Most sciences (except, perhaps, pure mathematics and history) are concerned with studying changing phenomena by means of unchanging laws. (2) There is no reason assigned why this science should deal with Evolution in the ordinary sense. Everything might be in a continuous flux, and yet as a whole things might remain stationary. The definition does not differentiate mere fluctuation from Evolution. (3) The first two functions of the 'science' of Evolution, according to President Jordan, imply the metaphysical distinction of appearance and reality, and involve the grim old difficulties as to the relations of the two, which have puzzled philosophers so long. (4) The third implies the reality of history, and the fourth the causal connection of the present with the past; both alike are metaphysical assumptions not free from difficulty.
(5) Moreover, they contain an implicit contradiction of his definition above. For to say that we can study changing phenomena by unchanging laws, is to say that we can neglect the individuality, the position in time and space of our data. The truth can be stated in timeless and universal laws; when and where events occur does not matter. On the other hand, to assert that what things were has a bearing on what they are, is to deny that their position in the time-series is a matter of indifference, is to withdraw the concession that the time-context may be abstracted from. No doubt, in practice, science acts exactly as President Jordan asserts, but does not this prove the need of philosophy to show how such inconsistencies may be reconciled?
II. As a theory, Evolution means "the formation of species by divergence and development; in a narrower sense, the theory that all forms of life now existing … have sprung from a few primitive forms, or, more likely, from one."
But (1) Evolution in this sense has no visible connection with Evolution "as a science." And (2) the two senses grouped together are not really congruous. The first, vague and tautologous as it is, is a real theory; it has in mind something really active in the formation of species. The second, on the other hand, is merely a historical dogma, a belief as to what occurred in the past, of essentially the same character as the assertion that the Norsemen discovered America.
Is Evolution, then, merely another name for Chaos? Is this mass of incongruous and incoherent assertions what scientists really mean when they speak of Evolution? Assuredly not: President Jordan has merely omitted to mention the thread that connects to-
