THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11986, 7 June 1902, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE.

I ' ' .TO THE SDI»R. £' . u appears that Mr. Hinniaii still reI 1 £ fcte up my chalfchgc, and to pro- ''.| • fc£e ° tc n scientists, eonyotcnt by their -I : -*"!?• "" to judge tho corvints of Scripture," 1 ■ f'rf'.tead refers to a weoting of scientists ; under the presidency of the I ;|.' ; ■■-»»?,.^- f L ondon in 186. He, however, : 1- ■■■■-*&» no. names, except those of the 8 * r a"l Lo»l Halsbv.y. I should supI the Mayor w«fl * better judge of 1 lK !i soup than of quentbns of Biblical crjti1' ""- ■ and Lord Halsbuvywas a lawyer. Now, I fjSI ?- " n ay be a bislOp, a statesman, a I f- j£ nay, even a .dentist, and yet be !! '^nmpetent. JO THE mob quoolions. Bii ft gppears that Mr. Hinmnn still rej m Tto U'ke «P W chaltngo, and to pro--1 f&*,, ieu scientists competent by their ■ dttC f 'o judge the cor.:ini3 of Scripture." flffitead. refers to a irecting of scientists I *S<»men under the.presidency of the j "1 *"' of London in 136. Ho, however, Taive* no names, o**pt those of the st " ' ,«d Lord Halsbuy. I should supthe Mayor w* a better judge of r l soup than of quentons of Biblical crjtitUl Si Lord Halsbury was a lawyer. Now, may he a bi>h>p, « statesman, a * n,an nav even a scientist, and yet be *ffip2nt Judgo of meh questions. BiI : \\ 110 C Jo especially unsafe from ecclesiastical \. ifrp y Scientists nay not bo competent I .-. fiis* 3 - ,incc it is seldom that a scientist, M ■■■-* judges, -in more than one science or branch | 1 :■;•■ ' 3 s" pierce' ' A scientist may have made : I '?• \f work"tho study, say, of the coleop--1 " j ti or of the lepidiptera, the beetles or 1 f'imttc'flies, and even Mr. llinman, on (i ' fli V *™t sec that such a scientist I : iefl fj no be a competent judge of htero- \ I *. Ll cuneiform, or ancient Hebraistic ' I :gyP intions or writings. Majorities or 8 "■■■'-•" -M of men are no use here. Brewster ffl ;3aa u have been a gepd judge ol the theory «PJJ£and DawSoa of geology, but both of? £ of court here. But. forsooth. I ■"■' :,rt Mpntally said. i' Seience and the Bible," J OO d "'The BiHo and Science." A "live vmistake, surely 1 But there is no 8" «, difference bettreen the two phrases £ there is between Tom and Dick, and S3 Tom But, .ays Mr Hinman, •Iff had the same respect for the Scriptures * fit the writings of Thomas I'aine 1 should ' *ifi "hem with more profit." But. Mr. '•- ffifc 1 hav.| never read the writings of ■' Thoma-s Pdne, and I read this as an atir'nipt in stir up ignorant fanaticism. sou tempt to >» 'i' ■«- -li fj'•'"•'. have lived »t an earlier period, and 1 then JO" alight lave been able to perse--1 "But Mr. Hir.man has, 1 think, changed I ~. ground, influenced perhaps by the sound P idvice of " A I!in -'' The Bible "is not i now » scientific book, but still is not conI trarrto science." AVliat says Canon Driver? I He savs that •'road without prejudice or I Va's the narrative of Genesis, chapter i., I creates an impression at variance with tho I facts revealed by science, all efforts at rc--1 conciliation being only different modes of 1 obliterating tho characteristic features, and 1 ''I of reading into it a view which it does hot I rtpress." This describes exactly what Dr. I : Kicns nnd Mr. Hinman have been trying to I' What scientific book, as to still same point?, trary to science." What says Canon Driver? He says that "roua without prejudice or b-V the narrative of Genesis, chapter i., creates an impression at variance with tho fact* revealed by science, all efforts at re4nciliation being only different modes of obliterating tho characteristic features, and of reading into it a view which it does not rtpress." This describes exactly what Dr. Kirns and Mr. Hinman have been trying to <i°- -r-. i ~ • i« What says Huxley as to the same point I I "The first chapter of Genesis teaches the 1 : ' • "iupernaiural creation of the present forms of I life; modern science teaches that they Ipive I come about by evolution.- The first chapter I ■'of; Genesis teaches the successive origin— I 'firstly, of all the plants; secondly, of all 1 the aquatic ant' aerial animals; thirdly, of I all the terrestrial animals which now exist, 1 during distinct intervals of timemodern I science teaches thai, throughout all the dura- \{ tion of Vii immensely long pa*t. as far back i as the • Silurian epochs, plants, acquatie. I aerial, and terrestrial animals have co-exist-ed; that the earliest known are unlike those I ■'■ which at present exist, and that the modern .? species have come into existence as the last • . terms of a series, the members of which have : .'appeared ope after another. Thus, far frora confirming th? account in" Genesis, the results of modern science, so far as they go, : " ; are, in principle, as in detail, hopelessly discordant with it." : But I was all astray when I said that- :; Moses had sufficient Knowledge to give the Bible order of the creation of animals. 1 : ;;go"further and say that such an enumeration a; is given in Genesis was not beyond the ; /natural knowledge of a rude and comparatiyely ignorant people such as the Hebrews then were. i.: T .i Again, Mr. Hinman says that Genesis i. 20 "evidently does not refer to the first dawn .'.'.''of animal life.". Let Mr. Hinman then produce the evidence. The word "evii dently" is too frequently used when there ,ij no evidence at all. How nicely Mr. Hin- ; J . f nun omits to mention besides the cattle and x Ibeasts the " creeping things"'referred to in the 24th and 25th. versos, which, accosting to the orthodox "Sneaker's Commentary.'' include " serpents, lizards, crawling insects, and the like." Thus we have part of .:; the zoological class " Reptilia," viz, the sail-. . nans, oi marine 'monsters,' created on tho .'v..i fifth' day, and another part created on the '■•. lixth day along with cattle and beasts (mammils), and insects. Now. the class Insecta ■-zoologically.,stands below the fishes and the ■ ; rupfile's. Thus ends Mr. ~-Hinman's order in do" scientific order at all. and Huxley is : nsrht. ' The terms employed are utterly unsnentific and define nothing, and are just those which a comparatively rude people could use. Then Mr. Hinman has to recon- ,■■;... cile the two accounts of creation, both of ': which cannot be, at the.eame time,, true. • -'" But wisdom will die'with me." Ido ; tope it won't with Mr. Hinman till he has explained his - own utterances,- till- he has , reconciled two of his own statements, which I will now place in juxtaposition. In his first : article he said, "Superstition corrupted astronomy intc astrology, and chemistry into alchemy." In his second ho says, "Ass ' trology was the parent of astronomy, and I alchemy of chemistry." Please reconcile " them, , Mr. Hinman has based an ..argument on a tnliprint "poor texts," foe "proof texts," and * ha lias also denied what I said of "prophet." ' : I beg to refer him to his Greek lexicon, and refer him to Mr. Glasson for what he says of Daniel.—l am. etc., G. Healev." J Archhill, June 3. ,'-,■■ TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I continue my remarks from la.st Saturday's Supplement. As. to the matters . omitted in Gen. i. Mr. Perce says: "The -'•■"■ progress of events is told as it would be ; seen by an onlooker. First, there is a forniless mass; than it moved ; then there was ,: the grant} outburst of lu;ht. Not a word }? said about combustion, but the phenomenon of light, where all before was dark, is noted. !.:;'.- : : Tbi characteristic phenomenon of the second .day is the spreading apart of the waters' to • form the expanse or firmament. Nothing - is aairl of condensation, but the appearance ■which resulted from the process is stated. On the third day the fiat was. " Let the dry land appear" (raab, be seen). Nothing is tqld of why the dry land appeared ; we are ■ • simply informed that it came into sight. We read nothing of the cooling, shrinking ; crust of. the earth and its forming into folds - and wrinkles, the uppermost portions of ..... which rose above the level of the hitherto ■'i universal ocean. To the looker-on it seemed ; ;a? if the "waters were gathered together ill one place," and that the dry land appeared, coming up out of the water. Soon ft was seen that this dry land was covered'with , verdure, and so the record reads. On the sea there appeared no ?erdure, arid therefore there is no record ■of any. . . . : ■ And so in the narration of the work of the fifth day it is only the creatures that appeared, that were in sight, which are mentioned. Kow, as to the vexed question of days, I offer the suggestion : Just, as St. John saw visions of the far distant "future., and was ■ told to write what he saw, i.e.. his imf ' pressions of the visions, not. perhaps, fully : understanding their effect himself; and as ..Moses undoubtedly saw visions in the ;, Mount, and was told to note them accurately (Exod. xxv., 9-40), so it is reasonable to r, v suppose that the six " days" were six visions accorded to Moses of cosmic conditions in \ 'the far distant past; that be was told, like St. John, to write down what he saw. If % method of visions were used to convey W. information to Moses rather than a direct verbal communication the non-re-corded acts of creation, marine animal and :/./ ytgetable life, etc., would be fully accounted * for. Mr. Perce justly observes that the re|SBT4 of Moses is that of an onlooker who :;;could gee universal chaos: such an on- . looker would not be affected by our days nd nights ; but if it were the fact that he saw six visions, making mental notes that he might write them down accurately, according to order, how could each vision more unmistakably, more thoroughly, come to an «d than by a period of darkness, evening or Mght. as he would describe it. writing what -- _ h» saw? hfil From the foregoing J think it is estab- * h*hed that the fifteen main events in Gen. i. are stated in correct order, and the chances a gainst fifteen . articles being. arranged in , any one particular order are so immense, man Y. millions to one, to say nothing of the 'Jost important facte being selected. for Placing in this" correct order, that no reasonable man C an resist the claim of chapter i. *0 rank as miracle. "" " With regard to the "oniookei 1 " theory it . arises again in an article in McClure's Maga,ln for June. 1901, on recent discoveries cqnijected witTl a deluge in North and Wes--'ern Asia within the present geological age. 1 Mr. Glasson's statement regarding Babym is altogether new to me, and I should '19 thankful for further information, if he W"' kindly quote the passage. : ' u A v word, as to infidel this, with atretic." merely denotes a difference of opinion - on- debatable matters, and both V • . ' S®S;';-;■'., .--■:".:.■■■.'.

words are not worth a second Sought. It is much less of an injury.to be called hnth names than to.becalleZlate 'Jo the fulh-educated Englishman who an th? tfe the duty ' burden* and Privilege of CWinefe 1™" rUCe ' the ' at » l races of Continental Europe are heretics or infidels .grto. we are heretics to the Dago.-I am "-;' •"-. -.■•' f Hron,Stewart. :! Athenree, May 28. Late Captain R.A. - TO THE EDITOR. iiw«!'A •+ , h a Ve followed with interest the theological discussion which &' been carried £SS'©# thl b SiXo! oxnL c M i • - Som ? of >' our corresi)bndents fX h, ' e T ß»»°n tlult such discussions are in He, hilt I °, not think they are, as hey ex 3 hm oW , the /i ivCrsit y °f opinion which thought V*° -i e **"**«"* of modern thought. 1 ' u evident that there is a teni'Zul ' -\ Sect , ion of th ° community to discredit points of doctrine which a quarter siderPd " tUr T a , g ° * *°«W have be™ considered rank heresy to dispute. Should ; we deplore the above fact, and see in it an . clement of clangor, or merely regard it as i 'd natural result of our R££SF knowledge, lam inclined to take the latter mow myself, and 1 think the fact should be j a «Bnificant one , to tbe clergy as indicatingthat a fixed theology is unsuitable to a mo , gressive age. We universally hear it deI plored that we are losing our interest and veneration for religion, but does the fault lie altogether with the people? Does it not lie quite as much with the clergy, who persistently refuse to align their religious conceptions to modern thought? It will be seen by those who have studied the progress of religion and science that religion has indeed modified its doctrine'! some sections of the Church more than others perhaps least of all the Roman Catholic. But these changes have only come long after they were asked for, and then the ground has boon shifted reluctantly. To the fact that tho clergy are not quick to perceive when their position is untenable, and shift it accordingly, the decadenco and indifference to religion are mainly due. It is an absurdity to contend that while progression and change are everywhere in evidence that religious doctrines should remain a fixed quantity. Time was when hell was a strong bulwark of the Christian faith, and everlasting fire was not deemed an inadequate punishment for the transitory wickedness ,of man. But now, if we universally agree that hell fire is on tho wane, and the devil is rapidly losing his horns nnd hoofs, and resolving himself into a myth, are wo any worse or more prone to do evil on that account? Not. so long ago it was thought necessary for the safety of society to hang a man for poaching, and banish him for life for a trifling theft : but we are not sorry now that we have outlived those ideas, and it would seem to all of us a retrograde step to again adopt them. Does a clergyman, who insists on the acceptance of a certain dogma, ever think that it was only an accident of birth that made him a Christian? If he had been born a Buddhist he would have been an advocate of that religion. A consideration of this point shows that a man's religious views depend entirely on his environment and training." The austere Presbyterian under different circumstances would have been a Catholic, taking part in tho- elaborate ritual of that Church. When we consider the foregoing facts can it be said that religious bias does not pertain? The Anglican clergyman can see the errors of Buddhism and also of Catholicism, but he is oblivious to his own; likewise it would not bo possible to convince the Catholic clergyman that his was not the true Church.. Does this not teach that our ideas are moulded by our training, and also that an idea is not necessarily right because wo believe it? Now, let us apply these deductions in a wider sense to Bible criticism. The point of contention is: Is the Bible inspired? If not, then the story of the creation and fall of man is a myth, and the redemption is We read that 6000 years, ago man was miraculously created. But can wo overlook the fact that written records date back 7000 years, and unwritten records countless thousands of years more. Evolution is Nature's method, as verified ,by geology, biology, and physiology: but instead we are asked to believe in miraculous creation. The Chaldean stories of the creation and the flood, as set forth in the famous creation and deluge tablets, ante-date the Bible account of the same events; the similarity between the two is so striking that there can be no doubt but that they have a common origin. As the Chaldean story could not have been taken from the Bible then the Bible story must have been taken from the Chaldean. - .■.-.. Before the conception of a spiritual and invisible God entered the mind of man/ the Chaldeans worshipped Bel, the personification of the sun, and practised the sacrificial rites. The Cod "of Israel repudiated the baser gods, but retained their _ sacrificial rites: and it is an astonishing thing that a sacrifice, which is essentially a heathen conception— tbe sacrifice of Christ, or the sacrifice of a God to appease a Cod—forms the bulwark of the Christian faith to-day. Apart from the doctrines of heaven, boll, and everlasting life the real value of Christianity lies in the teaching of love and peace on earth and goodwill towards men; but to estimate how much they are carried out we have only to contemplate armed Europe, the jealousy, tyranny, oppression, and greed that prevail. If the clergy and religious people would cease to quibble about time-worn doctrines that will no longer hold water, and strive to give practical effect to Christ's teaching, they would strengthen their position, and at 'the same time place mankind on a higher pedestal and hasten the time when immortal Truth shall grain the day, Blnmin'd by Nature's glorious ray; Anathemas shall flee away Wi' priests and de'ils. Sound reason shall the sceptre sway Hard at her heels. —I am, etc., J-C. Clevedon.