The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-10-21
Che Che !ail,,,llt|,eu.l;iiQelfe,,r'
0nIcei Nos. Is aud ~ Fourteenth street.
DARwIXisM AND RELIGION.
Prof. ASA Gray as Umpire In n Decision
n In Hubfan.t ID

Prof Asa Gray ~ Umpire In n Decision
II. I5l4t. / Iri,,i, In Boston. Ha6ttr ,,iL.si
There was an interesting discussion before
the Evangelical Ministers Association Of
Boston last week. By invitation, B. F. Up.
derwood, editor Of the index, an Atheist
and hlaterialist, opened the discussion Of
the question:: Evolution, Is what Is proved
about Il antasonistic to Biblical Christian.
lily, and Evangelical ] religionan6 He, Of
course, took the affirmative, claiming that
all miracles were contrary to science and
that the narration Of creation In Genesis
was opposed to evolution. Ex.President
Chadbourne Of Williams College, replied by
urging the fact that creation had been led
along beneficial lines, and, accepting the
proposition that the earth, as atlaughter Of
tho sun, was once a melted mass, asked.
How came We here? How do wo take q
globe OF melted matter and clothc
1t us this globe Is clothed il 1t was not done
by nh intelligent mind? There was time
when germs came upon the earth; that
Ithcy wero developed by the application OF
Outside force As evident for something
caunot be made out Of nothing. Referring
to the fossils Of tho Laurentian period, he
asked how Is the variety Of lie at that
generally agreed primal epoch accounted
for by evolution 2.aue maintained that
there arc six great geologic epochs, that be
and those who agree with him ,arv not 70.
sponsible for the errors oil translation, or
other errors oil good men who were mista-
ken. a al b. sssIns,yi .Er,,.ifi.I !
Il, Prof. Asa GRAY, Of Harvard College, who
was present, acted US Il kind OF umpire. As
one Of the greatest botahists,. and as a
Darwinan. Ills remarks will be read with
interest. lie said -.
Either nature Is tho outcome OF mind,
or mind is the outcome OF nature. We have
to choose between these two hypothesis,
for no other appears. Until lately tho iiret
hypothesis was almost inyaribly held 10, be
the most satislactory-to be the only one
by which adoption Of means 10 ends, which
organic nature is full of, could DO account.
ed for. & Has modern science proved any.
thing to the contrary2t' Has It even made
the contrary hypothesis viz,-that mind Is
an outcome Of matter) more probable than
1t was before Darwinism ? !. should say,
certainly not. Although the latter view
has been Of late years presented in new
forms, and supported by new arguments
and illustrations, and although there are
some who accept it, yet suppose we may
still say that science offers no hindrance to
our belief that God created the
heavens - and the EARTH At all
events, this fundamental question, large
as il is, is one upon which Il distinct issue
can be raised, and it lies at the bottom OF
the whole discussion. /, But, the question
actually proposed, whether what is proved
concerning evolution is, antagoniytic to
Biblical creation and evangelical religion,
is not distinct issue ut oil. The restric.
ton to what is proved concerning evolution
may render that part OF Incorporation
reasonably definite, if only we can agree as
to what is proved and what is not-and
here, should not altogether agree with
the gentleman who opened this discus.
sion. But what, for the purpose OF
this argument, are we TO mean by Biblical
creation, and what by evangelical religion
There is an element Of change which, has
to etaken into account, Time was when
scientific beliefs were controlled and modi-
fled byreligious belief. But, with the rise
and development Of astronomy, physical
geology. and, later, OF biological science,
the tables were turned and now manyre-
lisious beliefs-or what were taken for such
arc controlled and modified by scientif-
ic beliefs, none more SO than in the matter
Of Biblical creation. The result is sup.
pose, thst : no Il sensible person, s., now
believes what the most sensible persons be-
lieve1 formerly. In SO far us the Biblical
accounts OF creation cover the ground
which natural science covers, the relations
Of the two may be legitimately discussed.
And on this ground settled scientific belief
must needs control the religious. Then
arises the question how far and in what
way evangelical. religion'--7that is, the re-
ligion of the gospels concerned with or
responsible for the natural sciences OF the
book Of. Genesis. I do not take
much'inlerest in the question, for = think
that Christian man; need not assume this
responsibility The really important ques.
ton for us is whether modern natural
science is, in many Of its demonstrated re-
suits or well established beliefs, antago-
nisiic to the Christian religion. Lido not
think that it is or need be. ! But this is n
question well worth your serious consider
ation."" ~ ttE ,.'at5 M :csg.gl, 9fG