Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 5.djvu/124

114 such—not the mere committal and recitation of text-books, but a practical and systematic exercise of the mind in observation, inference, judgment, and the weighing of evidence—will meet the present requirement as nothing else can. Much may be done by the diffusion of scientific knowledge to dispel the ignorance which is taken advantage of by practised charlatans; but people cannot learn every thing, and there are many things of which the most intelligent must remain ignorant. There ought, however, to be no difficulty in learning how to deal with the claims and pretensions that are put forward, even though the facts involved are not understood; and this is simply a question of the criteria of truth and of cautious habits in accepting proof.

our office as chroniclers of the progress of scientific thought, we are called upon to record some further and marked concessions to the position that the doctrine of Evolution is not an antireligious doctrine. For the last fifteen or twenty years since this theory has been definitely enunciated, and sustained on scientific grounds, there has been vehement protest, on the part of many theologians, that it negatives all possibility of religion. The leaders have not hesitated to make up the issue between religious belief and a doctrine of science which simply depends upon accumulated evidence. The view supposed to be so fraught with danger has, however, been steadily making its way in the minds of those most competent to judge of its truth; and now it is beginning to be perceived that the alarm was groundless, and that, though Evolution be established, the great questions of theology remain just where they were before. A favorite position has been that the conception of Evolution is inconsistent with the idea of Divine design in Nature, but it is now acknowledged that the only effect is to substitute a larger for a narrower view of design. Dr. McCosh, in his lectures, a year or two since, put the question on this broad ground. He said, virtually, "Establish whatever facts you please in regard to the workings of Nature and the order of the universe, and behind the whole phenomenal scheme I find the Infinite mind-by which it was all designed." A new and very able work has just appeared, entitled "Darwinism and Design; or Creation by Evolution," by Mr. George St. Clair, F. G. S., in which the whole problem is elaborately discussed from the new point of view. The author takes the same ground as Dr. McCosh, and argues ably against those who hold that Evolution is destructive of teleology, or the doctrine of ends and purposes in Nature. He admits that it is inconsistent with the old restricted interpretations of teleology, but claims that it only substitutes a far more comprehensive principle of the same kind. We note that the Nonconformist, the organ of the English Dissenters, and one of the stanchest orthodox periodicals, gives in its adhesion to Mr. St. Clair's positions, and highly commends his work. An article in our present number gives the argument upon this subject of Prof. Jevons, the able English logician, to the same purport, and also the substance of an address by a distinguished divine of New York, illustrating similar views. The present aspect of the case thus becomes interesting. It looks as if theology itself were about to take a great advancing step, which it has stoutly resisted, but has been at length compelled to take by the advance of scientific research. After a few more such experiences it is to be hoped that our friends will begin to recognize that theology is also progressive, and that, so far from being an enemy, Science is a helping friend of true religion.