, 1889-03-21

these heterogeneous parts or pseudopoda
or radiated fingers and moves itself. He
talks about its being "a chemical com mbina
tion of single substance" How can q
thing be a combination Of only one suD-
stancep How can any living creature
eat and grow and move itself without or.
gans of motion and ASST imilatonp Such a
proposition is too absurd to deserve a SER
ious reply. Now what does all this
minute description of this moneron by
the professor mean2 He il very de-
sirous OF belitteinR this very little pelagic
animal to show that II was nearly without
organs that he might make the superficial
reader believe that an animal that had no
organism or to next none might bridge the
| immense chBsu, between The Giving aud
the not living" that he was betrayed into
all this supreme nonsense. | doubt not
that his mon a 10 a real living bel q g. wi ith
u perfect organism. whether the micro
scope reveals 10 or not. ] doubt not that
1t has nerves and muscles and eyes. IL IL
needs them; and fingers or pseuhopodia !;
and has will to control its movements.
and organs of digestion if it eats and
grows. do not believe any of God 8
works are defective, however small.
will let you into secret, or rather Prof.
Hackel lets us into the secret OF this at
tempt to belittle Gods work in these sig.
bluCahb Worus, reDea'eu seVeral tlUes
with emphasis: "Of the very greatest i'm
portance to the hypothesis of spontaneous
generation. 'of the utmost Importance"
1.-THE exceedingly important monera,'
are OF the utmost Importance
to the theory of the first origin of life
That is to say. ii he fails to establish
spontaneous generation through this rn-
less, simple LUMP of albumen, without or
Rans, that are traceable by the micro.
scope, then his cause is lost. You see
they are 80 insignificant and yet so impor-
tant! Performing all the functions of life
without anything to do IL with! Shades
Of Aristotle, Bacon and Lock. think of it!
What is this scientific age coming TOP Is
that the style of reasoning taught in The
University of Jenap
But he gives away his theory in the
following sentence: The supposition of
spontaneous generation loses most of ito
difficulties" by accepting his lame account
of this moneron. Then he admits that
spontaneous generation has tits Difficult
ties, On the ..'supposition!' But this
must be demonstrative proof. Nothing
short OF rigid induction--not even deduc.
tion will do, mucn less inferential suppo-
sitions and assumptions.
But must show you that he aatly con-
tradicts himself. He in the paragraph
just quoted says the moneron
Is "a simple lump of albumen" con-
sisting 'of one single chemical combina.
nation" and then on paRp 327, vol !. His
tory of Creation. We have this: "In all
living bodies without (this includes the
moneron) exception there is certain
quantity of water combined in peculiar
manner with solid matter. All animals
and plants; In fact, all organisms, consist
in great measure Of fluid water, which
combines In a peculiar manner with other
an animal" with organs and "other sub
stances besides simple albumen, or this
definition is defective. He not only con.
tradicts himself in his definition Of his
exceedingly remarkable moneron. but he
contradicts his great master, MIR. Darwin:
Darwin in his book on "Animals and
Plants" page 4S3, volume III. says: 1--WE
cannot fathom the marvellous complexity
of an organized being ;but on the hypothe-
thesis here advanced (pangenesis) this
complexity is much increased. Each liv-
ing creature must be looked at as a micro.
cosm formed by a host of self propagatng
organisms inconceivaby minute. Each
living creature" according to this
great expounder of evolution, lis
So is Prof. Hackels' moneron If it is any.
thing. And If it is a microcosm its en-
ployment to prove spontaneous generation
is a failure, because il must according to
his science, be ''formless' being with.
out organism to fill that place.
When as great a scientist as Hackel of
the University of Jena, has foundation
less theory to support, how easy it is to
contradict and trip himself up! This
gentleman has the effrontery, after this
awkward attempt to convince the student
of science that the moDeron il the insig-
nihcant being that spans the gap between
'the living and not living" or inanimate
matter, to assert that this hybrid hypo-
thesis of spontaneous generation, has
gained degree of probability which en-
titles it to ill up the gap existing between
Kant's Cosmogony and Lamaik's theory
of Descents." A degree of probability =
probability with the microscope as it
was to see his moneron with the best
magnifyin2 glass in the University of
Jena. But we thank him nevertheless for
"the gap" he mentions between Kants's
cosmogoiy and Lamarks theory OF descent
That hiatus can never be spanned by his
moneron, which he confesses is essential
to the hypothesis of spontaneous genera
tion.
But Prof. Hackel has confessed that
spontaneous generation which was possi-
ole at that early period is not possible
now. He says Hist. of Creation. Vol.
pp. 1929; The impossibility of such a
process spontaneous 0eneration) Can in
fact never be proved. For how can we
know that in remote primeval times there
did not exist conditions quite different
from those at present obtaining and which
may have rendered spontaneous genera
tion possiblep *Thipk only OF the
fact that enormous masses OF carbon.
which we now find in the primary coal
rnonnfaina etc Al thaf tin,a ,nd.r non.