212 WHAT IS LIFE 



in general, whether scientific or lay, were so easily 



satisfied. Our satisfaction, as we now see, was 



chiefly founded on ignorance. "^^ 



Henry Fairfield Osborn admits: "We have no 

 scientific explanation for those processes of develop- 

 ment from within, which Bergson has termed 

 'revolution creatricey' and for which Driesch has 

 abandoned a natural explanation and assumed the 

 existence of an entelechy, that is, an internal perfect- 

 ing influence."^* 



In passing, it must be noted: (1) The difficulties 

 that beset the current theory of descent have been 

 stated in the exact words of the men who are 

 quoted; there has been no garbling or recasting of 

 statements. (2) The criticisms are by representative 

 leaders in science whose findings command respect. 

 (3) These men are firmly convinced that evolution is 

 a fact. 



Some persons have understood these criticisms and 

 similar expressions of extreme dissatisfaction with 

 the current theory of descent (criticism within the 

 ranks of science, by some of the ablest men of science) 

 to mean that the general doctrine of evolution may 

 be rejected. This, however, is an erroneous con- 

 clusion. It is not necessary here to adduce the various 



'' Problems of Genetics, 248, 97. 



*' The Origin and Evolution of Life, x. 



