84 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



street-gamin, or of Topsy, who says, " I was not made at all, I 

 growed " ; the third is that of most intelligent Christians — i. e., 

 that we were made by a process of evolution. Observe that this 

 latter combines and reconciles the other two, and is thus the 

 more rational and philosophical. Now, there are also three ex- 

 actly corresponding theories concerning the origin of species. 

 The first is that of many pious persons and many intelligent 

 clergymen, who say that species were made at once by the Di- 

 vine hand without natural process. The second is that of the 

 materialists, who say that species were not made at all, they 

 were derived, " they growed." The third is that of the theistic 

 evolutionists, who think that they were created by a process of 

 evolution — who believe that making is not inconsistent with 

 growing. The one asserts the Divine agency, but denies natural 

 process ; the second asserts the natural process, but denies Divine 

 agency ; the third asserts Divine agency by natural process. Of 

 the first two, observe, both are right and both wrong ; each view 

 is right in what it asserts, and wrong in what it denies — each is 

 right from its own point of view, but wrong in excluding the 

 other point of view. The third is the only true rational solu- 

 tion, for it includes, combines, and reconciles the other two; 

 showing wherein each is right and wherein wrong. It is the 

 combination of the two partial truths, and the elimination of 

 the partial errors. But let us not fail to do perfect justice. The 

 first two views of origin, whether of the individual or of the 

 species, are indeed both partly wrong as well as partly right ; 

 but the view of the pious child and of the Christian contains by 

 far the more essential truth. Of the two sides of the shield, 

 theirs is at least the whiter and more beautiful. 



But, alas ! the great bar to a speedy settlement of this ques- 

 tion and the adoption of a rational philosophy is not in the head 

 but in the heart — is not in the reason but in pride of opinion, 

 self-conceit, dogmatism. The rarest of all gifts is a truly toler- 

 ant, rational spirit. In all our gettings let us strive to get this, 

 for it alone is true wisdom. But we must not imagine that all 

 the dogmatism is on one side, and that the theological. Many 

 seem to think that theology has a "pre-emptive right" to dog- 

 matism. If so, then modern materialistic science has "jumped 

 the claim." Dogmatism has its roots deep-bedded in the human 

 heart. It showed itself first in the domain of theology, because 

 there was the seat of power. In modern times it has gone over 

 to the side of science, because here now is the place of power 

 and fashion. There are two dogmatisms, both equally opposed 

 to the true rational spirit, viz., the old theological and the new 

 scientific. The old clings fondly to old things, only because they 

 are old ; the new grasps eagerly after new things, only because 



