“Science Affirms Creative Power”

A vote of thanks from Lord Kelvin following a course of lectures on "Christian Apologetics" given at University College, London in May, 1903 by Rev. Professor Henslow, with an amending letter.


As originally printed in The Times, May 2, 1903:

LORD KELVIN ON RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

In connexion vith University College Christian Association the first of a course of five public lectures on "Christian Apologetics" was delivered last evening, in the Botanical Theatre, at University College, Gowerstreet. LORD REAY, president of University College, occupied the chair, and the large theatre was filled to overflowing, many visitors being unable to find seats.

The REV. PROFESSOR G. HENSLOW, who was the lecturer, spoke on the subject of "Present-day Rationalism: An Examination of Darwnism."

LORD KELVIN, in moving a vote of thanks to the lecturer, said he wished to make a personal explanation. He had recently had occasion to make use of the expressions ether, atoms, electricity, and had been horrified to read in the Press that he had spoken of ether-atoms. Ether was absolutely non-atomic it was absolutely structureless and homogeneous. He was in thorough sympathy with Professor Henslow in the fundamentals of his lecture, but he could not say that with regard to the origin of life science neither affirmed nor denied creative power. Science positively affirmed creative power. Science made every one feel a miracle in himself. It was not in dead matter that they lived and moved and had their being, but in the creating and directive power which science compelled them to accept as an article of belief. They could not escape from that when they studied the physics and dynamics of living and dead matter all around. Modern biologists were coming once more to a firm acceptance of something, and that was a vital principle. They had an unknown object put before them in science. In thinking of that object they were all agnostics. They only knew God in His works, but they were absolutely forced by science to admit and to believe with absolute confidence in a directive power—in an influence other than physical, dynamical, electrical forces. Cicero had denied that they could have come into existence by a fortuitous concourse of atoms. There was nothing between absolute scientific belief in creative power and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms. Was there, he asked, anything so absurd as to believe that a number of atoms by falling together of their own accord could make a crystal, a moss, a microbe, a living animal? People thought that, given millions of years, these might come to pass, but they could not think that a million of millions of millions of years could give them unaided a beautiful world like ours. They had a spiritual influence and in science a knowledge that there was that influence in the world around them. He admired the healthy, breezy atmosphere of free thought in Professor Henslow's lecture. Let no one, he urged, be afraid of true freedom. They could be free in their thought, in their criticisms, and with freedom of thought they were bound to come to the conclusion that science was not antagonistic to religion, but a help for religion. (Cheers.)

LORD REAY congratulated the association on the proceedings that day. It was a grand thing to hear that prince of science, Lord Kelvin, give his testimony on behalf of religion. As president of that college, he hoped they would always maintain the open door for free discussion and welcome' the members of all Christian Churches within their walls. (Cheers.)

A version of this speech was quoted in The Life of William Thomson, Baron Kelvin of Largs, by S. P. Thompson, which notes that this version was "corrected by Lord Kelvin's own hand":

I wish to make a personal explanation with reference to Professor Henslow's mention of ether-granules. I had recently, at a meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, occasion to make use of the expressions ether, atoms, electricity, and had been horrified to read in the Press that I had put forward a hypothesis of ether-atoms. Ether is absolutely non-atomic; it is absolutely structureless and homogeneous.

I am in thorough sympathy with Professor Henslow in the fundamentals of his lecture. I do not say that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies creative power. Science positively affirms creative power. Science makes every one feel a miracle in himself. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directive Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief. We cannot escape from that conclusion when we study the physics and dynamics of living and dead matter all around. Modern biologists are coming once more to a firm acceptance of something beyond mere gravitational, chemical, and physical forces; and that unknown thing is a vital principle. We have an unknown object put before us in science. In thinking of that object we are all agnostics. We only know God in His works, but we are absolutely forced by science to admit and to believe with absolute confidence in a Directive Power in an influence other than physical, or dynamical, or electrical forces. Cicero, editor of Lucretius, denied that men and plants and animals could have come into existence by a fortuitous concourse of atoms. There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in Creative Power and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms. Just think of a number of atoms falling together of their own accord and making a crystal, a sprig of moss, a microbe, a living animal.

I admire throughout the healthy, breezy atmosphere of free-thought in Professor Henslow s lecture. Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all Religion. You will find science not antagonistic, but helpful to Religion.

On the same day that this was printed, Lord Kelvin sent an amending letter to The Times, printed on May 4, 1903:

LORD KELVIN ON RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,—In your report of a few words which I said in proposing a vote of thanks to Professor Henslow for his lecture "On Present Day Rationalism" yesterday evening, in University College, I find the following:—"Was there anything so absurd as to believe that a number of atoms by falling together of their own accord could make a crystal, a sprig of moss, a microbe, a living animal?" I wish to delete "a crystal," though no doubt your report of what I said is correct. Exceedingly narrow limits of time prevented me from endeavouring to explain how different is the structure of a crystal from that of any portion, large or small, of an animal or plant, or the cellular formation of which the bodies of animals and plants are made; but I desired to point out that, while "fortuitous concourse of atoms" is not an inappropriate description of the formation of a crystal, it 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. Here scientific thought is compelled to accept the idea of Creative Power. Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country, if he believed that the grass and flowers which we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces. He answered, "No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them could grow by mere chemical forces."

Every action of human free will is a miracle to physical and chemical and mathematical science.

Yours faithfully,
KELVIN.
15, Eaton-place, London, S.W., May 2.

Christian Apologetics by George Henslow gives a slightly different quote, combining the original speech and the letter:

With reference to Professor Henslow's mention of ether-granules, I ask permission to say three words of personal explanation. I had recently, at a meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, occasion to make use of the expressions ether, atoms, electricity; and I was horrified to read in the Press that I had put forward a hypothesis of ether-atoms. Ether is absolutely non-atomic; it is structureless, and utterly homogeneous where not disturbed by the atoms of ponderable matter.

I am in thorough sympathy with Professor Henslow in the fundamentals of his lecture; but I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directing power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief. We cannot escape from that conclusion, when we study the physics and dynamics of living and dead matter all around. Modern biologists are coming, I believe, once more to a firm acceptance of something beyond mere gravitational, chemical, and physical forces; and that unknown thing is a vital principle. We have an unknown object put before us in science. In thinking of that object we are all agnostics. We only know God in His works, but we are absolutely forced by science to believe with perfect confidence in a Directive Power—in an influence other than physical, or dynamical, or electrical forces. Cicero, by some supposed to have been editor of Lucretius, denied that men and plants and animals could come into existence by a fortuitous concourse of atoms. There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms. Just think of a number of atoms falling together of their own accord, and making a crystal, a sprig of moss, a microbe, a living animal. Cicero's expression, "fortuitous concourse of atoms," is not wholly inappropriate for the growth of a crystal. But modern scientific men are wholly in agreement with him in condemning it as utterly absurd in respect to the coming into existence, or the growth, or the continuation of molecular combinations presented in the bodies of living things. Here scientific thought is compelled to accept the idea of Creative Power. Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country, if he believed that the grass and flowers that we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces. He answered, "No; no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them could grow by mere chemical forces." Every action of human free will is a miracle to physical and chemical and mathematical science.

I admire the healthy, breezy atmosphere of free thought throughout Professor Henslow's lecture. Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.

In conclusion, I have the pleasure to move a hearty vote of thanks to Professor Henslow for the interesting and instructive lecture which we have heard.

Thompson also offers a related quote extracted from an address on presenting prizes to students in the Medical School of St. George's Hospital, on October 23, 1904:

Let it not be imagined that any hocus-pocus of electricity or viscous fluids will make a living cell. Splendid and interesting work has recently been done in what was formerly called inorganic chemistry, a great French chemist taking the lead. This is not the occasion for a lecture on the borderland between what is called organic and what is called inorganic; but it is interesting to know that materials belonging to the general class of food-stuffs, such as sugar, and what might also be called a food-stuff, alcohol, can be made out of the chemical elements. But let not youthful minds be dazzled by the imaginings of the daily newspapers, that because Berthelot and others have thus made food-stuffs they can make living things, or that there is any prospect of a process being found in any laboratory for making a living thing, whether the minutest germ of bacteriology or anything smaller or greater. There is an absolute distinction between crystals and cells. Anything that crystallizes may be made by the chemist. Nothing approaching to the cell of a living creature has ever yet been made. The general result of an enormous amount of exceedingly intricate and thorough-going investigation by Huxley and Hooker and others of the present age, and by some of their predecessors in both the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries, is that no artificial process whatever can make living matter out of dead. This is vastly beyond the subject of the chemical laboratory, vastly beyond my own subject of physics or of electricity beyond it in depth of scientific significance and in human interest.