COSMIC PHILOSOPHY 



larly contrasts biology with zoology and bot- 

 any, because the one formulates the general 

 laws of life, while the others merely study the 

 conditions of existence of particular genera and 

 species, the distinction cannot be admitted as 

 valid. In so far as zoology and botany are re- 

 stricted to the mere description and enumeration 

 of organic forms, they cannot strictly be called 

 sciences at all, but only branches of natural his- 

 tory. In so far as they are anything more than 

 this, they are a constituent part of biology. 

 For, in biology, it is the study of the concrete 

 conditions of existence of living organisms which 

 lies at the bottom of the whole. The laws of 

 nutrition, reproduction, and innervation are not 

 abstract laws, considered apart from the condi- 

 tions in which they are realized, like the law of 

 inertia in physics, or the law of definite propor- 

 tions in chemistry. They are realized in each 

 concrete instance just as much as certain chemi- 

 cal and physical laws are realized in each con- 

 crete instance of mineralogy. Or — in other 

 words — the laws of biology are derivative 

 uniformities, while the laws of physics and 

 chemistry are original uniformities. Given the 

 general laws of molecular combination and de- 

 combination, and given also a certain definite 

 organization placed in a given environment, 

 and the laws of nutrition, reproduction, and in- 

 nervation follow. Take away the definite or- 

 40 



