"Palæontologists are not agreed as to the manner in which the plan has been realised. One school, impressed by the many lacunae in the history of the earth as known to us, believes in the independence of species, and maintains that the Creator brought the plants and animals of geological times into existence one by one, but in such a way, as to suggest in their structure that filiation which really exists only in thought. Others, impressed on the contrary by the rapidity with which these lacunae are filled up, maintain that this filiation is material and genetic, and that the divine method was to evolve each successive species from a living predecessor. Personally I prefer this latter hypothesis, but whether it be adopted or not, it would be impossible to doubt the actual presence of a plan. The day will come, I doubt not, when Palæontology will unveil this plan, and that day will be a glorious one, for if the details of nature are so magnificent, how sublime must its inspiring idea be!"1

"If I have attempted", concludes Gaudry, "in this book to bring forward certain arguments in favour of evolution, I have deliberately avoided discussion of the methods by which the Creator has produced those changes of which Paleontology shows us the picture. One theory of the means adopted is what is called Darwinism.

Assuredly the subject is one which demands the attentive study of scientists. But I have to confess my incompetence to deal with it. My task has been simply to draw attention to those tokens of interrelation which I think I perceive between the earth-dwellers of geo

1 Les enchaînements du monde animal dans les temps géologiques. Fossiles primaires, Paris 1883, 3.

logical times. It is for the physiologists. . . to tell how the variations are produced to-day, and consequently how they were probably produced in remote ages." 1

We find nothing here of the "atheistical implications" of evolution. Gaudry himself says, with regard to the remarkable discoveries made by him at Pikermi in Greece, that they filled him with reverence and gratitude to God 2.

G. J. Romanes († 1894), a friend of Darwin, began his career as a resolute opponent of the teleological interpretation of nature, but the course of time and of reflection led him back to a conviction of the existence of God and to Christian faith and practice 3. The circumstances of his life are still fresh in the general memory and it is unnecessary to detail them.

"Through the misuse", writes E. Wasmann 1, "which Monism, especially the Monism of Haeckel, has made of evolution, through the employment of it as a weapon against theism, many conservative theologians have been persuaded that the idea of evolution is intrinsically and irreconcilably at variance with Christian belief." We

1 Les enchaînements. Mammifères tertiaires. (Nouveau tirage conforme à l'édition de 1873.) Paris s. a. (1895), 257.

2 Quelle ampleur de formes et quelle variété sur le théâtre de la vie! Bêtes géantes et innombrables de Pikermi, la pensée de vos imposantes cohortes a souvent transporté mon esprit; je ne peux songer à vous sans m'élever jusqu'à l'Artiste infini dont vous êtes l'ouvrage, et sans lui dire merci de nous faire assister aux grandes scènes qui semblaient reservées pour lui seul, jusqu'au jour où a été soulevé le voile sous lequel la paléontologie était cachée. L. c. 259.

3 G. J. Romanes, Gedanken über Religion. Die religiöse Entwicklung eines Naturforschers vom Atheismus zum Christentum. Herausgegeben von Ch. Gore. Übersetzt von E. Dennert, Göttingen 1899. 4 Stimmen aus Maria-Laach LXIII, Freiburg 1902, 296. Kneller, Christianity.

25

have shown by our appeal to men of science how groundless is this view. We have quoted the words: of scientists of the first rank who were evolutionists without ceasing to be Christians, and who vehemently denied that the two were opposed to each other. The theory of evolution is not, therefore, atheistical. Whether it is in accord with the actual facts of nature, as observed and analysed by science, it is not the purpose of this book to enquire.

RETROSPECT.

We have now completed our survey of the various departments of science. The question which we set before ourselves was this: Must the science of the nineteenth century as a whole be regarded as hostile to religion? Or in other words: Do the leaders of science in that century exhibit such unanimity on ultimate problems, and such vehemence of unbelief as justifies popularizers of anti-Christian thought in resting their case on the authority of "Science" and "the scientist"?

To that question a resolute "No!" must be returned by any honest enquirer. It is perfectly true that in many of our Universities, professors can be found to support the interpretation of science which we have combated; and that this temper of mind forces itself from time to time on public notice. But how many of these University Professors are likely to live in the history of research for as long even as a hundred years, or to be called up as witnesses to the religious or the irreligious import of science? Not very many, we should imagine; but we are content to leave them, in common with other living scientists, to the appraisement of posterity. One thing is certain. If in our survey of the nineteenth century we have regard only to the pioneers and torchbearers of physical research, the result of our enquiry will be far from inimical to religion.

We have not in these pages adopted a merely statistical point of view. In other words, we have not made out a list of great scientists who died between 1800 and 1900, ascertained whether each was a believer or an unbeliever, and then counted up the numbers on both sides. Such a proceeding was both impossible, for lack of adequate data, and unnecessary.

The scientists to whom we have made appeal may be divided into two classes. In the first are to be ranked those who accepted at least the existence of God, and of a spiritual principle in man, whatever further development they gave to their religious views. We are warranted in calling these as witnesses favourable to Christianity. For if the assault of science is to be successful, the points of attack must be those natural truths which form the basis of Christian belief. How else could the two be brought into conflict? The possibility of miracles, the question as to whether God, for the purpose of a special revelation, is able to suspend the uniform course of natural laws, must be decided by a study of the nature of God and not by physical science. For physical science has as its sole purpose and province the study of the uniform course of natural laws. The historical fact that, in Christ, God gave a Revelation to the human race, can by no possibility conflict with the laws of Chemistry and Zoology. The content of that Revelation can in no way clash with Astronomy and Geology. The theologian concerns himself only with the primal source and cause of things, and leaves an absolutely free hand to the scientist in determining their established qualities and uniformities. The points of contact of science and theology, therefore, are confined to the two problems specified. As to the