00000116.htm

THE DYNAMIC ELEMENT IN LIFE 105

In the frankest possible way Spencer admitted that
his definition of Life did not cover the facts, that it
did not recognise the essential or dynamic element,
that " Life in its essence cannot be conceived in
physico-chemical terms.'* But if so, it can only be
by great faith or great credulity that we can believe
that an Evolution-formula in terms of "Matter,
Motion, and Force" is adequate to describe its
genesis.

At an earlier part of the Data of Biology Spencer
assumed the origin of active protoplasm from a com-
bination of inert proteids during the time of the
earth's slow cooling, and did not suggest that there
was any particular difficulty in the assumption; yet
in the end we are told that it is " impossible even to
imagine those processes going on in organic matter
out of which emerges the dynamic element in Life."

⁶⁶ One can picture," Prof. C. Lloyd Morgan writes,^1
66 how certain folk will gloat and * chortle in their joy * over
this confession, for such it will almost inevitably be regarded.
But it is not likely that Mr Spencer is here, in so vital a
matter, false to the evolution he has done so much to
elucidate. The two seemingly contradictory statements are
not really contradictory; they are made in different con-
nections ; the one in reference to phenomenal causation, the
other to noumenal causation—to an underlying * principle of
activity.' The simple statement of fact is that the
phenomena of life are data sui generis^ and must as such be
accepted by science. Just as when oxygen and hydrogen
combine to form water, new data for science emerge; so,
when protoplasm was evolved, new data emerged which it is
the business of science to study. In both cases we believe
that the results are due to the operation of natural laws, that
is to say, can, with adequate knowledge, be described in
terms of antecedence and sequence. But in both cases the

* ^l " Natural Science," xiii., December 1898, p. 380.



	THE DYNAMIC ELEMENT IN LIFE 105 In the frankest possible way Spencer admitted that his definition of Life did not cover the facts, that it did not recognise the essential or dynamic element, that " Life in its essence cannot be conceived in physico-chemical terms.'* But if so, it can only be by great faith or great credulity that we can believe that an Evolution-formula in terms of "Matter, Motion, and Force" is adequate to describe its genesis. At an earlier part of the Data of Biology Spencer assumed the origin of active protoplasm from a com- bination of inert proteids during the time of the earth's slow cooling, and did not suggest that there was any particular difficulty in the assumption; yet in the end we are told that it is " impossible even to imagine those processes going on in organic matter out of which emerges the dynamic element in Life." ⁶⁶ One can picture," Prof. C. Lloyd Morgan writes,^1 66 how certain folk will gloat and * chortle in their joy * over this confession, for such it will almost inevitably be regarded. But it is not likely that Mr Spencer is here, in so vital a matter, false to the evolution he has done so much to elucidate. The two seemingly contradictory statements are not really contradictory; they are made in different con- nections ; the one in reference to phenomenal causation, the other to noumenal causation—to an underlying * principle of activity.' The simple statement of fact is that the phenomena of life are data sui generis^ and must as such be accepted by science. Just as when oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water, new data for science emerge; so, when protoplasm was evolved, new data emerged which it is the business of science to study. In both cases we believe that the results are due to the operation of natural laws, that is to say, can, with adequate knowledge, be described in terms of antecedence and sequence. But in both cases the * ^l " Natural Science," xiii., December 1898, p. 380.