276 



rationale of human life or thought, the po\^er and privilege of prayer. The 

 author of this paper says : " Another effect of Darwinism may be witnessed 

 in the recent attempt by a strong disciple of the school to deprive mankind 

 ef the great and inestimable privilege of prayer.'' Now, I take exception to 

 this statement, because all that Professor Tyndall says* is, that there is no 

 place for what he calls " physical prayer ; " but he distinguishes between that 

 form of prayer which has for its object the alteration of Nature or Nature's 

 laws, or the asking of anythmg physical and exceptional from God in reply to 

 prayer, such as a change of the weather or anything of that sort, and other 

 kinds of prayer which do not ask for these things. He says : " It is under 

 this aspect alone that the scientific student, as far as I represent him, has 

 any wish to meddle with prayer. He simply says physical prayer is not the 

 legitimate domain of devotion." This is a very different position from that 

 which is implied in the wholesale statement that he would " deprive mankind 

 of the great and inestimable privilege of prayer." It is not for me to say 

 what Professor Tyndall believes in the secrecy of his own heart ; but I like 

 to do justice even to an opponent. To my mind the paper we have listened to 

 proves most distinctly that Darwinism is damaging and dangerous to religious 

 thought ; and I was glal to hear Admiral HaLstead speak of its effects upon 

 the young, for we can never be too jealous of the effects of new scientific 

 doctrines on the minds of youth. What we, as seniors, may think, is of 

 comparatively little importance : but what the young may think is of the 

 greatest importance. (Hear, hear.) Therefore I allow that in this sense 

 Darwinism is most dangerous, and I think that the arguments in the paper 

 prove it to be dangerous. And yet, even here, there seems to be an incon- 

 clusive sequence raised on this proved point. The author of the paper says : 

 " I contend that I have proved my case, that Darwinism, whatsver its merits 

 as a philosophy, has been most disastrous in its effects upon religious 

 thought," and the reader is led to conclude that, because its effects are 

 dangerous, therefore it is most objectionable, and ought to be altogether 

 rejected. Of course we all know that if a fire be very strong, it is dangerous 

 to go too near it ; but this does not prove that it is wrong to have a fire. 

 And so with regard to Darwinism. Arguing logically, it is possible that it 

 may be true, and yet its effects very bad. Galileo's discoveries gave rise 

 to an immense amount of infidelity ; and the same may be said of other great 

 investigators of scientific truths. Indeed, it is the tendency of all science to 

 be deemed in the first instance in conflict with popular theology. The right 

 solution of the difficulty is to keep the two for ever distinct. Science and 

 Scripture wiQ never be out of harmony while the one is rightly interpreted, 

 and the other rightly proved ; but in this case one is not proved, and the 

 other, as Dr. Irons has said, may be very divergently interpreted. To my 

 mind the paper we have heard read is a valuable one ; but I hold that it is 

 inconsequential, inasmuch as the author does not prove aU he undertakes, 



* This subject has been fully dealt with by Dr. Irons in the present volume, 

 and by Professor Kirk in the second volume. [Ed.] 



