Morning journal and courier., 1880-02-07
Yale Theological School.


 s'The Relations Of Scientific and Re-
 ligfOus BelfeK''-SecOmd and COnclud.
 ing Lecture by PrOf.Gray of Harvard.
 Prof. Gray, of Harvard, delivered his sec ond and concluding lecture at Marquand chapel yesterday afternoon on the subject, .sThe Relations of Scientific and Religious Belief" The chapel was filled to excess The interestingfeld of thought embraced by the lecture and the speakers great ability and thorough study of the topic made the lecture like its predecessor, one of peculiar interest. Many educated men were in the general au- dence and many ladies. A synopsis of the lecture is as follows:
 In preceding discourse brought to your notice series of changes in scientific beliefs which have taken place within my remem- brance. I restrict my present survey to the biological field. These new views cannot be easily oyerestimated as to their importance. The advent of morphology marked great revolution in science, and rendered it neces- sary to state afresh the grounds of natural and revealed religion. In neither science or religion are we to look for absolute certainty, but only at the very most for prepon, derance of probability. Those only should be accepted ss competent judges in either field who distinguish between inevitable be- liefs, probable judgments and mere opinions. The proper attitude of the theological student towards unsoIved scientific problems is that of 8 suspense of judgment, which is all the natu- ralist, who claims no monopoly in this, his own field of inquiry, demands of him. The evolutionist does not claim for his hypothesis more than the facts in the case may seem to warrant.
 Its strength appears by comparing it with the rival hypothesis of immediate creation, which explains nothing. The old adage, where faith begins science ends, is entirely false. Faith is alike necessary in science and religion. Dogmatism on the part of either scientists or theologians should carry no au- thority in the courts of reason. The question which pre-eminently concerns the theologian in respect to the theory of evolution is not so much, is it actually true, as, does it impair the foundations of his religion.
 The best can do towards the answering of this question is to state my own attitude upon it. accept as probable inferences the views advocated in the preceding lecture. I claim, moreover, the right to hold these views along with the natural religion and the verities of the Christian faith. h unfolding these views mean to keep as close to solid ground as possible. I take for granted the objective reality of phenomena. l suppose you will agree with me that it is not natural science, | but philosophy, that must determine whether \ there be any basis for religious beliefs. Sci- ence deals only with observed Bequences- | never with final causes, which belong to the domain of philosophy. might as scientist | relegase these questions to philosophers and | theologians but such is not the way in which would dispose of them.
 | shall not undertake the rehandling ot l those philosophical problems on whose ulti. mate solution the question of mans relation ' to God must depend. It will suffice for me l to show that evolution is not more inimical to | religion than preceding hypotheses in science. The hypothesis of evolution, like all others, if l 8 matter of thought and evidence. I do moi assert that scientific teachers accept it with
 out qualification. There are several distinct classes of evolutionists yet one thing is clear the doctrine in some shape or other is pow erfully affecting all natural science. All that l science asserts is that if we bring the idea ot God into connection with that of nature, the
 two will not be found incompatible.
 It is because Darwin's theory of natural se- I lection is SO helpful in explaining the known facts of evolution that we accept it along
 with the Darwinian hypothesis itself, which
 consider as probable but not a complete hy | pothesis.
 Does it scientifically account for any organ Does it explain why and how much any sen
 sitiveness in a plant or animal is correlated
 with such and such an organ? Certainly
 not. Variation originated all the diff
 ferences in species, and thus provides that ! on which natural selection operates
 They are combined, but natural selection I works externally, and variation internally .upor l the same individual. Both are necessary tt
 account for the changes produced. Suppose l that as theists we are shut up to the view that
 plants and animals are evolved in an unbroker line in my opinion we are not to denounct
 this either as absurd or atheistical, but it car ! never be fully established. But I am aware
 we have not reached the real root of the diff ! ov11k k1aSok pI
 speaks to us of the existence of God. Btu
 what of those who do not see any proof of Hi \ existence in nature Formerly we couli
 compel them to choose between divinity o
 chance as the ground of all things, but Oar l winism puts us on our defensive. It de | clares the field, which we took to be so thickIy | sown with design, to be filled with crop of ac l cidents. Yet, in the words of Francis Newman
 'there remains in nature illnesses innumer- | able." Common sense, not science, is thu final arbiter in this matter. I know no natu
 ral process for the transferencs of brute mammal into 8 man, yet I would not lini | nature by my knowledge.
 They are mistaken who suppose that man is the immediate descendant of the monkey
 A long interval at least intervenes. Darwin ism maintains that souls as well as lives art
 propagated in the order of nature. In thi
 belief it Is at one with high Oalvanism and tn,
 doctrine of Augustine and other church fath CTS.
 The existence of thought is no proper proo I of immortality, else were soul co-extensivt
 with life, which is too paIpably absurd. Bu
 evolution asserts that while lower forms ol
 organic life have their own special purpose yet that they must pass away to give place tc | higher. Now may it not be that the human
 soul embodies all the results of this process
 and as such is alone worthy of immortality
 I accept the Apostles creed and the Nicens
 creed, as entirely in harmony with evolution.
 But nature is a complex and scripture is
 complex. We are never to suppose that we have wrested their entire secret from them I In conclusion Prof. Gray addressed briefly | the students of the seminary, recommending
 candor and a calm truth-loving spirit, anc
 wishing for them the attainment of broader
 and broader views of scientific and religious
 truth.