50 The JYaturcdists' Compcuiion. 
take the consequence. I say that had 
it not been for the narrow-mindedness 
of those who have been from the lirst 
the antagonists in this question, web 
educated and. rich in scientihc and 
theological research as they have been, 
I say had it not been for their narrow¬ 
ness of views, the Bible need not have 
entered into the controversy at all. But 
now that it has become involved, and 
its truth and authenticity are at stake, 
the question must be impartially and 
thoroughly discussed. To accuse those 
scientists and boasted '•‘free thinkers,’' 
who have forwarded this theory, of 
narrow-mindedness, may seem a little 
bold and unwarranted; and on the 
other hand, to accuse such men as 
Agassiz and those who have opposed 
the theory, of the same thing’ seems 
equally unwarranted; but however 
great and able they may have been in 
other lines, has not their course in this 
directionjustified the accusation We 
will except, perhaps, from them the 
name of Agassiz, for it is evident that 
he drew his conclusions from pure!}’ 
scientific reasoning, but it is a very 
significant fact that twenty-eight of 
the thirty-two reasons he urged as op¬ 
posed to Evolution are now used as ar¬ 
guments in favor of that very theoi’v. 
As soon as sufficient proof was found 
to warrant the acceptance of the theory, 
these scientists did so, and then fear- 
lessh’ came forward and charged the 
Bible with being a lie; and why? 
Just l)ecause, in their haste, they have 
looked only at one side of the question. 
And also the ministers who have op¬ 
posed the theory; at first thought the 
hypothesis that there is a system of 
evolution extending througli the ani¬ 
mated kingdom seems in open opposi¬ 
tion to the belief that each successive 
organisms is a separate creation; and 
these men have not stopped to give the 
matter a second thought. How fooli sh 
their hasW conclusion would seem to 
them if they would stop and consider it: 
Why, look back over the history ot‘ 
science, and how many times has this 
same hostility and antagonism mani¬ 
fested itself, and how many times have 
the two opposing versions of tlie same 
story been proved to be wholly recon¬ 
ciled and concident. Take for exam¬ 
ple the story of creation, or of the del¬ 
uge, as revealed by science imd the 
Bible. It was the same thing, the 
same controvers}^ that is now ])ciug 
waged between Evolution and the Bible. 
Just as long as scientists argued upon 
one ground, and clergymen upon an¬ 
other; just as long as scientists said 
that the nebular hypothesis vvas true, 
and clergymen said it was false because 
in opposition to the Bible; just so long 
the warfare was bitterly and fiercely 
waged. But as soon as the two parties 
became willing to relin(|uish their hos¬ 
tility, and argue on a common ground, 
the clouds of doubt began to disperse 
and finally disappeared altogether. It, 
is true that science tells us that the 
sun was the first in the order of crea¬ 
tion, and the Bible says the earth was 
created first, and the opposition here is 
apparently more strong than in the 
case of Evolution. But the Bible, we 
must remember, was written in popu¬ 
lar language, and just as soon as the- 
ologists were willing to do the most, 
consistent thing in the world, to take 
the earth as the center of observation, 
then the two stories agreed in the most 
minute particular. 
And isn’t it a very significant fact 
that out of every such controversy, hi 
the end the Bible has come otl‘victor!- 
