LATER SCIENCE (_continued_)
We have spoken of what science has recently been doing in the
investigation of the constitution of matter; we have now to talk of its
researches into the nature of Life.
The discovery that all plant and animal life is developed from living
cells was made, as we have already stated, more than seventy years ago.
Since then our knowledge of the formation and history of these cells
has been continually growing. The size of cells varies, but as a rule
they are very minute. They consist of what is termed protoplasm. At
one time it was supposed that protoplasm was structureless. Now it is
known that the protoplasmic cell contains a nucleus and a surrounding
body. Moreover, the nucleus, or small spot in the centre, has within
it a spiral structure of a very complicated kind. Every cell is
derived from a pre-existing cell by a process of division, the two
resulting cells being apparently identical with the parent cell. {77}
The cells possess the power of assimilating other cells or fragments of
cells. As they grow they move and go in search of food and light and
air and moisture. They exhibit feeling, and shrink as if in pain.
Spots specially sensitive to vibrations become eyes and ears; and thus
the various organs and faculties are evolved under the stimulating
influence of environment. The progress, so far as it is physical, can
be traced from the lowest blue-green algae right up to man. And all
throughout, in so far as their chemical composition is concerned, the
constituent elements of the living structure are the same. It is said
to be practically impossible to distinguish between the cells of a
toadstool and those of a human being.
But when all this has been explained, we have still left one great
question unanswered. How is the protoplasm made? Is there any
connexion of development to be traced whereby life can be shewn to have
arisen from inorganic matter? Protoplasm, under analysis, is found to
consist of some of the commonest elements on the earth's surface, such
as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Apart from its
very complicated structure, its contents are not hard to provide. And
we know that there was a time when it must of necessity have been
formed out of that which was not living, {78} for there was a time when
our globe was in a state of incandescent heat in which no life that we
know could possibly have existed. More than this we cannot say. Sir
William Thomson, as President of the British Association in 1871,
suggested that a germ of life might have been wafted to our world on a
meteorite; but to say that is obviously only to banish the problem to a
greater distance.[1]
Huxley had, in 1868, invented the name "Bathybius" to describe the
deep-sea slime which he held to be the progenitor of life on the
planet. But later on he frankly confessed that his suggestion was
fruitless, acknowledging that the present state of our knowledge
furnishes us with no link between the living and the not-living.
And so the problem remains. Sir Edward Schaefer, indeed, has laid it
down that "we are compelled to believe that living matter must have
owed its origin to causes similar in character to those which have been
instrumental in producing all other forms of matter in the universe; in
other words, to {79} a process of gradual evolution,"[2] but he can
throw no further light on the process and its stages.
Sir Oliver Lodge is but speaking the admitted truth when he says that
"Science, in chagrin, has to confess that hitherto in this direction it
has failed. It has not yet witnessed the origin of the smallest trace
of life from dead matter."[3]
No doubt there are many who are hopeful that it may yet be possible to
discover a way by which a cell, discharging all the essential functions
of life, can be constructed out of inorganic material; or, at least,
that it may be possible to frame an intelligible hypothesis as to how
this might have been done under conditions which long ago may have been
more favourable than our own. But, on the other hand, there are not a
few who have quite deliberately abandoned any expectation of the kind.
This was made plain by some of the expressions of adverse opinion which
were elicited by Sir Edward Schaefer's address. Of these the following
may be given as specimens: "The more they saw of the lower forms of
life, the more remote seemed to become the possibility of conceiving
how life arose."[4]
{80}
"He could not imagine anything happening in the laboratory, according
to our present knowledge, which would bring us any nearer to life."[5]
"Living protoplasm has never been chemically produced. The assertion
that life is due to chemical and mechanical processes alone is quite
unjustified. Neither the probability of such an origin, nor even its
possibility, has been supported by anything which can be termed
scientific fact or logical reasoning."[6]
"The phenomena of life are of a character wholly different from those
which are presented by matter viewed under any other aspect,
mechanical, electrical, chemical, or what not. It is beside the
question to point to the fact that in Nature 'new elements are making
their appearance and old elements disappearing,' for though we may
speculate as to the manner of formation of uranium and thorium, and
though the production of radio-active matters in Nature at the present
time and always seems to be a well-established fact, such phenomena
have not even an analogy with those of a living being, however
humble."[7]
It cannot be surprising that those who believe {81} the door to be
shut, so to speak, in the direction of any theory of development
through mechanical and chemical agencies alone, should look elsewhere
for the solution of a problem which science is bound to do its very
utmost to solve. This is what, as a matter of fact, is happening; and
it is of the very deepest interest to observe the nature of the
suggested explanation. It is no other than a revived form of the
ancient doctrine of a "vital force," which we had imagined to have been
finally discarded. There is this difference, however, and it is
all-important. The force is not, as formerly supposed, some unique
kind of energy; is not, indeed, energy at all. But we shall do best to
state the new doctrine in the words of its leading exponents.
Professor Anton Kerner, one of the most distinguished German writers on
Botany, in his _Natural History of Plants_, speaking of the chemical
explanation, says: "It does not explain the purposeful sequence of
different operations in the same protoplasm without any change in the
external stimuli; the thorough use made of external advantages; the
resistance to injurious influences; the avoidance or encompassing of
insuperable obstacles; the punctuality with which all the functions are
performed; the periodicity which occurs with the greatest regularity
under constant conditions of environment; {82} nor, above all, the fact
that the power of discharging all the operations requisite for growth,
nutrition, renovation and multiplication is liable to be lost."
And then he gives his opinion thus: "I do not hesitate again to
designate as vital force this natural agency, not to be identified with
any other, whose immediate instrument is the protoplasm, and whose
peculiar effects we call life."
Sir Oliver Lodge is, perhaps, the most uncompromising advocate of the
newer vitalism in England. The following striking quotations will set
forth his views:
Life, he maintains, is no more a function of matter "than the wind is a
function of the leaves which dance under its influence."[8]
"If it were true that vital energy turned into, or was anyhow
convertible into, inorganic energy, if it were true that a dead body
had more inorganic energy than a live one, if it were true that 'these
inorganic energies' always, or ever, 'reappear on the dissolution of
life,' then, undoubtedly, _cadit quaestio_, life would immediately be
proved to be a form of energy, and would enter into the scheme of
physics. But, inasmuch as all this is untrue--the direct contrary of
the truth--I maintain that life is not a form of {83} energy, that it
is not included in our present physical categories, that its
explanation is still to seek."
"It appears to me to belong to a separate order of existence, which
interacts with this material frame of things, and, while there, exerts
guidance and control on the energy which already exists."[9]
"Life does not add to the stock of any human form of energy, nor does
death affect the sum of energy in any known way."[10]
"Life can generate no trace of energy, it can only guide its
transmutations."[11]
"My contention then is--and in this contention I am practically
speaking for my brother physicists--that whereas life or mind can
neither generate energy nor directly exert force, yet it can cause
matter to exercise force on matter, and so can exercise guidance and
control; it can so prepare any scene of activity, by arranging the
position of existing material, and timing the liberation of existing
energy, as to produce results concordant with an idea or scheme or
intention; it can, in short, 'aim' and 'fire.'"[12]
"It is impossible to explain all this fully by the laws of mechanics
alone."[13]
"On a stagnant and inactive world life would be {84} powerless: it
could only make dry bones stir in such a world if it were itself a form
of energy. It is only potent where inorganic energy is mechanically
'available'--to use Lord Kelvin's term--that is to say, is either
potentially or actually in process of transfer and transformation. In
other words, life can generate no trace of energy, it can only guide
its transformation."[14]
"Life possesses the power of vitalising the complex material aggregates
which exist on this planet, and of utilising their energies for a time
to display itself amid terrestrial surroundings; and then it seems to
disappear or evaporate whence it came."[15]
To these voices from Germany or England we can add that of M. Bergson
from France. In many respects, as he says, he is at one with Sir
Oliver Lodge. If he goes beyond him, it is mainly in these ways. He
emphasises the element of Freedom, the power of choice as shewn by
every living thing. It appears, he says, "from the top to the bottom
of the animal scale," "although the lower we go, the more vaguely it is
seen." "In very truth, I believe no living organism is absolutely
without the faculty of performing actions and moving spontaneously; for
we see that even in the vegetable world, where {85} the organism is for
the most part fixed to the ground, the faculty of motion is asleep
rather than absent altogether. Sometimes it wakes up, just when it is
likely to be useful."
And this is not all. What is specially characteristic of M. Bergson is
the insistence that this power of choice is an evidence of
Consciousness. "Life," he declares, "is nothing but consciousness
using matter for its purposes." "There is behind life an impulse, an
immense impulse to climb higher and higher, to run greater and greater
risks in order to arrive at greater and greater efficiency."
"Obviously there is a vital impulse."[16]
"Life appears in its entirety as an immense wave which, starting from a
centre, speeds outwards, and which on almost the whole of its
circumference is stopped"--that is, as he explains, by matter--"and
converted into oscillation; at one point the obstacle has been forced,
the impulsion has poured freely. It is this freedom that the human
form registers. Everywhere but in man consciousness has had to come to
a stand; in man alone it has kept on its way. Man continues the vital
movement indefinitely, although he does not draw along with him all
that life carries in itself. On other {86} lines of evolution there
have travelled other tendencies which life implied"--the reference is
more especially to powers of instinct as distinguished from those of
intelligence--"and of which, since everything interpenetrates, man has
doubtless kept something, but of which he has kept only a little."[17]
Perhaps the most astonishing thing about M. Bergson's philosophy is his
unreadiness to allow that the consciousness, which he says is
everywhere at work, has any deliberate purpose in its working. Mr.
Balfour has called attention to the unsatisfactoriness of what he
described as "too hesitating and uncertain a treatment."[18]
But, in spite of so serious an omission, we may be glad to believe,
with our acute statesman-critic, that "there is permanent value in his
theories." If they indicate at all the direction in which scientific
thinking is to move, we shall soon have travelled a very long distance
from the days in which it was imagined that all vital phenomena might
be accounted for on merely materialistic and mechanical lines.
[1] "To this 'meteorite' theory the apparently fatal objection was
raised that it would take some sixty million years for a meteorite to
travel from the nearest stellar system to our earth, and it is
inconceivable that any kind of life could be maintained during such a
period."--Schaefer.
[2] Presidential Address to British Association, at Edinburgh (1912).
[3] _Man and the Universe_, p. 24.
[4] Prof. Wager.
[5] Dr. J. S. Haldane.
[6] Dr. A. R. Wallace. Article in _Everyman_, October 18th, 1912.
[7] Sir William Tilden. Letter to _The Times_, September 9th,1912.
[8] _Life and Matter_, p. 106.
[9] Pp. 132, f.
[10] P. 158.
[11] P. 160.
[12] Pp. 164, f.
[13] P. 166.
[14] P. 160.
[15] P. 198.
[16] Lecture at Birmingham, May, 1911.
[17] _Creative Evolution_, p. 280.
[18] _Hibbert Journal_, October, 1911.
{87}