of unbelief, irreligion, or irreverence, than
the denial that Providence would build a hospital without human
hands.

And yet, if the scientific philosoph}^ be correct, the providential
production of frost would be as miraculous and as incredible as
the providential erection of a hospital in a single night without
human hands. The temperature of the air and the amount of

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 25

moisture it shall have in any given place, a day, a month or a jrear
from the present time, is as completely fixed by the present state
of things and by the laws of evaporation condensation and motion
of gasses as are the position of the heavenly bodies. The first
deposition of frost will be determined by forces now at play, and
any deviation from the inevitable action would be a miracle of the
same kind as pieces of timber hewing themselves into shape and
putting themselves together untouched by man. Please notice
that this similarity between the two states of things is entirely
independent of any philosophical theor}7 of natural causes. All
we claim is that the laws which determine the motion of the air, the
formation of clouds, the fall of rain and the deposition of frost,
are, with respect to their certainty of action, of the same class
with those which determine the position, the movements, and the
cohesion of a stick of timber. If you claim that both classes of
causes are the acts of the Creator, we have nothing to say against
it. All we say is that you must interpret his acts in the same way in
the two cases. You must not claim that He will produce heat or
cold by a fiat of an arbitrary will, unless you also claim that He
will build the hospital or leave it unbuilt, according to a similar
fiat. Nor is it of any avail to say that you know it to be His will
that the hospital shall remain unbuilt unless man undertakes it.
We can in reply maintain that \\e know it to be His will that the
course of nature shall go on unchanged, no matter how it may
effect human interests.

It thus appears that the dividing line between mechanical and
final causes, as drawn by the human mind in all ages, has not been
fixed by any absolute criterion, but only .near the limits of the
knowledge possessed by* each generation. Science has extended
the line entirely beyond ordinary mental vision, not by introducing
any new theory of nature, but by extending the boundaries of
exact knowledge, and with them, of the field in which, by com-
mon consent, final causes do not admit of being traced. The
telescope has revealed to us a universe compared with which that
known to ancients is but an atom, and geology has opened up
to our view a vista of ages in which the lifetime of our generation
is hardly more than a moment. And thus final causes have taken
their flight from a vast region in which they before lay hid in ob-
scurity. You may now ask, have they simply taken refuge in

26 ADDRESS OF

the more distant but vastly wider circumference which now
marks the boundaries of our knowledge, or are we to suppose
them entirely banished from nature? This is entirely a question
of intuition, and not at all of scientific investigation. I have
described the scientific theory, of nature as not admitting scru-
table final causes at all, but as claiming that the law of the
falling rock is symbolic of all her operations. But I think this
is a view towards which philosophers have always inclined. We
must alwa}rs expect that men will incline to this view in pro-
portion to their familiarity with the material side of nature. At
the same time it is evident to all that there must have been a be-
ginning of things, and that nature could not have commenced her-
self. We have, therefore, a wide belt left between the origin of
nature and the boundaries of our knowledge in which we may
suppose the inscrutable cause to have acted. Here we reach
questions of philosophy which lie outside of our field, and which,
therefore, we cannot now stop to consider.

The exact bearing of the subject will be better understood by
condensing what has already been said so as to present the whole
in a brief space.

1. When men study the operations of the world around them,
they find that certain of those operations are determined by knowa-
ble antecedent conditions, and go on with that blind disregard of
consequences which they call law. The criterion for distin-
guishing these operations is that their "results admit of being
foreseen. They also find certain other operations which they are
unable thus to trace to the operation of law.

2. Men attribute this latter class to invisible anthropomorphic
intelligences, having the power to bring about changes in nature,
and having certain objects, worthy or ignoble, in view, which they
thus endeavor to compass. Men also believe themselves able to
discern these objects, and thus to explain the operations which
bring them about. The objects are worthy or ignoble according
to the character of the intelligences, which again depend upon the
state of society. In ancient times they were often the gratifica-
tion of the silliest pride or the lowest lusts.

3. As knowledge advances, one after another of these operations
are found to be really determined by 1ft w, the only difficulty being
that the law was before unknown or not comprehended, or that the

PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. 27

circumstances which determined its action were too obscure or too
'complex to be fully comprehended.

4. Final causes having thus, one by one, disappeared from every
thicket which has been fully explored, the question arises whether
they now have or ever had any existence at all. On the one hand,
it may be claimed that it is unphilosophical to believe in them
when they have been sought in vain in every^ corner into which
light can penetrate ; on the -other hand, we have the difficulty of
accounting for these very laws by which we find the course of
nature to be determined. Take, as a single example, the law of
hereditary descent. How 'did such a law — or, rather, how did
such a process, for it is a process — first commence? If "this is
not as legitimate a subject for inquiry as the question how came
the hand and the eye into existence, it is only because it seems
more difficult to investigate. If, as the most advanced scientific
philosophy teaches, creation is itself but a growth, how did that
growth originate ? We here reach the limits of the scientific field,
on ground where they are less well defined than in some other
directions, but I shall take the liberty of concluding my remarks
with a single suggestion respecting a matter which lies outside of
them. When the doctrine of the universality of natural law is
carried so far as to include the genesis of living beings, and
the adaptations to external circumstances which we see in their
structure, it is often pronounced to be atheistic. Whether this
judgment is or is not correct, I cannot say, but it is very easy to
propound the test "question by which its correctness is to be deter-
mined. Is the general doctrine, of causes acting in apparently
blind obedience to invariable law in itself atheistic? If it is, then
the whole progress of our knowledge of nature has been in this
direction, for it has consisted in reducing the operations of nature
to such blind obedience. Of course, when I say blind you under-
stand that I mean blind so far as a scrutable regard to consequence
is concerned — blind like justice, in fact. If the doctrine is not
atheistic, then there is nothing atheistic in any phase of the theory
of evolution, for this consists solely in accounting for certain
processes by natural laws. I do not pretend to answer the question
here involved, because it belongs entirely to the domain of the-
ology. All we can ask is that each individual shall hold consistent
views on the subject, and not maintain the affirmative of the

28 ADDRESS OP PRESIDENT NEWCOMB.

question on one topic, and the negative on another. My object in
presenting the views I have has been, not so much to propound
a new theory as to promote consistency, precision, and independ-
ence of thought among those who discuss the subject.

14 DAY USE

RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.

This book is due on the last date stamped below, or

on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.

S W*^

,~c

MAY 3 1 ,359

ItilQftQ

J UN /kyj UT U 1 b U .

MAY 2 4 1989

CIRCULATE

1

OEC 1^ P*

YC 22730
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

.