The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1875-12-30
SCIENCE AND RELIGION.

There is no necessary antagonism be-
tween science and religion. Science is
simply a knowledge of nature; surely
nature, properly interpreted, cannot pro-
test against its Author. We quote:
Prof. Tyndali. in the course Of a scientific
lecture delivered at Manchester the other day,
said: 81 have sOmetimes-nOt sometimes, but
often-in the spring time watched the advance
of the sprouting leaves, and Of The grass, and
of the flowers, and observed the general Joy OF
opening life in nature, and have asked myself
this QUESTION: "Can it b. that there is no be.
ing or thing in nature that knows more about
these things than do? Do | in my ignorance
existing in the universei' The man who puts
the question fairly to himself, if he be not
shallow man, if he be a man capable Of being
penetrated by profound thought. will never
answer the question by protesting that creed of
Atheism which has been so lightly attributed to
me-"
Thus we see how one Of the hardest,
keenest and most skeptical intellects of
the age, is,forced to admit that behind
matter and its laws there is some great
First Cause. some directing Intelligence.
We can understand that God may have
worked through scheme OF gradual de-
velopment sfrom the primary rocks to
man, and that IN other words he may
have developed beings like men into
creatures rs far above man rs man is
above the gar-pike. But to understand
the tools Of the mechanic does not dis
prove the mechanic-it rather implies
that he must be somewhere aud so the
more we pry into nature the more We
perceive God.
Bishop Z. N. Potter OF Union College
Schenectady. N. Y, uttered some word.
OF moderation and wisdom the other day
in . letter to the New York Tribune
We quote:
But Mr.. Darwin has not yet declared that h,
is An Atheist or anti Christian, and my hop
and earnest prayer is that he never may do 20
but that he and his followers may live to pro
claim their iaith in Christ and His Word. 1ha
eminent evolutionists have been four d anon,
Christian scholars from st. Augussin's day I,
our own is we'll known, and lsuppose Darwin
ism may be fairly regarded as only one form
or faInef perhaps as the most cOmptete preSen
tation Of one phase of the theory Of evolution
Nowadays, to be sure, the theorist, no matte
how superficial or inconsiderate, has hearing
and is not protected. But the prosecutions .
the part are not forgotten, and the spectacle o
the ecclesiastic anatheuatizing the natural phi
losopher at each advance of material science
much in the same spirit still, II not after tn
same fashion, as in Gaiilso's day. induces il
our sensitive scientists (who need calm 70
, clear thought) much bitterness Of spirit, an
and leads them often most uniustly to con
found such bigotry with the religion Of Chris,
in spite of the fact that its fundamental IA,
now, as of old, is, ssLet there be light" Tbs
no such misapprehension should arse in tn
minds Of scientists as to the attitude of tn
Church Congress As body, and that acknowl
edgement might be made OF the distinctio
between their domain and ours. was as muc
as l purpce cd in the few words utseres
Kindly permit me to add that they were sui
stantialiy as follows:
"A brief explanation NAV be admissible, lie
D from the wide range the discussion has take
it should be implied that we were prepared
) deny that Darwinian can BE- 8 Christian. III
two positions, in my opinion. are ESSENTIAL
: distinct. 1t We nlers the DarwiniAn with b,
= morous reference TO supposed apish ancestr
D his retogt is ready that an ancestry Of clods
: not less Questionable, and that the choice u