in the
immensity of the universe. And when a man of mere ordinary culture sees
Sir William Thomson surveying that field with a mastery of its details
and familiarity with all the recondite methods of its investigation, he
feels as nothing in his presence. Yet this great man, whom we cannot
help regarding with wonder, is so carried away by the spirit of his
class as to say, "Science is bound, by the everlasting law of honor, to
face fearlessly every problem which can fairly be brought before it. If
a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, can
be found, we must not invoke an abnormal act of Creative Power." And,
therefore, instead of invoking Creative Power, he accounts for the
origin of life on earth by falling meteors. How he accounts for its
origin in the places whence the meteors came, he does not say. Yet Sir
William Thomson believes in Creative Power; and in a subsequent page, we
shall quote his explicit repudiation of the atheistic element in the
Darwinian theory.

Strauss quotes Dubois-Reymond, a distinguished naturalist, as teaching
that the first of these great problems, viz. the origin of life, admits
of explanation on scientific (i. e., in his sense, materialistic)
principles; and even the third, viz. the origin of reason; but the
second, or the origin of consciousness, he says, "is perfectly
inscrutable." Dubois-Reymond holds that "the most accurate knowledge of
the essential organism reveals to us only matter in motion; but between
this material movement and my feeling pain or pleasure, experiencing a
sweet taste, seeing red, with the conclusion 'therefore I exist,' there
is a profound gulf; and it 'remains utterly and forever inconceivable
why to a number of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, etc., it should not be a
matter of indifference how they lie or how they move; nor, can we in any
wise tell how consciousness should result from their concurrent action.'
Whether," adds Strauss, "these _Verba Magistri_ are indeed the last word
on the subject, time only can tell."[57] But if it is inconceivable, not
to say absurd, that sense-consciousness should consist in the motion of
molecules of matter, or be a function of such molecules, it can hardly
be less absurd to account for thought, conscience, and religious
feeling and belief on any such hypothesis. It may be said that Mr.
Darwin is not responsible for these extreme opinions. That is very true.
Mr. Darwin is not a Monist, for in admitting