<%BANNER%>

Science and Religion. 1916

UFLAC





SCIENCE AND RELIGION


In taking up this question this afternoon I propose- to

Slimit myself very closely to the manuscript 1-h T-o pro-prI I

do this for two reasons: first it is a subject somewhat foreign

to imy studies. I would not want to come before a body of stu-

dents and discuss any question without having taken the time to

get exact and correct data as the foundation of the thought'that

I might have to present. The second reason for committing -these

thoughts to paper is that they are more consisely and correctly

expressed under those conditions. I know from the start that it

will require a somewhat greater effort on the part of Ir hearers

to follow me correctly since in committing to paper one is*

also inclined to condense them into more concise language than

when they are delivered without reference to manuscript.

If in this afternoon's talk I can be of service to one 1'T

m a oe tu"d here whose doubts have been raised as to the existence

of a God., or who have lost faith in religion.I shall be more than

repaid for the effort. Personally I cannot understand for a moment

why one should consider that.there was any fundamental antagonism

between true religion and true sciferne. I know of course !that

many a combat has been fought between adherents of e Ter cairrp

and denunciations have been hurled back an*d forth. But such d.e-

nunciations really get us nowhere. Everyone present has: a very

definite idea as to what he means by the term religion; I doubt,

however, whether there are any two persons in the room whose ideas

would exactly coincide in the matter of detail s*lar as the defi-
r '




X a?.~L-' e7y / __
&^< // ,2d ^ ,



r- *^ ^ 'U ^' /^ /
~~~~rp^ /^/ y ^ (f,


T^6 7
Afif











nation of the word religion is concerned.
( -Religion is necessary to the human race as necessary as

food or raiment. Those ta who have taken the pains to look

up the matter in libraries have been strong3y.impressed by the

fact that all peoples of the earth have a religion, no matter how

crude its form may be. Those. S~s who have given this matter

further study have been forcefully struck by the fact that religion

is not a fixed and-definite thing for all races, or even a fixed

thing for the same race at different times. Religion is pro-

gressive. It has developed out of a "Wy crude form into a very

perfect and ideal belief. Religion is faitn, faith in a Supreme

Being. Faith in a ruler over the universe. However, when we

come to work out the details we will have a considerable ariount of

difficulty in getting any large number of people to agree. The

religion which we hold most dear to our he rts was evolved by the

Hebrews. The Hebrew culture represents faith as the guiding

principle of conduct. A large amount of material that has been

incorporated in the Hebrew religion was asalg W;W borrowed from

people lose existence antedated the Hebrews. TIe'tt-rrm-n M
the .
-t a large amount of/material that has been brought

together and formulated into our religion has come piofib*y from

as far East as China or India, ard A th-1n b, transmuted, perfected

and handed to us through the Hebrews.

P2;%tca-y one of the greatest shocks that one receives

is when we for the first time takes up the subject of religion as

a study. I remember well this particular phase of nr experience,










wrich was not unlike that of m~n others of the class. It was

somewhat a-G a unusual s&nnetia in our course h History of
Civilization, to be asked to bring our Bibles to the class-room.
We had never thought of religion as being something foreign to
our everyday life, but we had always acted in that way and uncon-

sciously this matter had grown KIXX to such an extent that when

the Bible was used like a secular class text it seaaft -+ a

shock to a great many of the students, ae f=-tank many people
tew Uf c, 644f
grow upAsubstituting formalism and ritualism for religion. They
somehow feel that certain rites that are practiced in connection
eeyts-ssr -yMf#
with XXIIXLXMs sects to which they happen to belong are really a
sacred part of the religion, when as a matter of fact the form or

ritual adopted may not be ==. older than some of the oldest men

in the church. Wt a~A' o'-- 4t t Ie. /- -e
Having thus developed the point that I want to make

this afternoon as to religion, f~at and dogma, I will now give

particular attention; to science.
S,'At its best*sci-nce is 4i for science is not much

more than arranging facts so as to set forth the truth. S +ifnti c

# George Otis Smith, in Science, Vo. XLII, p. 630.
^u~j[^ta .__2 _^M~ ^^^^^ ^c^^G. o L f



----------------------------------------------- ------------------

# George Otis Smith, in Science, Vol. XLII, p. 630.




@ ~~/U~~ G~I~i~l/L c ~M
~-w ~M- U












To make it possible for'-progress in science we.- A hnFdF~-

theories. Theories i-n themase+v are not though A*- manr

people substitute theory for truth, and are thus likely to be

misled. A cel-tain number of facts are arranged in certain order.

These facts point in a certain direction. The directions in

which these facts point are theories. Anyone is at liberty to

arrange these sae facts in any way he pleases, and to add more

facts to the arrangement. But if the theory is not aubstan-

tiated by subsequent experience it is discarded, and a new one

may be substituted. Let me make my meaning somewhat clearer

by an illustration. The sun rose this morning. That ks a fact.

I have lived a considerable number of years and the sun has risen

every morning. Fro;r these facts I deduce tne theory that the sun

will rise tomorrow mo-ning.i I have every fn th t eory

but it is not a fact.* I have. used a somewhat clumsy illustration

to ik:ticat ny point.

In ancient tiunes science had its greatest development among

the Greeks. Religion had its greatest, development among the

Hebrews. Naturally when these two currents of thought converged

add mingled in European culture there was 'l o-.-y t4+ a great deal

of antagonism and confusion, the Greeks holding that reasoning was

the one true guide to action and the Hebrews holding that faith

especially as represented in the old documents was the one true

course. The Mongolian race and the Hindoos had no such difficul-

ties to overcome. Their religion was well developed and their





A@
M ^^.^1.\^ A~li ff-a Cccc '^ C



~E~Xt-)


.~P-CCc~c L~~~j~ g~e, l~i-- ~r/e~ ~t~-t~ ~7r~ L~tC~t~C~e~

~cMe
LL/-~J ~ /4~~c3C~C ~n/
,g~4 C~tu~uLaC~e~e -;t~/uR:~ca~.
,A

i$-~-e~-t~L-L ~tcecc~R ~8-lle ~/ka*c~e~Z~L~a C-C/L;TO~-C(c~
.~cw~ ~ie--D-ccrZ-~-e/





EXPERIMENT STATION


" ^.. .-.










science was practically non-existent. They, therefore, had no

troub3 e in the matter of a guide to their conduct. They-'took

tneir religion such as it was and made that, pure and slimp) e,

their guide. We Euroepans, however, found ourselves in greater

difficulty, our religion being the guide of conduct d

from the Hebrews, and aethe r guide u ~ n t --tra : beig
from schools
Sin.te eced :,the Greeks. The teachings of these two cXs ss ,

if we may cal] tflenr such, naturally caused a great many clashes,

especially where certain classes were allied with the school of

faith while other classes were allied with the school of reason.

SIn this large school of fait occurred many smaller divisions.

Even long before the beginning of the Christian era the leaders

of religion were by no means a unit as to what constituted correct

belief. When Christ was sent to the earth there was by no means

unanimity fn accepting His apostleship. In fact, so far as mere

numbers were concerned, there were more p Him than -s

i ,ewers. And evn since that time we have had a great di-

vergence of belief in the faith. The Mohamrimedans profess-i to have

faith in Christ and yet are more fanatically set against the Chris-

tians than were even the.Buddhists. I may take even more recent

times, when we have a great split in the church wnos faith wea 4/

placed in Christ, and we have the Greek Church and the Roman Church.

All of these great revolutions have been attended wh much blood-

shed and many atrocities that have no connection with faith. Even

in later days, as late as after the discovery of America, we find

that in the s~oe religion such atrocities as the inquisitions were

practiced. ( &




~e/- '1- 1~-~ O~-cw~~e~

to-^ vn --^
4dlueL~ ^- <-- ^--^c- -- /4-" ^^l
f-r-' -^A-<-<-< e^-^t **rL/eOl I~~-r
C') (OAU PL&A^~ ^-- ^ ^c^^^ <^
44~-V( ^ % -e-U^tj~^0 H U*~Mi w







C/ ^2AA^C 41L1 -1L -- 4 ^< d






_I / .f ,
sv^~ ^^ ^4^. ^-^/^i/t--&
^t~~~~~ -^ y^cM -^ ^0 ~ C-uc ^e^-^
J^^^ b' -IbC-- )/~I kO;ae c~re







5


science was practically non-existent. They, therefore, had no

trouble in the matter of a guide to their conduct. They .took

tneir religion such as it was and made that, pure and s rip] e,

their guide. We Euroepans, however, found ourselves in greater

difficulty, our religion being the guide of conductA^ .tr

from the Hebrews, andr guide -I nrrt b-e stl baeg
from schools
ij into4;eeed o" the Greeks. The teachings of these two cX1)11s ,

if we may cal the.e such, naturally caused a great many clashes,

especially where certain classes were allied with the school of

faith while other classes were allied with the school of reason.

SI this large school of faithAoccurred many smaller divisions.

Even long before the beginning of the Christian era the leaders

of religion were by no means a unit as to what constituted correct

belief. When Christ was sent to the earth there was by no means

unanimity tn accepting His apostleship. In fact, so far as mere

numbers were concerned, there were more p9 d. Him than S9

e f wers. And evef since that time we have had a great di-

ver ence of belief in the faith. The Mohamrmedans profess:., to have

faith in Christ and yet are more fanatically set against the Chris-
.-- ; 0 --%. ...T
tians than were even the.Buddhists. I may take even more.recent

times, wbdn we have a great split in the church whosefaith wleB4/

placed in Christ, and we have the Greek Church and the Roman Church.

All of these great revolutions have been attended wh much blood-

shed and many atrocities that have no connection with faith. Even

in later days, as late as after the discovery of America, we find
that in the o~me religion such atrocities as the inquisitions were

practiced. % &







5


science was practically non-existent. They, therefore, had no
trouble in the matter of a guide to their conduct. They took
tneir re igion such as it was and made that, pure and simrp] e,
their guide. We Euroepans, however, found ourselves in greater
difficulty, our religion being the guide of conduct^ int.
from the Hebrews, andA aser guide e of lr t -; :. .. being
from schools
i-AL / i Ce4d d o' the Greeks.. The teachings of these two cXll.Is ,
if we may cal] their such, naturally caused a great many clashes,
especially where certain classes were allied with the school of
faith while other classes were allied with the school of reason.
-#9 In this large school of f~i ti .nr\ moyr smaller divisions.
j- 0 ,e W4- tian era the leaders

L ~ f at constituted correct

L L there was by no means
V) t A fact, so far as mere

se- 4& Him than -Si
Shav e had a great di-
I -edans profess. to have
set against the Chris-

Stake even more recent

/ ZL- ^A o L 4/-sL arch wo s aith we 4/
rch and the Roman Church.

4 1_^- 6v d'd -j t tended much blood.-
O-.--CI e / .A c^ tion with faith. Even

i )v -'- y of America, we find
S- the inquisitions were
94 Ca 1










e&l/vwvLA
These heinous act-eoe have to yii mind little or no con-
nection with .tel m.religion q A. kThey are, for the most

part if not entirely, the expression of savagery, that has been

handed down in the human race from generation to generation.

We cannot say that our present civilization is such as to preclude

the possibility of atrocities being carried out. We need only to

be reminded of happenings in our own country from time to time,

and we can readily see that we are not as far removed from our

savage ancestors ruy f The nineteen hundred

years that have passed since the birth of Christ have not given

time for the human race to divest itself of the savage instinct

or the lust for blood. A) j. 0/-7-
deh ZC C~ Z~rr ;TL~ O C(CrL

,./J- .wb












The Christian era was ushered in with Rome dominating.. Roman
domination meant that the sword was dominant. Rome enforced her

laws and obedience to orders from the reigning potentate by means

of the sword. Theologians were necessarily subservient to the

masterful hands of the soldiers. Greek thought was largely sup-

pres d excepting infso far as it appealed to the aesthetic.

Greek art flourished and was introduced into many foreign lands

because in it there was nothing that was antagonistic to the

sword.

The ravages of the swordAmore deadly than any pestilence

that ha-o ve--r oorrde could not fail to undermine the Roman

empire,. in spite of the fact that the hardiest df foreign "savage"

soldiers were constantly impressed into the service. Rome, given

over to' luxury, ease and riotous living, sowed the seeds of her

own decay.
Following on the Roman supremacy and Rome's auto-induced

decay, came the Saracen invasions. The purpose of these invasions

was conquest, pure and simple,.with very little idea of coloniza-

tion or of building up the territory coquered. Such a p~rj
i omed to failure. It will last only as long as there are

master hands at the helm who ruthlessly use~ tar power. After

the Mohammedan invasions we have therusades purely a theological

movement, although too frequently the sword rather than reason or

faith was made sacred, to obtain the ends desired. Following

the Crusades we have a period of revival, or shall we call it the
Renaissance usually spoken of in historrom the
as it is usually spoken of in history. From the











beginning of the Renaissance to the present time the trend has

constantly been in the direction of faith with reason. This has

not been an Uninterrupted evolution. Civil ization has proceeded

and receded much like the waves on the seashore, A3:og about

]tel 2th s 13th centuries may be p&acad as the beginning of our

present system of sciences Mathemati:s and Astronomy pa~~-h -t-

leading eat m--r t, i 1 rc =et 3-argy because there was a Greek

source upon wi-jch scholars were able to draw for information.

The natural sciences were somewhat more tardy in developing,

largely due to the fact that little .or no foundation had beej laid

for these in Greek culture Another potent factor in the retarda-

.tion of the natural sciences was found in theology. To the theolo-

glans of the time all natural science was contained in the Old and

New Testaments,. and any observations that did not fully agree with

the Scripures as expounded by the theologians f L n. was

considered a thought promulgated by the Evil One and the enunciator

disposed of -b the most-cruel that could be devised. # In

the 16th-and 17th centuries scientific thought and studies had

progressed -to the point of having many adherents in a 1 -ae number

of the European nations. In 1560 an Academy for the study of Na-

ture was formed in Naples. In 1645 the progenitor of the Royal

Society was organized in London. Shortl7 afterward thenAcademy

of Science of France was organized and also the Accademia- del

Cimento in Italy. This greatly alarmed the theologians of the

time, arnd it is said that Prince Leopold de Medici I 71,4t
T I











one of the potent influences in the Acadejy, was made a Cardinal

-to interfere with his promulgating scientific doctrines. Up to

this tim-e no special difficulty had arisen between the scientists

and the church due to the fact that scientific promulgation was

made to conform to the ecclesiastical interpretation of the Scrip-

tures. The Spriptures, as you have seen, originated with a

race of people who were quite devoid of scientific training.

Before this time, however, a very sharp clash had oc-

curred between the scientists in the line of Astronomy, that great-

ly disturbed the rational senses of the leaders of the church. I

am referring to the incident of Galileo. The story of the trouble

between the church and Galileo would take up more time than can

possibly be given to it in this reference. To the casual reader

of history and science this appears as a thunderbolt out of clear

sky. Galileo lived in the latter half of the sixteenth century

and early part of the seventeenth. Copernicus had already paved

the way to entering into a controversy with the .le Coper-

nicus had set forth his theory and made more or less accurate ob-

servations. One of tie.se observations was that Venus would show

phases like the moon. This question was asked him by the theolo-

gians and Copernicus answers, "you are right. I know not what

to say, but God is good and will in time find an answer to this

objection". The answer came through Galileo, in 1611, by means of

his rude telescope, wnich then showed the phases of Venus. In a












general way you will remember that Galileo was condemned, impris-

oned and subjected to conditions that well might cause his death.

Of course numerous Biblica] passages were quoted to substantiate

the belief that the earth was not only the center of the universe

but that it was flat. In discussing the question we have before

us this afternoon we must keep clearly in mind that religion is

one thing and the exponents of that religion quite another. We

must remember, too, that the exponents ofrreligion, science or any

other study may or may not be the leaders of the civilization and

culture of tneir time. Numerous passages might be quoted from

manuscripts extant, wherein priests, bishops, archbishops and

Cardinals, and even popes, took a e-tif hand in the discussion)

adi$n which emy ere united and the highest authority ruled that

the doctrinee was that of infidels and atheists. From this you

will see tnat the whole discussion was taken out of the field of

reason and placed in the realm of denunciation. The entire matter

was considered of. so much importance to religion that all sorts of

tricks and plots were set to catch Galileo and after months of de-

liberation the central cnurc re ered its unanimous decision as

follows: "The- first proposition, that the sun is the centre and

does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in

theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Script-

ure"; and "the second proposition, that the earth is not the centre

but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and from

a theological point of view, at least, opposed to the true faith."











Pope Paul V had Gal ileo brought before the Inquisition. The ver-

dict rendered by the Pope was that the doctrine of the double mo-

tion of the earth upon its axis and about the sun was false and

entirely contrary to the Holy Scriptures. A prohibition was

placed on both the teaching and the advocacy of such a doctrine.

The writings of Copernicus in wilich he affirmed the motion of

the earth, were also condemned. Wherever possible those writings

and materials that could be gotten were burned. This victory 'of

the church over science as it appeared at that time to be,

was rea33y one of the most serious defeats that it has encountered

in its day. Galileo, of course, was silenced, as were any others

who might promulgate similar theories.












About the same time great progress was being made in

discoveries and explorations It will be remember that about

the sixteenth century explorations in America were going on very

rapidly. The earth was circumnavigated and after the early dis-

coverbeer,l.the..expeorers followed close upon the discoverers.

These explorers in various regions of the world brought home de-

scriptions of the.peculiar anumals and plants, hitherto unknown.

A great many fanciful descriptions and inaccurate drawings were

the result of imagination rather than careful observation. Nat-

ural science was the leader in these discoveries and the writings

of the time. Much progress was being made in the newly discov-

ered regions; animals were found not catalogued and whose descrip-

tion would not fit in with tnose in Scripture. Naturally this

gave much uneasiness to tnose who adhered too closely to a techni-

cal interpretation of the Scripture. For a time all went well,

since all sorts of offensive animals, snakes, scorpions, insects

and other animate objects of that kind were supposed to be gene-

rated by slime, marshes or garbage. Therefore there was no diffi-

culty aooiut Noah having a-pair of all the anima s in existence

in his Ark. It was thought entirely unnecessary for him to harbor

all aorts of noxious birds, scorpions, vipers and animals of that.

kind, as tnose were the mechanisms of the devil and were thought to

have arisen from putrid matter. However, a little more careful

observation revealed the fact that every bird had to be the off-

spring of an egg and the egg could only be explained by a pre-












vious bird. This called for further anathemas and denunciations

of the natural scientists. In addition to this many animals of

large proportions and that were of use for food in the new coun-

tries were being reported by the explorers. This gave much

uneasiness to those who had to explain how: these animals were all

saved by Noah from the great flood. Gradually and insensibly

there spring up the idea that only the progenitors of these animals

need to be saved, and the foundation for evolution, though not

formulated, was in fact laid. A- a -mattr -~ f E U Lne central

M anlIahnii^,tmiig tty 1^ i~r1.mio. rmria

"be_ derv,, o ... Tr. b volr-ved ilr'oi p Lrid ,- tter-, h."" l aid a pretty atrong

hL1l 0n tihope who weir-giving tho matter attention

About this same time more or less discussion and'schism

in the church occurred. Such.a thing could not fail to happen.

Take for instance- the introduct on of Prince Medici .to. a leading

position in the church when formerly he was a leader in science.

Naturally this brought about him adherents whose views did not

exactly coincide with the orthodox views of the church. At

first in the minority, afterwards becoming a strong factor, it

finally resulted in more or less disintegration of the,'politic body.

In other words, they were trying to run the church organization by

having in it both conservatives and progressives as rulers.

Under such conditions the church naturally had a sufficient amount

of trouble of her owns. and couldn't expend much energy denouncing

or anathematizing people who were really outside of the governing






_lt4-


body, that is the laity of the church. It would be interesting

ard profitable to follow the evolution of the church and church

beliefs for the next three or four hundred years, however we will

have to pass rapidly over these difficult times and come more

c3osely to the question that has but recently agitated the mind

of the church to a considerable extent. I am referring to the

theory of evolution. I do not myself consider this of ma great

importance so far as the conflict between religion and science is

concerned. For the most part it has been carried off in a

rational way. T;is does not mean, however, that certain people

did not lose their temper and good judgment during the discussion.

To many of us it appears that the theory of evolution dates only

back to DarWin's time. He began his publications in the early

sixties, and continued on until the early part of the seventies.
Descent of Man
His 'cook the valution-of-spcies created more of a furore than

all tne rest of his works put together. Practically speaking it is

of far less importance than the rest of his work. It is more or

less speculative and based on a somewhat neagre foundation, as is

shown by more recent investigation. However, if we study the

problem carefully we find that the evolution of the universe out

of the primeval flood dates back to the Cha]deean-Babylonian rec-

ords. Its growth in Christendom was checked to a large extent

The Greeks had developed a considerable number of theories and had

the general idea of evolution in nature. Even in Roman times

Lucretius attempted to extend the evolutionary process to nearly
all things and while the idea was introduced early into the thought










of civilization especially in Babylonia and Greece, and later in

Rome the fervour in favor of the interpretation -o Genesis was

too great. In other words evolution was an idea that was felt

rather than demonstrated by fact. It lacked substantial founda-

tion. However, with the accumulation of knowledge that followed

in the succeeding centuries a rather important mass of well organ-

ized facts brought the theory again to the foreground among human

studies.

Cursory reading and a small amount of scientific study, -

auch as most students are able t,. master in the college course -

would lead one to the belief that the doctrine of evolution was

promulgated by and the product of Darwin, the scientist of his

time. But a wider study of the subject aid more careful atten-

tion to the history of botany and zoology will show clearly that

earlier writers, even dating back to the sixteenth century, aSelTR

gj impcO or ha visions of some such a theory. It remained dor-

mand, however, for the want of a sufficient amount of data upon

which to base a satisfactory theory. The accumulation of data

really began with the publication of Linnaeus' Generum Plantorum

about one hundred years before Darwin's time. Linnaeus, a Swedish

naturalist, compiled an extensive treatise which described or at

least catalogued all of the then known species of plants and animals.

The cataloguing and naming of these species required something of

a system. While to the present day botanist and zoologist hi3S system

was artificial it greatly stimulated research in.the way of studying

and describing animals and plants.









The middle of the last century was an. epoch-making period

for great men in botany and zoology. Previous to that time an

immense amount of work had been done and it remained merely as so

much material collected for the great master-builder. Darwin

stands out prominently among these. In America we had the re-

nowned Aggasiz as a zoologist and Gray as a botanist, both pro-

fessors in Harvard University. In Europe we had Wallace and

Darwin, closely followed by Huxley. The correspondence between

these five men and the friendly criticism of each other's produc-

tions, as well as the friendly rivalry, did much to stimulate

and produce more perfect publications than any one of them working

independently could possibly have produced. When we consider the

question purely from the standpoint of the evolutionary doctrine

Darwin stands out as the strong leader. Huxley and Wallace ac-

cepted the conclusions.o Gray and Aggasiz did not share opinions

of Wallace and Huxley. Darwin did not add a great amount of new

material to the sum total of our knowledge. His forte was in

making use of the material that had been collected by others.

Darwin had been sent to Cambridge University to fit himself for the

Angelican priesthood. On account of ill health he left in 1831

and went.on a sea voyage with a scientific expedition. On this

voyage he had considerable opportunity to make observations at

Cape Verde, (?) Brazil, Argentina and Australia as well

as many other places. It also gave him much time for careful su'

_itay-of the whole subject, for which he seems to have had a nat-

ural liking. In 1859 he presented the first installment of the

work that later developed into the Origin of Speci-es. This.book,











which dealt with the origin of species, appeared to many to attack

the very foundation of the church's creed. E7ren at the present
A:
time many people who denounce and deny, make use of the fundamentals

of his teaching. Darwin established three f-te- so clearly that

to the present time they have remained unshaken by scientific

investigation:

(3) The Struggle for existence among organized beings
(2) The survival of the fittest



His special intuition in rejecting what was irrelevant
and using what was pertinent especLally fitted him for this task.

Darwin's publications mark the beginning of a new epoch in

botany and zoology. At first little attention was paid to his

pubJications by other than botanists and zoologists, but soon after

the publication of his Origin of Species the storm broke loose.

During the seventies the storm was violent, so far as wordy combat

is concerned. Fortunately we had passed the period of the Inqui-

sition in our civilization and while people we1Bd denounce in

the choicest and most severe manner, it did not go further than a

matter of persecution. In the United States the side of Darwin

was taken mostly by the younger men. The older investigators and

the professors arrayed themselves almost as a unit against Darwin's

theory, as it was then called. For one to accept the Darwinian

theory was equal to excommunication from the church in some quarters.










scores of professors of botany and zoology 'vere either dismissed

from their positions or refused reappointment. In 1875 the De-

partmnent of Geology in Vanderbilt University, of wnich Dr. Winchell
was the head, was abolished, his teachings being thought contrary

to the plan of redemption. Of course this raised no end of acri-

monious discussion. In the early eighties Dr. Woodrow, who oceu-

pied the chair of sciences in the Theological Seminary of South

C.arolina, came to the conclusion that the theory of evolution was

the only one which explained various leading facts in the natural

sciences. In 1882 and 1883-the Board of Directors of this Seminary

in fear that the"scepticism in the world is using alleged discov-
eries in science to impugn the Word of God" asked Dr. Woodrow to

state his belief in regard to evolution which he did with such

telling effect that the Directors passed a resolution declaring

the theory of evolution as defined by Dr. Woodrow not inconsistent

with sound faith. But a year later the of South Carolina

was called upon to decide the question as to whether Dr. Woodrow's

teachings contradicted the interpretation of the Biblet~heiPres-

byterian Church in the United States. While the central board

saw nothing seriously wrong with Dr. Woodrow's teaching, delegates

from the various synods raised such strong objections that the post

had to be abandoned. You will probably remember that Dr. Woodrow
was for many years a professor in South Carolina University.

In all of this conflict between science and religion it
must be borne in mind that the interpreter of ,religion interprets

it according to his understanding, as influenced by the particular













sect to which he belongs. So far as I can see it the only ef-
fect that science has had on religion is to dissolve away the
false theories and dogmas of the older theological interpretation
and he3p to a reconstruction and recrystallization of a much more
beautiful truth. Religion as a resu3Jt Of modern studies is a
realm of order, a realm of beauty and a world of faith. The
religion taught by the ancients was a sort of conglomerate made
up of folklore, witchery and superstition thrown in on the true
foundation dr faith. The present day religion as I see it
manifests itself first in the spirit of truth and a life of truth;
XXEXsecond in a spirit of broad cooperation, and third in a con-

stant spirit of service.

^^-^U *




AA00000206_00105

All images should follow the standard processing procedure:

Straighten text

Images cropped to document size, unless there is text cutoff or text is one edge (leave a slight black border)

Process images to match their source documents and each other.

If an image is overexposed (too light) from scanning and it is too difficult to match,
it will need to be rescanned at 300ppi, RGB


MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Science and Religion. 1916
Series Title:
Writings and Speeches 1891-1920
Physical Description:
Unknown
Physical Location:
Box: 3
Divider: Articles, Speeches and Other Writings
Folder: Science and Religion. 1916

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural extension work -- Florida.
Agriculture -- Florida -- Experimentation.
Agriculture -- Study and teaching -- Brazil -- Minas Gerais.
Agriculture -- Study and teaching -- Florida.
Citrus fruit industry -- Brazil.
Leprosy -- Research -- Brazil.
Minas Gerais (Brazil) -- Rural conditions.
Escola Superior de Agricultura e Veterinaria do Estado de Minas Gerais.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service.
University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station.
University of Florida. Herbarium.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID:
AA00000206:00105

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Science and Religion. 1916
Series Title:
Writings and Speeches 1891-1920
Physical Description:
Unknown
Physical Location:
Box: 3
Divider: Articles, Speeches and Other Writings
Folder: Science and Religion. 1916

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural extension work -- Florida.
Agriculture -- Florida -- Experimentation.
Agriculture -- Study and teaching -- Brazil -- Minas Gerais.
Agriculture -- Study and teaching -- Florida.
Citrus fruit industry -- Brazil.
Leprosy -- Research -- Brazil.
Minas Gerais (Brazil) -- Rural conditions.
Escola Superior de Agricultura e Veterinaria do Estado de Minas Gerais.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service.
University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station.
University of Florida. Herbarium.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID:
AA00000206:00105

Full Text





S.C. SCI..CE AND RELIGION



In taking up this question this afternoon I propose to

S imit myself very closely to the manuscript I-h .1m- p-oropa*rd. I

do this for two reasons: first it is a subject somewhat foreign

to iy studies. I would not want to comie before a body of stu-

dents and discuss any question without having taken the time to

get exact and correct data as the fouWndtion of the tiouht 'that

I might have to present. The second reason for committing .these

thoughts to paper is that they are more consisely and correctly

expresseS under those conditions. I knrow from the start that it

will require a somewhat greater effort on the part of xy hearers

to follow me correctly since in coJiiitting e to paper one isw

also inclined to condense theiii into more concise language than

when they are delivered without reference to manuscript.

If in this afternoon's talk I can L.e of :service.;to one Vr

i:~a.ej u~- i here whose doubts have been raised as to the existence

of a God, or who have lost faith in religion.I shall be more than

repaid for the effort. Personally I cannot understand'for a moment

S why one should consider that there was any fundai.enta3 .antagonism

be-:weer true religion and true science. I kiiow of course tthat

iany a combat ha:s been fought between adherents of r ca.jrp

anid denunciations have been hurled back anid forth. But such de-

nunciations really get us nowhere. Everyone present has a very

definite idea as to what he means by the term religion; I doubt,

however, whether there are any two persons in the room whose ideas

would exactly coincide in the matter of detail sofar as the defi-






@ pf (t>^ -^ ^ ,f^< ^- t <^/ L 4^-Z-A -

II,
9' 7: Z' A- *L n *i'

f'z ; / '. ,' __
I*7 ff(^ L -(L--L :^ fZ -io ?- .-L^ << .
;i E^ / 'r~~Le O* :*y /





_ _JFf .L~/~ .




I t

S2




nition of the word religion is concerned.
Religion is necessary to the human race as necessary as

food or raiment. Those ts who have taken the pains to look

up the iratter in libraries have been strong. impressed by the

fact that all peoples of the earth have a religion, no matter how

crude its form may be. Those. IC=ES who have given this matter

further study have been forcefully struck by the fact that religion

is not a fixed and def nite thing for all races, or even a fixed

thing for the same race at different times. Religion is pro-

gressive. It has developed out of a vy Tcrude form into a very

perfect and ideal belief. Religion is faitn, faith in a Supreme

Being. Faith in a ruler over the universe. However, when we

come to work out the details we will have a considerable amount of

difficulty in getting any large nu..ber of people to agree. The

religion which we hold most dear to our he rts was evolved by the

Hebrews. The Hebrew culture represents faith as the guiding

principle of conduct. A large amount of material that has been

incorporated in the Hebrew religion was aa borrowed from

people tVose existence antedated the Hebrews. Thpeaea^ s a -
S the
ti_-l-,e i"B, a large amount of/material 'hat has been brought

together and formulated into our religion has come o yseiby from

as far East as China or India, ad than bzon transmuted, perfected

and handed to us through the Hebrews.

P~7latfiy one of the greatest shocks that one receives

is when Le for the first time takes up the subject of religion as

a study. I r-membe.r well this particular phase.of my experience,




* I


3


wrich was not unlike that of ma others of the class. It was

somewhat 4<=a& unusual sn~: ni-' in our course nte History of

Civilization, to be asked to bring our Bibles to the class-room.
We had never thought of religion as being soi.l-thing foreign to

our everyday life, but we had always acted in that way and uncon-

sciously this Imatter had grown PiXX to such an extent that when

the Bible was used like a secular class text it seat- -t a

shock to a great many of the students, aaAI--f=tmc many people
trl4 ws- d" L
grow upAsubstituting formalism and ritualism for religion. They
somehow feel that certain rites that are practiced in connection
** Iuii-ir -;p '
with I~XXlXMsA sects to which they happen to belong are really a

sacred part of the religion, when as a matter of fact the form or
ritual adopted may not be rti older than sole of the oldest men
in the church. &c 0vA&itc / Having thus developed the point that I w-iLt to make

this afternoon as to religion, fm=r and dogma, I will now give

particular attention-, to science.
S'At its best*science is 11~for science is not much
more than arranging facts so as to set forth the truth. SQienti4f








# George Otis Smith, in Science, Vol. XLII, p. 630.





@CLL IBM~












To make it possible for:progress in science we ~ sa- --

theories. Theories in th cm2alo are not though Aae ranyi

people substitute theory for truth, and are thus likely to be

misled. A certain number of facts are arranged in certain order.

These facts point in a certain direction. The directions in

which these facts point are theories. Anyone is at liberty to

arrange these Sme facts in any way he pleases, and to add more

facts to the arrangement. But if the theory is not aubstan-

tiated by subsequent experience it is discarded, and a new one

may be substituted.a Let me mriAe um meaning somewhat clearer

by an illustration. The sun rose this morning. That ks a fact.

I have lived a considerable number of years and the sun has risen

every morning. Fro:. these facts I deduce the theory that the sun

will rise tomorrow LO~iing.A I have every in that theory

but it is not a fact. I have used a somewhat clumsy illustration

to t~tl+ip t my point.

In ancient times science had its greatest development among

the Greeks. .Religion had its greatest development among the

Hebrews.. Haturally- iel, these two currents of thought converged

add mingled in European culture there was i-ly5 i to a great deal

of antagonism and confusion, the Greeks holding that reasoning was

the one true guide to action and the Hebrews holding that faith

especially as represented in the old documents was the one true

course. The Mongolian iace and the Hindoos had no such difficul-

ties to overcome. Their religion was well developed and their






k6" /ld-A^Le IT-^ -^^ O . a *L L
A' itJ^U WL ^^f^'










Ly q.L^ g, Jh /, -
d6 t4 -a
A & ~La 9 ro Z 6(L^-< tyQ
a. *" /e ('-
AZUf-oZcdetL <2/A_ _







5


science was practically non-existent. They, therefore, had no

trouble in the matter of a guide to their conduct. They 'took

tneir religion such as it was and made that, pure and simple e,

their guide. We Euroepans, however, found ourselves in greater

difficulty, our religion being the guide of conduct i
X^c<-<^%~ -ti, atf /uAiA-^^ __ru
from the Hebrews, and-a tr guide u tiitndt -tyreao- beg
from schools
7Y7 in-tro~eced o'i' the Greeks. The teachings of these two cIAxs ,

if we may cal] their such, naturally caused a great many .clashes,

especially where certain classes were allied with the school of
Saith while other classes were allied with the school of reason.

In this large school of faith occurred many smaller divisions.

Even long before the beginning of the Christian era the leaders

of religion were by no means a unit as to what constituted correct

belief. When Christ was sent to the earth there was by no means

unanimity tn accepting His apostleship. In fact, so far as mere

numbers were concerned, there were more e Id Him than -s

e .- wr.s. And eve~ since that time we have had a great di-

vergence of belief in the faith. The fToha?- medans profess:.. to have

faith in Christ and yet are more fanatically set against the Chris-
-e.Bddhs~s Imay take e--
tians tani were e'e., tne.Buddhists. I may take even more recent

times, when we have a great split in the church wi'osefaith wa4/

placed in Christ, and we have the Greek Church and the Roiai, Church.

All of these great revolutions have been attended wt much blood-

shed and many atrocities that have no connection with faith. Even

in later days, as late as after the discovery of America, we find

that in the sa~o religion such atrocities as the inquisitions were

practiced.









SLK L
6-rI -A- f

'11 Cf^ /^tL;';








' ^ ^^ ^t^ -A ^ ca^^i-^^
y r-i .e



JA-. MLI $ 0

k ^<^ 1-^ Lyl-^--
6Li ^ .^ C.. ur---r ^ti./^k/---- -
^ *^^~'g^ZiM^^ ii^& *^^^ ^^^/^^^ c
^C^ ^ -;~ie LLLC











These heinous a~tiono have to nar mind little or no con-
rZiv--W Av Ltt'voPCJ a-,, Q* c~u't '.fr -.c; aee-Q
nection with ta. .religion A*rY r. kThey are, for the most

part if not entirely, the expression of savagery, that has been

handed down in the human race from generation to generation.

We cannot say that our present civilization is such as to preclude

the possibility of atrocities being carried out. We need only to

be re;.lided of happenings in our own country from time to time,

and we can readily see that we are not &s far removed from our

savage ancestors s-- ..oEr The nineteen hundred

years that have passed since the birth of Christ have not given

time for the human race to divest itself of the, savage instinct

or the lust for blood. a, .-. -












The Christian era was ushered in with Rome dominating.. Eoman

domination maant that the sword was dominant. Rome enforced her

laws and obedience to orders from the reigning potentate by means

of the sword. Theologians were necessarily subservient to the

masterful hands of the soldiers. Greek thought was largely sup-

presd exceptng inso far as it appealed to the aesthetic.

Greek art flourished and was introduced into many foreign lands

because in it there was nothing that was antagonistic to the

sword.

The ravages of the sword more deadly than any pestilence

t+hat hats v-er-tt erd. could not fail to undermine the Roman

empire, in spite of the fact that the hardiest o'f foreign "savage"

soldiers were constantly impressed into the service. Rome, given

over to' luxury, ease and riotous living, sowed the seeds of her

own decay.

Following on the Roman supremacy and Rome's auto-induced

decay, came tre Saracen invasions. The purpose of these invasions

was conquest, pure and simple,. with very little idea of coloniza-

tion or of building up the territory coquered. Such a pro-

i o omed to failure. It will last only as long as there are

master hands at the helm wio ruthlessly use$t fe power. After

the Mohammedan invasions we have theiCrusades purely a theological

movement, al though too frequently the sword rather than reason or

faith was made sacred, to obtain the ends desired. Following

the Crusades we have a period of revival, or shall we call it the
enaissance as it is usually spoken of in history. From the











beginning of the Renaissance to the present time the trend has

constantly been in the direction of faith with reason. This has

not been an uninterrupted evolution. Civil ization has proceeded

and receded much like the waves on the seashore, Ahon about

ta w 1 2th ar 13th centuries may be pLaced as the beginning of our

present system of scienceA Mathemati s and Astronoiiy pIat-ty-

leading e-t ar t,.i 3-argEgy because there was a Greek

source upon wfiich scholars were able to draw for information.

The natural sciences were somJlewhat more tardy in developing,

largely due to the fact that little or no foundation had been laid

for these in Greek culture. Another potent factor in the retarda-
A
tion of the natural sciences was found in theology.. To t je theolo-

gians of the time all natural science was contained in the Old and

New Testaments,. and any observations that did not fully agree with

the Scripures as expounded by the theologians f 5i-"t inq ..,as

considered a thought promulgated by the Evil One and the enunciator

disposed of h the most-cruel that could be devised. # In

the 16th and 17th centues scientific thought and studies had

progressed -to the point of having many adherents in a J;i~m nut.ber

of the European nations. In 1560 an Academy for the study of Na-

ture was formed in Naples. In 1645 the progenitor of the Royal

Society was organized in London. ShortlY afterward theiiAcadeny

of Science of France was organized and also the Accademia del

Cimento in Italy. This greatly alarmed the theologians of the

time, and it is said that Prince Leopold de Medici o A1i











one of the potent influences in the Acadeiry, was made a Cardinal

*to interfere with his promulgating scientific doctrines. Up to

this time no special difficulty had arisen between the scientists

and the church due to the fact that scientific promulgation was

made to conformi to the ecclesiastical interpretation of the Scrip-

tures. The Spriptures, as you have seen, originated with a

race of people who were quite devoid of scientific training.

Before this time, however, a very sharp clash had oc-

curred between the scientists in the line of Astronolry, that great-

ly disturbed the rational senses of the leaders of the church. I

am referring to the incident of Galileo. The story of the trouble

between the church and Galileo would take up tmore time than can

possibly be given to it in this reference. To the casual reader

of history and science this appears as a thunderbolt out of clear

sky. Galileo lived in the latter half of the sixteenth century

and early part of the seventeenth. Copernicus had already paved

the way to entering into a controversy with the .i Coper-

nicus had set forth his theory and made more or less accurate ob-

servations. One of these observations was that Venus would show

phases like the moon. This question was asked him by the theolo-

gians and Copernicus 'nsveres, "you are right. I know not what

to say, but God is good and will in time find an answer to this

objection". The answer came through Galileo, in 16 1, by means of

his rude telescope, wnich then showed the phases of Venus. In a












general way you will remember that Galileo was condei ud~J, impris-

oned and subjected to conditions that well might cause his death.

Of course numerous Biblical passages were quoted to substantiate

the belief that the earth was not on~ty the center of the universe

but that it was flat. In discussing the question we have before

us this afternoon we must keep clearly in miu.J that religion is

one thing and the exponents of that religion quite another. We

must reijiemiLer, too, that the exponents ofrareligion, science or any

other study may or may not be the leaders of the civilization and

culture of tneir time. Numerous passages eightt be quoted from

manuscripts extant, wherein priests, bishops, archbishops and

Cardinals, and even popes, took a i=f hand in the discussion,

a-idn w:ich t&y were united and the highest authority ruled that

the'ojoctrine was that of infidels and atheists. Froif, this you

will see tlat the whole discussion was taken out of the field of

reason and placed in the realm of denunciation. The entire matter

was considered of so much importance to religion that all sorts of

tricks and plots were set to catch Galileo and after months of de-

liberation the central cnurc Are ered its unanimous decision as

follows: "The- first proposition, that the sun is the centre and

does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in

theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Script-

ure"; and "the second proposition, that the earth is not the centre

but revolves about the sun. is absurd, false in philosophy, and from

a theological point of view, at least, opposed to the true faith."











Pope Paul V had Gal ileo brought before the Inquisition. The ver-

dict rendered by the Pope was that the doctrine of the double mo-

tion of the earth upon its axis and about the sun was false and

entirely contrary to the Holy Scriptures. A prohibition w-is

placed on both the teaching and the advocacy of such a doctrine.

The writings of Copernicus in which he affirmed the motion of
the earth, were also conde~ied, Wherever possible those writings

and materials that could be gotten were burned. This victory oof

the church over science as it appeared at that time to be,

was really one of the most serious defeats that it has encountered

in its day. Galileo, of course, was silenced, as were any others

who right promnugate similar theories.








12



About the same time great progress was being made in

discoveries and explorations It will be remember that about

the sixteenth century explorations in America were going on very

rapidly. The earth was circumnav4ggated and after the early dis-

cover ess,Athe e explorers followed close upon the discoverers.

These explorers in various regions of the world brought home de-

scriptions of the.peculiar animals and plants, hitherto unknown.

A great many fanciful descriptions and inaccurate drawings were

the result of imagination rather than careful observation. Nat-

ural science was the leader in these discoveries and the writings

of the time. AIuci] progress was being made in the newly discov-

ered regions; animals were found not catalogued and whose descrip-

tion would not fit in with trose in Scripture. Naturally this

gave fmch uneasiness to tnose who adhered too closely to a techni-

cal interpretation of the Scripture. For a time all went well,

since all sorts of offensive animals, snakes, scorpions, insects

and other animate objects of that kind were supposed to be gene-

rated by slime, marshes or garbage. Therefore there was no diffi-

culty about Noah having a-pair of all the animals in existence

in his Ark. It was thought entirely unnecessary for him to harbor

all aorts of noxious birds, scorpions, vipers and animals of that

kind, as tnose were the mechanisms of the devil and were thought to

have arisen from putrid matter. However, a little more careful

observation revealed the fact that every bird had to be the off-

spring of an egg and the egg could only be explained by a pre-












vious bird. This called for further anathemas and denunciations

of the natural scientists. In addition-to this many animals of

large proportions and that were of use for food in the new coun-

tries were being reported by the explorers. This gave much

uneasiness to those who had to explain how these anitArals were all

saved by Noah from the great flood. Gradually and insensibly

there spring up the idea that only the progenitors of these animals

need to be saved, and the foundation for evolution, though not

formulated, was in fact laid. a tt ofr --F L C Ile cerlra2

AA '9




Take for instance- the introduce Lon of Prince Med ici to ai lea.dingC




position in the church when formerlyghe was a leaderin science.

Naturally this brought about him adherents whose views did not

exactly coincide with the orthodox views of the church. At

first in the minority, afterwards becoming a strong factor, it

finally resulted in more or less disintegration of theipolitic body.

In other words, they were trying to run the church organization by

having in it both conservatives and progressives as rulers.

Under such conditions the church naturally had a sufficient amount

of trouble of her own, and. could.not expend much energy denouncing

or anathematizing people who were really outside of the governing









body, that is the laity of the church. ~ It would be interesting

arid profitable to follow the evolution of the cnur-h and church

beliefs for the next three or four hundred years, however we will

have to pass rapidly over these difficult times and come more

closely to the question that has but recently agitated the mind

of the church to a considerable extent. I am referring to the

theory of evolution. I do not myself consider this of ay great

importance so far as the conflict between religion and science is

concerned. For.the most part it has been carried off in a

rational way. Tiis does not mean, however, that certain people

did not lose their temper and good judgment during the discussion.

To many of us it appears that the theory of evolution dates only

back to DarWin's time. He began his publications in the early

sixties, and continued on until the early part of the seventies.
Descent of Man
His oook the .vYlutio-of-SpcAes created more of a furore than

all tne rest of his works put together. Practically speaking it is

of far less importance than the rest of his work. It is more or

less speculative and based on a somewhat ,eagre foundation, as is

shown by more recent investigation. However, if we study the

problem carefully we find that the evolution of the universe out

of the primeval flood dates back to the Chaldeean-Baby onian rec-

ords. Its growth in Christendom was checked to a large extent

The Greeks had developed a considerable number of theories and had

the general idea of evolution in nature. Even in Roman times

Lucretius attempted to extend the evolutionary process to nearly

all things and while the idea was introduced early into the thought







15


of civilization especially in Babylonia and Greece, and later in

Rome the fervour in favor of the interpretation -o Genesis was

too great. In other words evolution was an idea that was felt

rather than demonstrated by fact. It lacked substantial founda-

tion. However, with the accumulation of knowledge that followed

in the succeeding centuries a rather important mass of well organ-

ized facts brought the theory again to the foreground among human

studies.

Cursory reading and a small amount of scientific study, -

auch'as mo s students are able to master in the college course -

would lead one to the belief that the doctrine of evolution was

promulgated by and the product of Darwin, the scientist of his

time. But a wider study of the subject and more careful atten-

tion to the history of botany and zoology will show clearly that

earlier writers, even dating back to the sixteenth century, za eit

gJifpoo.s or -ha visions of some such a theory. It remained dor-

mand, however, for the want of a sufficient amount of data upon

whichlto base a satisfactory theory. The accumulation of data

really began with the publication of Linnaeus' Generum Plantorum

about one hundred years before Darwin's time. Linnaeus, a Swedish

naturalist, compiled an extensive treatise which described or at

least eatalogtued all of the then known species of plants and animals.

The cataloguing and naming of these species required something of

a system. Wi-ile to the present day botaistand zoologist hi~ system

was artifiCial it greatly stimulated research in the way of studying

and describing animals and plants.










The middle of the last century was an epoch- iia:ing period

Sfor great men in botany and zoology. Previous to that time an

immense amount of work had been done and it remained merely as so

much material collected for the great master-builder. Darwin

stands out prominently a..ong these. In America we had the re-

nowned Aggasiz as a zoologist and Gray as a botanist, both pro-

fessors in Harvard University. In Europe we had Wallace and

Darwin, closely followed by Huxley. The correspondence between

these five men and the friendly criticism of each other's produc-

tions, as well as the friendly rivalry, did much to stimulate

and produce more perfect publications than any one of them working

independently could possibly have produced. When we consider the

question purely from the standpoint of the evolutionary doctrine

Darwin stands out as the strong leader. Huxley and Wallace ac-

cepted the conclusions.. Gray and Aggasiz did not share opinions

of Wallace and Huxley. Darwin did not add a great amount of new

material to the sum total of our knowledge. His forte was in

.Lai.,Lg use of the material that had been collected by others.

Darwin had been sent to Cambridge University to fit himself for the

Angel ican priesthood. On account of ill health he left in 1831

and went. on a sea voyage with a scientific expedition. On this

voyage he had consideraDle opportunity to make observations at

Cape Verde, Gla (?) Brazil, Argentina and Australia as well

as many other places. It also gave him mi.ch time for careful 3:
6t :=rf the whole subject, for which he seems to have had a nat-

ural liking. In 1859 he presented the first installment of the

work that later developed into the Origin of Speci-es. This.book,











which dealt with the origin of species, appeared to many to attack

the very foundation of the church's creed. Evren at the present

time many people who denounce and denyA, make use of the fundamentals

of his teaching. Darwin established three fe-e4-- so clearly that

to the present time they have remained unshaken by scientific

investigation:

(1) The Struggle for existence among organized beings

(2) The survival of the fittest



His special intuition in rejecting what was irrelevant

and using what was pertinent especially fitted him for this task.

Darwin's publications mark the teginning of a new epoch in

botany and zoology. At first little attention was paid to his

publications by other than botanists and zoologists, but soon after

the publicationn of his Origin of Species the storm broke loose.

During the seventies the storm was violent, so far as wordy combat

is concerned. Fortunately we had passed the period of the Inqui-

sition in our civilization and while people would denounce in

the choicest and most severe manner, it did not go further than a

matter of persecution. In the United States the side of Darwin

was taken mostly by the younger men. The older investigators and

the professors arrayed themselves almost as a unit against Darwin's

theory, as it was then called. For one to accept the Darwinian

theory was equal to excommunication from the church in some quarters.




I


scores of professors of botany and zoology were either dismissed

from tneL-r positions or refused reappointment. In 1875 the De-

partment of Geology in Vanderbilt University, of wnich Dr. Winchell

S was the head, was abolished, his teachings being thought contrary
to the plan of redemption. Of course this raised no end of acri-

monious discussion. In the early eighties Dr. Woodrow, who occu-

pied the chair of sciences in the Theological Seminary of South

Carolina, came to the conclusion that the theory of evolution was

the only one which explained various leading facts in the natural

sciences. In 1882 and 1883tthe Board of Directors of this Seminary

in fear that the"scepticism in the world is using alleged discov-

eries in science to impugn the Word of God" asked Dr. Woodrow to

state his belief in regard to evolution which he did with such

telling effect that the Directors passed a resolution declaring

the theory of evolution as defined by Dr. Woodrow not inconsistent

with sound faith. But a year later the ... of South Carolina

was called upon to decide the question as to whether Dr. Woodrow's

teachings contradicted the interpretation of the BibleethePres-

byterian Church in the United States. While the central board

saw nothing seriously wrong with Dr. Woodrow's teaching, delegates

from the various synods raised such-strong objections that the post

had to be abandoned. You will probably remember that Dr. Woodrow

was for many years a professor in South Carolina University.

In all of this conflict between science and religion it
must be borne in mind that the interpreter of religion interprets

it according to his understanding, as influenced by the particular




*1



219




sect to which he belongs. So far as I can see it the only ef-

fect that science has had on religion is to dissolve away the

false theories and dogmas of the older theological interpretation

and help to a reconstruction and recrystallization of a much more
beautiful truth. Religion as a resuJlt df modern studies is a

realm of order, a realm of beauty and a world of faith. The

religion taught by the ancients was a sort of conglomerate made
up of folklore, witchery and superstition thrown in on the true

foundation EdrS faith. The present day religion as I see it

manifests itself first in the spirit of truth and a life of truth;

XKIXsecond in a spirit of broad cooperation, and third in a con-

stant spirit of service.

^^^-^^