444 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



its largest churches,- gave a lecture which, as was claimed in the 

 public prints and in placards posted in the streets, was to show 

 that science supports the theory of creation given in the sacred 

 books ascribed to Moses. A large audience assembled, and a bril- 

 liant series of elementary experiments with oxygen, hydrogen, 

 and carbonic acid was concluded by the Plateau demonstration. It 

 was beautifully made. As the colored globule of oil, represent- 

 ing the earth, was revolved in a transparent medium of equal 

 density, as it became first flattened at the poles, as rings then 

 broke forth from it, and revolved about it, and, finally, as some of 

 these rings broke into satellites, which for a moment continued to 

 circle about the central mass, the audience, as well they might, 

 rose and burst into rapturous applause. 



Thereupon a well-to-do citizen arose and moved the thanks of 

 the audience to the eminent professor for " this perfect demon- 

 stration of the exact and literal conformity of the statements 

 given in Holy Scripture with the latest results of science." The 

 motion was carried unanimously and with applause, and the audi- 

 ence dispersed, feeling that a great service had been rendered to 

 orthodoxy. " Sancta simplicitas ! " * 



What this incident exhibited on a small scale has been seen 

 elsewhere with more distinguished actors and on a broader stage. 

 Scores of theologians, chief among whom of late, in zeal if not in 

 knowledge, has been Mr. Gladstone, have endeavored to " recon- 

 cile " the two accounts in Genesis with each other and with the 

 truths regarding the origin of the universe gained by astronomy, 

 geology, geography, physics, and chemistry. The result has been 

 recently stated by an eminent theologian, the Hulsean Professor 

 of Divinity at the University of Cambridge. He declares, " No 



* For an interesting reference to the outcry against Newton, see McCosh, The Religious 

 Aspect of Evolution, New York, 1890, pp. 103, 104; for germs of an evolutionary view 

 among the Babylonians, see George Smith, Chaldean Account of Genesis, New York, 18*70, 

 pp. 74, 75 ; for a germ of the same thought in Lucretius, see his De Naturii Rerum, lib. v, 

 187-194, 447-454; for Bruno's conjecture (in 1591), see Jevons, Principles of Science, 

 London, 1874, vol. ii, p. 299; for Kant's statement, see his Naturgeschichte des Ilimmels; 

 for his part in the nebular hypothesis, see Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i, p. 

 266 ; for value of Plateau's beautiful experiment, very cautiously estimated, see Jevons, 

 vol. ii, p. 30 ; also Elis6e Reclus, The Earth, translated by Woodward, vol. i, pp. 14-18, for 

 an estimate still more careful ; for a general account of discoveries of the nature of 

 nebulae by spectroscope, see Draper, Conflict between Religion and Science ; for a careful 

 discussion regarding the spectra of solid, liquid, and gaseous bodies, see Schellen, Spectrum 

 Analysis, pp. 100 et seq. ; for a very thorough discussion of the bearings of discoveries 

 made by spectrum analysis upon the nebular hypothesis, ibid., pp. 532-537 ; for a presen- 

 tation of the difficulties yet unsolved, see an article by Plummer in the London Popular 

 Science Review for January, 1875 ; for an excellent short summary of recent observations 

 and thought on this subject, see T. Sterry Hunt, Address at the Priestley Centennial, pp. 

 7, 8 ; for an interesting modification of this hypothesis, see Proctor's writings. 



