﻿438 Prof. J. Bayma on the Fundamental 



" Now, if this principle be admitted, what theoretical basis have 

 we for the existence of distinct primitive molecules for every differ- 

 ent substance, the number of elements associated together being 

 exactly the same for each primitive molecule of each substance, and 

 different for primitive molecules of different substances ? The na- 

 tural tendency would be to a fortuitous association of elements in an 

 endless variety of numbers into groups. No controlling principle 

 by which uniformity would be evolved from chaotic confusion, is fur- 

 nished by the theory. The hand of the Creator must be supposed 

 to have miraculously interfered, and guided each element to its pre- 

 cise place in the formation of every molecule of matter." 



I have brought in this passage, though I have no necessity of 

 giving it a reply, only because it shows what style of reasoning 

 is sometimes adopted by men of scientific merit. Professor 

 Norton starts from the assertion that my elements act, under 

 the same circumstances, with equal intensity : and the assertion 

 is false. He then draws a conclusion ; which accordingly has 

 no foundation. He assumes that the conclusion must be rejected 

 in order to give a theoretical basis to molecular science, and 

 does not reflect that the existence of distinct primitive molecules 

 is in no need of a theoretical basis a priori, it being quite suffi- 

 ciently established as a matter of fact by a posteriori reasonings. 

 He implies gratuitously that elements must have existed in a 

 previous state of dissociation ; and therefore considers them as 

 having a natural tendency to a fortuitous association, and speaks 

 of chaotic confusion with no controlling principle. He comes 

 to the consequence that " the Creator must be supposed to have 

 miraculously interfered y" and seems either to regret the neces- 

 sity of the fact, or to imagine that in the work of creation there 

 has been nothing miraculous. Lastly he supposes that the 

 Creator must have interfered " by guiding each element to its 

 precise place/'' as if the elements could not have been created in 

 those precise places without any need of a miraculous guidance. 



To strengthen this first argument, he adds : 



" The objection here urged derives still greater force from the 

 consideration that both the nucleus and envelope of each specific 

 molecule are assumed to have a regular geometric form, different 

 for each substance. To assume the existence of such molecules 

 is to make an incalculable number of arbitrary assumptions." 



The reader already knows how in my criticism on Professor 

 Norton's " fundamental principles " I had ventured to say, and 

 to prove, that his theory contained a great deal of arbitrary as- 

 sumption. It is not surprising then, that the learned Professor 

 should now and then indulge, to his own relief, in an attempt 

 at retaliation, and that here, at the end of his paper, should make 

 a decharge generate of an "incalculable number" of projectiles. 



