But this hypothesis, equally unphilosophical and irreligious, is not and never has been maintained by the great body of Inductive inquirers, who see no contradiction either between the established order of Nature and the supposition of its Divine origin, or between the operation of natural laws and the recognition of a supreme, superintending Providence.

Nor should it be forgotten, in this connection, that the evidence in favor of Theism depends not so much on _the mere laws_ as on _the dispositions and adjustments_ that are observable in Nature.[81] There is, therefore, no historical proof to establish the supposed law of human development, and no rational ground to expect that the progress of Inductive Science will ever supplant or supersede Theology.

It is true that Theology, although a distinct and independent science, is so comprehensive in its range that it gathers its proofs and illustrations from _every_ department of Nature, and that, were it excluded from any one of these, it might, for the same reason, be excluded from all the rest; but it is not true that there is any real or necessary antagonism between the laws of Nature and the prerogatives of God.

On the contrary, let our knowledge advance until _all_ the phenomena both of the Material and Moral worlds shall be reduced under so many general laws, even then Superstition might disappear, but Theology would remain, and would only receive fresh accessions of evidence and strength, in proportion as the wise order of Nature is more fully unfolded, and its most hidden mysteries disclosed.
We scarcely know whether it is needful to advert at all to the argument in favor of his theory which M.Comte founds on _the analogy of individual experience_.

It is a transparent fallacy.