[131] that in ALL reality, structure precedes law, structure precedes mechanical necessity, that reality itself is always--even in the subatomic realm--structured and that, as some physicists call it, there are physical Gestalten^a, physical living structures, or better, independent structures, within which the quantitative processes are going on. Now this is the scientific situation, and this determines not at all the scientific method, but largely the philosophical implications of the scientific method. No organicist ever did deny to biology the right to go as far as it is possible at all with the quantitative analytic method of describing and expressing in mathematical terms the chemical processes which are going on in a body. On the other hand, he would always say they occur WITHIN something, and you cannot explain this "within" by that which goes on within it; you must presuppose it. This is the methodological situation. What about religion^b, in relation to this? If this is the discussion, we cannot decide, in the name of religion, for the one or the other. We can only decide for a strict observation of the biological facts, and these biological facts have two sides, the one is the quantitative exchange of mechanical processes and physical causes, the other is the structural reality, the Gestalt^c (as Gestalt philosophy calls it) within which these things will happen. These are the two points of view and within that, the whole biological world is going on. Theology^d is able to accept the predominance of the one as much as the predominance of the other method and does not have to decide for the one or the other. Of course, theologians are much more