The Creator, and what we may know of the method of creation — Story, Setting & Ideas
Edition facts
For The Creator, and what we may know of the method of creation — Story, Setting & Ideas, the stored edition analysis reports 29,073 words, 2 hr 7 min estimated reading time, and 5 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 21.7 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Religion and science,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation.’[7]
Here, then, are the factors of the potential universe. By definition they are the sole structural essentials. Beyond them nothing should be asked, required, or assumed. What are these irreducible factors of the formula? ‘Matter’ and ‘motion.’ But we have clearly seen that we are cognizant of matter as such only by its ‘modes of motion’. It is _these_ for which evolution has to account. ‘Matter’ denuded of the qualities by which we now are cognizant of it, can be no other than dimensions without qualities, spatial presence undiscoverable by sense.
On the other hand, pure motion, motion by itself, is impossible to thought. Motion is only known as an affection of matter. ‘It becomes manifest,’ says Spencer, ‘that our experience of _force_ is that out of which our idea of matter is built’.[8] But, in the terms of the formula, force can be nothing but matter affected by motion. What, then, was this primary matter on which motion first acted, and before motion had by various ‘modes’ produced in it a single quality? No answer is possible; but, nevertheless, as the philosophy unfolds itself we find that ‘we need not refrain ... from dealing with matter as made up of extended and resistant atoms,’[9] and henceforth we are led to consider the cosmic nebula as not only homogeneous, but as being, in its homogeneity, atomic.
[Footnote 7: _First Principles_, p. 396.]
[Footnote 8: _First Principles_, p. 167.]
[Footnote 9: _First Principles_, p. 176.]
No lover of physical and chemical science can do other than profoundly admire the atomic theory of modern physics. But there is no sound physicist or chemist but is sufficiently alive to its difficulties to know that in every form in which it has been presented, it is, to say no more, tentative and hypothetic. In Mr. Spencer’s philosophy it becomes a fundamental fact of the beginning. But the existence of atoms being granted, how did they arise? ‘If you ask the materialist,’ says Professor Tyndall, ‘whence is this matter ... who or what divided it into molecules ... he has no answer.’[10] So that here, in spite of the claim made, no philosophy can be ‘complete;’ and even the doctrine of an eternally automatic evolution is philosophically inadequate.
But these atoms of the primordial haze are ‘resistant;’ such a quality can only result from a special affection of matter by motion; whence came or how arose such an affection of matter? Its existence in the atoms of the nebula inevitably implies ‘preceding history,’ but it is not given; and this pregnant atomic haze is, so far as we can see, without colour, without chemical affinity or reaction, without light, electricity, or magnetism, and devoid of all cohesion.
Clearly, these are not the atoms of the chemical elements known to us. They are not the atoms of Dalton nor of Clark Maxwell. The atoms of the cosmic mist are, by the very terms of the formula, naked of quality; and, by the limiting conditions of the definition of the cloud as homogeneous, are, throughout all the abysms of space, alike in size, in shape, and in motions. Equal extensions of space moving at equal rates.
[Footnote 10: _Fragments of Science_, vol. ii. p. 396.]
By these conditions, then, it is manifest that primordial matter is in itself infinitely powerless and inert. Motion can affect it; but can there be motion of any _new_ kind originated without a power to cause it? If that can be, the fundamental acts of human reason are untrustworthy; and man is incapable of knowledge or deduction, which is absurd. Then what was the power that determined new motions in the primordial homogeneous matter?
It could not by any demand in the formula be even gravity, if that were competent. Modern thought and knowledge cannot allow gravitation to be a property of matter. Ether is matter, but it does not gravitate. Gravity is therefore an occult affection of matter by motion, that has a history ‘to be accounted for.’
W. H. Dallinger, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Wesleyan minister, delivered this 1887 Fernley Lecture as a direct response to the materialist philosophies gaining traction in Victorian science. The lecture is structured as a sustained argument that the existence of mind—consciousness, identity, and volition—cannot be explained by matter and motion alone. Dallinger engages critically with David Hume, Auguste Comte, and Herbert Spencer, aiming to show that their systems fail to account for the persistent self that underlies all experience.
The text is not a scientific treatise but a philosophical and theological discourse, written for 'thoughtful and earnest minds' occupied with daily work. Dallinger insists that when we uncover the laws of nature, we are 'finding, and expressing, the thoughts of' a Creator. The lecture thus positions itself as a defense of theism grounded in the limitations of materialist reasoning.
The Persistent Self Against Materialist Formulas
Dallinger’s central argument turns on the irreducibility of the self. He writes that consciousness affirms our personality and insists on our identity, calling the Ego 'the hidden thread of unity on which are strung all the past and present states of consciousness and thought.' This claim is directed against any philosophy that would reduce mental life to a series of discrete states. He quotes Herbert Spencer’s admission that there is a 'permanent nexus' holding states together, but argues that Spencer’s own system cannot accommodate it.
The lecture repeatedly presses the point that materialist accounts of mind are self-defeating: 'If I deny the separate existence of the Ego, I to all intents and purposes deny that I am, and yet it is I that am there, perjuring myself by the denial.' This rhetorical strategy—turning the materialist’s language back on itself—is a hallmark of Dallinger’s method. He notes that 'the personal pronouns are as plentiful in the language of modern materialists as in the language of sentiment or theology,' and asks what those pronouns represent if not a real, enduring subject.
Hume, Comte, and the Limits of Causality
Dallinger opens by acknowledging the force of Hume’s critique of causality, which aimed to replace cause with 'invariable sequence.' He also references Comte’s effort to 'get rid of the vain pretence' of metaphysical explanation. Yet the lecture argues that these philosophical moves do not eliminate the need for a cause of mind. Dallinger contends that to affirm mind does not exist is impossible, and to affirm that matter gave origin to mind is a contradiction.
The argument proceeds by examining the Spencerian philosophy, which Dallinger says promised to explain everything through matter, motion, and time, but then introduced a 'permanent somewhat' outside its formula. This, he charges, is an abandonment of the materialist project: 'the promise of this philosophy is unfulfilled, its pledge is broken.' The lecture thus positions itself as an internal critique, showing that the most sophisticated materialist system of the day cannot sustain itself without smuggling in the very mind it denies.
The Alternative: Mind as First Cause
Having argued that matter cannot produce mind, Dallinger presents his alternative: 'in the beginning, mind, acting through and in matter, by immutable and perfect modes, through unmeasured time, caused matter to assume its forms and display its phenomena.' This is not a detailed account of creation but a philosophical conclusion drawn from the failure of materialism. He adds that mind is 'imparted to the universe wherever it is found,' culminating in human moral and intellectual nature.
The lecture’s closing movement is notable for its restraint: Dallinger does not attempt to describe the method of creation in detail. Instead, he insists that the ultimate demand of thought, reason, and consciousness is that when we generalize the order of nature, we are 'finding, and expressing, the thoughts of' a Creator. This formulation allows him to affirm both scientific inquiry and theistic belief, without conflating the two. The lecture thus ends with a call to see natural law as an expression of divine intelligence.
Readers should approach this lecture as a period piece in the Victorian debate between science and religion, but one that engages specific philosophical opponents rather than offering general piety. Dallinger’s arguments are tightly focused on the problem of consciousness and the self, and his critique of Spencer is particularly detailed. Those interested in the history of philosophy of mind, or in nineteenth-century attempts to reconcile evolution with theism, will find this a concise and pointed contribution. The lecture’s brevity—originally spoken, then expanded slightly for print—makes it accessible, but its reasoning rewards careful attention.
I keep thinking about Dallinger's quiet insistence that mind isn't just matter, and how that same wondering led me toward the old Egyptian texts. There's a gentleness in how they saw the soul continuing, not as proof, but as comfort. That companion volume, Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life — Reading Companion, felt like sitting with an old friend who simply believes without needing to argue.
Henry Baker
1 month ago-
Dillon Darlene Nash - 1 month ago
A profound and thought-provoking exploration of creation from a theistic perspective. The author skillfully integrates scientific knowledge with theological reflection, offering a coherent vision of how God might have created the universe. The writing is clear and engaging, making complex ideas accessible. Highly recommended for anyone interested in science and religion. -
Nicole Stephens - 1 month ago
This book presents an interesting argument about the methods of creation, blending philosophy and theology. The author's ideas are original, but the book occasionally becomes overly technical. Nevertheless, it offers a fresh perspective that will appeal to readers with a background in philosophy or theology. -
Joseph Edwards - 2 weeks ago
The author's speculations are largely unsubstantiated and rely on personal belief rather than evidence. The book fails to engage with modern scientific consensus, and the arguments are often circular. For a more rigorous examination of cosmic origins, one would do better to consult works by scientists or philosophers who respect empirical data.
How will you remember this book?
Save your reaction, strongest insight, and memorable passage.
Grayson Hernandez
2 weeks ago