This explains the difference of opinion among scientific men as to the possibility of accounting for the origin of life. A certain number deny the possibility, as they do the possibility of explaining scientifically the origin of matter on the explicit ground indicated by Laplace,--"Present events are connected with the events of the past by a link resting on the obvious principle, that a thing can not begin to exist without a cause which produces it."[AT] They do not find in inorganic matter sufficient cause to account for life, and their expectations are restricted accordingly. Those who cherish a contrary expectation, do not vindicate it by contradiction of the obvious principle enunciated by Laplace, or even by maintaining that inorganic matter is adequate to produce living organism. They cling to the more general and doubtful position that no limits are to be assigned to science, or as it is often stated, all nature belongs to the comprehensible. The failure of past experiments is no proof that inevitable failure awaits other experiments which may yet be made. To abandon expectation seems to them to be unfaithful to science. In this fashion, Professor Schmidt declares that "to any one who holds open the possibility that, even now, animate may be evolved from inanimate, without the mediation of progenitors, _the first origin of life in this natural method is at once self-evident_."[AU] To this view the other side may legitimately reply, that if the origin of life be as easily accounted for, as provision is here made for the "self-evident," science will soon be at a discount. To those regarding the matter from without, and waiting for testimony as to what is scientifically established, it is clear that there is no explanation of the origin of life; and I think it will be most commonly held that the weight of reason as to expectations for the future lies with those who abandon the anticipation of any scientific explanation. There is, however, in actual conclusions on scientific evidence nothing involving conflict with religious conviction; and allowance will be made for continued and extended experiments, provided only that the "holding open the possibility," does not make the probability "self-evident." Passing thus from the unsolved problem of the origin of life,--with the attendant acknowledgment that there is no scientific theory of the world's descent from primordial atoms, we advance to the testimony of science concerning different orders of life, and their relations to each other. Here there is no restriction as to the use of scientific methods; there is wide range for free action by the hosts of observers required for the work. A sense of the relief which this implies, in contrast with the hampering restraints surrounding the earlier question, imparts to the words of Schmidt a more jubilant tone, as he says, "Between beginning and end, we naturalists may do as we please."[AV]