UNDER THE APPLE-TREES 
living body and gave it organs? Of course the func- 
tioning of any bodily organ involves chemical proc- 
esses, but do the processes determine the function? 
Do they assign one function to the liver, another to 
the kidneys, another to the heart? In other words, is 
the organizing effort that awakens in matter the 
result of chemistry and physics? 
Do we not need to go outside of the material con- 
stituents of a living body to account for its purpo- 
sive organization? Can we deduce an eye or anear 
or a brain from any of the known chemical proper- 
ties or their material elements? Does any living 
thing necessarily follow from its known chemical 
composition? Do the material constituents of the 
different parts of a machine determine the purpose 
and function of that machine? The function of an 
organ and the organ itself are the result of some un- 
known but intelligent power in the body as a whole. 
I have no purpose to discredit Haeckel’s science 
or his philosophy, but only to show how great is his 
scientific faith,— how much it presupposes, and 
what a burden it throws upon chemistry and phys- 
ics. Like all the later philosophical biologists, he 
reaches a point in his argument when chemistry and 
physics become creative, while he fails to see that 
they differ at all in their activities from the chemis- 
try and physics of inorganic matter. To be consist- 
ent he is forced to believe in the possibility of the 
artificial production of life. He helps himself out by 
174 
