In this section McCosh is using Herbert Spencer's ideas of the "survival of the fittest" theology regarding social evolution to further point out the existence of God. Essentially comparing social Darwinism to the good and evil notated in the Bible of religious philosophy. Spencer's version of good and evil is based on the "winning side" of genetics, but who decides who wins the genetic or social lottery? Again, highlighting evolutionary theory cannot account for the origins of any genetic benefit, just that they exist or rather evolve. Some benefit while others do not, that is the way of evolution according to Spencer. Some are chosen and some are not, McCosh is saying who is doing the choosing of those that benefit and those that don't? That is what he is punctuating when he says, "and this is not an unknown God as Herbert Spencer maintains, but a known God." McCosh has found a way to insert religious philosophy in every argument of evolutionary theory that seeks to preclude it. (Goodwin, 2015, pp 188-189 & Stewart, 2011, pp 390-394)

This last line is referring to the story of Jesus and the few sentences regarding the mother and son scenario are discussing the duality of life - on Earth and life beyond Earth (Heaven). It is through the story of Jesus, hanging on the cross and then rising again that McCosh is saying only He knows the true history and evolution of the Earth and humankind. Again, I believe the intention is to reaffirm that the truth of life of all species is primarily through the supreme deity, and science is merely a tangible explanation of how we've evolved. The literal process, but that it is not the true source of our evolution, God is. His continued influence is what we see as the evolution of our species and that of other species of life and sentient objects. How does one explain the rising of Jesus after death with evolutionary theory, therefore there are flaws which cannot and were not answered by Darwin or his constituents and counterparts. They did not account for the complex nature of human development. In fact, previously in the article he states Darwin only explains the developments of these higher processes by 'overlooking their essential peculiarities." This is McCosh's final statement driving his point home, without religion, without God, there is no evolutionary theory.

The point of this essay is quite clearly an analysis of evolutionary theory, but its main goal is to bridge the gap between religious philosophers and science. McCosh very clearly saw the truths of the theory of evolution, and he could predict a decline in religious participation if religious philosophers were to flat out deny its truths. He saw that within the theory itself he could point out the flaws and also account for the Prescence of God as the ultimate source. The original source, the watchmaker if you will. He, for the benefit of his fellow philosophers and for truths of evolutionary theory decided to show their interconnected nature. He saw the importance of science but also showed the importance of religion. He was able to bring these to ideas together and unite them for the good of all. In this way, he was a pioneer of the time as both a thoughtful philosopher and studious scientist. In sum, McCosh and this essay are important to the history of psychology because he was able to merge evolutionary theory with religious philosophy and he did so by pointing out the flaws of evolutionary theory. Thus, assisting in paving the way for the theory of evolution as we understand and explore it today.

In this section, it appears McCosh is poking fun, discounting the aggressiveness of religious naysayers like that of Thomas Huxley who was considered "Darwin's bulldog" when arguing in favor of evolutionary theory and science to understanding the creation of the world. He's saying even after all their labor (years of research) concerning evolution, they are still left with one unknowable truth, who created the first germs of life, or rather how were the first germs of life created. Evolutionary theorists could not explain the origin of their origin story of evolution and McCosh is highlighting this here in this excerpt (Goodwin, 2015, p137 & Goslee, 2004 pp138-145).

These examples and the ones McCosh states in the sentences prior are his examples of the symbiotic relationship of religion (God) and science. I understood the reference of the young bird crying from wandering to far from the nest as the scientists who seek to understand the formation and creation of the universe. In this case evolutionary theory is the cry for help - looking for answers, a way back to the nest. The mother who hears the call of her young bird calls back (God) to bring the wandering bird some peace back under her wing. In a sense, the evolutionary theory is the young bird, and the mother bird is God. Both religion and evolutionary theory bring forth surety that there is indeed a supreme being who at the very least created the beginning organisms and maintains a hand in the evolution of each species.

McCosh is acknowledging that there is still tension between religion and science. That, the two don't see eye to eye on everything, namely that there is no God and science can explain everything about the world. That there are flaws in evolutionary theory that can only be accounted for by religion, the presence of a supreme deity. However, there is enough truth to evolutionary theory that it intersects with religion to answer some of the how and why of life and the development of species.

McCosh lists a variety of human behaviors, traits, and sensations that are unanswered by Darwin's theory as a means to highlight the flaws. To provide room for the religious doctrine, and innate qualities. He also highlights the fact that Darwin's theories are heavily inspired and influenced by animals, and that the habits and observations of animals are hardly relatable to the human species. That humans are far more complex than animals and therefore the scope of which his theories apply to humans should be carefully calculated.

McCosh is placating and accurately accounting for the flaws in Darwin's evolutionary theory. He is essentially telling his reader, we can't condemn evolutionary theory and pretend that there is not truth, but we must also be weary of arrogance in the scientific community. A new development in one area of science does not answer all the world's questions He states even if Darwin and his followers are able to argue the truth of evolutionary theory, they still cannot account for the first few cells of life. To this end, a supreme being (God in this case) is the true creator of life forms, and only after then can "doctrine of development" apply as true.

McCosh, is quite literally saying to his fellow religious philosophers that they shouldn't bother telling the naturalist youth that "the doctrine of development," evolutionary theory is false because they will recognize the truth in it. By condemning what is true, they will create a dissent of the youth from religion. He is instead suggesting they show these young naturalists how religion is infused in the science. Instead of alienating religious followers by denying science, McCosh is saying to embrace it and merge it into religious doctrine.

This section of his essay is furthering his point. McCosh is attempting to reassure the religious community not to fear science. Not to look at Darwin's theories as challenging the belief of God, but rather highlighting God's ability to create, and that scientists like Darwin are simply explaining God's creations to us, they are answering our questions of how the human species has come to be as it is now. McCosh is attempting to merge science and religion rather than making them enemies of one another.

He is somewhat affirming evolutionary theory with this line. "There is progression -- but progression like that of the ship on the ocean, amid winds and ways. Essentially, evolution is both complex and slow, it is not easy and fast. It seems McCosh understood that much of Darwin's theories are and would prove credible through his work with animals (Galapagos Islands), studying the works of others who work with animals (pigeon breeding), and his observations of animals (finches). He was knowledgeable enough to know they didn't account for every truth about the human species. Thus, he infused religious speak with scientific reasoning.

To my understanding, McCosh is announcing that the science and theology of evolution as proposed by Darwin is undeniably true. He has no choice but to accept the facts, but it is not the full story is the implication in the statements that follow.

Again, I think McCosh is highlighting that all of these scientific men in varying fields have found answers to certain questions we have about the universe and ourselves. They may have uncovered some truths through the practice of research, experimentation, and other scientific tools, but they still cannot account for the larger aspect of their existence, who created them and how were they made from the start? Only a supreme being could be responsible. So, he's saying, yes some of what you're saying/ found, identified, uncovered is true, but it's not the entire truth. You still can't account for the innate, and there is where we find God.

This appears to be a reference to the work of Helmholz who spent a large amount of time investigating the physiology of audition and vision. In his book the Handbook of Physiological Optics was three volumes, and it was an extensive collection of his research on vision. He also invented the ophthalmoscope, which was capable of examining the retina, and among his great feats about vision was expanding a theory of color vision. His work with vision took place between the years 1858 and 1867, nearly a decade before this essay. Berkeley's work regarding the process of accommodation, and other scientists who discussed the innerworkings of the eye are what I believe McCosh is referencing here. He is giving credence to the science related to vision and the eye, its formation, adaptation, and capabilities. These things cannot be denied. But he also appears to be stating an equal position toward the school of thought of philosopher Thomas Aquinas - the existence of the eyes complexity and precision would require a being much more advanced than the human who is able to understand it's functions and innerworkings. Thus the "eye maker" is the supreme being, a scientist cannot account for the creation of the eye itself but understanding how the eye functions can be accounted for and understood through the experimentation of scientists. It's the naturalist view that the mind is not a blank slate but rather a system with natural processes that we build upon. We may be able to heal the eye, but we did not create the eye is another aspect of this sentence. Additionally, we may have evolved as a species improving genetical with each new generation, but the original source of our species cannot be related to science (Goodwin, 2015). This is my interpretation of this few sentences. A sort of relenting to certain aspects of Darwin's and other scientists' theories and experiments but still highlighting the nativist or rationalist ideas, specifically innate ideas. That we have them the ideas of God, the self, and a few basic mathematical truths are examples of innate ideas. (Goodwin, 2015 pp. 45, 52, 70, 75-78, 127, & 128)