164 A THEORY OF LIFE 



through an externally creative power." Very 

 well ! Philosophers tell us that we can assume 

 any position we choose for the purposes of our 

 argument, but that ultimately we must prove 

 that assumption or admit ourselves beaten. We 

 look anxiously for the proof of the assumption 

 made by our author, but absolutely no attempt 

 is made to give one. We must be pardoned, 

 therefore, if we hesitate to accept such an impor- 

 tant statement on his mere ipse dixit. We pass on 

 to the next elimination : " Although its visible 

 results are in a high degree purposeful, we may 

 also exclude as unscientific the vitalistic theory 

 of an entelechy l or any other form of internal 

 perfecting agency distinct from known or unknown 

 physio-chemical energies." Why " unscientific " ? 

 Numbers of high authorities have not thought it 

 so ; and in quite recent years such eminent 

 writers as Driesch and McDougal have written 

 erudite works to prove this " unscientific " 

 hypothesis. Is there any proof brought for- 

 ward for this assertion and its corresponding 

 elimination ? 



Let us continue the quotation : " Since certain 

 forms of adaptation which were formerly 

 mysterious can now be explained without the 

 assumption of an entelechy we are encouraged to 

 hope that all forms may be thus explained." 

 The author does not tell us what the mysterious 



1 By entelechy an Aristotelian term re-introduced by 

 Driesch is meant an agency other than one of a purely chemico- 

 physical character, which differentiates living from not-living 

 substance, and is responsible for the phenomenon of life. 



