indeed, all persons whose ideas on such matters are abreast of the
times--perceive plainly enough that a religious explanation of any
natural phenomenon is, from a scientific point of view, no explanation
at all. For a religious explanation consists in referring the observed
phenomenon to the First Cause--i.e. to merge that particular phenomenon
in the general or final mystery of things. A scientific explanation, on
the other hand, consists in referring the observed phenomenon to its
physical causes, and in no case can such an explanation entertain the
hypothesis of a final cause without abandoning its character as a
scientific explanation. For example, if a child brings me a flower and
asks why it has such a curious form, bright colour, sweet perfume, and
so on, and if I answer, Because God made it so, I am not really
answering the child's question: I am merely concealing my ignorance of
Nature under a guise of piety, and excusing my indolence in the study of
botany. It was the appreciation of this fact that led Mr. Darwin to
observe in his _Origin of Species_ that the theory of creation does not
serve to explain any of the facts with which it is concerned, but merely
re-states these facts as they are observed to occur. That is to say, by
thus merging the facts as observed into the final mystery of things, we
are not even attempting to explain them in any scientific sense: for it
would be obviously possible to get rid of the necessity of thus
explaining any natural phenomenon whatsoever by referring it to the
immediate causal action of the Deity. If any phenomenon were actually
to occur which did proceed from the immediate causal action of the
Deity, then _ex hypothesi_, there would be no physical causes to
investigate, and the occupation of Othello, in the person of a man of
science, would be gone. Such a phenomenon would be miraculous, and
therefore from its very nature beyond the reach of scientific
investigation.