object of discovery is not obedience, but control. Every natural law that is ascertained gives us additional power over nature, inasmuch as it reveals the conditions necessary to the intelligent control of the forces of nature and to the progressive achievement of its conquest. This point is well illustrated by the progress and practical value of natural science. Why does science endeavor to achieve the discovery of natural laws in the physical world? Is it that we may regard ourselves as impotent in the presence of such laws? or that we may yield obedience to them to avoid punishment? or that we may stand aloof and allow the free and unrestricted operation of the physical forces of nature? or that we may talk learnedly of these laws as insuperable obstacles to improvement upon nature by the practical application of our intelligence? Certainly not! It is for the practical purpose of enabling man to direct the forces of nature, and for that alone. Knowledge is power. Newton's discovery of the law of gravitation has not discouraged the construction of sky-scrapers. It has merely shown the necessity of care that in such construction the center of gravity fall within the base. Instead of an obstacle to architectural achievement, the law of gravity, representing as it does the unfailing operation of a natural force, indicates the very condition of success.
The case is not different when we pass from the physical to the biological or social world. Those who think that a biological or social law of nature presents opposition to intelligent efforts to bring about biological or social progress have only to consider the daily action of man for a conclusive confutation of their view. We may take an example from the field of agriculture.
It is a well-known fact that Indian corn (Zea Mays) is descended from a grass not now found in a wild state, but undoubtedly very unlike the corn of to-day. Now the discoverer of this grass, if he had entertained the idea of natural law that seems to be prevalent to-day, would have said:
This grass has attained its present development through the operation of natural forces, and in accordance with the law of the survival of the fittest. If I should attempt to further its development by any sort of effort, I should be acting contrary to a law of nature and must therefore inevitably fail.
But he did no such thing. He simply provided conditions under which, through the very operation of this law of the survival of the fittest, a better and better type of corn was produced. Why should we not do the same thing to insure the progress of nations in the direction of peace? The conditions of peace will assure a peaceful type of nation, just as the appropriate environment will produce a better type of corn. What essential difference is there between the mode of producing a "culti-
