The materialist maintains that there is no substance in man, which is alone conscious, distinct and separable from the body; that matter is the only substance in existence; and that matter and its motions constitute the universe. (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3658.) This work, on the same page quotes J. Fisk (Evolutionist, p. 277) as saying that “Philosophical materialism holds that matter, and the motions of matter, make up the sum total of existence; and that what we know as psychical phenomena in man and other animals, are to be interpreted, in an ultimate analysis as simply the peculiar aspect, which is assumed by certain enormously complicated motions of matter.” (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3658) According to this view, if one should meet a friend, the sight of him would set certain atoms in his eyes and brain in motion; and these atoms would inform the Ego that the man is his friend, Smith or Jones. So, if one be required to find the square root of 3,600, his eyes or ears would see or hear the problem; and the sight or hearing of it would set certain atoms in motion; and by this motion they would ascertain that 60 is the square root required. But the theory is too absurd for discussion, in this place. I assume that every evolutionist is logically a materialist. Referring to “Man and the rest of the living world,” Huxley, (Man’s Place, etc., p. 151), says: “I can see no excuse for doubting that all are co-ordinated terms of nature’s great progression, from the formless to the formed--from the inorganic to the organic--from the blind force to conscious intellect and will.” So far as I know he does not mention the Creator nor the human soul in any of his works; but he strenuously maintains that man is a son of an ape; and believes that all the phenomena of life are the result of chemical and mechanical forces. Herbert Spencer does not use the word “God,” “Creator” nor “Soul” in the index to his Principles of Biology; but after discussing the theory of special creation at length, he says: “The hypothesis of special creation turns out to be worthless by its derivation; worthless in its incoherence; absolutely without evidence; worthless as not supplying an intellectual need, worthless as not supplying a moral want.” (Principles of Biology 1, p. 430.) This quotation is full of bosh and nonsense. For example: In the same book (pp. 415-416), referring to the hypothesis of special creation and to that of evolution, Spencer says: “Both hypotheses imply a cause. The last, certainly as much as the first, recognizes this cause as _inscrutable_. The point at issue is, how this inscrutable cause has worked, in the production of living forms. This point, if it is to be decided at all, is to be decided only by examination of evidence.” The word “inscrutable” is synonymous with “impenetrable,” “undiscoverable,” “incomprehensible,” “unsearchable,” “mysterious.” (Cent. Dic. 4, p. 3114.)