OCR Text |
Show 260 DARWINIAN A. leO'itimate for any one to prove, if he can, that any pa~ticular thing in the natur~l w.orld is so done ; an.d it is the proper business of sm~ntrfic men to push thmr enquiries in this direction. . . It is beside the point for Dr. Hodge to obJect that, ''from the nature of the case, what concerns the origin of things cannot be known except by a supernatural revelation ; " that " science has to do with the facts and laws of Nature : here the question concerns the origin of such facts." For the very object of the evolutionists, and of Mr. Darwin in particular, is to remove these subjects from the category of origination, and to bring them under the domain of science by treating them as questions about how things go on, not how they began. Whether the succession of living forms on the earth is or is not among the facts and laws of Nature, is the very matter in controversy. Moreover, adds Dr. I-Iodge, it has been conceded that in this matter " proofs, in the proper sense of the word are not to be had ; we are beyond the region of dem;nstration and have only probabilities to con- . ' sider." Wherefore "Christians have a right to pro-test ag9:inst the arraying of,!robabilities .a~ain.st. the clear teachings of Scripture. The word IS Itahmzed, as if to intimate that probabilities have no claims which a theologian is bound to respect. As to arraying them against Scripture, there is nothing whatever in the essay referred to that justifies th~ stateme~t. Indeed no occasion offered; for the writer was discussin; evolution in its relations to theism, not to Biblic~l theology, and probably would not be disposed to intermix . arguments so different in kind as those EVOLUTION .AND THEOLOGY. 261 from natural science and those from revelation. To pursue each independently, according to its own method, and then to compare the results, is thought to be the better mode of proceeding. The weighing of probabilities we had regarded as a proper exercise of the mind preparatory to forming an opinion. Probabilities, hypotheses, and even surmises, whatever they may be worth, are just what, as it seem& to us, theologians ought not to be foremost in decrying, particularly those who deal with the reconciliation of science with Scripture, Genesis with geology, and the like. As soon as they go beyond the literal statements even of the English text, and enter into the details of the subject, they find ample occasion and display a . special .aptitude for producing and using them, not always with very satisfactory results. It is not, perhaps, · for us to suggest that the theological army in the past has been too much encumbered with impedimenta for effective aggression in the conflict against atheis-. tic tendencies in modern science; and that in resisting attack it has endeavored to hold too much ground, so wasting strength in the obstinate defense of positions which have become unimportant as well as untenable. Some of the arguments, as well as the guns, which well served a former generation, need to be replaced by others ·of longer range and greater penetration. If the theologians are slow to discern the signs and exigencies of the times, the religious philosophical naturalists must be looked to. Since the above remarks were written, Prof. Le Conte's "Religion and Science," just issued, has co~~ tq onr hands. It is a 12 |