18 



Any evolutionist who has a question put to him which it is 

 inconvenient to answer, and which it would be imprudent on 

 his part to discuss, is " reviled." But whatever the conse- 

 quences, I shall venture to make some remarks on a few of 

 Professor Huxley's recent utterances, even at the risk of being 

 also condemned as a reviler. 



What do you think of the attempt to convince people of the 

 similarity or identity or close relationship between non-living 

 matter and living matter, by calling a non-living particle and 

 a living particle a " molecular mechanism," and by further 

 asserting that non-living matter can be resolved into " mole- 

 cular mechanisms," and that living matter will also be resolved 

 into "molecular mechanisms ? " Huxley tells the Medical 

 Congress that matter is an aggregate of " molecular mechanisms 

 performing complicated movements of immense rapidity, and 

 sensitively adjusting themselves (!) to every change in the sur- 

 rounding world." But fancy giving to a particle of lead or 

 iron this power of " sensitively adjusting itself." Is there any 

 one in the world, besides Professor Huxley, who would apply 

 such language to non-living matter ? By giving to the non- 

 living the attributes peculiar to the living, Professor Huxley 

 succeeds, according to his own satisfaction, in breaking down 

 the contrast between living and non-living matter ; but will 

 any one else believe that anything of the kind has been done ? 



Is it not almost a disgrace to the thought of our time that 

 such transparent fallacies and absurd misrepresentations 

 should not only be allowed to pass without comment, but 

 receive the sanction and approval of many scientific men? 

 Again, Professor Huxley tells the Medical Congress that vital 

 actions are " nothing but changes of place of particles of 

 matter." What vital action in this world is nothing but a 

 change of place in particles of matter ? The statement seems 

 not only unsound, but unfair. To say that any vital action 

 is nothing but a change of place of material particles is surely 

 absolutely incorrect, for not only are all vital actions much 

 more than this, but physical actions are more. It is obviously 

 the something more than mere change of place that makes the 

 difference between one form or kind of action and another. 

 If there was nothing but change of place, it is clear there 

 would be but one action in the universe, instead of infinite 

 variety of action. 



Qualities and properties are by materialistic authorities 

 attributed to matter or denied to matter, as may be conve- 

 nient ; but any attempt to explain the difference between a 

 particle of living matter and the same matter when it has 

 ceased to live, is carefully avoided. It is suggested that the 



