96 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



identical with those found in the inorganic world. The public 

 prefer to believe that an animal, or at all events a human being, 

 is inspired by a spiritual element which is entirely beyond the 

 control of any gross material laws ; they prefer to believe it, 

 and they therefore do believe it. It is true that they have not 

 inquired into the evidence; it is even true that they resent 

 being offered any evidence which might disturb their existing 

 predilections — though in truth the danger of so untoward a 

 result would scarcely be very imminent. 



There are a certain number of people, however, who take 

 upon themselves the task of defending unpopular doctrines 

 which have been established by science. They do not embark 

 upon this course in order to convert the public, for such a 

 project would be comparable to trying to sink a Dreadnought 

 by pricking it with a needle. There are at all times, moreover, 

 a certain number of writers who do examine the evidence, who 

 do genuinely desire to find the truth, and who yet come to 

 results which happen to be in harmony with those demanded 

 by the public. Such are some of the writers whose works I 

 am about to criticise. They are all careful thinkers and able 

 writers; and, although a critic may differ profoundly from the 

 views they express, he cannot but recognise the labour and 

 honesty of purpose which inspire them. 



I propose to deal first with Dr. James Johnstone, whose 

 work on the Philosophy of Biology constitutes one of the best 

 defences of the popular view with which I am acquainted. 

 Not that his treatment itself is in any way popular. He is 

 filled with the philosophies of Bergson and Driesch, two writers 

 who have obtained much vogue with the public, no doubt 

 because the public feels that, if it could understand their doc- 

 trines, it would certainly approve of them. Dr. Johnstone does 

 not intrude Bergsonism overtly upon us ; but he writes under 

 Bergsonian influence, which makes him quick to see and collect 

 any biological events which harmonise with that philosophy, 

 while slow to observe or record other events which do not 

 harmonise with it. I wish in particular to comment on the 

 special point raised by Dr. Johnstone in the last number of this 

 review. The writer, it may be remembered, starts with a 

 paradox of physics ; and then sets forth a vitalistic theory of 

 life which he regards as the only possible mode of escape from 

 that paradox. The paradox is as follows : Under the second 



