34 THE THEORY OF [pt. 



Karl Pearson pro\-ided an intimation of it when he remarked, 

 "Those who say that mechanism cannot explain life are perfectly 

 correct, but then mechanism does not explain anything. Those, on 

 the other hand, who say that mechanism cannot describe hfe are 

 going far beyond what is justifiable in the present state of our know- 

 ledge". A clear enunciation of it, informed with the charm of all 

 his writings, was given by d'Arcy Thompson in the .\ristoteUan 

 Society^ S\Tnposium of 191 8. "In the concepts of matter and energy", 

 he said, " the Whole is not enshrined, mechanism is but one aspect 

 of the world. These are the proper categories of objective science, 

 but they are no more: the physicist is, ipso facto, a mechanist, but he 

 is not by impHcation a materialist; nor is the biologist of necessity 

 a materiahst, even though he may study nothing but mechanism in 

 the material fabric and bodily acti\ities of the organism." R. S. 

 Lillie's paper of 1927 might be taken as one of the best expositions 

 of this point of \-iew. "Every biologist is aware", he says, "in his 

 non-professional moments that the possibiUties of hfe are larger than 

 the mechanistic \iew impHes. This is only another way of acknow- 

 ledging that the whole mechanistic conception is an incomplete, 

 derivative, or abstract one. To regard it as philosophically final is a 

 grave mistake." Thus Lillie remains cominced of the adequacy of 

 physico-chemical biologv', but expressly repudiates the elevation of 

 mechanism into a metaphysic. 



LilUe goes on to discuss the abstract, distorted and incomplete 

 character of the world which is presented to us by the employment 

 of the scientific method. "To say", he proceeds, "that Hfe is 'nothing 

 but' a combination of chemical reactions in a colloidal substratum 

 is unscientific. Life may be and apparently is that in part but to 

 regard any such scientific formulation as a complete and adequate 

 representation of its total reaUt}- is simply to misconcei\-e the structure 

 of science." This is well said; Ufe is indeed a "dynamic equihbrium 

 in a polyphasic system", but also "Life is a manifest of emergent 

 creativity", "Life is a pure flame and we five by an imisible sun 

 within us", "Life is a sad composition, we five with death and die 

 not in a moment", and — if you will, 



Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass, 

 Stains the white radiance of eternity 

 Until death tramples it to fi-agments. 



