The Creator, and what we may know of the method of creationDallinger, W. H. (William Henry)
Religion
The Creator, and what we may know of the method of creation
Dallinger, W. H. (William Henry)
Creation; Evolution; God; Religion and science
[Footnote 16: _Principles of Biology_, vol. i. p. 481.]
The justification of all this is the affirmation ‘that organic matter
was not produced all at once,’ and that there is in the laboratory
of the chemist ‘what we may literally call artificial evolution.’
Mr. Spencer instances a laboratory product of what is counted a
sufficiently typical organic compound.[17] But to obtain it the chemist
has to employ no less than twenty distinct chemical and physical
processes, involving many varying temperatures, from a red heat to the
intensity of the electric arc, and between thirty and forty reagents
and their products, are employed in the process. Compare this with the
silent and impenetrable simplicity of the chemistry of life, and vivid
and striking is the contrast. And yet when this product of the chemist
lies before you, produced by the tremendous relative labours of the
laboratory, it is as far off from dead white of egg, to say nothing
of living protoplasm, as the qualities of a flint pebble are from the
qualities of the diamond.
[Footnote 17: The Butyrate of dimethylamin.]
The _facts_ of nature—surely our safest guide—declare that the
transition from not-life to life is abrupt. The break is absolute and
clear. A ‘complex molecule’ is a molecule of atoms in motion,—nothing
more. More atoms and more motion cannot, by themselves, as Mr. Spencer
would teach, make it ‘organic;’ much less can any further addition of
atoms and tremors make it live. It is in vain for Haeckel to call the
simplest moneron that lives ‘primeval slime,’ or to call numbers of
them ‘individualized lumps of albumen.’ It is a travesty. Under the
same lens place ‘a lump of albumen’ and the lowest _living_ infusorian,
and a voiceless contradiction of Haeckel’s phrase which none can ever
question is indubitably given. The infusorian lives; the albumen is
dead. The infusorian constructs the vital matter of its own body from
the heterogeneous matter in which it lives; the albumen decomposes
as it lies there. The infusorian has soon multiplied by millions,
while the albumen disappears by decadence. To write of living monera
as ‘albumen,’ or of ‘complex molecules’ with nothing more than their
complexity, as _living_, is to contradict, in the name, the essential
and distinguishing qualities of both.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account