conform to the facts, and did not follow from any relation of the
facts."

Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest in the struggle
for existence, as an explanation of the origin of species, was
from observation and experience. It was based on observed facts.
But Darwin was an evolutionist--a disciple of Lamarck. He held
the Key. He used the Key. The value of Darwin's work does not
lie in his discovering that some bugs have been derived from
other bugs and that the intermediate bugs have died off. Its
overwhelming value to mankind was in showing that work on the
theory of evolution was correct work and that the theory was
true. When the intuition of man points out the way the reason of
man can follow the path and macadam the road. It usually does
and claims all the credit for itself as the original discoverer.

This knowledge through intuition is absolute and exact. It is
not relatively true. It is absolutely and invariably true. No
additional facts will ever modify it, or require a restatement.

When Sir William Hamilton based his Logic on the dictum that "All
knowledge is relative, and only relatively true," the proposition
was self-evidently false. It was in itself a statement of
absolute knowledge about a certain thing. It was in itself
knowledge that was not relative. All knowledge could not be
relative if this knowledge was not. This knowledge could not
be either absolute or relative without upsetting his whole
proposition, for, if relative, then it was not always true;
and if absolute, then it was never true.