II

Perhaps some of the most impressive lessons on this subject will be

found in connection with the history of the discovery of this great Law

of Biogenesis, which says that life can come only from life. For by

studying the history of the way in which this great Law has been

established, we cannot fail to be impressed with the thought that back

of all the complex array of living forms in our modern world which go on

perpetuating themselves in orderly ways according to natural law, they

could have originated only by a direct and real Creation, essentially

and radically different from any processes now going on.

The wisest of the ancients in Greece and Rome knew nothing of this great

law as we now know it. Aristotle, the embodiment of all that the ancient

world knew of natural science, expressly taught that the lower forms of

animals, such as fleas and worms, even mice and frogs, sprang up

spontaneously from the moist earth. "All dry bodies," he declared,

"which become damp, and all damp bodies which are dried, engender animal

life." According to Vergil, bees are produced from the putrifying

entrails of a young bull. Such were the teachings of all the Greeks and

Romans, even of the scientists of the post-Reformation period, some of

whom had accumulated a very considerable stock of knowledge concerning

plants and animals.

And similar absurdities continued to be taught until comparatively

modern times. Van Helmont, a celebrated alchemist physician who

flourished during the brilliant reign of Louis XIV, wrote: "The smells

which arise from the bottom of morasses produce frogs, slugs, leeches,

grasses, and other things." As a recipe for producing a pot of mice

offhand, he says that the only thing necessary is partly to fill a

vessel with corn and plug up the mouth of the vessel with an old dirty

shirt. In about twenty-one days, the ferment arising from the dirty

shirt reacting with the odor from the corn will effect the transmutation

of the wheat into mice. The doctor solemnly assures us that he himself

had witnessed this wonderful fact, and continues, "The mice are born

full-grown; there are both males and females. To reproduce the species

it suffices to pair them."

"Scoop out a hole in a brick," he says further, "put into it some sweet

basil, crushed, lay a second brick upon the first so that the hole may

be completely covered. Expose the two bricks to the sun, and at the end

of a few days the smell of the sweet basil, acting as a ferment, will

change the herb into real scorpions."[7]

[Footnote 7: "Louis Pasteur, His Life and Labors," p. 89.]

Sir Thomas Browne, the famous author of "Religio Medici," had expressed

a doubt as to whether mice may be bred by putrifaction; but another

scientist, Alexander Ross, disposed of this suggestion by the following

line of argument which was supposed to be conclusive as a _reductio ad

absurdum_:

"So may he (Sir Thomas Browne) doubt whether in cheese and timber worms

are generated; or if beetles and wasps in cows' dung; or if butterflies,

locusts, grasshoppers, shell-fish, snails, eels, and such like, be

procreated of putrid matter, which is apt to receive the form of that

creature to which it is by formative power disposed. To question this is

to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts this let him go

to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of

the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the in-habitants."[8]

[Footnote 8: Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. I, p. 64.]

When we remember that such nonsense constituted the wisdom of the

scientific world only about two centuries ago, we begin to realize the

fact that the doctrine of Biogenesis is indeed a very modern doctrine.

But it may be well to ask in passing, How could the people of former

ages understand or appreciate the great truth of Creation as we moderns

are able to do?

The first important step toward the refutation of this old pagan

doctrine of spontaneous generation was made by the Italian, Redi, in

1668. He noticed that flies are always present around decomposing meat

before the appearance of maggots, and he devised an experiment to keep

the flies away from actual contact with the meat. The meat putrified as

usual, but did not breed maggots; while the same kind of meat exposed

in open jars swarmed with them. He next placed some meat in a jar with

some wire gauze over the top. The flies were attracted by the smell of

the meat as usual, but could not reach the meat. Instead they laid their

eggs upon the gauze, where they hatched in due time, while no maggots

were generated in the meat. Thus from this time onward it became

gradually understood that, at least in the case of all the larger and

higher forms of life, Harvey's dictum, as announced some years

previously, was true, and that life comes only from life.

But the invention of the microscope opened the way for a renewal of the

controversy regarding the origin of life. Bacteria were discovered in

1683; and it was soon observed that no precautions with screens or other

stoppers could prevent bacteria and other low organisms from breeding in

myriads in every kind of organic matter. Here apparently was an entirely

new foundation for the doctrine of spontaneous generation. It was freely

admitted that all the higher forms of life arise only by process of

natural generation from others of their own kind; but did not these

microscopic organisms prove that there was "a perpetual abiogenetic

fount by which the first steps in the evolution of living organisms

continued to arise, under suitable conditions, from inorganic

matter"?[9]

[Footnote 9: Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. I, p. 64.]

The famous "barnacle-geese" ought not to be omitted from any sketch of

the vicissitudes of this doctrine of Biogenesis. An elaborate

illustrated account covering their alleged natural history was printed

in one of the early volumes of the Royal Society of London. Buds of a

particular tree growing near the sea were described as producing

barnacles, and these falling into the water were alleged to be

transmuted into geese. Nor should we omit mention of Huxley's _Bathybius

Haeckelii_, a slimy substance supposed to exist in great masses in the

depths of the ocean and to consist of undifferentiated protoplasm, the

exhaustless fountain from which all other forms of life had been

derived. Not long after Huxley had given it a formal scientific name in

1868, it was discovered to be merely a precipitate of gypsum thrown down

from sea water by alcohol, and thus a product of clumsy manipulation in

the laboratory, instead of a natural product of the deep sea. The

disappointment of those opposing biogenesis was severe; but the lesson

is still of value to the world to-day.

The masterly work of Tyndall and Louis Pasteur in doing for the bacteria

and protozoa what Redi had done for the larger organisms, is too much a

matter of modern contemporary history to need recital here. Upon this

great truth of life only from life is based all the recent advances in

the treatment and prevention of germ diseases and all the triumphs of

modern surgery. The housewife puts up canned fruit with the utmost

confidence because she believes in this great Law of Biogenesis. It is

because we all believe in it that we use antiseptics and fumigators and

fly screens.

Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation · 第 17 / 43 题