THE ULTRA-SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL 465 



As growth and multiplication are by far the most characteristic 

 features of the living organism, it is little wonder that the fiercest 

 antagonism centers around this point. Mitchell, one of the mildest crit- 

 ics, takes exception to the crystal comparison, on the ground that living 

 matter is a mixture of substances chiefly dissolved in water, and that 

 therefore it would be far more appropriate to take liquids as the basis 

 for comparison. 4 



Armstrong and Haldane, the one a chemist and the other a physiol- 

 ogist, and both among the most eminent in their respective professions, 

 flatly refute the analogy. In crystal growth there is a mere piling up of 

 simple units, and, under the proper conditions, there is no limit to the 

 growth of the crystal. Nothing corresponding to cell division, nor to 

 the complexity of organic growth, is ever met with. Bergson, whose 

 knowledge of the exact sciences makes him an exceedingly competent 

 critic, argues that whereas the living organism is composed of unlike 

 parts and performs diverse functions, the crystal neither consists of the 

 one nor performs the other. 5 



Of course, Bergson repudiates Schafer's whole hypothesis, but in this 

 he is in agreement with many a scientific authority. For example, Pro- 

 fessor Wilson, whose book on cell development is a classic, sums up his 

 views in these words : 



The study of the cell has, on the whole, seemed to widen rather than to 

 narrow the enormous gap that separates even the lowest forms of life from the 

 inorganic world. 6 



Sir William Tilden, the English chemist, is equally emphatic from 

 the chemical standpoint. He writes : 



Far be it from any man of science to affirm that any given set of phenomena 

 is not a fit subject of inquiry, and that there is any limit to what may be re- 

 vealed in answer to systematic and well-directed investigation. In the present 

 instance, however, it appears to me that this [the origin of living matter] is not 

 a field for the chemist, nor one in which chemistry is likely to afford any assist- 

 ance whatsoever.? 



Let it at once be stated clearly and emphatically that the ultra- 

 scientific view is based primarily upon analogy — a very valuable method 

 provided it is not carried to excess, and provided, also, sufficient experi- 

 mental data are at hand. Mendeleeff s periodic classification tended to 

 show that caesium, rubidium, sodium and potassium were closely allied, 



might have produced millions of times organisms that survived but a few hours, 

 but in which, also, by a favorable conjunction of those forces, what we now call 

 life might have come into existence." No less fanciful is Armstrong himself 

 (see H. E. Armstrong, "The Origin of Life: A Chemists' Fantasy," Smith- 

 sonian Eeport, Publication 2214). And yet we speak of the dry-as-dust scientist! 



4 P. C. Mitchell, "Encyclop. Brit.," 11th ed., article on "Life." 



5 Bergson, "Creative Evolution," p. 12. 



6E. B. Wilson, "The Cell in Development and Inheritance," p. 330 (1907). 

 7 Tilden, London Times, September 10, 1912. 



vol. lxxxv.— 32. 



