THE ORIGIN OF LIFE 63 



is a creative act. No one surely can speak with 

 more authority upon this point, and with less theo 

 logical bias, than the great biologist Reinke. His 

 final word, that has often been quoted, may here 

 well be called to mind again : 



If we assume at all that living creatures were once formed 

 out of inorganic matter, then, so far as I can see, the theory 

 of creation is the only one which satisfies the demands of logic 

 and causality, and so satisfies the demands of reasonable 

 scientific research.&quot; 



It is good to read straightforward, honest 

 words like these. Such too was the import of 

 Lord Kelvin s famous avowal, thus reported on 

 the occasion in the London Times: &quot;He could 

 not say that with regard to the origin of life sci 

 ence neither affirmed nor denied creative power. 

 Science positively affirmed creative power. 13 



The entire question, we repeat, really lies out 

 side and beyond the realm of science. &quot;All that 

 we can say of it,&quot; as Professor Lull of Yale cor 

 rectly states concerning the origin of life, so far 

 as science can testify at all, &quot;is that in the fullness 

 of time, when the earth had, in the course of its 

 physical evolution, become adapted as the abode 

 of life, living substance came into being.&quot; 14 How 

 it came into being, by a creative act or not, un 

 aided science can never say. Metaphysics and 

 religion here come to its assistance and proclaim 



^&quot;Einleitung in die theoretische Biologie,&quot; p. 559. 

 13 Times, May 2, 1903. 

 &quot;O/. /., p. 112. 



