What do you think?
Rate this book
The Order of Nature: An Essay
This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.
250 pages, Paperback
Published April 20, 2010
About the author
Lawrence Joseph Henderson
18 books4 followers1878-1942
Lawrence Joseph Henderson (June 3, 1878 – February 10, 1942) was an American physiologist, chemist, biologist, philosopher, and sociologist. He became one of the leading biochemists of the early 20th century. His work contributed to the Henderson–Hasselbalch equation, used to calculate pH as a measure of acidity.
Lawrence Joseph Henderson (June 3, 1878 – February 10, 1942) was an American physiologist, chemist, biologist, philosopher, and sociologist. He became one of the leading biochemists of the early 20th century. His work contributed to the Henderson–Hasselbalch equation, used to calculate pH as a measure of acidity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 1, 2025
A BIOCHEMIST ULTIMATELY ARGUES IN FAVOR OF TELEOLOGY
Biochemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson (1878-1942) wrote in the Preface to this 1925 book, “The study of adaptation, of which Lamarck is the great originator, has not yet won for itself a secure scientific foundation or led to clear and unequivocal interpretations of nature. Although the facts which this study presents are both universal and important, biologists have neither agreed upon their place in the history of evolution nor discovered any principle by which they may be even unified. This failure of our modern science is not hard to understand, and may fairly be attributed, in part at least, to the lack of a systematic study of ADAPTABILITY; which at bottom is a physical and chemical problem, uncomplicated by the riddle of life.
“For beneath the organic structures and functions are the molecules and their activities. These it is that have been molded by the process of evolution, and these no less have formed the environment. I beg the reader to bear this in mind and constantly to remember one simple question: What are the physical and chemical origins of diversity among inorganic and organic things, and how shall the adaptability of matter and energy be described? He may then see his way through all the difficulties which … have accumulated around a problem that in the final analysis belongs only to physical science, and at the end he will find a provisional answer to the question.”
He observes, “[Hans] Driesch’s effort to prove the existence of entelechy in the organism culminates in what he regards as a demonstration that mechanism is necessarily unable to determine some of the phenomena of organic regulation. In the absence of any clear understanding of the operation of cell mechanisms, such an effort is, I think, clearly in vain. It may carry conviction to those who are already predisposed in its favor, but no one else can accept the argument, and an opponent will always regard it as worthless.” (Pg. 88)
He notes, “The advance of science has assuredly not made the origin of life easier to imagine, or even to think about. On the contrary I am fully persuaded that it has made the task far more difficult. Least of all does it lead us unduly to praise those analogies between organic and inorganic phenomena that have been so much discussed… The dynamic equilibria of life and of a whirlpool are entirely unequal in complexity and in the very essence of the physical and chemical processes by which they are adjusted and controlled. Yet it is quite impossible to escape from the idea of living things as natural products, for science involves determinism and determinism imposes this very concept.” (Pg. 115)
He suggests, “We may therefore conclude that there is here revealed an order or pattern in the properties of the elements… It has a dynamical significance, and relates to evolution… No other environment, that is to say no environment other than the surface of a planet upon which water and carbonic acid are the primary constituents, does or could so highly favor the widest range of durability and activity in the widest range of material systems---in systems varying with respect to phases, to components, and to concentrations. This environment is indeed the FITTEST.” (Pg. 185)
He asserts, “the possibility is negligible that conditions equally favorable to the production of diversity in the course of evolution should arise without relevant cause. But we are ignorant of the existence of any cause, except, or course, the living organism, which can thus produce results that are fully intelligible only in their relation to later events. Nevertheless we can, on no account, unless we are to abandon the principle of probability which is the basis of every scientific induction, deny this connection, in character an adaptation, between the properties of matter and the diversity of evolution. For the connection is fully evident and the result is reached by a scientific demonstration.” (Pg. 190-191)
He goes on, “The process of evolution consists in increase of diversity of systems and their activities, in the multiplication of physical occurrences, or, briefly, in the production of much from little. Other things being equal there is a maximum ‘freedom’ for such evolution on account of a certain arrangement of unique properties of matter. The chance that this unique ensemble of properties should occur by ‘accident’ is almost infinitely small… Therefore there is a relevant causal connection between the properties of the elements and the ‘freedom’ of evolution.” (Pg. 191)
He sums up, “We thus reach the conclusion that in one most important respect the teleological appearance of nature depends upon an unquestionable relationship between certain original characteristics of the universe which, because it is MERELY a relationship and in no sense a mechanical connection, because it is unmodified by the evolutionary process and changeless in time, is to be described as teleological… there is no other word to describe it… the appearance of harmonious unities in nature, which no man can escape, depends upon a genuine harmonious unity that is proved to exist among certain of the abstract changeless characteristics of the universe… Thus, at length, with the help of the scientific analysis, the result which was above declared to be necessary for a belief in teleology is attained.” (Pg. 205-206)
This book may interest some who are studying the history of science.
Biochemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson (1878-1942) wrote in the Preface to this 1925 book, “The study of adaptation, of which Lamarck is the great originator, has not yet won for itself a secure scientific foundation or led to clear and unequivocal interpretations of nature. Although the facts which this study presents are both universal and important, biologists have neither agreed upon their place in the history of evolution nor discovered any principle by which they may be even unified. This failure of our modern science is not hard to understand, and may fairly be attributed, in part at least, to the lack of a systematic study of ADAPTABILITY; which at bottom is a physical and chemical problem, uncomplicated by the riddle of life.
“For beneath the organic structures and functions are the molecules and their activities. These it is that have been molded by the process of evolution, and these no less have formed the environment. I beg the reader to bear this in mind and constantly to remember one simple question: What are the physical and chemical origins of diversity among inorganic and organic things, and how shall the adaptability of matter and energy be described? He may then see his way through all the difficulties which … have accumulated around a problem that in the final analysis belongs only to physical science, and at the end he will find a provisional answer to the question.”
He observes, “[Hans] Driesch’s effort to prove the existence of entelechy in the organism culminates in what he regards as a demonstration that mechanism is necessarily unable to determine some of the phenomena of organic regulation. In the absence of any clear understanding of the operation of cell mechanisms, such an effort is, I think, clearly in vain. It may carry conviction to those who are already predisposed in its favor, but no one else can accept the argument, and an opponent will always regard it as worthless.” (Pg. 88)
He notes, “The advance of science has assuredly not made the origin of life easier to imagine, or even to think about. On the contrary I am fully persuaded that it has made the task far more difficult. Least of all does it lead us unduly to praise those analogies between organic and inorganic phenomena that have been so much discussed… The dynamic equilibria of life and of a whirlpool are entirely unequal in complexity and in the very essence of the physical and chemical processes by which they are adjusted and controlled. Yet it is quite impossible to escape from the idea of living things as natural products, for science involves determinism and determinism imposes this very concept.” (Pg. 115)
He suggests, “We may therefore conclude that there is here revealed an order or pattern in the properties of the elements… It has a dynamical significance, and relates to evolution… No other environment, that is to say no environment other than the surface of a planet upon which water and carbonic acid are the primary constituents, does or could so highly favor the widest range of durability and activity in the widest range of material systems---in systems varying with respect to phases, to components, and to concentrations. This environment is indeed the FITTEST.” (Pg. 185)
He asserts, “the possibility is negligible that conditions equally favorable to the production of diversity in the course of evolution should arise without relevant cause. But we are ignorant of the existence of any cause, except, or course, the living organism, which can thus produce results that are fully intelligible only in their relation to later events. Nevertheless we can, on no account, unless we are to abandon the principle of probability which is the basis of every scientific induction, deny this connection, in character an adaptation, between the properties of matter and the diversity of evolution. For the connection is fully evident and the result is reached by a scientific demonstration.” (Pg. 190-191)
He goes on, “The process of evolution consists in increase of diversity of systems and their activities, in the multiplication of physical occurrences, or, briefly, in the production of much from little. Other things being equal there is a maximum ‘freedom’ for such evolution on account of a certain arrangement of unique properties of matter. The chance that this unique ensemble of properties should occur by ‘accident’ is almost infinitely small… Therefore there is a relevant causal connection between the properties of the elements and the ‘freedom’ of evolution.” (Pg. 191)
He sums up, “We thus reach the conclusion that in one most important respect the teleological appearance of nature depends upon an unquestionable relationship between certain original characteristics of the universe which, because it is MERELY a relationship and in no sense a mechanical connection, because it is unmodified by the evolutionary process and changeless in time, is to be described as teleological… there is no other word to describe it… the appearance of harmonious unities in nature, which no man can escape, depends upon a genuine harmonious unity that is proved to exist among certain of the abstract changeless characteristics of the universe… Thus, at length, with the help of the scientific analysis, the result which was above declared to be necessary for a belief in teleology is attained.” (Pg. 205-206)
This book may interest some who are studying the history of science.
Displaying 1 of 1 review