276 
rationale of human life or thought, the power and privilege of prayer. The 
author of this paper says : “ Another effect of Darwinism may he witnessed 
in the recent attempt by a strong disciple of the school to deprive mankind 
of 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 anything 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, whatever 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 will 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 all he undertakes, 
* This subject has been fully dealt with by Dr. Irons in the present volume, 
and by Professor Kirk in the second volume. L^ D *] 
