The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1954-06-04
Just Among Ourselves
Passing Comment con.d.r.d or Ineon.id.r.'.

Time, the weekly neWSmagaZine, In the current
issue MAY 81 1854, says that scientists not so
sure as once they were that they are leading
kind out of religious darkness Further, the report
continues, "churchmen speaking out quite bold
y again about such old-fashoned concepts as Orig
lnal Sin and the Last Judgment"
Ii ought to be said,-if indeed the point is not
too obvious,-that capable and honest scientists
have never attempted to substitute their findings
for religious truth and many of such scientists have
been and sincerely religious men. Religion
has been darkness" only for the quack, the halt
baked, the pridefully incompetent people who have
not clear title to the name scientist" at all. And
the so-called quarrel between religion and science
has never been quarrel the part of true re
ligon, and certainly not on the part of genuine
science.
The Catholic Church is the mother and protec
tor of true science. This is the plain fact despite
the cry of the unworthy scientist who wants to
make each improved and momentarlly exciting the
ory universally accepted truth. The quarrel called
between science and religion Is either war
of science with false religion, of quack
science with true religion.
Since the Piltdown business the little pickering
boys who call themselves champions of scientific
progress have been rather silent. But now as Time
reports, "a prominent scientist" has done his best
TO strike out anew at religion This lad is Marcus
Royal Society of New Zealand in scientific
gress assembled Mr.. Oliphant was stirred 10 his
valiant effort by statements of both Pope Plus XII
and British laborite Clement Attee that the misuse
OF science is doing harm in the world and threatens
to do more.
Now any scientist worthy of the name would be
the first to concede that the misuse OF science is
harmful thing, and to concede further that sci
ence today is notably misused. That modern science
tends TO intrigue mankind with theories and gadget
res which give him an outlook life and its pur
pose which is materialistc and mechanstic, is hard
~ to be denied by anyone scientist or lac. There
fore the statement Of the Pope and of Mr.. Attlee,
is moderate and accurate statement. Yet Mr.. Oil
phant resents it. he petulanty snaps back at the
churches whatever he means by that phrase.
of course the present sad state of the world is
a trying thing for the scientists who have been
promising for over century a glorious Progress
true Onward and Upward evolution of all things,
Great Rosy Dawn. Science has progressed amazingly
and the general state of mankind has deteriorated
almost unbelieVably Mr.. Ophant blames the whole
thing on the churches which he says, have not
done their job What that job expected TO be-
in the face of his jeering Scientism is not quite
clear. Since Mr. Oliphant and his kind have been
doing their sclentSc best to destroy the influence
of the churches il Is ungracious,-and certainly
unscentifc.-of these gentlemen to complain that
"the churches" have not done good job.
Professor Oliphant says We told that
Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden OF
Eden because they dsobeyed the law and ate of
the fruit of the tree of knowledge II seems strange
TO me that the exercise of the greatest faculty with
which man has been endowed should ever have been
regarded as a sin BY deliberate act probably
the greatest step he took, imam chose to seek
knowledge thereby setting himself apart from all
living things and enSuring his ultimate dominion
the earth What is called the Fall of Man should
be known as the Ascent of Man
II proof were needed that Professor Ollphant
is a pseudosclentst, nothing would be requir
ed than the words here quoted from his New Zes
land speech For the real scientist takes all facts
into account, and does not pick and choose. select
ing what serves his theory and rejecting what dis
pleases him. But Professor Oliphant is a
picker. First he admits, al least Professionally, the
Scriptural account of Eden, in which he, as non
religious scientist have no belief. Then he dis
torts the facts, and says man was expelled from
Paradise for eating of the tree of knowledge The
tree was not the tree of knowledge; Adam and Eve
had splendid knowledge and awarenesS of respon-
ability before they ate the fruit The tree in ques
tion was the tree of knoWledge of good and eutl
The first human disobedience brought knowledge
of sin, OF shame of guilt of weakness, which cloud
ed the shining knowledge of innocence. The dis
obedience of Adam not advance IN knowl
edge II was darkenlng and weakening of his
finest faculties
Yet Professor Oliphant, having falsfied the
name Of the tree. proceeds TO say that mans dis
obedience was probably Ga sad adverb for sciencel
the greatest step man ever took. The Professor
does not realize what Scripture makes manifest
that it was step into darkness, il rebellion;
il was shameful ingratitude; II darkening
and not an enightening of the human mind. This
thinks Professor 0liphant, is the Ascent OF Man
A wonderfully scientific conclusion.
II seems TO me- says the champion of science
forgetting that science like Hamlet knows not
seems" Science does not speak until il kRows. The
opinion of Professor Oliphant. based misread-
ing of Scripture in which he and his kind have
belief is of consequence whatever Besides,
the Professor fails TO notice that God gave
dominion all earthly creatures, he seems to
think that man acquired this dominion by disobey-
ing God and making sin the first great Onward and
Upward act IN the evolution of mankind
Time is to be chided for referring TO funda-
mental Christian truths such old-fashioned con
cepts as Original Sin and the Last Judgment These
truths are not odfashioned. at least to Catholics.
They old-fashioned than birth Is old