52 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



divine, and that therefore, if a conflict there be, the error must be on 

 the side of science. It is true that many statements, which are really 

 little more than scientific conjectures, are represented, at least by those 

 who take their science at second or third hand, as if they were the 

 well-established conclusions of science. But it is true also that the 

 progress of science has corrected the assertions of a crude theology. 

 We are disposed nowadays to smile at the idea of any opposition be- 

 tween the Copernican system and the teaching of revelation ; but we 

 need not go back to the days of the persecution of Galileo to find an 

 example of a well-supported scientific conclusion having met with a 

 similar opposition, issuing in a similar result. 



To gauge thoroughly the amount of evidence on which an asserted 

 scientific conclusion rests, one ought to be well acquainted with the 

 branch of science to which it relates. Still, one can get a fair general 

 notion of the evidence by an amount of reading which is by no means 

 prohibitive, or by conversing with those who have made that branch 

 a special study. It may be that the impression thus left on the mind 

 will be that the votaries of science, carried away by an excess of zeal 

 in the attempt to discover the causes of natural phenomena, have really, 

 though honestly, overestimated the evidence. It may be, on the other 

 hand, that the inquirer will perceive the evidence to be weighty and 

 substantial, in Avhich case it behooves him to reconsider the supposition 

 with which he started, that the conclusion was opposed to the teaching 

 of revelation. 



One should always bear in mind the great responsibility one incurs, 

 and the mischief one may do, by representing as bound up with reve- 

 lation that which really forms no part of it. Being by hypothesis no 

 part of it, but only erroneously tacked on to it, it may be false, and, 

 being false, it may be in opposition to a conclusion supported by the 

 weightiest evidence, it matters not of what kind, but say scientific. 

 What, then, will be the effect of the error committed by the upholder 

 of revelation ? The educated man of science may see through the 

 fj'.llacy ; but will it not put a weapon into the hands of the infidel 

 lecturer wherewith to attack revealed religion ? 



But whether we can agree or can not agree with the conclusions 

 at which the scientific investigator may have arrived, let us, above all 

 things, beware of imputing evil motives to him ; of charging him with 

 adopting his conclusions for the purpose of opposing what is revealed. 

 Scientific investigation is eminently truthful. The investigator may 

 be wrong, but it does not follow that he is other than truth-loving. 

 If on some subjects which we deem of the highest importance he does 

 not agree with us — and yet it may be he agrees with us more than we 

 suppose — let us, remembering our own imperfections, both of under- 

 standing and of practice, bear in mind that caution of the Apostle : 

 "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own 

 master he standcth or falleth." — Nature. 



