372 



• KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Oct. 31, 1884. 



.SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY. 



[1488] — You mistake entirely what I mean by anti-theological. 

 It is somewhat ungracious of me to be fault-finding, seeing that your 

 pages have given me, in common with your many readers, so much 

 pleasure, and that there is after all so little room for finding fault. 

 Bui perhaps you will allow me to point out what I mean. It is of 

 more importance than a mere personal explanation — it is the state- 

 ment of a misunderstanding which has long existed between scien- 

 tific men and theologians — a misunderstanding that in the interest 

 of both parties ought to be cleared up. Let us take up the current 

 number of Knowledge. I object to (as anti-theological) the 

 assumption (p. 345) that Moses was not the author of Genesis. 

 The question is open to debate, but we may fairly object to 

 anyone who has not made a special study of the subject 

 settling it for us in this off-hand style. Again, I con- 

 sider it anti - theological to have so many views of works 

 like that of Mr. Smith's (referred to in letter 1474), as if 

 these were representative of theological literature. A religions 

 journal might as well take the theories about the Great Pyramid 

 and the Scientific Societies for the investigation of ghost stories as 

 representative of the minds of the great scientists. And, again, let 

 ns take the note which you append to my letter in your last issue. 

 Because I am a clergyman you assume that I must reject scientific 

 doctrines which have facts and not merely testimony to appeal to. 

 Now, as a matter of fact, I do not reject these doctrines. I can 

 scarcely say I believe in them, for I have not given these 

 subjects sufficient study ; but, for the present, I am quite con- 

 tent to bow to authority and accept these conclusions if they are 

 accepted by the majority of " scientific men who are entitled to be 

 listened to." But when the scientific men tell me farther that I am 

 on their authority (since I have not the leisure nor the ability to 

 make the investigation for myself) to give up all my old beliefs and 

 hopes, then I say that they are asking too much. They are seeking 

 to become my religious teachers as well as ray scientific directors ; 

 and 1 most strongly object to them as the former, though I am 

 quite ready to admit them as the latter. 



I once wrote a paper on the theological aspect of Darwinism, and 

 read it at an assembly of clergymen. It was an appeal to theo- 

 logians for the independence of science. I wish I could induce 

 you to relax your rule sulBciently to insert it in Knowledge, for it 

 also advocates the independence of theology. Nothing can possibly 

 be gained by a theologian telling a scientific man that he is an 

 atheist ; nor, on the other hand, should a scientist say to a 

 theologian that he objects to scientific conclusions (particularly 

 when he does not object) simply because they are opposed to his 

 own views. John Healy, Clk. LL.D. 



Ballyboy Kectory, King's Co. 



[Would that all theologians exhibited the impartial and judicial 

 spirit of Dr. Healy. I venture to think, however, that he is 

 mistaken in his view that scientific men (legitimately so-called) ask 

 him to give up all his "old beliefs and hopes." All that men of 

 science claim is the right to pursue their investigations untram- 

 meled by any consideration of whither the results may conduct 

 them ; and that no thought of such results being — in theological 

 language — "opposed to revealed religion" should be suffered for a 

 single instant to operate in influencing decisions to be arrived at 

 strictly by the study of evidence. That, however, which they 

 demand for themselves, they must in common juEtice grant to the 

 theologian. I am only prevented from inserting Dr. Hcaly's 

 proffered essay by the certainty that it would call forth a flood of 

 correspondence of a very pronounced anti-theological character, 

 which I conld hardly, in fairness, refuse to insert. — Ed.] 



VACCINATION. 



[1489] — In your impression of October 10 appears a letter b}' 

 "F. S." under the head of "Vaccination." 



I have read it several times with the object of discovering why 

 it was written, and have only so far been able to guess. 



I can see nothing wonderful nor useful in the information that 

 out of a family of twelve, eleven were inoculated with small-pox 

 and only one was vaccinated. Nor do I see anything extraordinary 

 in the fact that this one, along with two or three unfortunate 

 clergymen, subsequently took the disease. 



Although it tends to do so, vaccination does not prevent small- 

 pox — not even in clergymen — but it does form an almost perfect 

 safeguard against death from that disease. 



In the old days inoculation produced the disease in a more or 

 less mild form, and the subject was, of course, not liable to any 

 recurrence ; but the deaths from small-pox, when this was prac- 

 tised, increased to an alarming extent, as the practice itself spread 

 the disease, everywhere creating new centres of infection. 



During the months of last December to April a village of more 

 than a thousand inhabitants was attacked by emall-pox, and came 

 jirominently under my notice. 



Thirty-six persons were taken ill. Of these three were unvacci- 

 nated, and died. The remainder, who were vaccinated, all recovered. 

 (Think of that, "F. S. "!) 



It is interesting to notice in villages and towns attacked how- 

 sluggish is the spread of the disease, how few it attacks, and how 

 very few of that number are young children. 



Thanks to vaccination, and the fact that young children are morr- 

 immediately under its influence. W. Seebee. 



ANOTHER FIGURE PUZZLE. 



[1490] — Can you explain the enclosed problem ? I cannot make 

 it out at all. You will see there is a curious superstition connected 

 with it, and I should be extremely obliged if you can elucidate the 

 mystery for Lovek of Things Occtlt. 



The Asiatics regard the above arithmetical problem as the most 

 potent talisman in existence, those who wear it being supposed to 

 have full command over demons, fairies, and enchanters. 



[No, I cannot explain the " arithmetical problem," for the simple 

 reason that I do not see the connection between the figurcs. 

 Perhaps some of our readers may be more perspicacious. — Ed.] 



TRICYCLE TRACKS. 



[1491] — In connection with this subject (the ridge left in the centre 

 of the track when passing over a dusty road), perhaps you will kindly 

 give me room to state a fact, not previously mentioned in your 

 columns, as far as I have observed. The wheels of ordinary 

 carriages leave very distinct ridges in the centre of the tracks. Of 

 course, they have iron tires. I also found that the wheels of a 

 perambulator, having convex iron tires, leave tolerably distinct 

 ridges, even when driven at an ordinary walking pace. The pro- 

 perties of indiarubber have nothing to do with the formation of the 

 ridges in these cases, and they can only be caused by suction, as 

 previously pointed out by some of your correspondents. 



Oct. 18, 1884. Stabch. 



THE FLIGHT, SOARING, AND POISING OF BIRDS. 



[1492] — A great deal has been written on the flight of birds gene- 

 rally, and much labour has been expended in attempting to explain 

 the mechanism by which such wondrous results are produced ; bm, 

 as far as my reading goes, no writers hnve demonstrated that the 

 great class. Ares, may be divided into distinct groups characterised 

 by their modes of flight. Thus, I might say, we have the flappers, 

 cleavers, flatterers, soarers, and poisers ; and flapping and cleaving 

 may be combined in the same bird, as may also cleaving and 

 poising, and flapping and poising. By flapping, I mean the steady 

 up and down movement of the wing in an arc, say of 45°; cleaving 

 is the rapid movement of the pinions, as if in swimming ; fluttering 

 is a very rapid, almost invisible, flapping, and is accompanied by 

 flight in undulations or bounds. Soaring is practised by birds with 

 great expanse of vring, and is virtually the momentum acquired by 

 flapping ; poising is a species of flatter in which the wings vibrate 

 rapidly, with their apices upwards. 



Let us now watch a Raptor, say the common kite of this country, 

 and we observe that as it sails overhead, its large spread of wings, 

 terminating in segregate feathers, like fingers, flap leisurely up and 

 down between the soars, and you fancy the movement ought to 

 raise instead of propel the bird. Throw up a bone, and you will at 

 once see it cleave the air with its wings, as if swimming, moving 

 exactly as the gentle Colniniidce always do. 



The cranes, herons, and storks all move leisurely with flapping 

 wings, and the exertion must be fatiguing, for all rest themselves 

 by soaring. If we turn to the flying mammals, we find propulsion 

 effected by np and down flaps of the webbed arms, without an 

 attempt at air-cleaving or soaring. The flying fox {Pteropus rubri- 

 collis) affords a familiar illustration of this leisurely mode of flight ; 



