62 Proceedings of Indiana Academy of Science 



While time may prove that thi.s theory is correct, I think it safe to say 

 that the problem is not yet solved. 



Again, I am bewildered when I am told about a conjectural, uni- 

 versal ether, that is supposed to fill all space, to be everywhere present — 

 a something more dense than any known substance, and yet a some- 

 thing in which we freely move and in which the myriads of suns and 

 planets revolve. Another one of science's guesses. 



We ask science about that mysterious power that caused the falling- 

 apple to hit Newton's head and sent him conjecturing until he identified 

 it with that power which rules the march of the worlds, and which 

 we call gravitation. But when we ask what gravitation is, science 

 answering only gives it a name and tells us something of the ways in 

 which it acts. It cannot tell us what it is. 



Among the many unsolved mysteries, is that of life. And here, 

 again, science fails us. An article in the last edition of the Encyclo- 

 pedia Britannica, which purports to tell us what life is, begins with 

 the statement that life is 



"The popular name for the activity peculiar to protoplasm", 



and follows with an inconclusive two pages that get nowhere, and does 

 not even attempt any clearer definition or explanation. 

 The Encyclopedia Americana frankly says: 



"No definition of life has ever proved quite satisfactory." 



It then quotes several definitions, including Herbert Spencer's amended 

 conception of life, which I quote. It is, Spencer says, — 



"The definite combination of heterogeneous changes both simul- 

 taneous and successive in correspondences with external co-existence 

 and sequences." 



I quote this because of its lucidity and clarity. Quite as much so as a 

 London fog. 



None of these attempted definitions throws any light on what life 

 really is. The writer of that article, after quoting several, says: 



"The most recent attempts have been in the direction of prov- 

 ing that life is merely a form of energy or motion." 



This, I can begin to understand. True, Sir Oliver Lodge, who is uni- 

 versally recognized as one of the most eminent and learned of living 

 scientists, tells us that life cannot be a form of energy. I quote from 

 one of his latest published utterances. He says: 



"Life must be considered sui generis. It is not a form of 

 energy, nor can it be expressed in terms of something else. Elec- 

 tricity is in the same predicament. It too cannot be explained in 

 terms of something else. This is true of all fundamental forms of 

 being. * * * Xo show that the living principle in a seed is not 

 one of the forms of energy, it is sufficient to remember that the 

 seed can give rise to innumerable descendants through countless 

 generations without limit. There is nothing like a constant quan- 

 tity of something to be shared as there is in all examples of energy. 



