224 G. MACLOSKIE, D.SC, ETC., ON COMMON ERRORS 



Avrites a book entitled Creation or Evolution, entirely un- 

 conscious of the additional alternative of " Creation by 

 Evolution." Of course creation in this connection refers 

 to the secondary creation of living things out of already 

 existing matter, living or dead. The greatest error of 

 Charles Darwin was the publication of his theory as antag- 

 onistic to the Biblical record of Creation, an error that 

 summoned to his side the sceptics, and was a challenge 

 to Christians. A Avell-known pr(^fessor of divinity charges 

 against Evolution, and against Biology in general, that it 

 gives no place for mathematics and is therefore devoid of 

 certainty. He does not appear to see that the same ob- 

 jection hits Theology ; and if he knew more about Biology 

 he would find that it contains a good deal of applied 

 mathematics, as shown by Macalister on the Human 

 Skeleton, and by Matthiessen on the Diojyirics of the Eye, as 

 well as by the mechanics of levers and centre of gravita- 

 tion of the body. Worthy men too often prejudice youth 

 against Christianity by making its defence rest on their 

 misapprehensions; and many arguments offered to shield 

 theology from new scientific theories Avill, when examined, 

 be found to be the revival of the exploded theories of Cuvier 

 and his followers. 



8, We think it wrong to denounce scientific work because 

 of the infidelity of some of its disciples. Science is not 

 God's way of saving men from sin, and it welcomes to its 

 realm believers and unbelievers. The artificial selection of 

 drafting off our brightest Christian students to the Christian 

 ministry has a tendency to leave the proportion of Christians 

 going to other professions in a minority. This drawback is 

 aggravated for scientific study by a system of criticism that 

 informs a man that on entering science he must either deny 

 his faith or renounce his independence ; and if he renounce 

 his independence he will never amount to anything in 

 science. Nobody, not even the scientist himself, can draw 

 the limiting line between legitimate and illegitimate argu- 

 mentation ; and in grave cases the lino has been drawn 

 wrongly, to the prejudice of both religion and science. 

 We cannot foresee what we sludl ultimately come to ; and 

 to start with the resolution that we shall only see the side 

 of science that will favour popular notions of physico- 

 theology is to insure our incompetency and to prevent 

 our ever getting to the front. The history of both 

 Astronomy and Ceology is the best argument in favom* of 



