The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-04-20
For the Central Presbyterian.
Science and RELIGION.

1t is trite saying that the over-zeal-
Gus defenders of cause frequently do it
more harm than its assailants. In all
controversies one blunder inhicts more
damage than ten valid arguments can
repair. Especially is this the case when
the blunder relates to something readily
comprehended, and the arguments to
what is more abstruse. Zeal in good
cause cannot be too great, provided it
does not lead to rashness and intolerance
But the zeal OF those who espouse the
cause of religion in its supposed conflict
with science, is too frequently not re-
strained by caution, and consequently
they are regarded as wanting in candor.
For young man pursuing scientific
studies, the continual and indiscriminate
denunciation of science falsely so called"
well-nigh neutralizes the good effects of
all the rest of st. Paul's writings. He
feels that theologians would have him
believe that st. Paul was opposed to
science as such, and that "falsely so
called" is mere epithet of all science :;
and he sees and hears it dogmatically
asserted that some things which his rea-
son compels him to believe, are inoon-
sistent with the Bible. If he believes
those assertions, he must disbelieve the
Bible. If he disbelieves those assertions,
he loses confidence in those who make
them, and so his respect for the cause
which they represent is diminished. I
do not mean to intimate that all, or even
a great proportion, of the champions of
religion are liable to this charge; but 1
say that there are too many that are and
quite enough to do great harm, especially
IT all others seem by silence to signify
their acquiescence.
These remarks are called forth by
notice of The Problem of Human Life"
by MILFORD" which appeared in this
paper, March 30th). This is one of
twenty or more highly laudatory notices
which l have seen in religious periodicals.
1t calls attention to the fact that scientists
have failed to reply to the arguments of
MILFORD" happen to be acquainted
with some able men of this class, and l
know that they have not replied, because
they regarded the book as being unwor-
thy of serious attention. Some even sus-
pected that the book was sort of "hoax."
or at most a scheme to make money by
imposing upon the credulous; and great
was their surprise at the favor it received
at the hands of those who were supposed
to be too well informed to be misled bv
it. Now, like "Wilford's" reviewers and
like MILFORD" himself, I am not scien-
tlst; and write, not to defend scientific
theories and doctrines against his attack,
but tofdo what little I can to prevent re-
ligion from suffering at the hands of those
who laud to the skies book teeming
with blunders. If any man has sound
arguments to advance against Darwinism
or if any man without positive arguments
warns against the acceptance of theories
which tend to infdelity, 1 bid him God
speed. / have not had time to make nv
self proficient in Biology: it would re-
qulre me to devote all Of my time to it.
and my calling lies in another field
Consequently / have not seen fit to waste
my time in a careful stHdy of "Wilford"
on Evolution, my object, as already said
not being to reply to him, but merely to
show that his work is not what it is rep.
resented as being. So l confine myself
to that portion which relates to subjects
ofscientiic investigation rather than spec
ulation, namely, to his Evolution OF
Sound. This | have examined with
some care To discuss his various views
would require an immense volume
Every argument of any weight directed
against the wave-theory Of sound rests
upon fallacy. In some instances he
has discovered unguarded expressions in