50 THE NATURE OF MATTER 



universe either " (Science and Religion^ p. 2). Qui potest 

 capere, capiat? 



Let us take our primitive microbe and study it from a 

 different point of view. It is a tiny thing, immeasurably 

 below the range of unaided vision. The mature human 

 ovum, about T ^ of an inch in diameter, fairly marks the 

 range of visibility to the trained eye. We may take a living 

 thing say the Procytella primordialis that may not reach 

 a diameter of the 5,oooth of an inch. Magnified a thousand 

 times, it is not much larger than a pin's head ; and it shows 

 no sign of structure or mechanism that might accomplish its 

 lowly vital functions. 



But where the microscope ends, the work of the physicist 

 begins. The little particle of plasm, far smaller than the tiniest 

 grain of salt that you can pick out with the naked eye, is a 

 mechanism of baffling intricacy. The configuration of our 

 stellar universe is hardly a more perplexing problem. By a 

 process of reasoning that is as safe as microscopic analysis, we 



1 The only other criticism I have to make at this point is on Sir 

 Oliver Lodge's cheerful statement (p. 47) that " we find Haeckel 

 ignoring the elementary axiom that action and reaction are equal and 

 opposite i.e., that internal forces can have no motive power on a body 

 as a whole." This must sound delightfully crushing to the religious 

 reader, though how far he will understand it is another matter. . Per- 

 sonally I regard it as a piece of bluff, and was confirmed when I 

 submitted it to a student of physics. Sir Oliver Lodge might as well 

 tell a motor-car that the Newtonian law forbids it to run. However, it 

 seems to refer to his wrong idea that Haeckel endows the atom with a 

 conscious soul. 



