July 31, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



145 



brought some of these elements together 

 with 'creative and directive purpose,' mix- 

 ing them, as it were, with 'a vital prin- 

 ciple' so as to form living things, just as 

 the painter might pick out certain colors 

 from his confused palette and paint a 

 picture. 



This conception of the intermittent ac- 

 tion of creative power and purpose does 

 not, I confess, com mend itself to me. That, 

 however, is not so surprising as that it 

 shoidd be thought that this curious con- 

 ception of the action of creative power is 

 of value to religion. Whether the inter- 

 mittent theory is a true or an erroneous 

 conception seems to me to have nothing 

 to do with 'religion' in the large sense of 

 that word so often misused. It seems to 

 me to be a kind of mythologj', and, I should 

 have thought, could be of no special assist- 

 ance to teachers of Christianity. Such 

 theories of divided creative operations are 

 traceable historically to polytheism. 



Lastly, with reference to Lord Kelvin's 

 statement that "modern biologists are 

 coming once more to a firm acceptance 

 of something— and that is 'a \ital prin- 

 ciple.' " I will not venture to doubt that 

 Lord Kelvin has such persons among his 

 acquaintance. On the other hand, I feel 

 some confidence in stating that a more ex- 

 tensive acquaintance with modern biolo- 

 gists would have led Lord Kelvin to per- 

 ceive that those whom he cites are but a 

 trifling percentage of the whole. I do not 

 myself know of any one of admitted leader- 

 ship among modem biologists who is show- 

 ing signs of 'coming to a belief in the 

 existence of a vital principle.' 



Biologists were, not many years ago, so 

 terribly hampered by these hj-pothetical 

 entities— '^-italitj',' 'vital spirits.' 'anima 

 animans, ' ' archetj'pes, ' 'vis medicatrix,' 

 'providential artifice,' and others which I 

 can not now enumerate— that they are very 

 shy of setting any of them up again. 



Physicists, on the other hand, seem to have 

 got on very well with their problematic 

 entities, their 'atoms' and 'ether,' and 'the 

 sorting demon of Maxwell.' Hence, per- 

 haps, Lord Kelvin offers to us, with a light 

 heart, the hj'pothesis of 'a vital principle' 

 to smooth over some of our admitted diffi- 

 culties. On the other hand, we biologists, 

 knowing the paralyzing influence of such 

 hypotheses in the past, are as unwilling to 

 have anything to do with 'a vital prin- 

 ciple,' even though Lord Kelvin errone- 

 ously thinks we are coming to it, as we are 

 to accept other strange 'entities' pressed 

 upon us by other physicists of a modern 

 and singularly adventurous type. Modern 

 biologists (I am glad to be able to aflSrm) 

 do not accept the hypothesis of 'telepathy' 

 advocated by Sir Oliver Lodge, nor that 

 of the intrusions of disembodied spirits 

 pressed upon them by others of the same 

 school. 



We biologists take no stock in these mys- 

 terious entities. We think it a more hope- 

 ful method to be patient and to seek by 

 observation of, and experiment with, the 

 phenomena of growth and development to 

 trace the evolution of life and of living 

 things without the facile and sterile hy- 

 pothesis of 'a vital principle.' Similarly, 

 we seek by the study of cerebral disease to 

 trace the genesis of the phenomena which 

 are supposed by some physicists who have 

 strayed into biological fields to justify 

 them in announcing the 'discovery' of 

 'telepathy' and a belief in ghosts. 

 Yours faithfully, 



E. Rat Lankester. 



London, May 15, 1903. 



I felt sure that I could not keep out 

 of this interesting correspondence much 

 longer, but I will try to be brief; and in 

 congratulating Professor Ray Lankester on 

 his admirable letter I should like to explain 

 that the adjective 'fortuitous' as employed 



