The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-21


: ionably tended to foster the opinion that
the originstion OF organic life was limited
to the time Of Its first appearance on this
Garth. For example, Darwin. speaking OF
tho probable commencement OF life upon
our globe, said: Il believe that animals
have descended from at most four or five
~progenitors. and plants from an equal
or less number. Analogy would lead
me one step further, namely. TO the belief
that all animals and plants have descended
from some one prototype. There te
grandeur" Darwin thought, I'm this vie
Of life. with It's several powers having
been originally breathed by the Creator
into a few forms, or into only one FORM
and In the surmise that while this planet
has gone cycling on according to the hxcd
law Of gravity from 30 simple a beginning
endless forms. most beautiful and most
wonderful. have been and are being
evolved Herbert Spencer. on his part,
made no sort Of appeal to a creative by
pothesis. but on the contrary said: Con
strued In terms OF evolution every kim OF
being is conceived as a product Of modi-
~fication, wrought by insensible grsdations
on a .preexisting kind Of being; and this
holds fully Of the supposed commence
nents OF organic life as Of all subsequent
Developments Of organic life" Concerning
the question, however, whether the proc
ess OF archebiosis is likely to have occurred
only once. as Darwin seemed TO hint, or
In multitudinous centres scattered over
the earth's surface, Spencer made no
definite statement. TIL latter belief would
certainly be entirely in accordance with
his general doctrine, and we seem the
more entitled to infer that he inclined to
the notion Of a multiple occurrence 81
archebiosis, both In space and in time.
because he did not reject the possibility
Of It's occurrence in our own day. On the
contrary. he expressly granted that the
formation Of organic matter and the evo-
lution Of life in it's lowest forms may go
on under existing cosmic conditions;
but at the same time he pronounced 10
more likely that the formation Of such
matter and such forms tool place at a
time when the heat OF the earth's surface
was falling through those ranges OF tenn
perature at which the higher organic
compounds are unstable" As for Prof.
Huxley's opinions on the subject OF archie
biosis (spoken OF by him as -ab~iogenesis"),
these were very similar to those IT Herbert
Spencer, with the exception that the former
seemed more strongly opposed to the
notion Of the occurrence OF the phenomenon
at the present day.
Why, asks DR.. Bastian. should such
leading evolutionists p~romulgate OF tolerate
a notion which seems to involve a quite
arbitrary infringement Of the unif ormity
OF nature7 As a matter Of fact neither
Darwin. Huxley nor Spencer ever under
took any experimental work on the subject
themselves. and 1t is probable that the opin-
ions Of Darwin and Spencer were largely
influenced by Huxley. who. as was shown
by his presidential address to the British
Association in 1870, was similarly influenced
by the experimental work Of Pasteur.
Throughout Europe Inc America indeed.
upon the strength Of the results and views
set forth by Pasteur in a memoir published
in 1852, there was during the last forty years
Of the nineteenth century a very marked
tendency to regard spontaneous genera
ton" as an altogether exploded hypothesis.
That doctrine was confidently dismissed by
Pasteur as a chimera. not only in 1892. but
up to the date Of his last writings on the
subject in 1877. Prof. Tyndall entered
upon the question with great zeal from 1874
to the date OF his death, but he did not at
tempt to alter in any material way the
reasons alleged by Pasteur against the
occurrence Of archebiosis. To this day,
therefore, the adverse evidence has been
based upon the work Of Pasteur. formulated
in the memoir issued in 1852 and repeated
by him in a controversy with DIR. Bastian.
which resulted in an abortive commission
OF the French Academy in 1877.
There IL no doubt that the view that
spontaneous generation" Ia a "chimera,"
the view so loudly proclaimed by Pasteur
and 40 widely echoed, was based by him
upon three principal inductions from his
experimental work, together with three
corollaries severally deduced therefrom.
1t is important to keep in mind these three
inductions and the three corollaries thereon.
because il was these conclusions to which
Prof. Huxley. who in 1870 was president Of
the British Association. gave his unquali-
fed ppo Undoubtedly 1t was In re-
lance upon P~asteur's researches and in
f~erences (while ignoring those Of several
other workers. that he proclaimed from his
presidential chair the doctrine ornne rivum
e1 pipo to be victorious along the whole
line" The author Of this book insists that
this cannot be considered to have been an
impartial verdict. and il is the aim Of the
present volume to show that the first and
third Of Pasteur's inductions we're not
sound and that his second corollary was
neither warranted nor true. The demon
stration. however. IL successful would evil
IDENTIFY be equivalent to the breaking down
of the whole Of Pasteur's case in regard
to the question Of archebiosis. the case
pom which he relied up to the last. and
upon the strength Of which. as we have said,
the world generally has adopted the view
that anything like spontaneous genera
ton" il a chimera.