INTRODUCTION 



do recognize that the field of life lies outside their 

 boundaries and they continue to exclude its prob- 

 lems from their discussions. 



At least, the biologists cannot reproach me with 

 being a "paper philosopher," since I have had a pret- 

 ty severe and long training as a laboratory experi- 

 menter. I am quite prepared to accept the conclusions 

 of biological experimentation and I shall depend on 

 the statements of biologists to show that they have 

 not bridged the gap between the organic and inor- 

 ganic worlds; that they are not prepared to explain 

 living processes as physical force and energy; that 

 biological evolution as a guide to human society is a 

 delusion. Anyone trained adequately in physics, which 

 the biologists acknowledge to be the foundation of 

 their science, ought surely to be able to follow and 

 to understand their deductions. If this be not true, 

 how can biologists use the facts and laws of physics 

 with such freedom and assurance'? And when we re- 

 member that the data of biology must be interpreted 

 by historians, sociologists, philosophers, and the cler- 

 gy, before the doctrine of evolution can be used as a 

 guide to human affairs the argument becomes a two- 

 edged sword and cuts both ways. There are even 

 good grounds for believing that physics, with its de- 

 pendence on the technical use of mathematics, is the 

 most difficult and avoided of the sciences. Biologists 

 and social evolutionists preach its essential value as 

 a necessary foundation for their authority, but they 



