thing as chance. The other group, holding a mechanical
theory, expresses itself thus: The development of the universe is a
monistic mechanical process, in which we discover no aim or purpose
whatever; what we call design in the organic world is a special
result of biological agencies; neither in the evolution of the
heavenly bodies nor in that of the crust of our earth do we find
any trace of a controlling purpose--all is the result of chance.
Each party is right--according to its definition of chance. The
general law of causality, taken in conjunction with the law of
substance, teaches us that every phenomenon has a mechanical cause;
in this sense there is no such thing as chance. Yet it is not only
lawful, but necessary, to retain the term for the purpose of
expressing the simultaneous occurrence of two phenomena, which are
not causally related to each other, but of which each has its own
mechanical cause, independent of that of the other.

"Everybody knows that chance, in this monistic sense, plays an
important part in the life of man and in the universe at large.
That, however, does not prevent us from recognising in each
'chance' event, as we do in the evolution of the entire cosmos, the
universal sovereignty of nature's supreme law, _the law of
substance_" (p. 97).

_Illegitimate Negations._

With regard to the possibility of Revelation, or information derived
from super-human sources, naturally he ridicules the idea; but in
connection with the mode of origin and development of life on this
planet he makes the following sensible and noteworthy admission:--

"It is very probable that these processes have gone on likewise on
other planets, and that other planets have produced other types of
the higher plants and animals, which are unknown on our earth;
perhaps from some higher animal stem, which is superior to the
vertebrate in formation, higher beings have arisen who far
transcend us earthly men in intelligence."

Exactly; it is quite probable. It is, in fact, improbable that man is
the highest type of existence. But if Professor Haeckel is ready to
grant that probability or even possibility, why does he so strenuously
exclude the idea of revelation, _i.e._, the acquiring of imparted
information from higher sources? Savages can certainly have
"revelation" from civilised men. Why, then, should it be inconc