gravitate closer together, and, in course of ages, in place of what was a nebulous mass, there gradually appears a stellar system.
These masses are enormous in size, and consequently evolution is slow, secondary redistributions of matter and motion occur. The outline becomes more definite (this needs no explanation). The mass or masses become more coherent (liquid or solid bodies take the place of the gaseous nebula). The matter becomes heterogeneous:—heterogeneous in content (many chemical elements and ultimately an infinite variety of compounds take the place of a few gaseous elements); heterogeneous in structure (instead of a gaseous structureless mass there is found a star, with photosphere, and chromosphere and a group of planets of still greater complexity, revolving at different distances and with different speeds);[1] heterogeneous in other ways. The retained motion becomes more definite, coherent, and heterogeneous—this I think can be accepted without detailed explanation.[2]
Is it true? Is it a correct description of natural processes in all orders of phenomena? Whatever answer the present day thinker may be inclined to give, there can be no doubt that the inductive verification contained in the whole of Spencer's philosophy is overwhelming. We have just seen how exactly this formula fits the facts in the great cosmic example of solar and planetary evolution. This is but one of many instances that can be given of the manner in which, considered as a descriptive formula, it is verified by an examination of the facts of inorganic nature, of living organisms, and of the still more complex groupings exhibited by social life and institutions. From the inductive standpoint, this principle, for more than forty years, has been subjected to the criticism of thinkers of every school of thought, and has stood the test of time. Hostile criticism (and this has
- ↑ Professor James Ward (Naturalism and Agnosticism (3d edition), Vol. I, 230) objects to the application of the term heterogeneous to planetary orbits, but this is a somewhat foolish quibble about words. In the first place the paths of the planets are diverse, and secondly the planets do not move in any exact geometrical figure. The 'ellipses' are merely convenient mathematical approximations.
- ↑ Cf. First Principles, pp. 281, 302, 336.
