Page:Transactions NZ Institute Volume 9 Supplement.djvu/51

Rh yea, "what God has joined, let no man put asunder." The conflict, I must say, is largely on the side of theology; for, as a rule (I state it as the result of my reading), scientific men do not attack religion in their writings. Their business is with the observation of facts, and the elucidation of truth from these facts; and I unhesitatingly maintain, that it is no part of their duty to dwell on the relations of these facts with the teachings of theology. In this connection, it is refreshing to come across the following statement of Professor Bruce, D.D., of Glasgow, in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review:—"Not that modern science is in itself atheistic in spirit or tendency, though a German philosopher of the last century, Jacobi, said that it was the interest of science that there should be no God. The statement is true only in the sense that science cannot allow the idea of a God or a Creator to be interposed as a barrier in the way of its pursuit of natural causes. In this view, science has certainly no interest in proving the existence of a God; it leaves the Divine existence to look after itself, and confines itself to its proper work—the investigation of the laws of nature. But neither, on the other hand, is science, as such, impelled by any atheistic animus. It does not propose to itself as its chief end, or even as a subordinate end, to expel God from the universe, but simply takes the liberty of pursuing its own proper end—the ascertainment of natural causes, without inquiring at every turn, How does this result square with existing theological opinons?" Still, a large portion of the opposition to the views of scientific men is founded upon this very ignoring of what is beyond their special province. Inferences are drawn from statements made in no way connected with the subject of these inferences; others are added to these, and then deductions are drawn, perfectly legitimate and logical perhaps, till at last the writer is made to hold what he had not the remotest intention of expressing any opinion upon. The treatment which Darwin, for instance, has received at the hands of his critics, is a familiar instance of this; and notably that much-referred to, and, in theological circles, much-admired book of Dr. Hodges on "Darwinism," is a painful illustration. It is, indeed, difficult sometimes to preserve that charity which teaches us never to assign intentional misrepresentation to our opponents, when reading some theological representations of what scientific men teach, and the only excuse that can be pleaded is that, amongst the endless and voluminous writings of the present day, it is impossible for men to read and study every subject, and hence most of their knowledge is arrived at second-hand, filtered through safe orthodox sources in books and reviews. I heard a very good story the other day, which illustrates the absurdity of those who act thus: A venerable prelate—not of this province—was deploring in earnest terms the atheistical tendency of Evolution and specially of Darwin's writings. The friend into whose ears he poured his plaint, is a scientific man of some eminence, and, wearied at last with the ceaseless accusation, he turned on him and asked him, "Had he ever read the 'Origin of Species?'" "No; but I have read many reviews of it, and I know its contents and principles thoroughly," was his reply, "Now, my lord, supposing I were to rail against Jesus Christ as an impostor, and against the Bible as a very immoral book, and you were to turn round on me and ask me had ever read the Bible, and I should reply no, but I have read Tom Paine and Voltaire and all its opponents' reviews of the Book, and so very well know what is in it, would you not think me a very great fool?" The fact of the matter is, that there are in reality two doctrines of Evolution: one, the scientific doctrine, which is accepted by nearly all scientific men of eminence now, and is recognized by many of the leaders in theology and by hosts of pious, intelligent, Christian men, as in no way interfering with, or inimical to, their best and highest Christian hopes; and the other, the theological doctrine of Evolution, a system of logical deductions and metaphysical refinements, which are but