Plentywood herald. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1908-current, 1928-02-24

The key to the whole problem lies
in the Interpretation of the Bible. If
it is a Boo'l verbally inspired with
out any admixture of error for its
matter; if it is a final and complete
revelation of all truth as the so-called
Fundamentalists in ii then DR..
Olson's treatment of Science and Re-
ligion was most admirable and we
should all be apostles Of Bryan. We
are coming to see, however, that such
a view of the Bible is impossible and
that religion does not rest upon any
such foundation. Jesus, himself, in
speaking to his followers of the Old
Testament said that it was crude and
incomplete and that his Interpretation
of religion was far in advance of it.
The Bible is a book of religion and
not of science. The unique feature of
the first chapters of Genesis, for in
stance, is not the scientific data sup
piled but rather the ~wondrous fact
that back of all creation there is God.
1t nowhere attempts an explanation
of the processes thru which God brot
the world into being. That is a mat
ter for science to reveal, in so far as
it is able. Whether or not we believe
in the theory of evolution does not
affect in any sense the contribution
of the book of Genesis. Even the
evolutionist, if he would know the
whole story, must go back and say "1n
the beginning God :"
One matter in the address on Sci
ence and Evolution which carried con-
siderable weight was the situation in
u universities and colleges where
the teaching of evolution apparently
is destroying the religious faith of
hundreds of boys and girls, a serious
situation we grant. We are not Will
ing to admit, however, that the fault
is all on the side of the scientist. To
be sure he has been at fault in teach
ing material processes and refusing
to look beyond for the Creator who
is back. of all these processes. He has
overstepped his rightful bounds in
coming over to the fields of religion
and philosophy and saying that a
spiritual Interpretation of the universe
is impossible. We should be careful
to lay the blame on the scientist and
not on his science. 1t is very encour-
aging to US who believe in religion to
note that even the scientists are com
ing to see that there is something
very real beyond this material uni
verse. A modern writer in the field
OF religion has well stated the case:
'Ihe danger that Naturalism, with
its elimination of God and Purpose
from the world, should establish it.
self permanently as the proper philo-
sophy of science, may be said to have
passed and ii one salient feature
OF our time is the increasing applica-
tion to religious problems of the
knowledge won by science, surely an
other is the increasing appreciation
by scientific men of the spiritual
meaning latent in their physical
knowledge. Scientific experience, full
ly interpreted, means God $3.50"
On the other hand our boys and
girls have gone to college with faith
IN the Bible as a SCIENTIFIC book, YER
bally inspired, and without any pos
sibNity OF errors between its covers.
Ideas of God revealed in the book of
Genesis have been on a par with those
III the gospels. 1t is simple enough
that such a religious faith cannot
stand in the face of science. When
a student is faced with the problems
of geology, the records of millions of
years written in the rocks he cannot
accept that science and hold to his
belief that the world was created in
the year 4004 B. c. 1t was just such
a conflict in the past century between
science and an impossible interpreta-
ton of religion that produced men like
Robert Ingersoll. The two could not
possibly stand together and in accept
ing m the other had to be rejected.
The solution of the whole problem
lies i'll an Interpretation of religion
consistent with findings in other
realms of human knowledge. The es-
sential message of Christianity is true
and if preachers will preach that
message instead of struggling to de-
fend outworn dogmas and creeds the
world, even the scientists, will gladly
hear them.
REV. EARLE A. CLIFFORD.