14 PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS. 
But the acceptance of such theories of the arrival of life on the 
earth does not bring us any nearer to a conception of its actual mode of 
origin; on the contrary it merely serves to banish the investigation of 
the question to some conveniently inaccessible corner of the universe and 
leaves us in the unsatisfactory position of affirming not only that we 
have no knowledge as to the mode of origin of life—which is unfortu- 
nately true—but that we never can acquire such knowledge—which it is 
to be hoped is not true.!® Knowing what we know, and believing what 
we believe, as to the part played by evolution in the development of 
terrestrial matter, we are, I think (without denying the possibility of 
the existence of life in other parts of the universe '’) justified in regard- 
ing these cosmic theories as inherently improbable—at least in com- 
parison with the solution of the problem which the evolutionary 
hypothesis offers.8 
I assume that the majority of my audience have at least a general 
idea of the scope of this hypothesis, the general acceptance of which 
has within the last sixty years altered the whole aspect not 
The evolu- only of biology, but of every other branch of natural 
tionary - : : : 
hypothesis as Science, including astronomy, geology, physics, and 
applied to ' chemistry.!® To those who have not this familiarity I 
Lon a °" would recommend the perusal of a little book by Professor 
Judd entitled ‘The Coming of Evolution,’ which has 
recently appeared as one of the Cambridge manuals. I know of no 
similar book in which the subject is as clearly and succinctly treated. 
Although the author nowhere expresses the opinion that the actual 
origin of life on the earth has arisen by evolution from non-living 
matter, it is impossible to read either this or any similar exposition in 
which the essential unity of the evolutionary process is insisted upon 
** “The history of science shows how dangerous it is to brush aside mysteries 
—t.e., unsolved problems—and to interpose the barrier placarded ‘‘ eternal—no 
thoroughfare.”’ ’—R. Meldola, Herbert Spencer Lecture, 1910. 
* Some authorities, such as Errera, contend, with much probability, that 
the conditions in interstellar space are such that life, as we understand it, 
could not possibly exist there. 
** As Verworn points out, such theories would equally apply to the origin of 
any other chemical combination, whether inorganic or organic, which is met with 
on our globe, so that they lead directly to absurd conclusions.—Allgemeine 
Physiologie, 1911. 
** As Meldola insists, this general acceptance was in the first instance largely 
due to the writings of Herbert Spencer : ‘ We are now prepared for evolution in 
every domain. . . . As in the case of most great generalisations, thought had been 
moving in this direction for many years.... Lamarck and Buffon had suggested 
a definite mechanism of organic development, Kant and Laplace a principle of 
celestial evolution, while Lyell had placed geology upon an evolutionary basis. 
The principle of continuity was beginning to be recognised in physical 
science... . It was Spencer who brought these independent lines of thought to 
a focus, and who was the first to make any systematic attempt to show that the 
law of development expressed in its widest and most abstract form was univer- 
sally followed throughout cosmical processes, inorganic, organic, and super- 
organic.’—Op. cit., p. 14. 
