b9 b THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



As I have already stated, the scientific dabbler prefers to disport him- 

 self in the field of theory. And, at present, there are several great ques- 

 tions up for discussion before the scientific world. The most prominent 

 among them relate to the connection between vital and physical forces, 

 the origin oflife, the development of species, and the antiquity of man. 

 In genera], the pulpit has in the most Christian manner allied itself 

 with the weaker side. In many instances, the press follows the lead of 

 the priesthood. And on each question there seems to be popular mis- 

 understanding. 



The first of these questions is practically settled. Experiment has 

 thrown much light upon it, and now the leaders in science are pretty 

 well agreed that the ordinary forces of Nature are sufficient to produce 

 all the physical phenomena of life. And yet, when a well-known chem- 

 ist, a year or two ago, stated, before a New York audience, the simple 

 fact that the animal heat is the result of purely physical actions in the 

 system, an astute letter-writer took him roundly to task for his " ab- 

 surdities," and actually found a newspaper to print the effusion. The 

 lecturer stated an experimental fact, while the objector merely vented 

 ignorant prejudice. Ifamanwho had never learned to read should 

 attempt to instruct an experienced printer in the art of setting type, 

 he would hardly present a more ridiculous spectacle than this self- 

 appointed critic. 



In discussing the origin of life, we find the theory of sj)ontanecus 

 generation brought prominently forward. Certain experimenters have 

 enclosed various substances in hermetically-sealed tubes, heated them, 

 so as to apparently destroy all possibilities of life within, and, after al- 

 lowing them to remain undisturbed for months, have found the contents 

 swarming with animalcules. Other scientists have tried similar ex- 

 periments under varied circumstances, and have failed to obtain living 

 organisms. And no one but a man trained in scientific methods can 

 judge of the relative values of the experiments. Yet many clergymen 

 do not hesitate to decide at once in favor of the negative experiments, 

 in spite of the fact that no thorough scientist regards the questions in- 

 volved as in any degree settled. The leading opponents of spontaneous 

 generation seem to oppose the doctrine only provisionally, on the ground 

 that the evidence accumulated is not sufficient to warrant a final deci- 

 sion. The weight of evidence, however, seems to lend probability to 

 the doctrine. The successes of Wyman, Bastian, and others, more 

 than counterbalance all failures. Yet more exact experiments are 

 needed. It is plain that the first life must have been developed from 

 non-living matter, whatever methods the Creator may have employed. 

 Why may not the same methods be acting to-day ? The clerical op- 

 ponents of the theory here fall into an obvious error. They impute to 

 it tendencies which it cannot have. The question to-day is, not wheth- 

 er life arose by a Divine act, but, in what manner did it arise ? If it 

 should be proved that living beings may be produced by natural laws 



