DISCUSSION 215 



means of a creative act, in such a sense that the 

 matter composing them was also newly created. 

 This is a complete misunderstanding. 1 



I accept the theory that the first living creatures 

 were produced from inorganic matter, in the sense 

 that they were really composed of inorganic sub- 

 stances. But I cannot discover in inorganic matter 

 any reason which could convert lifeless atoms into 

 the first living creatures. 



Perhaps I may be permitted at this point to deal 

 with two subjects mentioned by the last speaker, 

 Dr. Thesing, whose remarks were on the whole 

 very much in accordance with my own views, 

 I mean the Cosmozoic theory, and the eternity of 

 living matter. This hypothesis also is not tenable, 

 quite apart from the fact that it leaves the origin 

 of life unexplained. Many very pretty and in- 

 genious speculations have been attempted by the 

 supporters of this theory, Preyer, Thomson, Helm- 

 holtz, Richter and Arrhenius, etc. Some have 

 imagined that the germs of life were brought to 

 our earth by means of meteors or as cosmic dust. 

 That cannot be, for the meteors must have been in a 

 state of incandescence whilst passing through our 

 atmosphere, and the cosmic dust, which was once 

 alive, and is supposed to have retained its vitality, 

 can be regarded only as a fiction. 2 



1 Cf. p. 29 in my second lecture, where I expressed myself very clearly 

 on this subject. 



2 In a book entitled Das Werden der Welten (Leipzig, 1907, chap, viii.), 

 Svante Arrhenius has recently developed more fully his ingenious theory 



