328 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



page 144, and read : " It is in one respect a calamity of our time and 

 country that unbelievers, instead of, as in France, honestly avowing 

 their sentiments, disguise them by studious reticence as Mr. Darwin 

 at first studiously disguised his views as to the bestiality (!) of man, 

 and as the late Mr. Mill silently allowed himself to be represented to 

 the public as a thorough believer in God." Along with this passage 

 we take the remarks on " Mr. Winwood Reade, a friend and ardent 

 disciple of Mr. Darwin," and on the teachings of " our English physical 

 expositors" (pp. 393-395), and then ask whether the author is not, by 

 implication at least, charging Mr. Darwin with atheism ? This is the 

 more probable, as we can find no saving clause or limitation guarding 

 against such a construction being put upon these passages. Still, in 

 a charge so grave the accused is entitled to the benefit of the faintest 

 doubt, and Mr. Mivart may therefore claim a verdict of " Not proven." 

 It is time, however, that we came to a full understanding about the 

 foul practice of introducing charges of atheism in scientific contro- 

 versy. On this subject we beg to offer the following considerations : 



1. Charges of "heresy," "infidelity," or "atheism," are beside the 

 question. If a theory in astronomy, in geology, in physics, chemis- 

 try, or biology, is in doubt, let it be judged on its own evidence; that 

 is, let it be compared resjjectively with astronomical, geological, phys- 

 ical, chemical, or biological facts, and, according as it is able or un- 

 able to account for and to harmonize such, let it stand or fall. The 

 man who is unable or unwilling to do this convicts himself, from an 

 intellectual point of view, either of impotence or perversity, and should 

 leave controversy to others. 



2. Such charges, further, are delusive. Not to speak of the thor- 

 oughly-trained scholar, even many of the "half-educated" know that 

 almost every important discovery in science has been denounced by 

 the "parti pre* tre" (clerical party) as impious, heretical, and atheistic. 

 A yearly volume of the Quarterly Journal of Science would not con- 

 tain the abuse uttered by ecclesiastics against the Copernican theory 

 of the solar system, against the doctrine of a plurality of worlds, the 

 Newtonian view of the universe, the nebular hypothesis, the chro- 

 nology of modern geologists, etc. Yet all these views, and many 

 more which might be mentioned, were found when passion had 

 cooled and sober judgment had time to decide perfectly compatible, 

 not with theism merely, but with Christian revelation. What " the 

 Church " has cursed in one generation, she " assimilates " in the next. 

 What educated man, then, after reviewing the past, can dare to set 

 aside modern theories in such a manner? 



3. Such charges are, further, distinctly immoral, and even crimi- 

 nal. All civilized countries brand with ignominy the suitor or the 

 advocate who suborns false witnesses, forges or destroys documents, 

 or corrupts judges and juries. But the controversialist who charges 

 his opponent with atheism stands in a precisely similar position. He 



