“2. That ‘fortuitous concourse of atoms’ is utterly absurd in respect to the coming into existence, or the growth, or the continuation of the molecular combinations presented in the bodies of living things. “3. That, though inorganic phenomena do not do so, yet the phenomena of such living things as a sprig of moss, a microbe, a living animal--looked at and considered as matters of scientific investigation--compel us to conclude that there is scientific reason for believing in the existence of a creative and directive power. “4. That modern biologists are coming once more to a firm acceptance of something, and that is--a vital principle. “In your article on the discussion which has followed these statements you declare that this (the opinions I have quoted above) is ‘a momentous conclusion,’ and that it is a vital point in the relation of science to religion. “I do not agree with that view of the matter, although I find Lord Kelvin’s statements full of interest. So far as I have been able to ascertain, after many years in which these matters have engaged my attention, there is no relation, in the sense of a connection or influence, between science and religion. There is, it is true, often an antagonistic relation between exponents of science and exponents of religion when the latter illegitimately misrepresent or deny the conclusions of scientific research or try to prevent its being carried on, or, again, when the former presume, by magnifying the extremely limited conclusions of science, to deal in a destructive spirit with the very existence of those beliefs and hopes which are called ‘religion.’ Setting aside such excusable and purely personal collisions between rival claimants for authority and power, it appears to me that science proceeds on its path without any contact with religion, and that religion has not, in its essential qualities, anything to hope for, or to fear from, science. “The whole order of nature, including living and lifeless matter--from man to gas--is a network of mechanism the main features and many details of which have been made more or less obvious to the wondering intelligence of mankind by the labour and ingenuity of scientific investigators. But no sane man has ever pretended, since science became a definite body of doctrine, that we know or ever can hope to know or conceive of the possibility of knowing, whence this mechanism has come, why it is there, whither it is going, and what there may or may not be beyond and beside it which our senses are incapable of appreciating. These things are not ‘explained’ by science, and never can be.