374 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE, 
each—which is too often forgotten—is to teach ¢vufh and not to establish pet 
theories. The theologian may give us very poor science, and the scientist may 
give us very poor theology, and there is no lack of evidence that they actually 
do; but we must admit that the field of each is open to the other. Each of the 
revelations of God to man must be studied in the light of the other; and we 
dare to affirm that neither can be comprehended in all its fullness and richness 
without illumination from the other. 
There is no conflict, there is no possibility of conflict, between the Bible and 
science. That many of the interpretations and theories of reputed scientific 
men are not in harmony with the teachings of Scripture, is fully admitted. On 
the other hand, it must be admitted that many of the interpretations of Scrip- 
ture by Bible students are not in harmony with the revelations of science. We 
must distinguish carefully between our understanding of these two revelations and 
the correct understanding of them There is no less reverence than truth in the 
statement that either may be misinterpreted. But, true as this is on minor points, 
we have the authority of the sacred Word for it that no Aomes¢ searcher for truth 
can fail to find in that word light which, if followed, will lead him to salvation 
and heaven. 
That there is no conflict, but the greatest harmony and co-operation between 
science and Scripture, allow a few illustrations from the many. 
Only a few years ago it was almost universally accepted that the earth was 
only about 6,000 years old. But the discoveries of the geologist led him to con- 
clude that the successive strata of rocks, each containing remains of animals en- . 
tirely distinct from those in other strata, could not have been deposited in so short 
atime. And, by carefully studying the statements of Genesis and comparing 
them with the rocks, it was plainly seen that the Bible record had been misinter- 
preted; and now friends and foes of the Bible alike agree that the age of the 
world is indefinitely long, and that the six days of creation were not literal days 
but periods of vast duration. 
For a similar reason, the present estimate of the age of man upon the earth 
is, by many, being indefinitely lengthened. 
It is generally believed that all the races of men sprung from one common 
pair, in Asia Minor, about 4,000 years before Christ. Yet ethnologists find it 
extremely difficult to understand how this can be, when apparently unmistakable 
evidences of man are found in the farthest extremities of the earth, which bear 
witness that they have a greater antiquity than that assigned to Adam. The 
earliest records of men bearing on this point—which date back from 3,000 to 5,- 
ooo years—show that the different races had then as marked peculiarities of 
form, features and color as they now have. Hence some are beginning to con- 
clude that, on this point too, we have misinterpreted the Bible; and, on scrutin- 
izing more closely the Scripture record, they decide—as does Agassiz—that the 
narrative in Genesis is a history of the origin of only one of the varieties of the 
human race. 
