44 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED 



netism, electricity and chemical affinity be thus ex- 

 plained? Do motions of ether account for the action 

 of each of these forces? 



"When we speak of ether as a medium for the trans- 

 mission of force, we exclude the idea that ether itself 

 is energy. Force is, by definition, that which can put 

 matter in motion, and in defining matter we would be 

 obliged to include ether. The existence of ether 

 gives us no conception of force itself, but it simply 

 serves to explain the transmission of certain- forms of 

 energy. 



As to gravity, we can yet form no adequate concep- 

 tion. What sort of motions and distributions of an 

 almost infinitely thin, non-resistant material like 

 ether, will explain gravitation? The mind can form 

 no adequate conception as to how the motion of ether 

 will account for this force. It would seem that ether, 

 which offers no perceptible resistance to the motions 

 of the planets, is entirely inadequate as a medium to 

 explain the action of gravity. That one body may put 

 another in motion implies inertia and resistance in 

 both. We know that a body falling towards the earth 

 soon acquires a great velocity. What adequate reason 

 have we for believing that moving ether is pushing 

 the falling body? or that the pressure of ether is 

 greater on one side of the falling body than on the 

 other? 



It is true that Newton and others have felt it neces- 

 sary to assume the existence of ether in order to 

 explain gravity, and yet, with ether as a medium, the 

 human mind has made no progress in formulating an 

 adequate theory of gravity. 



If we consider chemical affinity which binds atom 

 to atom to form molecules, the method of action is 

 as uncertain as that of gravity. Indeed, Sir W. 

 Thomson seeks to explain capillary attraction by the 



