on sure ground." The author has a careful note on the word creation (p.
5), "the production of something new out of nothing," under which
definition it is abundantly clear that energy, whilst it may be
_productive_, cannot be _creative_. In fact, nothing can be _creative_
in any definite and rigid sense, save a _Creator_ Who existed from all
eternity and from Whom all things arose. One more instance of loose
argumentation, and we can turn to the main purport of the book. It is a
link in the author's "chain" which cannot be passed without examination.
Everybody is familiar with the method of proof by elimination. We set
down every possible explanation of a certain occurrence; we rule out one
after the other until but one is left. If we really have set down all
the possible explanations, and if we are quite clear as to the fact that
all those which have been excluded are legitimately put out of court,
then the one remaining explanation must be the true one. It is a method
of proof which has frequently been applied to the vitalistic problem,
and with the greatest effect, as it is admitted by some of those who
would greatly like to find a materialistic explanation for that problem
(cf. _The Philosophy of Biology_, Johnstone, p. 319).
Let us see how our author employs it. What, he asks, is "the internal
moving principle" in living substance? And he replies: "We may first
exclude the possibility that it acts either through supernatural or
teleological interposition through an externally creative power." Very
well! Philosophers tell us that we can assume any position we choose for
the purposes of our argument, but that ultimately we must prove that
assumption or admit ourselves beaten. We look anxiously for the proof of
the assumption made by our author, but absolutely no attempt is made to
give one. We must be pardoned, therefore, if we hesitate to accept such
an important statement on his mere _ipse dixit_. We pass on to the next
elimination: "Although its visible results are in a high degree
purposeful, we may also exclude as unscientific the vitalistic theory of
an _entelechy_[37] or any other form of internal perfecting agency
distinct from known or unknown physio-chemical energies." Why
"unscientific"? Numbers of high authorities have not thought it so; and
in quite recent years such eminent writers as Driesch and McDougal have
written erudite works to prove this "unscientific" hypothesis. Is there
any proof brought forward for _this_ assertion and its corresponding
elimination?
Let us continue the quotation: "Since certain forms of adaptation which
were formerly mysterious can now be explained without the assumption of
an entelechy we are encouraged to hope that all forms may be thus
explained." The author does not tell us what the mysterious adaptations
are, nor does he offer us the explanations which, in his opinion,
explain them. We cannot, therefore, criticise his views, and can only
remind his readers that, because an explanation plausibly explains an
occurrence, it is by no means always therefore certain to be the true
explanation; it may, indeed, be wholly false.
Further, those who have been wandering for the past half-century in the
fields of science have become a little wearied of "explanations,"
vaunted, for periods of five or ten years, as the key to open all locks,
and then cast into the furnace. What the author would seem to mean by
his statement is this: "I am convinced myself that we can do without a
'supernatural' explanation, and I regard as 'unscientific' any
explanation which cannot be put to the test of chemistry and physics;
hence I must shut the door on anything like an _entelechy_, and, that
being so, it behoves me to look for some other explanation." Of course,
we are putting these words into the mouth of our author; if we were
dealing with the matter ourselves we should be inclined to argue that,
by the eliminatory method, chemistry and physics do prove, or do help to
prove, the existence of an entelechy.
With these expostulations we may turn to the writer's pronouncements on
the vitalistic question which seem to us to be worthy of serious
consideration. Everybody knows that there are two very diverse opinions
on this topic; the one that there is, the other that there is not
something more--a _plus_--in living than there is in not-living
objects. In other words, that there is a difference of kind, and not
merely of degree, between a stone and a sparrow. Hence the schools of
thought called vitalistic and mechanistic. To most persons it has up to
now seemed impossible that there could be a third school; we appeared to
be confronted with what the logicians call a Dichotomy. Professor Osborn
seems to us to think otherwise, though he is not wholly clear on this
matter. If we are to "reject the vitalistic hypotheses of the ancient
Greeks, and the modern vitalism of Driesch, of Bergson, and of others,"
and if, on the other hand, we are to view, as he thinks we must, the
cosmos as one of "limitless and _ordered_ energy"--we have emphasised
the word "_ordered_" for reasons which will shortly appear--we must
clearly look out for some middle way. "_Ordered_," a purely mechanistic
and materialistically realised cosmos cannot be. "_Ordered_" conditions
are determined by what we agree to call "Laws"; and these, as all must
admit, entail a Lawgiver.
The alternative is Blind Chance; and the author, after considering the
question, agrees, as again most reasonable persons will agree, that
Blind Chance is no explanation of things as they are. He quotes a modern
chemist who, discussing the probability of the environmental fitness of
the earth for life being a mere chance process, remarks: "There is, in
truth, not one chance in countless millions of millions that the many
unique properties of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and especially of
their stable compounds, water and carbonic acid, which chiefly make up
the atmosphere of a new planet, should simultaneously occur in the three
elements otherwise than through the operation of a natural law which
somehow connects them together. There is no greater probability that
these unique properties should be without due cause uniquely favourable
to the organic mechanism" (J. J. Henderson, 1913).
If neither of the classic points of view is tenable, what then is the
explanation, if, indeed, any be possible? The author casts one brief
glance down that blind-alley marked "Element Way." Does some known
element or some unknown element, to which the name _Bion_ might be
given, exist and form the source of the energy in living things? Radium
has only been known to us for a few years; can we say that there is no
such thing as Bion? Of course we cannot; but this we can say, that, if
there is such an element and if it is really responsible for all the
protean manifestations of life, wonderful as radium and its doings are,
they must sink into nothingness beside those of this new and unsuspected
entity. The author evidently does not think that this path is a
profitable one to pursue, and we agree with him; so he turns his
attention to the question of energy. Energy is the capacity for doing
work. It is often, of course, latent, as, for example, in a cordite
cartridge, which is a peaceful, harmless thing until the energy stored
up in it is realised with the accompanying explosion and work is done.
It is the same with a bent spring; a clock-weight when the clock is not
going, and so on.
We need not develop this matter further; but one point must be alluded
to, namely, the gradual exhaustion of the available energy in the
changes from one manifestation to another. In all physical processes
heat is evolved, which heat is distributed by conduction and radiation
and tends to become universally diffused throughout space. When complete
uniformity has been attained, all physical phenomena will come to an
end; in other words, our solar system must come to an end, and it must
have had a beginning. It is a well-known argument. Is there anything to
rewind the clock which is running down before our very eyes? It was once
urged that stellar collisions, and such-like things, might permit us to
postulate a cyclical arrangement (and thus rearrangement) of universal
phenomena; but that hypothesis does not seem to find any supporters
to-day.
In his interesting book, already mentioned, Dr. Johnstone called
attention to the power possessed by living matter of reversing the
process; but no reversal of this kind and extent can make up for the
constant degradation of energy which is taking place all round us. We
mention this because it shows that "energy" cannot, in any case, afford
an eternal solution, but only a temporal and therefore a limited one. No
one doubts that there is energy in the living thing, nor that there are
what the author calls "complexes of energies." No one, again, will
quarrel with the statement that energy is first seen in the sun, in the
earth, in the air, and in the water; that "with life something new
appears in the universe, namely, a union of the internal and external
adjustment of energy which we appropriately call an _Organism_." That
"the germ is an energy complex" is no doubt an unproved hypothesis, as
he admits, but is quite likely. With all these assertions we may agree,
though we cannot with that which follows, namely, that energy is
creative, for that such is impossible in any true sense of that word we
have already tried to show.
We have now to ask ourselves in what way this energy conception of life
differs from, or goes beyond, the two theories of life--mechanistic and
vitalistic, which have hitherto been supposed to have exhausted the
possibilities of explanation. In order to do this we must analyse the
author's idea of energy and its relationship to biological processes a
little more closely. He begins his study of life and its evolution by
considering how nutrition and the derivation of energy can have taken
place before chlorophyl had come into existence; and he very pertinently
points to the _prototrophic_ bacteria as probably representing "the
survival of a primordial stage of life chemistry." Thus a "primitive
feeder," the bacterium _Nitrosomonas_, "for combustion ... takes in
oxygen directly through the intermediate action of iron, phosphorus or
manganese, each of the single cells being a powerful little chemical
laboratory which contains oxidising catalysers, the activity of which
is accelerated by the presence of iron and manganese. Still, in the
primordial stage, _Nitrosomonas_ lives on ammonium sulphate, taking its
energy (food) from the nitrogen of ammonium and forming nitrates. Living
symbiotically with it is _Nitrobacter_, which takes its energy (food)
from the nitrates formed by _Nitrosomonas_, oxidising them into
nitrates. Thus these two species illustrate in its simplest form our law
of the _interaction of an organism_ (_Nitrobacter_) _with its life
environment_ (_Nitrosomonas_)" (p. 82, author's italics).
Once one has got to this stage, it is _ex hypothesi_ easy to ascend
through the vegetable and animal worlds and to formulate the various
laws which appear to have shaped the evolution of life and of species.
We are then "within the system," but to arrive at anything worthy of the
name of an explanation we have first to _get_ within the system. Even
then there remains over the task of explaining how the system comes to
be there to get inside of. The writer talks of his example as "the
simplest form." Yet, in his own words, it is a "_powerful little
chemical laboratory_," well stocked with catalysers and other potent
means for carrying on its work. "Simple"! Well, no doubt comparatively
simple, but in reality complex almost beyond the power of words to
describe. "A chemical laboratory"! Yes; and one which performs most
delicate operations. "Well stocked with catalysers"! And what are they?
Most wonderful things which induce change without themselves undergoing
any; discoveries of quite recent date as to which we still know but
little. "Simple" seems hardly the word to apply, save in strict relation
to other and higher forms. How did this laboratory come into existence?
In what way did it learn to do its work? How did catalysers come to be?
Was all this mere chance-medley? It is Paley's example of the watch
found on the heath once more. Does it help us in any way to talk about
"energy" and "complexes" of energy and "the creative force of energy"?
To us it does not seem to advance matters one little bit. Either these
operations of _Nitrosomonas_ are determined or they are not; either they
are the result of a law or they are the result of blind chance; in
either case the energy which is involved must act according to the
conditions ordered or not ordered. In other words: if it is the dominant
factor, as the writer would lead us to suppose; if there is "direction,"
then the action of energy must be directive; and, if it is directive, in
what possible way does it differ, save in name, from the old _entelechy_
or _vital principle_, or whatever else one may choose to call it? On the
other hand, if there is no such a thing as direction, if everything
happens by chance, if the mechanistic theory is right, how does energy
save us from complete surrender to that theory?
From all this it would appear that whilst energy is constantly being
exhibited (and in all sorts of manifestations) by the living object,
that does not explain anything, since it does not explain how energy
originally came to be, nor how it came to work under the laws which
seem to govern it. It is one more added to the long list of
"explanations," which hopelessly break down because those who have put
them forward have never apparently applied themselves to the task of
grasping the important difference between a final and an intermediate
cause.
Let us sum up this part of our author's teaching in the light of this
distinction. The organism is a material complex, and all sorts of
actions and reactions take place in it. They are subject to the laws of
physics, and notably to those relating to energy and its
transformations. It has internal energies which must be adjusted to one
another and not less to those around it; that is to say, it must be more
or less in harmony with its environment. There are the problems of
germ-plasm, and its transmission; the effect on it, if any, of the body,
and the reaction of the body to its environment. There are also the
catalysers of which we have spoken, with many problems associated with
them, and throwing a possible and unexpected light on the vexed question
of Vitalism and the Conservation of Energy. There are all these things,
manifestations of energy; there is the watch, and it is going. But, as
we remarked elsewhere, the fact that we have learned that the resiliency
of the spring in the watch makes it "go" does not exhaust the
explanation of the watch any more than the fact that we know something
of the actions and reactions of energy in the organism exhausts its
explanation. The watch is "going"; so is the organism. Each of them, in
a sense, is a "wonderful little laboratory" in which manifestations of
energy are constantly taking place. The watchmaker constructed the watch
for that purpose; who or what constructed the organism? Darwin and the
Darwinians would have said--Natural Selection. In fact, Darwin rather
lamented that "the old argument from design in nature, as given by
Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails now that
the law of Natural Selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue
that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have
been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man.
There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings,
and in the action of Natural Selection, than in the course which the
wind blows." There again Darwin fell into a mistake, because he confused
an intermediate with a final cause. Even if Natural Selection were all
that the most ultra-Darwinian could claim it to be, it could not, as
Driesch and others have shown, exhaust the explanation of the organism.
As a matter of fact the world of science is very far from thinking of
Natural Selection as anything more than a factor, perhaps even a minor
factor, in evolution. The author of the work with which we are dealing
tells us that "Darwin's law of selection as a natural explanation of the
origin of _all_ fitness in form and function has lost its prestige at
the present time, and all of Darwinism which now meets with universal
acceptance is the _law of the survival of the fittest_, a limited
application of Darwin's great idea as expressed by Herbert Spencer." But
let that pass. In another place the author makes it clear that the
explanations of to-day, including his own, do _not_ exhaust the subject,
for he says "it is incumbent on us to discover the _cause_ of the
orderly origin of every character. The nature of such a law we cannot
even dream of at present, for the causes of the majority of vertebrate
adaptations remain wholly unknown." In any case we must account for
Natural Selection; for if it is a Law--as some doubt--it must have had a
Lawgiver. The watch must have been an Idea in some one's mind before it
became an accomplished fact, and Natural Selection or any other "Law of
Nature" must--unless all reason is nonsense and all nonsense
reason--also have been an Idea before it became a factor. Whose Idea?
Our author does not help us to answer this question. On the contrary--he
tries to set an unclimbable fence in the way of any answer by telling
us, though without any convincing argument to support his statement,
that we may "exclude the possibility that it" [the internal moving
principle] "acts either through supernatural or teleological
interposition through an externally creative power." But though he
refuses to allow us to look in this direction for a solution of our
difficulties, it must be confessed that he does not help us with any
other answer satisfying the question of the origin and evolution of
Life.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 36: _The Origin and Evolution of Life; or, the Theory
of Action, Reaction, and Interaction of Energy._ By F. H.
Osborn. (G. Bell & Sons.)]
[Footnote 37: By _entelechy_--an Aristotelian term
re-introduced by Driesch--is meant an agency other than one of
a purely chemico-physical character, which differentiates
living from not-living substance, and is responsible for the
phenomenon of life.]
* * * * *
INDEX OF NAMES
Agassiz, 142
Allen, Grant, 85
Aquinas, St. Thomas, 60, 147, 153
Austen, Miss, 32
Avicenna, 153
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J., 116
Bassi, Laura, 155
Bateson, W., F.R.S., 4, 7, 11, 118, 150
Bax, Belfort, 37
Benson, Mgr., 84, 88, 94, 101
Bergson, 151, 166
Bernhardi, 20
Borden, Sir Robert, 122
Branco, 162
Buffon, 100
Butler, Samuel 44, 61
Chesterton, G. K., 113
Clodd, E., 86
Conklyn, 23
Cowper, 37
Crichton-Browne, 20
Cuvier, 142
Darwin, 116, 131, 150, 173
Devas, Mr. 27, 120
Dewar, Prof. Sir J., F.R.S., 113
Doyle, Sir A. C., 46, 51
Driesch, 4, 7, 24, 69, 164, 166, 173
Fallopius, 96, 144
Fielding, 31
Gosse, E., 39
Gosse, Philip, 98
Grant Allen, 85
Healy, Father--Tale of, 40
Henderson, J. J., 167
Henslow, 24
Hull, Fr. E., S.J., 103
Huxley, 74, 98, 101, 117
Johnson, Dr. 48, 161, 168
Joly, Prof., F.R.S., 110
Kelvin, Lord, 151
Lankester, 15
Lauder, Harry, 2
Leduc, 2, 62
Lodge, Sir O., 3, 85
Loeb, J,. 58, 62
Lucas, E. V., on the War, 47
Mcdougal, 164
Mahaffy, Sir John, 111
Marett, 15, 16
Masefield, 48
Mendel, 75, 135
Milton, 145
Mivart, Prof., 96
Needham, John Turberville, 154
Newman, 33, 38
Newton, The Rev. J., 38
Nietzsche, 19
Osborne, Prof., 160
Paley, 160
Pasteur, 157
Perkin, Prof. W. H., 107
Pouchet, 157
Priestley, 156
Redi, Francisco, 153
Richardson, 31
Rignano, 25, 62
Ryder, Dr., 51
Sabatier, 113
Schwann, Theodor, 157
Scott, Prof., 142
Scott, The Rev. Thomas, 38
Sedgwick, Adam, 162
Spallanzani, Lazaro, 155
Stensen, Nicolaus, 75, 97, 99
Tilden, Sir William, 64
Tyson, Edward, 77
Wasmann, 26, 150
Wells, H. G., 49
Whiffen, 20
GENERAL INDEX
Adam, 146
Adrenals, 63
"After-Christians," 120
Aggressive mimicry, 123
Albino race, An, 128
Amazonian Indians, 20
"Anatomie of a Pygmie," 77
Ancestral peculiarities, 133
Aniline dyes, 107
Arrangement, 8, 137
Bacteria, Prototrophic, 169
Badische Aniline Fabrik, 106, 109
Bathybius, 98
Bion, 167
Blind Chance, 166
Bondage of Knowledge, The, 84
Botanic Garden, 131
Breeding Committees, 119
Breeding True, 126
Bricks and Builders, 139
"Bugbear of Hell," 21, 119
Calvinism, 32
Cartesian idea of the soul, 69
Catalysts, 113, 170
Celibacy, 120
Cell-Theory, The, 157
Chance-Medley, 134
Chromatin, 130
Colloids, 62
"Continuity," 46
Conversion, 34
Cowardice, Alleged, of Catholic Scientists, 99
Creation, 163;
a method of, 144
"Criticisms on the Pentateuch," 45
"Cutting up of Frogs," 115
Cytolysis, 65
"Dabney, Mr.," 47
Defence of the Realm Act, 82
Degradation of Energy, 168
Derivative Creation, 146
Discontinuity, 3
"Ducks and Drakes," 156
Duck's Egg, 125, 130
Dye-stuffs, 107
Elimination, Proof by, 163
Energy, 16
Energy, Degradation of, 169
Entelechy, 164, 171
Eskimo, 19
"Esmond," 31
"Essays and Reviews," 45
Eugenics, 117
Evangelicanism, 32, 33, 44
Exhibitions, International, of 1851 and 1862, 10
Extermination of the Less Fit, 122
Families, Restricted, 118
"Father and Son," 39
"Force and Energy, a Theory of Dynamics," 85
"Force of Truth, The," 38
Formaldehyde, 2
Fossils, Explanation of, 97
Free First Cause, 144, 151
Freethinkers and "tolerance, justice, and gentleness," 73
Germination, 65
Guide, the Church a, 92
Hapsburg lip, The, 127
Harmonious-Equipotential System, 69
Heredity in the Law Courts, 29
Hormones, 63
Horse, Pedigree of the, 161
Imprimatur, The, 77
In-and-in breeding, 127
Index Prohibitorius, 95
Industrial Scientific Research, Department of, 114
Inheritance:
Chemical theory, 134;
Mnemic theory, 5, 61, 133;
Particulate theories, 61, 132
Jack, Jill, and Joan, 119
Jungle, The law of, 122
King-crabs, 145
Lamp-shells, 145
Law and Heredity, The, 129
Law and Lawgiver, 9
Law of Nature, 174
Law's "Serious Call," 31
Liberty, personal, 87
"Life and Habit," 61
Life, Origin of, 160
"Little Dorrit," 112
"Loss and Gain," 33
Maggots in meat, 153
Man's pedigree, 161
"Marriage," 49
Mauve, 107
Mediate Creation, 147
Memory, unconscious, 5
Mendelism, 6
Method of Creation, 144, 161
Micromeristic theories, 5
Mimicry, 123
Mnemic Theory of Inheritance, The, 5, 61, 133
Monastic Orders, 121
Monophyletic evolution, 151
"Multitude and Solitude," 48
"Naturalism and Agnosticism," 57
Natural Selection, 19, 122, 173
"Nature does this," 136, 162
Nature's insurgent son, 15
"New Republic, The," 56
"New Revelation, The," 46, 51
Nitrobacter, 170
Novels and Novelists, 30
"Occam's" razor, 29
Occultism, 28, 51
Ordered energy, 166
"Organism as a whole," 38
Origin of Species, 150
"Over Bemertons," 47
Oxford Movement, 33
"Pamela," 32
Pangenesis, 61, 131
Pantheism, 9
"Paradise Lost," 145
"Parson Adams," 31
Particulate Theories of Inheritance, 61, 132
Personal Liberty, 81
"Philosophy of Biology, The," 163
Phylogeny, 4, 149
Plymouth Brethren, 99
Political leaders of the day, 114
Polyphyletic hypothesis, The, 150
Porto Santo rabbits, 148
Post-Christians, 27
Prototrophic bacteria, 169
Providentissimus Deus, 103
Pugs and Greyhounds, 126
Purposefulness: a strange confession as to, 59
"Raymond," 51
Resiliency, 172
Restricted families, 118
Sabbatarianism, 36
Salaries of Scientific Teachers, 112
Saurians, 145
Science, Catholic Men of, 75-6
Science, Neglect of, at Schools, 109
Sin, Mythical Ideas of, 123
Six-fingered race, A, 128
Slavery in the State, 24
"Slime of the Earth," 146
"Social Vermin," 118
"Some Revelations as to 'Raymond,'" 53
Special Creation, 142
Spermatozoon, 65
Spiritualism and the War, 50
Spontaneous Generation, 152
Springs in the watch, The, 172
"Stinks Men," 110
Survival of the Fittest, 122
Syngamy, 65
Synthetic drugs, 107
Telepathy, 2
Teratomata, 65
Theophobia, 26
Thermos flask, The, 113
"Throws back," 128
Trilobites, 145
Trinity College, Dublin, 110
"Tyranny" of the Church, 91
Uncle Remus and the rabbit's tail, 127
Unconscious Memory, 5, 61
Universities, Mediæval, 75
Vitalism and Anti-Vitalism, 68, 165
"Way of All Flesh, The," 44
"Wisdom, Book of," 123
Wolff's Experiment, 69
* * * * *
PRINTED BY
HAZELL, WATSON AND VINEY, LD.,
LONDON AND AYLESBURY.
* * * * *
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as
possible, including obsolete and variant spellings. Obvious
typographical errors in punctuation (misplaced quotes and the like) have
been fixed. Corrections [in brackets] in the text are noted below:
page 85