114 THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION 



way (p. 104), and that he fully agreed with me 

 in asserting the Bible not to be a text-book of 

 natural science, nor a manual of zoology or 

 astronomy. 



Plate s second wave, the Reformation, has 

 plainly nothing to do with the discussion of 

 my lectures, as it was in no sense scientific. 

 That the third wave, the doctrine of evolution, 

 treated as a scientific theory, is not opposed 

 to the Christian theory of the universe, I have 

 proved conclusively in my lectures. Only the 

 frothy dogmatism of monism is really inimical 

 to Christianity, and it has nothing in common 

 with the scientific doctrine of evolution. 



Plate s expressed desire for an end to the 

 sad religious differences in Germany is admir 

 able, and I cordially agree with it (cf. the 

 remarks on the subject in my closing address), 

 but I fail to see what part natural science is 

 destined to play in the accomplishment of 

 this glorious task. Professor Plate s words 

 seem to me obscure. Does he mean that we 

 are to continue to demonstrate to mankind 

 that there is no real antagonism between 

 science and Christianity, as I attempted to do 

 in my Berlin lectures ? If this is his meaning, 

 his opposition to my attempt at conciliation is 

 inexplicable. Or does he mean that the monists 

 ought to be in future less pugnacious, and cease 

 to use science as a kind of battering-ram against 



