116 J.J. Haldane
This is improbable, even granting naturalism, and if my earlier argu-
ments against materialism are right it is entirely inexplicable on that basis.
I reasoned that there cannot be an evolutionary account of conceptual powers;
but even if there could be, that would not account for our having the kinds
of concepts we do, ones that go beyond practical utility and so cannot be
explained in terms of adaptive value. One might here appeal to the fact
I mentioned earlier, namely that present day biologists do not claim that
every significant characteristic is an evolutionary adaptation. That, however,
is a move away from the possibility of giving a natural explanation of the
harmony of thought and world. It would be within the power of an intelli-
gent creator to effect such a harmony, and indeed there would be something
fitting in creating a universe that had within it the power of its own under-
standing which is what in one sense empirical knowledge involves. I offer this
as one interpretation of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic idea that a human being
is made in the image, indeed is an image, of God (imago Dei). The hypo-
thesis of theism explains the existence of an orderly universe, of rational animals
and of the harmony of thought and world. Scientific materialism explains
none of these things.
6 The Cause of Things
A few years ago, in keeping with general developments throughout the
British education system, the University of St Andrews decided to introduce
a staff appraisal scheme. This was to involve a system of ‘progress review’
according to which every member of the university would periodically be
reviewed by a colleague. A draft was circulated setting out the various
arrangements for the introduction of the proposed scheme. It included a
section on the role and responsibilities of reviewers, from which I quote:
The reviews of colleagues who have not been reviewed previously but are to
act as reviewers will also have to be arranged... so that all reviewers can be
reviewed before they review others.The well-intentioned point was that no staff should act as reviewers who had
not themselves already been subject to the review process. Additionally the
system was to be self-contained: no one’s reviewed status could result from
having been reviewed outwith the university. At the time this document
appeared I was acting as an occasional cartoonist for the university newsletter
and it seemed that this was an opportunity that ought not to be missed. The
cartoon reprinted here brings out the problem that had been overlooked in
the drafting. If no one could conduct a review unless and until he or she had