Correspondence on Biology, etc. 



came into existence. It is impossible to regard it as a 

 mere substance. It is a mechanism. Although the chemist 

 may hope to make eventually all the substances which 

 protoplasm fabricates, and will probably do so, he can only 

 build them up by the most complicated processes. Proto- 

 plasm appears to be able to manufacture them straight off 

 in a way of which the chemist cannot form the slightest 

 conception. This is one aspect of the mystery of life. 

 Herbert Spencer's definition tells one nothing. 



Science can only explain nature as it reveals itself to 

 the senses in terms of consciousness. The explanation may 

 be all wrong in the eyes of omniscience. All one can 

 say is that it is a practical working basis, and is good 

 enough for mundane purposes. But if I am asked if I 

 can solve the riddle of the Universe I can only answer. 

 No. Brunetiere then retorts that science is bankrupt. 

 But this is equivocal. It only means that it cannot meet 

 demands beyond its power to satisfy. 



I entirely sympathise with anyone who seeks an answer 

 from some other non-scientific source. But I keep scientific 

 explanations and spiritual craving wholly distinct. . 



The whole point of evolution, as formulated by Lyell 

 and Darwin, is to explain phenomena by known causes. 

 Now, directive power is not a known cause. Determin- 

 ism compels me to believe that every event is inevitable. 

 If we admit a directive power, the order of nature becomes 

 capricious and unintelligible. Excuse my saying all this. 

 But that is the dilemma as it presents itself to my mind. 

 If it does not trouble other people, I can only say, so much 

 the better for them. Briefly, I am afraid I must say that it 

 is ultra-scientific. I think that would have been pretty 

 much Darwin's view. 



I do not think that it is quite fair to say that biologists 

 shirk the problem. In my opinion they are not called upon 

 ff 97 



