{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2630/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2630","id":"gutenberg_2630","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2630","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution","Paleontology","Science"],"text":"Produced by D.R. Thompson\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE INTERPRETERS OF GENESIS AND THE INTERPRETERS OF NATURE\n\nESSAY #4 FROM \"SCIENCE AND HEBREW TRADITION\"\n\n\nBy Thomas Henry Huxley\n\n\n\nOur fabulist warns \"those who in quarrels interpose\" of the fate which\nis probably in store for them; and, in venturing to place myself between\nso powerful a controversialist as Mr. Gladstone and the eminent divine\nwhom he assaults with such vigour in the last number of this Review, [1]\nI am fully aware that I run great danger of verifying Gay's prediction.\nMoreover, it is quite possible that my zeal in offering aid to a\ncombatant so extremely well able to take care of himself as M. Reville\nmay be thought to savour of indiscretion.\n\nTwo considerations, however, have led me to face the double risk. The\none is that though, in my judgment, M. Reville is wholly in the right\nin that part of the controversy to which I propose to restrict my\nobservations, nevertheless he, as a foreigner, has very little chance of\nmaking the truth prevail with Englishmen against the authority and the\ndialectic skill of the greatest master of persuasive rhetoric among\nEnglish-speaking men of our time. As the Queen's proctor intervenes, in\ncertain cases, between two litigants in the interests of justice, so\nit may be permitted me to interpose as a sort of uncommissioned science\nproctor. My second excuse for my meddlesomeness is, that important\nquestions of natural science--respecting which neither of the combatants\nprofesses to speak as an expert--are involved in the controversy; and\nI think it is desirable that the public should know what it is that\nnatural science really has to say on these topics, to the best belief\nof one who has been a diligent student of natural science for the last\nforty years.\n\nThe original \"Prolegomenes de l'Histoire des Religions\" has not come in\nmy way; but I have read the translation of M. Reville's work, published\nin England under the auspices of Professor Max Muller, with very great\ninterest. It puts more fairly and clearly than any book previously known\nto me, the view which a man of strong religious feelings, but at the\nsame time possessing the information and the reasoning power which\nenable him to estimate the strength of scientific methods of inquiry and\nthe weight of scientific truth, may be expected to take of the relation\nbetween science and religion.\n\nIn the chapter on \"The Primitive Revelation\" the scientific worth of\nthe account of the Creation given in the book of Genesis is estimated\nin terms which are as unquestionably respectful as, in my judgment, they\nare just; and, at the end of the chapter on \"Primitive Tradition,\" M.\nReville appraises the value of pentateuchal anthropology in a way which\nI should have thought sure of enlisting the assent of all competent\njudges, even if it were extended to the whole of the cosmogony and\nbiology of Genesis:--\n\n   As, however, the original traditions of nations sprang up in an\n   epoch less remote than our own from the primitive life, it is\n   indispensable to consult them, to compare them, and to associate\n   them with other sources of information which are available.\n   From this point of view, the traditions recorded in Genesis\n   possess, in addition to their own peculiar charm, a value of the\n   highest order; but we cannot ultimately see in them more than a\n   venerable fragment, well-deserving attention, of the great\n   genesis of mankind.\n\n\nMr. Gladstone is of a different mind. He dissents from M. Reville's\nviews respecting the proper estimation of the pentateuchal traditions,\nno less than he does from his interpretation of those Homeric myths\nwhich have been the object of his own special study. In the latter case,\nMr. Gladstone tells M. Reville that he is wrong on his own authority,\nto which, in such a matter, all will pay due respect: in the former, he\naffirms himself to be \"wholly destitute of that kind of knowledge which\ncarries authority,\" and his rebuke is administered in the name and by\nthe authority of natural science.\n\nAn air of magisterial gravity hangs about the following passage:--\n\n\n   But the question is not here of a lofty poem, or a skilfully\n   constructed narrative: it is whether natural science, in the\n   patient exercise of its high calling to examine facts, finds\n   that the works of God cry out against what we have fondly\n   believed to be His word and tell another tale; or whether, in\n   this nineteenth century of Christian progress, it substantially\n   echoes back the majestic sound, which, before it existed as a\n   pursuit, went forth into all lands.\n\n   First, looking largely at the latter portion of the narrative,\n   which describes the creation of living organisms, and waiving\n   details, on some of which (as in v. 24) the Septuagint seems to\n   vary from the Hebrew, there is a grand fourfold division, set\n   forth in an orderly succession of times as follows: on the\n   fifth day\n\n   1. The water-population;\n   2. The air-population;\n   and, on the sixth day,\n   3. The land-population of animals;\n   4. The land-population consummated in man.\n   \"Now this same fourfold order is understood to have been so\n   affirmed in our time by natural science, that it may be taken as\n   a demonstrated conclusion and established fact.\" (p. 696).\n\n\n\"Understood?\" By whom? I cannot bring myself to imagine that Mr.\nGladstone has made so solemn and authoritative a statement on a matter\nof this importance without due inquiry--without being able to found\nhimself upon recognised scientific authority. But I wish he had thought\nfit to name the source from whence he has derived his information, as,\nin that case, I could have dealt with [143] his authority, and I should\nhave thereby escaped the appearance of making an attack on Mr. Gladstone\nhimself, which is in every way distasteful to me.\n\nFor I can meet the statement in the last paragraph of the above citation\nwith nothing but a direct negative. If I know anything at all about\nthe results attained by the natural science of our time, it is \"a\ndemonstrated conclusion and established fact\" that the \"fourfold order\"\ngiven by Mr. Gladstone is not that in which the evidence at our disposal\ntends to show that the water, air, and land-populations of the globe\nhave made their appearance.\n\nPerhaps I may be told that Mr. Gladstone does give his authority--that\nhe cites Cuvier, Sir John Herschel, and Dr. Whewell in support of his\ncase. If that has been Mr. Gladstone's intention in mentioning these\neminent names, I may remark that, on this particular question, the only\nrelevant authority is that of Cuvier. But great as Cuvier was, it is to\nbe remembered that, as Mr. Gladstone incidentally remarks, he cannot now\nbe called a recent authority. In fact, he has been dead more than half\na century; and the palaeontology of our day is related to that of his,\nvery much as the geography of the sixteenth century is related to that\nof the fourteenth. Since 1832, when Cuvier died, not only a new world,\nbut new worlds, of ancient life have been discovered; and those who\nhave most faithfully carried on the work of the chief founder of\npalaeontology have done most to invalidate the essentially negative\ngrounds of his speculative adherence to tradition.\n\nIf Mr. Gladstone's latest information on these matters is derived\nfrom the famous discourse prefixed to the \"Ossemens Fossiles,\" I\ncan understand the position he has taken up; if he has ever opened a\nrespectable modern manual of palaeontology, or geology, I cannot.\nFor the facts which demolish his whole argument are of the commonest\nnotoriety. But before proceeding to consider the evidence for this\nassertion we must be clear about the meaning of the phraseology\nemployed.\n\nI apprehend that when Mr. Gladstone uses the term \"water-population\" he\nmeans those animals which in Genesis i. 21 (Revised Version) are spoken\nof as \"the great sea monsters and every living creature that moveth,\nwhich the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind.\" And I\npresume that it will be agreed that whales and porpoises, sea fishes,\nand the innumerable hosts of marine invertebrated animals, are meant\nthereby. So \"air-population\" must be the equivalent of \"fowl\" in verse\n20, and \"every winged fowl after its kind,\" verse 21. I suppose I may\ntake it for granted that by \"fowl\" we have here to understand birds--at\nany rate primarily. Secondarily, it may be that the bats and the extinct\npterodactyles, which were flying reptiles, come under the same head.\nBut whether all insects are \"creeping things\" of the land-population,\nor whether flying insects are to be included under the denomination of\n\"winged fowl,\" is a point for the decision of Hebrew exegetes. Lastly,\nI suppose I may assume that \"land-population\" signifies \"the cattle\" and\n\"the beasts of the earth,\" and \"every creeping thing that creepeth upon\nthe earth,\" in verses 25 and 26; presumably it comprehends all kinds of\nterrestrial animals, vertebrate and invertebrate, except such as may be\ncomprised under the head of the \"air-population.\"\n\nNow what I want to make clear is this: that if the terms\n\"water-population,\" \"air-population,\" and \"land-population\" are\nunderstood in the senses here defined, natural science has nothing to\nsay in favour of the proposition that they succeeded one another in\nthe order given by Mr. Gladstone; but that, on the contrary, all the\nevidence we possess goes to prove that they did not. Whence it will\nfollow that, if Mr. Gladstone has interpreted Genesis rightly (on which\npoint I am most anxious to be understood to offer no opinion), that\ninterpretation is wholly irreconcilable with the conclusions at present\naccepted by the interpreters of nature--with everything that can be\ncalled \"a demonstrated conclusion and established fact\" of natural\nscience. And be it observed that I am not here dealing with a question\nof speculation, but with a question of fact.\n\nEither the geological record is sufficiently complete to afford us\na means of determining the order in which animals have made their\nappearance on the globe or it is not. If it is, the determination of\nthat order is little more than a mere matter of observation; if it is\nnot, then natural science neither affirms nor refutes the \"fourfold\norder,\" but is simply silent.\n\nThe series of the fossiliferous deposits, which contain the remains of\nthe animals which have lived on the earth in past ages of its history,\nand which can alone afford the evidence required by natural science of\nthe order of appearance of their different species, may be grouped in\nthe manner shown in the left-hand column of the following table, the\noldest being at the bottom:--\n\n     Formations          First known appearance of\n     Quaternary.\n     Pliocene.\n     Miocene.\n     Eocene.             Vertebrate _air_-population (Bats).\n     Cretaceous.\n     Jurassic.           Vertebrate _air_-population (Birds and\n                         Pterodactyles).\n     Triassic.\n     Upper Palaeozoic.\n     Middle Palaeozoic.  Vertebrate _land_-population (Amphibia,\n                         Reptilia [?]).\n     Lower Palaeozoic.\n       Silurian.         Vertebrate _water_-population (Fishes).\n                         Invertebrate _air_ and _land_-\n                         population (Flying Insects and Scorpions).\n       Cambrian.         Invertebrate _water_-population (much\n                         earlier, if _Eozoon_ is animal).\n\nIn the right-hand column I have noted the group of strata in which,\naccording to our present information, the _land, air,_ and _water_\npopulations respectively appear for the first time; and in consequence\nof the ambiguity about the meaning of \"fowl,\" I have separately\nindicated the first appearance of bats, birds, flying reptiles, and\nflying insects. It will be observed that, if \"fowl\" means only \"bird,\"\nor at most flying vertebrate, then the first certain evidence of the\nlatter, in the Jurassic epoch, is posterior to the first appearance\nof truly terrestrial _Amphibia,_ and possibly of true reptiles, in the\nCarboniferous epoch (Middle Palaeozoic) by a prodigious interval of\ntime.\n\nThe water-population of vertebrated animals first appears in the Upper\nSilurian. [2] Therefore, if we found ourselves on vertebrated animals\nand take \"fowl\" to mean birds only, or, at most, flying vertebrates,\nnatural science says that the order of succession was water, land, and\nair-population, and not--as Mr. Gladstone, founding himself on Genesis,\nsays--water, air, land-population. If a chronicler of Greece affirmed\nthat the age of Alexander preceded that of Pericles and immediately\nsucceeded that of the Trojan war, Mr. Gladstone would hardly say that\nthis order is \"understood to have been so affirmed by historical science\nthat it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact.\"\nYet natural science \"affirms\" his \"fourfold order\" to exactly the same\nextent--neither more nor less.\n\nSuppose, however, that \"fowl\" is to be taken to include flying insects.\nIn that case, the first appearance of an air-population must be shifted\nback for long ages, recent discovery having shown that they occur in\nrocks of Silurian age. Hence there might still have been hope for the\nfourfold order, were it not that the fates unkindly determined\nthat scorpions--\"creeping things that creep on the earth\" _par\nexcellence--_turned up in Silurian strata nearly at the same time. So\nthat, if the word in the original Hebrew translated \"fowl\" should really\nafter all mean \"cockroach\"--and I have great faith in the elasticity\nof that tongue in the hands of Biblical exegetes--the order primarily\nsuggested by the existing evidence--\n\n     2. Land and air-population;\n     1. Water-population;\n\nand Mr. Gladstone's order--\n\n     3. Land-population;\n     2. Air-population;\n     1. Water-population;\n\ncan by no means be made to coincide. As a matter of fact, then,\nthe statement so confidently put forward turns out to be devoid of\nfoundation and in direct contradiction of the evidence at present at our\ndisposal. [3]\n\nIf, stepping beyond that which may be learned from the facts of the\nsuccessive appearance of the forms of animal life upon the surface\nof the globe, in so far as they are yet made known to us by natural\nscience, we apply our reasoning faculties to the task of finding\nout what those observed facts mean, the present conclusions of the\ninterpreters of nature appear to be no less directly in conflict with\nthose of the latest interpreter of Genesis.\n\nMr. Gladstone appears to admit that there is some truth in the doctrine\nof evolution, and indeed places it under very high patronage.\n\n     I contend that evolution in its highest form has not been a\n     thing heretofore unknown to history, to philosophy, or to\n     theology. I contend that it was before the mind of Saint Paul\n     when he taught that in the fulness of time God sent forth His\n     Son, and of Eusebius when he wrote the \"Preparation for the\n     Gospel,\" and of Augustine when he composed the \"City of God\"\n     (p. 706).\n\nHas any one ever disputed the contention, thus solemnly enunciated, that\nthe doctrine of evolution was not invented the day before yesterday? Has\nany one ever dreamed of claiming it as a modern innovation? Is there any\none so ignorant of the history of philosophy as to be unaware that it\nis one of the forms in which speculation embodied itself long before the\ntime either of the Bishop of Hippo or of the Apostle to the Gentiles?\nIs Mr. Gladstone, of all people in the world, disposed to ignore the\nfounders of Greek philosophy, to say nothing of Indian sages to whom\nevolution was a familiar notion ages before Paul of Tarsus was born?\nBut it is ungrateful to cavil at even the most oblique admission of the\npossible value of one of those affirmations of natural science which\nreally may be said to be \"a demonstrated conclusion and established\nfact.\" I note it with pleasure, if only for the purpose of introducing\nthe observation that, if there is any truth whatever in the doctrine of\nevolution as applied to animals, Mr. Gladstone's gloss on Genesis in the\nfollowing passage is hardly happy:--\n\n   God created\n   (a) The water-population;\n   (b) The air-population.\n\n   And they receive His benediction (v. 20-23).\n\n   6. Pursuing this regular progression from the lower to the\n   higher, from the simple to the complex, the text now gives us\n   the work of the sixth \"day,\" which supplies the land-population,\n   air and water having been already supplied (pp. 695, 696).\n\nThe gloss to which I refer is the assumption that the \"air-population\"\nforms a term in the order of progression from lower to higher, from\nsimple to complex--the place of which lies between the water-population\nbelow and the land-population above--and I speak of it as a \"gloss,\"\nbecause the pentateuchal writer is nowise responsible for it.\n\nBut it is not true that the air-population, as a whole, is \"lower\" or\nless \"complex\" than the land-population. On the contrary, every beginner\nin the study of animal morphology is aware that the organisation of a\nbat, of a bird, or of a pterodactyle presupposes that of a terrestrial\nquadruped; and that it is intelligible only as an extreme modification\nof the organisation of a terrestrial mammal or reptile. In the same way\nwinged insects (if they are to be counted among the \"air-population\")\npresuppose insects which were wingless, and, therefore, as \"creeping\nthings,\" were part of the land-population. Thus theory is as much\nopposed as observation to the admission that natural science endorses\nthe succession of animal life which Mr. Gladstone finds in Genesis. On\nthe contrary, a good many representatives of natural science would be\nprepared to say, on theoretical grounds alone, that it is\nincredible that the \"air-population\" should have appeared before\nthe \"land-population\"--and that, if this assertion is to be found in\nGenesis, it merely demonstrates the scientific worthlessness of the\nstory of which it forms a part.\n\nIndeed, we may go further. It is not even admissible to say that\nthe water-population, as a whole, appeared before the air and the\nland-populations. According to the Authorised Version, Genesis\nespecially mentions, among the animals created on the fifth day,\n\"great whales,\" in place of which the Revised Version reads \"great\nsea monsters.\" Far be it from me to give an opinion which rendering is\nright, or whether either is right. All I desire to remark is, that\nif whales and porpoises, dugongs and manatees, are to be regarded as\nmembers of the water-population (and if they are not, what animals can\nclaim the designation?), then that much of the water-population has, as\ncertainly, originated later than the land-population as bats and birds\nhave. For I am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate to\nadmit that the organisation of these animals shows the most obvious\nsigns of their descent from terrestrial quadrupeds.\n\nA similar criticism applies to Mr. Gladstone's assumption that, as the\nfourth act of that \"orderly succession of times\" enunciated in Genesis,\n\"the land-population consummated in man.\"\n\nIf this means simply that man is the final term in the evolutional\nseries of which he forms a part, I do not suppose that any objection\nwill be raised to that statement on the part of students of natural\nscience. But if the pentateuchal author goes further than this, and\nintends to say that which is ascribed to him by Mr. Gladstone, I think\nnatural science will have to enter a _caveat._ It is not by any means\ncertain that man--I mean the species _Homo sapiens_ of zoological\nterminology--has \"consummated\" the land-population in the sense of\nappearing at a later period of time than any other. Let me make my\nmeaning clear by an example. From a morphological point of view,\nour beautiful and useful contemporary--I might almost call him\ncolleague--the horse (_Equus caballus_), is the last term of the\nevolutional series to which he belongs, just as _Homo sapiens_ is the\nlast term of the series of which he is a member. If I want to know\nwhether the species _Equus caballus_ made its appearance on the surface\nof the globe before or after _Homo sapiens,_ deduction from known laws\ndoes not help me. There is no reason, that I know of, why one should\nhave appeared sooner or later than the other. If I turn to observation,\nI find abundant remains of _Equus caballus_ in Quaternary strata,\nperhaps a little earlier. The existence of _Homo sapiens_ in the\nQuaternary epoch is also certain. Evidence has been adduced in favour of\nman's existence in the Pliocene, or even in the Miocene epoch. It does\nnot satisfy me; but I have no reason to doubt that the fact may be so,\nnevertheless. Indeed, I think it is quite possible that further research\nwill show that _Homo sapiens_ existed, not only before _Equus caballus,_\nbut before many other of the existing forms of animal life; so that, if\nall the species of animals have been separately created, man, in this\ncase, would by no means be the \"consummation\" of the land-population.\n\nI am raising no objection to the position of the fourth term in Mr.\nGladstone's \"order\"--on the facts, as they stand, it is quite open to\nany one to hold, as a pious opinion, that the fabrication of man was the\nacme and final achievement of the process of peopling the globe. But\nit must not be said that natural science counts this opinion among her\n\"demonstrated conclusions and established facts,\" for there would be\njust as much, or as little, reason for ranging the contrary opinion\namong them.\n\nIt may seem superfluous to add to the evidence that Mr. Gladstone has\nbeen utterly misled in supposing that his interpretation of Genesis\nreceives any support from natural science. But it is as well to do one's\nwork thoroughly while one is about it; and I think it may be advisable\nto point out that the facts, as they are at present known, not only\nrefute Mr. Gladstone's interpretation of Genesis in detail, but are\nopposed to the central idea on which it appears to be based.\n\nThere must be some position from which the reconcilers of science and\nGenesis will not retreat, some central idea the maintenance of which is\nvital and its refutation fatal. Even if they now allow that the words\n\"the evening and the morning\" have not the least reference to a natural\nday, but mean a period of any number of millions of years that may be\nnecessary; even if they are driven to admit that the word \"creation,\"\nwhich so many millions of pious Jews and Christians have held, and still\nhold, to mean a sudden act of the Deity, signifies a process of gradual\nevolution of one species from another, extending through immeasurable\ntime; even if they are willing to grant that the asserted coincidence of\nthe order of Nature with the \"fourfold order\" ascribed to Genesis is an\nobvious error instead of an established truth; they are surely prepared\nto make a last stand upon the conception which underlies the whole, and\nwhich constitutes the essence of Mr. Gladstone's \"fourfold division, set\nforth in an orderly succession of times.\" It is, that the animal\nspecies which compose the water-population, the air-population, and\nthe land-population respectively, originated during three distinct and\nsuccessive periods of time, and only during those periods of time.\n\nThis statement appears to me to be the interpretation of Genesis which\nMr. Gladstone supports, reduced to its simplest expression. \"Period\nof time\" is substituted for \"day\"; \"originated\" is substituted for\n\"created\"; and \"any order required\" for that adopted by Mr. Gladstone.\nIt is necessary to make this proviso, for if \"day\" may mean a few\nmillion years, and \"creation\" may mean evolution, then it is\nobvious that the order (1) water-population, (2) air-population,\n(3) land-population, may also mean (1) water-population, (2)\nland-population, (3) air-population; and it would be unkind to bind down\nthe reconcilers to this detail when one has parted with so many others\nto oblige them.\n\nBut even this sublimated essence of the pentateuchal doctrine (if it be\nsuch) remains as discordant with natural science as ever.\n\nIt is not true that the species composing any one of the three\npopulations originated during any one of three successive periods of\ntime, and not at any other of these.\n\nUndoubtedly, it is in the highest degree probable that animal life\nappeared first under aquatic conditions; that terrestrial forms appeared\nlater, and flying animals only after land animals; but it is, at the\nsame time, testified by all the evidence we possess, that the great\nmajority, if not the whole, of the primordial species of each division\nhave long since died out and have been replaced by a vast succession of\nnew forms. Hundreds of thousands of animal species, as distinct as those\nwhich now compose our water, land, and air-populations, have come into\nexistence and died out again, throughout the aeons of geological time\nwhich separate us from the lower Palaeozoic epoch, when, as I have\npointed out, our present evidence of the existence of such distinct\npopulations commences. If the species of animals have all been\nseparately created, then it follows that hundreds of thousands of acts\nof creative energy have occurred, at intervals, throughout the whole\ntime recorded by the fossiliferous rocks; and, during the greater part\nof that time, the \"creation\" of the members of the water, land, and\nair-populations must have gone on contemporaneously.\n\nIf we represent the water, land, and air-populations by _a, b,_ and _c_\nrespectively, and take vertical succession on the page to indicate\norder in time, then the following schemes will roughly shadow forth the\ncontrast I have been endeavouring to explain:\n\n     Genesis (as interpreted by      Nature (as interpreted by\n          Mr. Gladstone).                 natural science).\n            _b b b                         c1 a3 b2\n               c c c                         c  a2 b1\n               a a a                         b  a1 b\n                                             a  a  a_\n\nSo far as I can see, there is only one resource left for those modern\nrepresentatives of Sisyphus, the reconcilers of Genesis with science;\nand it has the advantage of being founded on a perfectly legitimate\nappeal to our ignorance. It has been seen that, on any interpretation of\nthe terms water-population and land-population, it must be admitted that\ninvertebrate representatives of these populations existed during the\nlower Palaeozoic epoch. No evolutionist can hesitate to admit that other\nland animals (and possibly vertebrates among them) may have existed\nduring that time, of the history of which we know so little; and,\nfurther, that scorpions are animals of such high organisation that it\nis highly probable their existence indicates that of a long antecedent\nland-population of a similar character.\n\nThen, since the land-population is said not to have been created until\nthe sixth day, it necessarily follows that the evidence of the order\nin which animals appeared must be sought in the record of those older\nPalaeozoic times in which only traces of the water-population have as\nyet been discovered.\n\nTherefore, if any one chooses to say that the creative work took place\nin the Cambrian or Laurentian epoch, in exactly that manner which Mr.\nGladstone does, and natural science does not, affirm, natural science\nis not in a position to disprove the accuracy of the statement. Only\none cannot have one's cake and eat it too, and such safety from the\ncontradiction of science means the forfeiture of her support.\n\nWhether the account of the work of the first, second, and third days\nin Genesis would be confirmed by the demonstration of the truth of the\nnebular hypothesis; whether it is corroborated by what is known of the\nnature and probable relative antiquity of the heavenly bodies; whether,\nif the Hebrew word translated \"firmament\" in the Authorised Version\nreally means \"expanse,\" the assertion that the waters are partly under\nthis \"expanse\" and partly above it would be any more confirmed by the\nascertained facts of physical geography and meteorology than it\nwas before; whether the creation of the whole vegetable world, and\nespecially of \"grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree\nbearing fruit,\" before any kind of animal, is \"affirmed\" by the\napparently plain teaching of botanical palaeontology, that grasses\nand fruit-trees originated long subsequently to animals all these are\nquestions which, if I mistake not, would be answered decisively in\nthe negative by those who are specially conversant with the sciences\ninvolved. And it must be recollected that the issue raised by Mr.\nGladstone is not whether, by some effort of ingenuity, the pentateuchal\nstory can be shown to be not disprovable by scientific knowledge, but\nwhether it is supported thereby.\n\n    There is nothing, then, in the criticisms of Dr. Reville but\n    what rather tends to confirm than to impair the old-fashioned\n    belief that there is a revelation in the book of Genesis\n    (p. 694).\n\nThe form into which Mr. Gladstone has thought fit to throw this opinion\nleaves me in doubt as to its substance. I do not understand how a\nhostile criticism can, under any circumstances, tend to confirm that\nwhich it attacks. If, however, Mr. Gladstone merely means to express his\npersonal impression, \"as one wholly destitute of that kind of knowledge\nwhich carries authority,\" that he has destroyed the value of these\ncriticisms, I have neither the wish nor the right to attempt to disturb\nhis faith. On the other hand, I may be permitted to state my own\nconviction, that, so far as natural science is involved, M. Reville's\nobservations retain the exact value they possessed before Mr. Gladstone\nattacked them.\n\n\nTrusting that I have now said enough to secure the author of a wise and\nmoderate disquisition upon a topic which seems fated to stir unwisdom\nand fanaticism to their depths, a fuller measure of justice than\nhas hitherto been accorded to him, I retire from my self-appointed\nchampionship, with the hope that I shall not hereafter be called upon by\nM. Reville to apologise for damage done to his strong case by imperfect\nor impulsive advocacy. But, perhaps, I may be permitted to add a word\nor two, on my own account, in reference to the great question of the\nrelations between science and religion; since it is one about which I\nhave thought a good deal ever since I have been able to think at all;\nand about which I have ventured to express my views publicly, more than\nonce, in the course of the last thirty years.\n\nThe antagonism between science and religion, about which we hear so\nmuch, appears to me to be purely factitious--fabricated, on the one\nhand, by short-sighted religious people who confound a certain branch\nof science, theology, with religion; and, on the other, by equally\nshort-sighted scientific people who forget that science takes for\nits province only that which is susceptible of clear intellectual\ncomprehension; and that, outside the boundaries of that province, they\nmust be content with imagination, with hope, and with ignorance.\n\nIt seems to me that the moral and intellectual life of the civilised\nnations of Europe is the product of that interaction, sometimes in the\nway of antagonism, sometimes in that of profitable interchange, of the\nSemitic and the Aryan races, which commenced with the dawn of history,\nwhen Greek and Phoenician came in contact, and has been continued by\nCarthaginian and Roman, by Jew and Gentile, down to the present day. Our\nart (except, perhaps, music) and our science are the contributions of\nthe Aryan; but the essence of our religion is derived from the Semite.\nIn the eighth century B.C., in the heart of a world of idolatrous\npolytheists, the Hebrew prophets put forth a conception of religion\nwhich appears to me to be as wonderful an inspiration of genius as the\nart of Pheidias or the science of Aristotle.\n\n\"And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love\nmercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?\"\n\nIf any so-called religion takes away from this great saying of Micah,\nI think it wantonly mutilates, while, if it adds thereto, I think it\nobscures, the perfect ideal of religion.\n\nBut what extent of knowledge, what acuteness of scientific criticism,\ncan touch this, if any one possessed of knowledge, or acuteness, could\nbe absurd enough to make the attempt? Will the progress of research\nprove that justice is worthless and mercy hateful; will it ever soften\nthe bitter contrast between our actions and our aspirations; or show us\nthe bounds of the universe and bid us say, Go to, now we comprehend the\ninfinite? A faculty of wrath lay in those ancient Israelites, and surely\nthe prophet's staff would have made swift acquaintance with the head of\nthe scholar who had asked Micah whether, peradventure, the Lord further\nrequired of him an implicit belief in the accuracy of the cosmogony of\nGenesis!\n\nWhat we are usually pleased to call religion nowadays is, for the most\npart, Hellenised Judaism; and, not unfrequently, the Hellenic element\ncarries with it a mighty remnant of old-world paganism and a great\ninfusion of the worst and weakest products of Greek scientific\nspeculation; while fragments of Persian and Babylonian, or rather\nAccadian, mythology burden the Judaic contribution to the common stock.\n\nThe antagonism of science is not to religion, but to the heathen\nsurvivals and the bad philosophy under which religion herself is often\nwell-nigh crushed. And, for my part, I trust that this antagonism will\nnever cease; but that, to the end of time, true science will continue to\nfulfil one of her most beneficent functions, that of relieving men from\nthe burden of false science which is imposed upon them in the name of\nreligion.\n\nThis is the work that M. Reville and men such as he are doing for us;\nthis is the work which his opponents are endeavouring, consciously or\nunconsciously, to hinder.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: _The Nineteenth Century._]\n\n[Footnote 2: Earlier, if more recent announcements are correct.]\n\n[Footnote 3: It may be objected that I have not put the case fairly\ninasmuch as the solitary insect's wing which was discovered twelve\nmonths ago in Silurian rocks, and which is, at present, the sole\nevidence of insects older than the Devonian epoch, came from strata of\nMiddle Silurian age, and is therefore older than the scorpions which,\nwithin the last two years, have been found in Upper Silurian strata in\nSweden, Britain, and the United States. But no one who comprehends the\nnature of the evidence afforded by fossil remains would venture to say\nthat the non-discovery of scorpions in the Middle Silurian strata, up\nto this time, affords any more ground for supposing that they did not\nexist, than the non-discovery of flying insects in the Upper Silurian\nstrata, up to this time, throws any doubt on the certainty that they\nexisted, which is derived from the occurrence of the wing in the Middle\nSilurian. In fact, I have stretched a point in admitting that these\nfossils afford a colourable pretext for the assumption that the land and\nair-population were of contemporaneous origin.]","title":"The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of Nature: Essay #4 from \"Science and Hebrew Tradition\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":5772}