The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-11-16
TIE sPONTA NE0US GENERA TT0N CON-
TROVERSY.

Oan living substance ever be evolved out of
non-living substance2 IL is an old-a very
old-question, to which the philosophers of
successive centuries have given different an
swers, and it is not yet certain when the time
will come that the final verdict Of Science
shall be absolute and conclusive. 1t will be
in the recollection of many Of our readers
that the distinguished President of the last
meeting of the British Association put his
foot down Gas the Yankee phrase is) solidly,
and almost savagely, upon one OF the rival
bypotheses, and pronounced that the maxlm
Omne 0Soaa eG otO0 was victorious all along
the line. Strangely enough this authoritative
assertion on the part of one OF the most emi-
nent of our modern school of science has served
only to revive the controversy which he en-
deayored to stamp out, and the pages of our
scientific contemporary, Nature, bear witness
TO the keenness with which the issue is still
contested So warmly indeed has the battle
ragged that we are compelled to deplore the
conversion into controversial heat, and the
consequent dissipation, of vast amount OF
energy which, under more favorable infiu-
ences, might have manifested itself in the
form of sound and lasting scientific work.
This affords one more illustration Of what
is almost truism, that it pays better to an
swer opponents than to try to stamp them
out. But passing by, for the present at any
rate, the manner in which the warfare has
been waged, we propose to consider what the
result of the evidence is up to the present
time on this question, which has engaged the
attention of mankind from the earliest dawn
of science, which in successive ages has re-
ceived conflicting answers in accordance with
the knowledge and temper of the time, which
is STILL as some think, almost as unsettled as
ever, and which, for aught we know, may re-
main unsettled to the end of time.
The most prominent champions who have
recently entered the lists in this great quarrel
are Professor Huxley, who maintains that all
living things without exception are the pro-
ducts of previously living matter, and DR..
BastiaD, who maintains that his own expert
ments and those of others who have preceded
him in the same field establish the possibility,
if not the probability, that living organisms
are sometimes evolved out of non-living
materials.
Before discussing the points of difference
between the two schools thus represented, it
will be we'll to note the extent to which they
are agreed. Professor Huxley aud DIR. Bas-
tian both hold that there is no difficulty in
conceiviDg the development of protoplasm
step by step into higher organisms, and the
only issue is whether is or is not possible that
protoplasm itself, or forms of life which are
little more than underlined living substance,
can under any conditions be evolved from
non-living matter without the presence of
pre-existing life. Again, Professor Huxley
comedies so much to his opponent as to admit
that if he were permitted to look back 'bs-
yond the abyss of geologically recorded time
to the still more remote period when the
earth was passing through the physical
and chemical conditions" of it's in
fancy, he should expect not as q matter
Of belief, but as an ''act of philosophical
faith, to see ''the evolution of living pro-
toplasm from non-living NATTER" but he
seems to rely apart from direct experiment.
on the analogy of the known mode of repro
duction of all the higher forms of animal and
vegetable life as q strong q p1f0rs argument
that in the lowest forms also the rule Onane
viUum er 0i0o may be presumed to hold good.
DIR. Bastian, on the other hand, of course
admits that, 80 long as we keep out of the
regions which the microscope with all its
modern improvements has revealed, there is
no known origin of life without previously
living parent; but he considers the analogy
of what, even according to Professor Hux.
ley, must once have happened on the earth
to be more cogent argument (on the princi
pie of continuity in favor of the present ex
istence of the same mode of evolution of life
than the parallel sought to be drawn from the
rule which palpably governs the genesis Of
the higher orders of organized beings. If We
are called upon to pronounce judgment upor
these prs075 reasonings from analogy, We
must say that they are equally worthless
Professor Huxley's faith that there was one,
an age of abiogenesis Gas he terms the origin
Of life from non-living matter), which ha
now finally passed away, has too mucl
resemblance to the theological theory abou
the age of miracles to be very attractive to
scientific mind; while DIR. Bastians relianc,
upon the law of continuity seems to us to b,
strained too far to have any appreciable value
To our minds the question is pure question
of fact, depending on the results of scientific
investigation. We see no a pTt07t considera
tions which would weigh a feather IN tn,
scale against any well-established scientif
experiments, and we approach the examina
tion of the evidence without the faintes
prejudice for or against the possibility of tn,
occasional evolution of life from non-liyinl
matter.
Now what are the facts? This is the onl,
question worth discussing. From 1868 t.
1870 a series of experimental investigation
stands recorded, in the course of which re
suits arrived al by one inquirer have beer
overthrown by his successor, to be set ol
their legs again by still later experimental
ist. Which way the beam is at present in
elined is the inquiry to which we shall brief
address ourselves. The task is happily no
80 difficult as it would have been a fey
months since. In the address with which h.
fascinated the assembled savans of the Brit
ish Association, Professor Huxley has givel
an admirable summary (seen of course iron
his own point or view) of the work whiol
was done by successive biologists from tn
year 166S to the year 1862. At this epoch b
which he has since partially OK
planned, and which we shall presently con
slider. But seekers after truth need no
be dismayed, for whatever thev may have los