The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1903. LIFE AND NATURAL LAW.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 149, 24 June 1903, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1903. LIFE AND NATURAL LAW.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good tl\ai we can do.

An interesting controversy has lately been conducted in the columns of the London "Times" on the limits of scientific dogmatism as to the origin of life. Speaking at a meeting of the University College Christian Association, Lord Kelvin observed that it was not accurate to say that Science neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a creative power. In his opinion Science positively affirms creative power. Modern biologists, said Lord Kelvin, are coming

round again to the acceptance of the belief in a vital principle. There is no middle course between "absolute scientific belief in creative power and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms;" and thia last conclusion Lord Kelvin repudiates as altogether unreasonable. The world-wide reputation and eminence of the speaker naturally attaches much "weight to this pronouncement, and opponents of Lord Kelvin's views were not slow to express their disapproval. The attack upon Lord Kelvin was led by Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, the Director of Kew Gardens. This distinguished botanist objected altogether to Lord Kelvin's remarks chiefly on the ground that he "wipes out by a stroke of the pen the whole position won for us by Darwin." But Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer committed the serious tactical error of endeavouring to depreciate Lord Kelvin's intellectual ability, and accordingly received a well-earned rebuke from the "Times." Lord Kelvin, as was pointed out by Sir J. Burdon Sanderson, the eminent physiologist, was described by Helmhok as a man of "surpassing acuteness, clearness and versatility," and it was Helmhok who first endeavoured to formulate that view of the origin of life to which Lord Kelvin is now opposed. Then Professor Karl Pearson reproved Lord Kelvin for straying into the field of "emotional theological belief." and urged him, if ho desired to attack Darwin, to come down "to the plane where straightforward biological argument meets like argument." To all these letters the "Times" issued an editorial reply, which for moderation and rationality compares very favourably with the denunciatory style adopted by the opponents of Lord Kelvin.

In the first place the "Times" points out that Lord Kelvin said never a word in the way of an assault upon Darwinism. What he did say was that "scientists were absolutely forced by Science to admit and to believe with absolute confidence in a creative power—in an influence other than physical dynamical electrical forces." But there is nothing in this inconsistent with "the position won for us by Darwin." Another correspondent appositely quoted a passage from one of Darwin's letters in which the great biologist states that no evidence/ worth anything had. in his opinion, been advanced in favour of the theory that a living being can be developed from inorganic matter, and concluding: '-"Whether the existence of v conscious God can be proved from the existence of the so-called laws of nature (i.e.. fixed sequences of events) is a perplexing subject on which I have often thought, but cannot see my way clearly." It is plain from these words that Darwin did not himself consider that the hypothesis of a creative or "directive" power would delete his theories and overthrow his life work; and the anxiety displayed by Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, Professor Pearson and others about the safety of Darwinism

is therefore quite superfluous. The ••Times" wisely points to a great divergence between the views of Darwin and contemporary Darwinism, and urges that there is no inconsistency between Lord Kelvin's hypothesis and the belief that such a directive force "acts in the manner and by the methods established by Darwin." In any case most men will agree that the deliberate and reiterated judgment of that 'Prince of Science, , whom even Sir John Burdon Sanderson describes as a man of "transscendent ability," must be accepted as '•'at least a weighty contribution to the formation of a just opinion on the subject." We do not presume to express any definite theory on this subject, but we cannot refrain from pointing out certain remarkable features of this controversy. It is long since modern Science has favoured the world with a better, or worse, example of that worst of all form;; of bigotry, scientific dogmatism. Professor Pearson and Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer denounce Lord Kelvin for attacking Darwinism, as if that were an unanswerable charge for an unpardonable offence. We need hardly say that contemporary Darwinism is very difficult to define according to Weissmaun or Wallace, or any other recognised authority, and it is certain that its modern exponents have gone far beyond the limits observed by the modest and conscientious founder of their school. But even supposing—though the "Times" rightly refuses to admit it —that Lord Kelvin's views were not consistent with those of Darwin, is that an excuse for refusing to discuss them? or is it a reason for denouncing him as unscientific? Has modern science really

i uttered the last word that can be said lon Life and Nature? Are we to under- | stand that Darwinism is the scientific I \rk of the Covenant, to touch which ! meant death to the offender? Yet progress and freedom of thought are supposed to be the watchword of Science, and its exponents are constantly reprovin« those who cling to outworn superstitions and refuse to examine facts and theories laid before them, with "lair and open mind/ There is surely a lamentable inconsistency between the lofty pretensions of modem Science and the superstitious horror with which some of its foremost teachers seem to regard any attempt even to discuss their cherished theories.

Xot less distressing than this curious aversion from free discussion is the arbitrary and imperious fashion in which some of these distinguished specialists announce their dogmas. Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer says conclusively that the Darwinian theory "completed" a mechanical theory of the universe by including in it the organic world." This must mean that Life is the product of mechanical laws, a conclusion that Darwin himself never expressed, and that Lord Kelvin says is contradicted by the tendency of all modern biological research. Again, with reference to Wallace's claim for "a world of spirit to which a world of matter is altogether subordinate," Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer thinks lie has met the case by a contemptuous refusal to discuss the question at all. Sir John Burdon-Sanderson says that Helmholz "gave the deathblow" to the theory that "operations of life are dominated by laws special to themselves"; once again, the very point which Lord Kelvin and Darwin have asserted is undecided. A generation ago Professor W. K. Clifford, perhaps the most distinguished English materialist of his day, announced his famous theorem, that the universe is made up of atoms and ether, and there is "no room for ghosts." It is painful to discover that such utterly unscientific bigotry is still represented amongst the leaders of English scientific thought, Considering that scientific laws are merely what Darwin called them —statements of successions of events —and seeing that they do not pretend to explain the nature oi the principles on which the universe works, no man has the right to close the record o? scientific research and refuse to re-open it. We know little of the true nature of Man and his surroundings, and the unexplored realms of Mind and Matter stretch illimitable before us. Professor Ray Lankester, in his letter on Lord Kelvin's views, goes out of his way to ridicule "telepathy," and Sir Olivier Lodge Teplies that though modern biologists still refuse to accept the evidence or consider the facts, Ihe is content to wait the verdict of the future. That, it seems to us, is a truly scientific attitude, towards any of the phenomena of life. In natural science, as in every other form of study, suspension of judgment is largely essential to progress. There is no finality in human knowledge or in the theories based upon it, and to refuse to discuss an opinion because it conflicts with a previous hypothesis is the least logical and the least rational course that can be taken in any walk of life either by the casual '•'man in the street" or by a distinguished professor of biology.