8 THE THEORY OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION 



nutrient solution, there will most assuredly be a development of organisms, if we 

 omit those precautions which are considered essential by the bacteriologist, but 

 superfluous by those who believe in spontaneous generation. Such development 

 is, however, due, not to the microsomes, but to the germs introduced during the 

 transfer. Although this is so evident, it is strange that this view .should have 

 had its opponents, as, for instance, the botanists H. Karsten and A. Wigand 

 (I. and II.), and, with still greater pertinacity, A. Bechamp. The last-mentioned 

 designates these microsomes (" granulations moleculaires ") microzymes, and 

 attributes to them such tenacity of life that they are able to remain dormant, 

 not only for years, but even for entire geological periods, since, as Bechamp asserts, 

 he has found microzymes of cells which were buried in the strata formed during 

 the Cretaceous period still retaining their vitality and reproductive power. A 

 full account of this microzyme theory, which many amateur bacteriologists have 

 considered to be indisputable communications respecting which have been 

 incessantly intruded upon the notice of the Academy of Science at Paris is given 

 in a bulky volume which BECHAMP (I.) laid before his sceptical contemporaries 

 in 1883. 



9. Spontaneous Generation only Unproven, not Impossible. 



Omne vivum ex ovo (every living creature from an egg) ; omne vivum ex vivo 

 (every living creature from living creatures) was the watchword elevated to a 

 dogma by the triumphant opponents of the theory of spontaneous generation. 

 Were they correct? or did they encroach beyond the limits of the facts they de- 

 monstrated ? Let us devote a few moments to a critical review of the question. 



One thing is established beyond doubt, namely, that all the instances of sup- 

 posed spontaneous generation brought forward by the adherents of the theory 

 have been vitiated by numerous errors. It is, moreover, established that the 

 occurrence of spontaneous generation has not been proved, no unassailable experi- 

 ment being known in which living creatures were produced from inanimate 

 substances. Spontaneous generation is therefore unproven. 



Whether it is also an impossibility is a point still to be decided. If the theory 

 of evolution, as presented by Lamarck and Darwin, be traced towards its origin 

 in the lowest organisms, we come to a standstill with the question : "And from 

 whence then comes the ultimate and lowest creature? How did organic life 

 originate on our globe ? " 



The reply furnished by the English physicist Thomson 1 that our earth was 

 fertilised in its youth by meteors bringing the germs of organisms from other 

 heavenly bodies affords no solution, but merely transfers the question to another 

 scene and to a more distant period of the past, and at once suggests the further 

 question : " How did life originate on these unknown, extra-mundane sources 

 of creative messengers ? " There are only two possible answers to these questions, 

 viz., spontaneous generation, or a miracle. 



As a matter of reason, we are therefore obliged to assume that, at some 

 definite moment in the past, organised living beings were produced from un- 

 organised potentially organic substances ; and further, that such creative power 

 may still be operating, may perhaps be performing at present. The possibility 

 cannot be gainsaid. 



That bacteria are the result of this primary creation of living beings is very 

 questionable, and even improbable, since their structure is much more compli- 

 cated than is consistent with their presumed origin directly from chemical 

 elements, unmodified by changes in passing through simpler intermediate 

 organisms. 



i Lord Kelvin, 



