New-York tribune., 1875-03-06
CONSERVATISM OF SCIENTIFIC MEN,

A CRITICISM OF TIE REV. DIR. ATKMAN's REVIEW OF
DIR. DIAPERS BOOKS NOT GEOLOGY RECOG-
NIzED As SCIENCE
To the razor Of The Tribune.
SIR: Your readers are indebted to You for
the publication Of thoughtful and earnest criticism OF
Dr. Draper's recent work the "Connict of Science
and Religion" do not desire to dispute ihe crlucs
conclusions and agree with him that Dr. Draper has
succeeded in his attempt in far he confines himself
to the Roman Church. and only fans i'll endeayoring TO
oppose the Bible and Christianity to scientific thought
But the critic, Dr. AiSman, challenges attention by GER
tan statements which TO say the least very doubt
full
Dr. A,kman SAYS that in discussing the conflict be-
tween scieuce and religion, these people note the
righteous contempt-usualiy limit the word science"
In these discussions it is represented almost wholly by
geology and BY generalization, quite common
with then this part is made TO stand for the whole
And vet in the of this his fundamental proposition
Dr.. Akman goes with perfect unc0ncern 10 SNOW
now intensely ethuoOgy arrays itself against Genesis
Perhaps this subject is included BY him in the science
OF geology.
Having settled and defined the synonyms science and
geology Dr. Aikman proceeds: al may legitimately
ask what is the science OF geology HOW much Oh
science is iti Indeed can by any accurate use OF
language call it "a scence-Seieni1-at al T. In answer
TO which would say. First that geology is recognized
would require merely time 10 collect volume OF
evidence to this eI,ct but such a course wolld be
foolish since it would be very difficult to hnd any
writings on geoogywhether by geoioglss or men OF
cnlpre IN other directons-u which this position
not implicitly taken basis established ana O1yeni as
cussion This wholesale contempt of geology expressed
by the critic to such decree to exclude II from the
sciences IS remnant OF the bulwark which theology
erected in the beginning OF this century to shield Itself
from the teaching of geology that the earth Yas older
than 900 years. Vide Hugh Miller, Geology OF the
auti-Geoloeists) The Church long ago gave M this
position which DR.. Aikmln IS 80 anxious to maintain
Secondly that of the critics profession generally
recognize geology a science ia in the fact that
they nave more than altered their Interpretation
of scrpture in accordance with its demands, notwth
standing that they understood fnly phe curse visited
upon those who should add 10 or subtract from tho
truth OF God Cev XIII 49, l9) On this head sec Hugh
Miller. Lectures ", vi, tx. and OF Testimony OF The
Rocks.
pr. Aikman says in support o, hi, assertion last
quoted: What prominent or Fundamental facts demon
srated to be facts undispued by fellow geoloRsts
has this science in its possession 2" would remark
that the Fundamental principles OF geology are que as
certain the fundamental truths OF Scrptura exege
ss-ooh being the rational Interpretation of the record
from which they spring and equally liable to the blum
ders OF fallible But, Notwithstanding his state
ments Dr. Aikman, in with nearly all tolera-
bly educated men, believes i'll the general principles OF
eeology.' Is this geology TO which Dr. AikDan and
nearly all tolerably educIted men pin their faith,
science e-scienad-Or is it mere rambling Hypothesis
We may find Of the surest proofs OF tnc scientific
OF geology in the steady progress and advance
which DR.. Akman produces IN depreciation or lis
scientific character. IL was once said, and well
said that the real cause OF Prof D,nas emlnence in
science is that off old and worn out theory
as easily old coat. DIR. Aikman truly says that
DR.. Draper proves the opposition of the Roman Church
10 science by showing 1t s not progressive In Us
eachne and refuses 10 alter its tenets to the demands
OF progressive II geology refused to admit new
IN dlSrar Ol a. "A
than the Roman dogma is true theology. Because
so we ay there is Science Of scoorS then
we also that because the theologians are at
salvation aud host OF other things, therefore there
is no science of theology. DR.. Aikman seems to wish
10 make science SYNONYMOUS with e1perential knowl
edge but # that be so where is theol1gyi commend
to him Tyndan on Imagination In Science" aud his
second Preface 10 the Belfast Address
Dr. Akman makes certain specific charges as to prin-
cpes, which he says were once established III geology
wears ago the doctrine OF internal fire was considered a.
liked. IL "a demonstrated fact No one must DOUBT
H. II was known, and TO deny 1t would not be safe.
Mathematics and physics had settled the point. But OF
late this same geology has deInonsracd ihat tnerc IS
no central FIRE al all. Mathematics aud physics both
prove the opposite. II Dr. Alknan will study the
writings OF geoogists he will dnd first that at 90 time
this doctrine considered fixed and III anywise set
tied secondly, that the central solidty OF the earth Is
doctrine equally Theoretical and unsettled The fAe,
the Other perhaps why he does not thlnk there
suspending the Judgment Is common one In science
but not so COMMON as 1t ought 10 be elsewhere yn-
ne held the nebulaf theory until the scientists
compelling us 10 doubt aud throw II away" And yet he
believes the central sodty OF the earth, which
legitimate outgrowth OF the neDuar theory which he
doubts and throws II this central s0Idty he
proved, II Will be by showing that IL follows from
nebuar and igneous stages of the earth yIde Hunt,
Chem ana GeO Essays chap vI.j That neu OF science
are compelling DR.. Akman to rsn0uncc the ncbular
theory is merely his assertion Ia opposition to IL
quote from Tyndas second Preface, already alluded
TO: 81 hold the Debuiar theory a. IT held By
Kant, Lspaee. aud VIM. Kerschel, and 1t
held by the first scientific iueliects OF to
day" The critic bad also agreed with geol0gists
- tnat the coal fields iDcOntestany prove the
lapses OF time which iunst have consumed
In the structure OF the earth But what shall say
when a statement OF fact like TINS floating
aroundi" We would TO DR. AiRnan that a
who does not believe there Is any "scence-seientaOf
geology" needs hardly trouble himself facts
boating around since IL IL Uaturai SUPPOSE that
skeptical "a mind will demand evidence OF "A much higher
order. Facts floating around" are out OF their ee-
meut ana like land vehicles water they will he very
apt 10 sink do not wish ~ extend my examination
any iurther having smpy desired 10 CORRECT certain
faacOus atlfactveDcs9 Of which uIgnt
bring them into prominence IN this contest between