34 
extended an invitation to "Come to Petra" which, after seeing the rose coloured 
slides, many would be glad to accept, Other visiting lecturers were Mr. Mike 
Tween, with a most unusual story of "Two Years in the Antarctic"'; Mr. Ken 
Harbridge with "This is Dorset" and Mr. W. G. Teagle with an "Illustrated Talk 
on Studland Heath Nature Reserve". The full list of lectures is given in detail 
on page . Thanks, as always, to Chief Projectionist, Mr. G. Holroyd and his 
helpers. 
U. M. Ogle 
During the past year seven lectures were given covering a wide variety of 
subjects — details on page 21. 
The season opened with a further welcome visit from Mr. J. E. Parry, m.a., 
b.litt. (Oxon), m.a. (Wales), who chose as his title "In Tune with the Universe". 
This was a close-knit lecture, most scholarly, as alv/ays from this speaker, and 
full of original thought. Concentrated attention was called for, but those listeners 
who were able to follow the lecturer along all the paths of his thought must 
have felt at the end that many new windows had been opened in their minds, 
and that they had been enriched by the experience. 
Starting with the views of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, formulated 
2,400 years ago, Mr. Parry went on to examine the modern intellectual predicament 
of the One and the Many. At first sight one is struck by the diversity of things, 
yet recent developments in molecular biology are emphasizing life's fundamental 
unity. Whatever may be the ultimate secret of the universe and interpretation of 
its mystery, our finite experience is that we are living in a world of contradictions 
and polar opposites which condition our perception. We cannot grasp the idea 
of light except as the opposite of darkness, of heat except as the opposite of cold. 
There is a spatial polarity of above and below, within and without, etc., ad 
infinitum. These opposites produce a tension which is the source of all creative 
processes. Release from it would lead to a cessation of life. We must co-operate 
with the inevitable, said Mr. Parry. Either we become problem solvers, and 
accept each challenge as it arises, or we become outcasts in the Universe. 
Another lecture of outstanding interest was given by Prof. A. G. Hills, 
PH.D., D.sc., f.r.i. c, of Southampton University, visiting us for the first, but we 
hope not the last, time. He chose as his title "The Chemical Creation of Life*" 
and foresaw a future in which individualism will be progressively muted. After 
reviewing age-old beliefs concerning the origin of homo sapiens and the special 
qualities of human kind, he said that the character of many religious and philo- 
sophical disputes was seen to stem from natural ignorance of the processes 
involved, especially of the basic biochemistry underlying living systems. The 
patient analysis of chemical and biochemical systems has led to the recognition 
of the molecular structure, first, of simple inorganic materials, and then of 
organic, living materials. The elucidation of the structure of alkaloids, hormones, 
ribonucleic acid and proteins had laid bare the fundamental chemical processes 
accompanying the reproduction of viruses, and it would seem evident that, while 
the simplest living creature was extremely complex in its structure, its nature and 
its properties, it was nevertheless a chemical system subject to chemical laws. The 
massive impact of chemotherapy on disease had, more than any other factor, 
changed the future of human kind. The concept of death as a currently prevalent 
disease was explored in relation to transplants and other revivification measures. 
The need to regenerate the species in terms of new ideas and new human 
possibilities was questioned, and it was proposed that future progress might well 
be wholly that of society and its technological appendages. Investment in material 
things rather than in human factors was likely, regrettably, to be the principal 
theme. 
The lecturer then went on to examine the "cosmic" view of continuous 
evolution and showed how, since matter was first formed, the same processes of 
aggregation had prevailed. Judged by their performance, the amoeba, the mole- 
cules, and the men had much in common, and differed only in their degree of 
complexity. This was not to reduce the significance of man to that of molecules, 
but perhaps to raise the significance of molecules to that of men. This is close to 
the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin, which Prof. Hills defended. Humankind 
