The New Zealand Tablet WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 1925. THE PENTATEUCH AND SCIENCE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LII, Issue 25, 8 July 1925, Page 33

The New Zealand Tablet WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 1925. THE PENTATEUCH AND SCIENCE

..r\ ationalists , base their strongest; objecRationalists their the alleged contions to revelation on the alleged contradiction between the words of the Pentateuch, of the Books of Moses, and the discoveries of science. Hence it is important for us to understand the position of the Church in this matter, and to explore the problem with a-view to finding out if the*’e is really any contradiction between scientific facts, which are very different things from theories of some scientists, and the records of the Bible. We must not lose sight of the fact that while an obscure press and un- . learned amateurs make much of this alleged opposition,, there are numerous scholars and scientists of the very first rank who are v satisfied that there is no contradiction and that on the whole the progress of science, properly understood, has strengthened our position. As Joseph de Maistre 'says: ; “The sciences, in' our century in particular, /// have been brought, , under contribution to overthrow the rock upon which it (Chris- /. tianity) rests, but so far from suffering injury - thereby, the profound studies to which scholars have devoted themselves with ’noble ardor only confirm the authenticity of the Mosaic relation.” That verdict has the assent of /5 such first-rate men , of . science as Pasteur, .Mendel,/Weissman, and in our own time Sir / . Bertram Windle. And when we hear ama'''■■.■■'l’ . , - -.: ..- . teurs who are not by any means experts - - . - talking rashly we ought to recall the opinion of these distinguished men who spoke of what V/i- they know from lifelong study and research. :r • \ , ... ■ V-- .y, '.'V ■ Catholics do not fear the attacks of our ■i.fry.- ,V‘V. ' • .. rrv,- ' s enemies. We know that we possess the truth and that no conflict between 1 faith and / science is possible. . We know that when con- ’ tradictions are alleged we have only to wait

for. a time and in the fuller knowledge that research brings what were supposed to be facts contrary to revelation will be found not' to be facts at all. That has happened time and. again, and will go on happening a& long as some scientists are. not content to keep within 'their own province. Let us mention here that .in his autobiography Huxley admitted that he put theories before ignorant audiences as facts, dishonestly and dishonorably, in order to attack religion. ; Haeckel, often quoted by shallow iters of the type of Joseph McCabe, was : an exposed forger and was ..r idiculed in Berlin when quoted-as as authority. Now as regards the Bible there ; are certain things to be remembered in controversies of this kind. First, the Bible is, in no way a scientific book: its aim is not to solve problems in geology but to teach the truths of faith and to set forth the facts of religion. Hence aa'o must interpret the Bible in a doctrinal and religious sense and not go to it for formulas to settle the disputes of men of science. Second, the inspired writers use figures and metaphors conformable to the genius of the language and the capacity of the people for whom they wrote. Writing thus in the language used at their time 7 e cannot expect up-to-date accuracy and scientific precision; the people would not have Understood it. Thus, the figure of the sunstanding still to lengthen the day of # battle was quite natural for Josue to use. Do not forget that our almanacks' still speak of the sun setting and. rising while we all know it does nothing of the kind. Kepler defends Josuo’s expression and admits that such language is common among astronomers. Third, the Church does not hinder scientific studies, but on the contrary has always encouraged them. The assertion that she is the enemy of science is simply a lie. Conflicts can only

arise from .false science, such as Huxley’s or Haeckel’s, but the Church welcomes true, research and has done more for it-than any ■ , N State on earth. When'scientists try to represent theories as facts there - may be opposition, but when they stick to their last and stand by proven facts there can be none. Eminent men like MM. Bertholet and Pasteur lay down clearly that scientists : have no business going beyond their domain and discussing “the first - cause or the end of . things,” the. essences of things or the origin of the world and its destinies. Such con-/, siderations they tell us arc not within " the province of experimental science. Claude ~ Bernard wrote in exactly the same strain, ; protesting against the mixing of experimental science and metaphysics. Littre says: “Experience has no value in questions of the essence of things and of origin.”* This is the attitude of the greatest authorities as contrasted-' with the tinkering methods of pseudoscientists. Fourth remark: In order that ;< there be opposition between 'the Bible arid , r science three conditions ought to he verified: (a) The exact and natural meaning of the Bible must be absolutely certain, (b) 'the. affirmation of science must be incontestable and admitted by men w r ho are judges of undisputed authority, (d) . there must be abso- " lute incompatibility between the. certain sense ' of the Bible and -the perfectly established and certain result of science. Now we ■ affirm,.

that never yet have these reasonable / and logicalconditions been verified, which is the ■■ same as saying that no contradiction has ; yet ; ' been established. : h , - /•:/// ■ / ■ /■/’ /.V/'' ■ - /.- ; ; X : - - ■;./ ■ /./ ■■' ’- v ///-- •/ / A word of explanation with regard to these threeconditions. may be useful. As to the first:. Apart from the small number of truths, clearly affirmed by the Church, it is not easy ■ to determine the literal meaning of the Bible in many passages. This is particularly true 1 of Genesis against which most of the objections are raised. But a, man who has any, pretence to knowledge of the subject will remember 1 what different interpretations the Fathers of the Church have devoted to . the story of creation and what freedom the Church has allowed them. Opposition to an individual opinion is not opposition to the meaning defined by the consent of the Fathers or by the voice of the Church. As to the second condition: The scientific affirmation' opposed against the Bible must be absolutely incontestable. ,A hypothesis is not a fact, and the forgeries of a Haeckel or the ,dishonesty ' of a, Huxley do not constitute / a ground for'opposition. ~ Theories change rapidly in science and what was proclaimedas a great truth yesterday is discarded today. Any person who'has the least smattering of scientific knowledge is aware of this fact. As for the third condition, it 1 is' evident: if there is not absolute incompatibility between the certain sense of the Bible and the proven scientific .fact there is of - course; no contradiction. In conclusion, remember clearly that hypotheses are not facts; that there is considerable latitude allowed in the interpretation of many parts of the Bible;: and that the greatest among living and dead scientists have* found no contradiction. °u.v ;