ATTACK ON RELIGION.

Auckland Star, Issue 38, 14 February 1929, Page 22

ATTACK ON RELIGION.

CARDINAL'S RESPNTMENT. REPLY TO A SCIENTIST. "AN" OUTRACEOCS SHOCK." 'From Our Mwn Cerrespondenr.) SAX EKANCISCO. January 7. An an-wer by tlii' I liutc*li to an as- -■ r: illri In>r«• a sectional meeting of t!ic American Association for tile Ad- \.< Mi--.-ti!.>rit "f S'-ini'e. tliat a revi.-ion ■ i : lie 11'Mi't'i> r <if (iinL j» needed. was .! •-■! i \ "i-i'd l.y Patrick Cardinal Have.-, from tin* pulpit of St. Patrick'Carhedral in New York. It.- delivery wa- <lnriiiir -pecial -ervice- in wliirh 11 it ■ 111 her- .if tlie association wi're welcoiiii'd in New York and thanked for a-king co-opera t ion of tile lluireh in that day's M>rvici's. The controversy has caused bitter di-cti--ion throughout. the United Stair-, and Cardinal Hayes answered directly Dr. Harry Klmer Barries, pro-fe--or of historical sociology of Smith ( olli'jie. who saiil that there is need ■if a more adequate conception of <o>d. an,| that "this newer view of Cod inii-t be formulated in the light of contemporary a.-tropliy-i(> which completely repudiates the theological and co-iuologica 1 outlook of the Holy Scripture." •"Id is an outrageous shock]." said Cardinal Hayes, "to read in the newpapers to-day that a -cienti-t in 111icity (New York i said that our Cud is a myth. It is the fashion of the day to .-ee conflict and contradiction between religion and science. To some, nature i- a Mind, unknowing force, perhaps -elf-created and 110 doubt eternal. True religion revere- true .-cience. rejoicing in its unfolding of the beauties of nature becau-e it makes manifest the omnipotent intelligence of God. True religion enables us to advance from the visible to the invi-ible. from the finite- to the infinite, Is not this also the aim of science?

"Church Fears Truth Least." "Another error common to-day is that the Catholic Church is the enemy of science. One thing the Catholic Church fears least. as made clear by Tins XI. to an eminent historian, is truth, whether historical, scientific or economic. The Church throughout its history has always patronised the search for truth. "The Popes have always selected as Papal physicians the most prominent men in scientific medicine. The Jesuits have made the greatest contributions to astronomy, ethnology and seismology." Cardinal Hayes named great scientists of the Catholic Church, including "Albertus Magnus, father of botany: Copernicus, father of modern astronomy, and Mendel, the greatest man in modern biology." Another paper before the association, which challenged some concepts of fundamentalizm, but which Cardinal Hayes did not discuss, traced man's family tree back 100,000,000 years to animal ancestry. It was by Professor William K. Gregory, of the American Museum of Natural Science, under the title, "Man's Debt to His Animal Ancestors." It indicated the possible origin of man's brain in an airbreathing fish of the Devonian age, his arms and legs perhaps to a primitive quadruped named Ervops, and his hands and feet to the development achieved by an insect-eating tree shrew. "After we have eliminated perhaps 95 per cent of all the known families of vertebrates," he said, "we have left a very small percentage of fishes, amphibians, reptile? and mammals which may claim to lie relatively near to tlie human path of ascent, so that we can safely use the mas milestones or signposts." Closely following the declarations of Cardinal Hayes came the published opinion of Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who said philosophical discussions of sin and religion have no legitimate place in the forum of the association. His statement was aimed at the paper read before a section meeting of members interested in the medical sciences and history of science by Professor Barnes on "Science versus Religion a? a Guide to Life." "This is a scientific meeting," Dr. Osborn declared in New York, "and science has to do with what can be understood by weighing, measuring and analysis of the universe, and it covers the whole realm of what can be estimated and understood. It stops there." ' Sin an Ancient Superstition." The Barnes paper declared that science had relegated sin into "the limbo of ancient superstitions" and called for a new order on the discoveries of science in place of the old theological dogma, and recognising the right to be happy." He specifically mentioned "f uiKlamenmfist Christian''' doctrine and "Christian solemnity." and statements aroused immediate response from the clergy of various denominations.

Dr. Osborn. presiding at the general sessions, described the paper as '•sensational'' and "non-scientific." and said it might give the impression that the association did not believe in Providence. "Dr. Barnes." he asserted, '"took an unwarranted step in introducing a metaphysical, philosophical and religious subject. It was an unwarranted intrusion. He took advantage of his great platform to give expression to his own opinion on a subject that was totally unrelated to the subjects under discussion. As president. I desire to have the public understand that Dr. Barnes' statements do •ot reflect in any way the programme of our meeting. They were calculated to give the wrong impression. If this had bef>f a philosophical, theological or religious group it would have been appropriate. We have been very desirous of requesting the clergy to relieve the public's mind of belief that lieve the public's mind of the belief that there is any conflict between science and religion. There is none. There can be none. Some of the greatest men of science have been very religious."