[32]. The self-evolution of General Laws, or the objective aspect of the question as to whether we may infer the presence of Mind in Nature because Nature admits of being intelligently interrogated.
[33]. The subjective aspect of this question, according to the data afforded by evolutionary psychology.
[34]. Correspondence between products due to human intelligence and products supposed due to Divine Intelligence, a correspondence which is only generic. Illustrations drawn from prodigality in Nature. Further illustrations. Illogical manner in which natural theologians deal with such difficulties. The generic resemblance contemplated is just what we should expect to find, if the doctrine of evolutionary psychology be true.
[35]. The last three sections parenthetical. Necessary nature of the conclusion which follows from the last five sections.
[CHAPTER V].
THE LOGICAL STANDING OF THE QUESTION AS TO THE BEING OF A GOD.
[36]. Emphatic re-statement of the conclusion reached in the previous chapter. This conclusion shown to be of merely scientific, and not of logical conclusiveness. Preparation for considering the question in its purely logical form.
[37]. The logic of probability in general explained, and canon of interpretation enunciated.
[38]. Application of this canon to the particular case of Theism.
[39]. Exposition of the logical state of the question.