SCIENCE. 



this subject, but as we cannot spare eleven columns to 

 editorial remarks, we will conclude by stating that a 

 wrong is inflicted upon Science by those who suppose 

 it is answerable for Mr. Spencer's debased views of 

 God and man. In summing up Spencer's teachings 

 Professor Morris exclaimed to the students of the Johns 

 Hopkins University, " all this is gratuitous, extra- 

 scientific absurdity, contradiction and dogmatism." 

 Professor Morris does not stand alone in this opin- 

 ion, and he has at least our hearty endorsement. 



It is possible to believe strongly in the theory of 

 evolution and accept every scientific fact that has 

 ever been demonstrated, and yet receive no shock to a 

 belief in a Divine Providence, while the accumulation 

 of scientific facts in our opinion all tend to confirm 

 such belief, and to demonstrate scientifically that an 

 intelligent Creator has designed and pre-arranged the 

 order of both matter and mind. 



In conclusion, we desire to say decisively, that 

 science is not answerable for the vagaries of Mr. 

 Herbert Spencer, his editorial supporters, and others 

 of the same class ; his atheistical dogmas are neither 

 founded on scientific investigations or in harmony 

 with scientific discoveries. The mere fact that a 

 scientific journal is made use of for proselyting such 

 views even to the extent of attacking editorially, a 

 President of a university who declined to use a recent 

 work of Spencer's as a class-book, should not be con- 

 sidered evidence that scientific men, as a body, have 

 any regard for the extreme views of Herbert Spencer. 

 On the contrary, those engaged in real scientific work, 

 do not care to interfere with their neighbor's religious 

 opinions, much less do they desire to force atheistical 

 views upon them. 



Lastly, we say emphatically, that there is no real 

 conflict between Science and Religion at this present 

 day. Some persons appear to consider that they have 

 a mission to stir up discord and contention between 

 scientific men and their best friends, and the worst 

 feelings are engendered by continued attacks against 

 men holding any religious views who form nine-tenths of 

 the population in all civilized countries. 



What better evidence can be given for the correct- 

 ness of the position we take than the fact, that a large 

 number of our most esteemed scientific workers are 

 men in holy orders. We could fill a page by the mere 

 enumeration of their names. Dallinger, the biologist, 

 who has carried off the highest scientific honors, is a 

 Protestant Clergyman. In astronomy we have a Catholic 

 priest who successfully investigates the mysteries of the 

 heavenly bodies, for Secchi's name will always be 

 classed among eminent astronomers. If there was 

 any real conflict between science and religion, would 

 these men have continued their investigations ? Of 

 course not. The conflict at this day is wholly imag- 

 inary, invented and kept alive for sensational purpose. 

 If these men would cease their irritating interference, 

 science would be welcomed in every home and be 

 considered one of the most convincing evidences of a 

 divine Providence, instead of being hated and 

 dreaded, as not in harmony with any religious belief. 



We do not deny that there are many who cling to 

 religious dogmas which have been exploded by facts 

 revealed by science. For such wj have compassion, 

 but we hold in far higher contempt the bigoted blus- 

 tering fanatic who has no religio as belief whatever. 



Hume admitted that he dared not select his own 

 confidential servant from such as held his own princi- 

 ples. We believe we are correct in saying that Pro- 

 fessor Huxley, who holds views somewhat akin to Spen- 

 cer, is careful in selecting a school for his children 

 where the Bible is taught. These facts appear to show 

 conclusively that these advanced thinkers considered 

 that there was a possibility that they might be wrong, 

 and that some discretion was necessary in teaching 

 their atheistical views, at least in their own families. 



We apprehend that similar prudence should be 

 practiced by all who are directly or indirectly answer- 

 able for now popularizing views and principles which, 

 if successfully propagated, will be destructive even to a 

 simple belief in God, and aim to undermine society 

 itself by denying the intrinsic value of morality. 



Finally, we ask that science shall no longer bear the 

 odium of atheism ; that it be freed from this pernicious 

 parasite, and that atheism being published in journals 

 devoted to that subject, shall be supported only by 

 its own devotees. 



We trust the above remarks may not be interpreted 

 as an attack on the " Popular Science Monthly" as a 

 journal, or personally on the editors. The latter are 

 gentlemen, honored and respected wherever science is 

 known, and have been pioneers in the good work of 

 introducing scientific knowledge into the homes of 

 the people ; their journal has always been conducted 

 in a manner to defy criticism, and is an honor to the 

 house which publishes it. The recent editorial was a 

 bold demand for criticism on the policy of the journal 

 teaching doctrines, which appear to lie outside of its 

 province as a scientific journal. To this we have 

 responded. 



The root of the question at issue lies in the inter- 

 pretations of the works of Herbert Spencer. We con- 

 sider Professor Morris a safe guide in this matter, and 

 a perusal of his letter will show that Spencer's writings 

 have a dual character, they partly confirm the position 

 taken by the " Popular Science Monthly," so far as 

 showing Spencer believes in a "something" but are 

 fatal to all the deductions drawn by the editors of that 

 journal, and strictly in accord with the position we 

 have reluctantly taken in this controversy. 



NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 

 Dec. 12, 1S81. 

 Section of Geology. 

 The President, Dr. J. S. Newberry, in the Chair. 

 Forty one persons present. 

 Mr. N. L. Britton presented 



" Additional Notes on the Geology of 

 Staten Island." * 



Two wells have recently been sunk to a considerable 

 depth on Staten Island, in the vicinity of Stapleton. One 

 of these is on the property of Mr. J. J. Cisco, near the 

 summit of the Serpenline hills ; the section as given by 

 the Superintendent of the Pierce Well-boring Co., who 

 sank it, is as follows : 



Glacial drift 5° feet. 



Soapstone, 15° feet - 



* These notes are supplementary to th= p.iper on this subject read by 

 ' r. Britton on April 4, 1881. (Ann. N. V. Ac. Sci., II, 161.) 



