The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-03-31


the other biological. The physical doc
trine is what he calls 1.-The law of sub
stance''-a kind Of combination of the
conservation Of matter and the. conserra-
ton of energy. r. t. The expert
mental facts Of biogenesis he discards in
favor of a hypothetical and at present
undiscovered kind of spontaneous genera
ton. = -:t..' !:
Then, in discussing Professor Hack
ell s central doctrine Of the law of sub
stance, he shows very clearly that the
law of" conservation of energy as now
stated may In some cases be strictly
untrue. What, then, becomes Of his
sweeping generalization that "the uni
verse, or the cosmos; is eternal, infinite
and illimitable; it's substance, with its
fills infinite space; and is in eternal
of matter, Professor Lodge shows, is
not to be considered "really an expert
mental fact.' Professor Ostwald, the
German physicist, who delivered the
Ingersoll lecture on Individuality and
Immortality at Harvard last year
points to the possibility of error in re-
garding energy and mass as the immor:
tails Of the physical universe. A slight
undetected original error might vitiate
the conclusion as to their Immortality
and few are yet ready to say that all
| possibility Of error has been eliminated
As to the matter Of spontaneous gen,
GRAFTON, Professor Haeckel admittedly
builds upon hypothesis, for, as quoted
by Professor Lodge, he says:
| The hypothesis of spontaneous genera
tion and the allied carbon theory wiz,
| that carbon may be considered the chem
ical basis Of life), are of great Importance
in deciding the long-standing conflict be-
tween the theological (dualistic) and the
mechanical (monistfc) Interpretation of
phenomena.
On this Professor Lodge makes this
pointed comment.
"But it can hardly be maintained
that q hypothesis is able to decide
| any dispute.''.
This would seem to be almost, il, not
quite, enough to show that Professor
! Haeckel s conclusions ought not to, and
| cannot, be regarded as final. They are
| mere speculations.
But suppose that Professor Haeckel Is
law of substance holds good, and that
in the last analysis, the physical uni
verse may be reducible to ether "with
such states Of motion or strain as it
| eternally possesses care we to con.
clude,'' asks Professor Lodge, Hthat
nothing else exists9' What about the
| category of lifes Suppose even that
spontaneous generation be granted
cit would still be true,'' SO Professor
Lodge thinks, "that the life was in
some sense pre-existent; that it was not
| really created de novo; that it was
brought into actual practical EVERYDAY
existence doubtless, but that it had pre-
existed in some sense too; being called
out, as it were from some great reser
voir or storehouse of vitality, to which
when it's earthly career is ended, it will
/ return.'' > -
It will be seen from all of this that
Professor Lodge makes it clear that
\ science. has far to go before it's devo
tees will accept the dogmatic conclu
slons OF Professor Haeckel or others like
/ him. ..-. L. 49, '>
But Professor Lodge goes farthe,
than a criticism Of Professor HaeckeI
He seeks to reformulate certain doc.
trine concerning the nature Of man and
the interaction between mind and mat.
ter,' showing that material energy, the
constant in quantity, in its TRANSITIONAL
tons and transferences is susceptible OF
guidance or directing control, and thai
life is not one of the forms Of materia1
energy, which. relinquishing it's connec
/ ton with matter, is replaced with othe,
| equivalent forms of energy.
! Altogether Professor Lodges book /,
one to throw much light on the greai
| questions which science is seeking e
solve as well as to warn against anv
like Haecke1, who make the q superhJ1
man claim = Of being fable to perceive
comprehensively and state fully moi
only what is. but what is not. :"
G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York.