554 



THE POPULAR SCIEXCE MONTHLY. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



BE EC HERS POSITIOy ON EVOLUTIOy. 



TWO great standards of truth have 

 prevailed in the world ; truth ac- 

 cording to nature and truth according 

 to theology. Truth according to na- 

 ture has been held as of little moment, 

 because all its consequences are tem- 

 poral and transitory ; but truth accord- 

 ing to theology has been held as of in- 

 finite importance, because salvation and 

 the interests of an immortal destiny de- 

 pended upon it. There was, therefore, 

 but little chance for getting up much 

 interest in the truth of things natural 

 so long as the theological standard of 

 truth was supreme. Galileo made a 

 book stating the evidence of the Coper- 

 nican system of astronomy according 

 to the facts of nature ; but he was sum- 

 moned before the inquisitorial court to 

 answer the charge of heresy for not 

 judging of the scheme of the planetary 

 motions by the standard of theological 

 authority. Truth according to nature 

 in those days went for very little in 

 comparison with truth according to the 

 supernatural. Theological ideas were 

 in the minds of everybody, were held 

 of transcendent importance, and every- 

 thing in the shape of new knowledge 

 was first brought to the test of agree- 

 ment with authorized religious doc- 

 trine. 



Two or three centuries have made 

 great changes in this matter. The the- 

 ological standard has been lowered, and 

 a much higher value is set on the truth 

 which agrees with nature ; but multi 

 tudes of minds are still dominated by 

 theological conceptions, and when new 

 ideas are proposed instead of asking 

 whether they agree with the focts or 

 are true to the nature of things, the 

 first question is, as it was three hun- 

 dred years ago. How do these ideas 

 agree with prevailing religious opin- 

 ions ? The illustrations of this survival 



of the theological spirit and methods 

 are still numerous, and a fresh example 

 has recently come to our attention 

 which will well serve to bring out the 

 point we have in view in the present 

 article. It consisted of a vigorous at- 

 tack on Mr. Beecher's book, "Evolution 

 and Religion," which appeared in the 

 " Commercial Advertiser " of Novem- 

 ber 20th. The point of view is thor- 

 oughly mediaeval, the writer seeming to 

 care but very little as to whether evolu- 

 tion is true or not, but to be profound- 

 ly concerned about theology's relation 

 to it. The writer condemns Mr. Beecher 

 for refusing to judge of the doctrine of 

 evolution on the basis of its agreement 

 or non-agreement with the old middle- 

 age standards of religious dogma. He 

 says : " Of course Mr. Beecher, like 

 anybody else, may put what construc- 

 tion he pleases on the doctrine of evo- 

 lution, and he may put a construction 

 to suit him on the doctrines of theology, 

 and in that way patch up a sort of rec- 

 onciliation : and that is precisely what 

 he does. ... At the same time he con- 

 trives a religion which is certainly not 

 the religion of the fathers, or of the 

 martyrs, or of the ancient confessors, or 

 of any of the accepted symbols of the 

 Church." From which we are to infer 

 that the theology of the fathers and of 

 the martyrs and of the ancient confess- 

 ors or old cast-iron middle-aged ortho- 

 doxy, is to be taken as the standard of 

 truth, and the doctrine of evolution 

 judged by its agreement with that stand- 

 ard. That the writer should argue that 

 the doctrine of evolution is materialistic 

 and atheistic is quite a matter of course ; 

 but what we wish to call attention to 

 here is, that he seems to have but little 

 more care as to whether this doctrine 

 is true to the realities of nature than 

 had the old inquisitors in relation to 

 the new astronomy. Indeed, toward 



