SCIENCE AND RELIGION. II5, 



tack aimed at religion, and feel themselves called upon to rush impetuously 

 to its defense, whether properly and sufficiently armed to render effective 

 service or not. 



For the benefit and information of this latter class, which was greatly 

 agitated by the announcement that Prof. Huxley was about to deliver a 

 series of lectures upon evolution, in New York, during the past winter, the 

 Independent offered a few suggestions, showing as nearly as possible the ex- 

 act position of scientific Christians upon this subject. The points made 

 were as follows: 



"1. Evolution and Darwinism in its strict sense are not the same thing. 

 Darwinism is one theory of evolution, that of Charles Darwin. According 

 to it each living organism has in it capacity of producing its like within a 

 narrow range of very slight, almost inappreciable variation in any and 

 every part and direction. This is but an evident and patent fact. It also 

 holds that the surroundings of every living creature, its environment, kill 

 off early those which are less adapted to fight their own way, leaving those 

 which have varied favorably to produce offspring like themselves with fur- 

 ther minute variations. Darwinism holds that this is sufficient to account 

 for all the origination of species. But there are other theories of develop- 

 ment. There are scholars who hold that like does not always produce like 

 and who point to well-known instances in which variation has proceeded 

 by a leap, and in which some marked variety, if not species, has been known 

 suddenly to rise. In this they see no law, but think they recognize the 

 guidance of some superior power. This we give as one example of a de- 

 velopment theory which is not Darwinism; there are others. In the view 

 of those who hold them, Darwinism errs not in its two principles, but in its 

 assumption that these are all the laws of variation. Even Darwin affords 

 the storehouse out of which the facts for other theories are gathered and 

 in his later works recognizes other laws of variation. 



"2. Let it not be forgotten that many wise and reverent Christians 

 either warmly advocate or willingly accept development. At the present 

 day nearly all students of the laws of life are Darwinists in the broader 

 sense of the word. They are believers in the origination of species by 

 birth and development, and not by special creation. Of these a fair pro- 

 portion, as large a proportion as of lawyers or of stateg'men, believe in God 

 and in Christianity. They are an exceptionally intelligent body of men 

 thinkers by careful training, and they believe that one can accept heartily 

 the cardinal truths of our faith, and yet hold that man and all animals and 

 plants are developed from primordial vital germs. Some respect should be 

 paid to such men. They deserve it. They may be wrong in holding both 

 to development and religion, but the presumption is that they are not. 

 Their position is re-enforced by not a few of our most intelligent theolo- 

 gians, of whom President McCosh may be taken as a type, who are equally 

 emphatic in holding that the two positions may be consistently held. 



"3. Let it not be forgotten that in this matter the theologians are at a 



