New-York tribune., 1903-05-17
SCIENCE AND RELIGION.

In the comment which has been evoked by
Lord Kelvin's recent statement Of the attitude
of modern science III regard to Creative Power
one occasionally detects an inaccurate state
ment concerning the views held by representa-
tive men quarter of century more ago
Such errors were excusable at that time when
thev might have been based on inadequate or
secondhand information, but not defensibie
to-day. 1t was once common supposition, for
instance that Darwin, Wallace and their dis
cipIes offered evolution a substitute for God
They did nothing Of the kind. They commended
it only as a method by which the higher
forms of life came into being. They believed
that the process was gradual, and not abrupt
nor simultaneous with the appearance OF the
lowest organisms; but they still recognized the
need of a first cause TyndalI. referring to the
idea of development and especially to Mr.. Oar
wins exposition of 1t. said: IF this hypothesis
were even true 1t would lot be final The
human mind would infallibly look behind the
germ and however hopeless the attempt,
would inquire into the hi tory of the genesis.
Huxley an ardent champion of evolution, once
attributed exaggerated possibilities to proto-
pIasm Later be bravely admitted his mistake
One of his greatest services TO biology his
lecture on the fact that all known forms Of life
were derived from previously existing life He
vincing power
Again. there has been lack OF dscrimina-
ton between the atheist and agnostic. One
fatty denies the existence of a Creator alto
gether The other simply says: Il do not see
sufficient proof | do not know Huxley, to
he sure expressed the opinion that there is
.'evidence of the existence of such being the
God of the theologians' This it will be OBJ
served is a different thing from asserting that
there is absolutely God at all. 1t would be
interesting to know just how many prominent
preachers and seminary professors at present
believe in the God of such a "theoogian"
Jonathan Edwards. OF course, all of Darwin's
disciples did not stop at the agnostic stage In
Germany the reaction more radical than In
England Yet even Haecke who is looked upon
as an atheist, certainly did not occupy extreme
ground when ne wrote In his History of Crea-
tom: I'VE can never apprehend the first causes
"of any phenomena. The force of crystalliza-
.tion. the force of gravitation and chemical
affinity remain in themselves just as incompre
..hensible as adaptation and inheritance or will
..and consciousness" To admit that things are
past understanding is not TO dispute their
reality To confess ones inability to explain a
wonderful phenomenon often betrays much
honesty, reverence and penetration the pro-
mitigation of complete theory OF interpreta-
ton. Let us be just to the agnostc, though we
do not agree with him!
After all. IT is not long step from the posi-
ton Of helplessness in the presence Of pro-
found mystery to that of the Psalmist ejaculat
ing, "For | am fearfully and wonderfully
made" or Of Lord Kelvin in accepting lin the
name of Scence) the idea of Creative Power
II man pronounces the riddle Of the universe
insoluble at least he recognizes its vastness
On the other hand, he who thinks he has found