The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1874-02-21

possession OF which 30 pre'eminently dis
tlnguIshes him from lower animSls,
quite agree with Homo" that there is az
irreconcileable conflict between Darwin.
ism and Genesis, and hardly think tha
even the marvellous elasticity Of Language
possessed by the latter, will ever permit
their future co'existence In belief. Still
wonderful changes In Interpretation have
been effected in the past and encouraged
by the remembrance Of this, eminent
writer's, such as LIE Conte, Henslow and
others, are engaged in trying to discover
. similar method Of compromise. Science
being based upon sound reasoning and
solid facts, has had but little to yield
while Genesis, being formed Of much
more flexible materials, has invariably
suffered the necessary modification.
PAST HISTORY REPEATED.
Thus when Columbus, after close OBJ
servation and long reflection, concluded
by series Of scientific inductions that
the earth was spherical and not fiat, 90
had always been previously believed, he
applied 10 the crowned heads Of Europe
for the aid necessary 10 enable him TO
carry out scheme he had formed for
reaching India by sailing west. One after
another refused him until finally Spain,
which was then the great maritime power
oi the world, took the matter under seri-
ous advisement. A theological council
was convened at Salamanca, and the Wis
ionary project Of the scientific enthusiast
submitted to their consideration. But
they with one voice unanimously pro-
nounced the plan utterly preposterous,
declared that Bi6e teachings plainly
1OIoed tie earth 10 be fiat, and asserted
that any impious endeavor to prosecute
the undertaking would involve the
immediate ruin and eternal perdi-
ton Of those engaged in it. 30 only
after years Of vain importuning did
Columbus succeed In procuring from
Queen Isabella the required subsidy, and
embark on his voyage OF destruction.
Theological acumen then at once per-
ceived that remodeling Of belief In that
direction was lmperatively necessary.
And SgaIn, whenfC Columbus advanced his
theory oil tho heliocentric nature OF our
planetary system, 1t did not meet with
theological sanction until a century after.
wards, and when 1t was afflirmatively re-
iterated by Galileo, he was compelled,
upon his knees, 10 recant his belief, for
said the theologians, did not Joshua com.
nland the sun and moon 10 stand StiH?"
But science was inexorable, and elasticity
Of wording saved the Cardinals. And
yet again when Cuvier, early in the pres
ent century, showed from the fossil re.
mains Of ancient life, that unquestionably
the earth had been in existence for more
than six thousand years, the announce
ment was met with shouts Of derision, and
even to this day amid the ever increasing
knowledge which surrounds US, there are
to be found ignorant minds, and biased
theological minds, which still adhere TO
the six day theory. Thus against all radi.
cal changes in the form Of beliefther has
been continually provoked the most VIC.
lent opposition. And Il Is natural that
there should have been, as nothing Is
more repugnant TO tie feelings than the
re.modeling Of long formed habits of
thought. The human mind rebels against
innovation. And that such revision
Of religious opinion Is noU in progress,
there are not wanting the signs. Who,
five years ago, would have had the te-
merity to predict, that at an Evangelical
Alliance to be held in the city OF New
York during the autumn OF 1878, the
question of whether or not a necessary
conflict between the Darwinian theory
and revealed religion exists, would be
seriously mooted? ? Moreover theological
writers Of note, being convinced OF the
soundness OF Darwinism, are engaged at
this time In the endeayor to bring about
an amicable understanding upon some
platform Of mutual concession.
EVOLUTION HAS SAME BASIS As OTHER Ac.
CEPTRD THEORIES.
The theory Of tho Copernican System,
Newton's theory Of the attraction OF
gravitation, and Young's Tor originally
Huyghen's) theory Of the undulatory
transmission Of light all belong to the
same category with the Darwinian theory.
Each was framed as the result oil long
and patient observation Of facts. All the
observed phenomena being carefully
noted and compared, were then general
lied and the theory given as an explana-
tion OF the law perceived 10 underlie
them. They have become established as
principles, in the order in which l have
presented them. It being also the order OF
their invention, and depend for accept
ance upon their competency 10 explain
and account for all the phenomena con-
nected with the subjects Of which each
treats. The first two having had ample
time Tor close scrutiny, meet with no op.
position. The third, being Of much more
recent origin, has still a few objectors,
while the last, being OF still later date,
has as yet comparatively few supporters.
THE RIVAL THEORIES COMPARED.
The two theories oil the origin Of life,
which at present are striving Tor accept
ance, are the theory Of special creation
and the theory OF evolution. What are
their respective meritsS The first, as the
writer believes, Is totally devoid Of the
very first essentials Of hypothesis. II Is
perfectly incomprehensible; an absolutely
proposition. Can "Homoh
suggest or even think Of any conceivable
method by which mud can be instantly
transformed into man? To say that
God created him" is simply 10 repeat
that somehow he was created. Let me IL.
instrate this, Suppose that victim Of
ioGI conspiracy had unknowingly had q
stolen watch placed in his pocket, and
tnat upon search being made It was
so found upon his person, and that when
questioned as to how he came by II, he In
his innocence could only saw, II cannot
tell; God must have caused IL" WonId
that be regarded as satisfactory exnlanS.
tiong In either case It Is but a Comics.
sion OF ignorance; yet In the former case
It Is ma1e 10 play the part OF knowledge.
II Is an attempt TO explain the apparently