SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 1, 12 December 1910, Page 11

SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —“Evolution,” in his brief summary of me, has made me ponder somewhat, and I have come to this conclusion, he must be a very wise man to be able 1,0 judge a person’s learning by one allusion to science. lam glad to know that we have such a bright intuitive intellect in Hawke’s Bay, and, so that he may show the admiring people of Hastings what a vast store of learning he has, and also to settle those discrepencies which caused me Io have so many doubts and state that “some scientific teachings are stupid,” would he be pleased to reconcile or throw light on the following teachings, etc., on what is termed “the most- exact of sciences.” R. A. Proctor, in his work, “The Sun,” states “The determination of the sun’s distance is not only an important problem of general astronomy, but it may be regarded as the very foundation of all our researches.” Theoretical astronomy informs us that Copernicus computed the distance of the sun from us to be 3,391,200 miles ; Kepler reckoned it to be 12,376,800 miles; Ricciola 27,360,000, Aewton said it did not matter whether we reckoned it 28 or 54 millions, for he said either would do well; Benjamin Martin says its distance is between 81 and 82 millions, Thomas Dilworth says 93,726,900 miles; Mr. Hind stated positively that it is 95,298,260 ; Giles and Gould say more than 96 millions, and Mayer more than 104 millions. Which is right ? What scientific exactitude I

Will "Evolution” kindly inform us why science (Professor Huxley) assumes the convexity of water, yet water is always level when calm. Also, how is it possible to get two parallel plumb lines if the earth is a globe ? In reference to Professor Darwin’s theory, neither "Evolution,” or "Sans Souci” quotes my statement fully. I am surprised at "Evolution” not practising what he preached to me, "that enthusiasm for truth,” etc., should have prompted a full Quotation, which ; s "'Why did Darwin spend so much time in advancing the theory ihat we originated from monkeys, etc. The etc., cjualifies the statement, and implies all the rest of the theory promulgated in "The Descent'of Man.” Is it not true that Darwin tried to show that t‘ e human race sprang from the monkey family or baboons in the process of evolution from Protoplasm 1 ! If, however, my statement throws discredit on Darwin. I am sorry for >t. Sans Souci infers that my statement "that the "work of the translators has been the means of teaching many millions of people to live a better life is incorrect. I was ieferring to the translators of the authorised and revised versions, and at present see no reason to alter the statement, for during the past three centuries uncounted millions have become righteous:, and therefore happier, and at the present time there are a hundred millior (or more) Christians. The lattei part of Sans Souci’s letter deal; with the teaching of Ynen, and mas or may not be true. I attach all ini portance to the teachings of th< Bible, and am not prepared to dis cuss men’s opinions on Scriptura matters as authoritive. However the deduction drawn from th< teachings he quotes is, in my opm

ion, incorrect. For this reason: Any man, who by theory or any other means, causes men to lose faith in God’s teachings or in jGod, and thereby causes them t<j lose salvation, is a greater those who make affects for