THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 21 



enough, Haeckel approached the subject, in 1857, with a 

 strong bias against spontaneous generation. Among the 

 theses he defended on taking his degree was one that stoutly 

 attacked the possibility of abiogenesis. He knew little 

 about it in those days : few scholars did. In the half 

 century since then he has amassed an extraordinary wealth 

 of biological lore. He has made special research into 

 several large groups of animals (radiolarians, sponges, 

 medusae, siphonophores, etc.). He has written forty volumes, 

 some of which have been translated into fifteen languages. 

 He holds four of the highest gold medals available for 

 biological research, and some eighty diplomas from univer- 

 sities and learned bodies all the world over. If we are to 

 have speculation at all on the nature of life, here surely is 

 an impressive equipment for it. Since every reader must 

 know that the whole question of the origin of life is conjec- 

 tural, and since Haeckel repeatedly recalls the fact (when 

 he is read in the original, and not in Sir Oliver Lodge's 

 quotations), we need not wonder that the general public 

 have failed to be impressed by the sectarian carping of his 

 critics on this point. 



But is it worth while to frame these hypotheses at all ? 

 Should we not forego the luxury of speculations that are in 

 advance of, even though they are firmly grounded on, the 

 actual evidence ? One might reply that, provided we 

 remember always that they are speculations, there is no 

 reason whatever why we should renounce the interest of 

 theories that are sketched for us by competent students of 

 biology. But, in truth, a matter of much more serious 



