ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

those parts of the earth which have been thoroughly examined by geologists, as I have quoted above, he goes on to say, "Therefore it is with justice that the most thoughtful of those who are concerned in these inquiries insist continually upon the imperfection of the geological record; for I repeat it is absolutely necessary from the nature of things that that record should be of the most fragmentary and imperfect character. Unfortunately this circumstance has been constantly forgotten. Men of science, like young colts in a fresh pasture, are apt to be exhilarated on being turned into a new field of inquiry, and to go off at a hand gallop in total disregard of hedges or ditches, losing sight of the real limitation of their inquiries, and to forget the extreme imperfection of what is really known. Geologists have imagined that they could tell us what was going on at all parts of the earth's surface during a given epoch: they have constructed a universal history of the globe, as full of wonders and portents as any other story of antiquity."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1

"True geognosy," says Humboldt, "describes the exterior crust of our globe as it exists at present. This science has no less certainty than the physical descriptive science in general; on the other hand, whatever relates to the ancient state of our planet

[ocr errors]

is

as uncertain as the formation of the atmosphere of the planets; yet the time is still not very remote when geologists were occupied from choice in the solution of problems whose solution is almost impossible, and with this fabulous period of the physical history Huxley, Op. cit. p. 38.

1

1

of the globe." J. Bischof says, "Geology in its essential parts will always remain hypothetical.":

2

A French geologist, A. Brongniart, concludes a book on the mountain ranges of the earth with these words, "If there are any who claim to possess sufficient knowledge of geological phenomena, and a spirit bold and penetrating enough to be able to deduce the mode of the earth's creation from the few materials we possess, we will willingly resign to them this noble enterprise; we feel that we have neither means nor power sufficient for so bold but perhaps so transitory a construction." 3 The English savant Whewell expresses himself in a like manner, "We have accumulated a vast store of facts of observation, and have laboured with intense curiosity, but hitherto with very imperfect success, to extract from these facts a clear and connected knowledge of the history of the earth's change."

4

And to return to Germany, Quenstedt says, "It is true that the natural sciences may boast that they know with certainty some few superficial facts, but even this knowledge is only attained through a system of errors. For if one generation announces as an undoubted fact what by the previous generation was declared to be superstition, the ordinary observer cannot fail to be persuaded that it is all a question of human convictions, which appear under different aspects, as soon as the further progress of science has opened up new

1 Essai geognostique sur le gisement des roches, p. 5.

2 Lehrb. der chem. u. phys. Geol. (1st ed.) i. 2.

* Tableau des terrains qui composent l'écorce du globe. Alex. Brongniart. Paris 1829. 8.

4

J. Trimmer, Practical Geology and Mineralogy, p. 478.

5 Sonst und Zetzt, p. 281.

points of view. We do not weary of inquiring, but we long for light, of which, however, there seems but little chance in this life even as regards the most ordinary course of earthly things. Whether we shall ever receive this light the man of science cannot discover, but it would be hard for man to be forced to believe that this strong desire of his soul should never find satisfaction."

The prospects of an understanding between science and theology are most favourable when the position assumed by the former is so modest. Theology acknowledges that the desire of the soul for more perfect knowledge is fully justified, and will not remain for ever unsatisfied. It is true that in this life our knowledge can only be imperfect. Scientific men themselves admit that the astronomical, geological, in short, all the scientific knowledge of our time, is imperfect, and this for two reasons: first, because the observations and discovered facts are anything but complete; and secondly, because in many cases the conclusions drawn by savants from these facts do not agree, and are consequently uncertain. In our inquiries as to the relation of the conclusions of natural science to the doctrines of the Bible, we shall accept without question whatever natural science recognises as a fact, or has inductively proved to be a law of nature; we shall estimate hypotheses according to the degrees in which science has confirmed them, we shall treat probabilities as probabilities, possibilities as possibilities, and we shall find that the doctrines of the Bible, rightly understood, are in harmony with all the assured results of natural science. With respect

to one point, however, we can decide definitely upon the relation between the Bible and science, by accurately defining the limits of the latter.1

In all its endeavours to follow up as far as possible the history of the changes and developments of the earth, or the universe (we shall see later what these endeavours are), natural science can never get beyond a certain first substance, from which under the influence of certain forces, and under the dominion of certain laws, things have taken their present shape after passing through a series of changes. And however much these forces and this substance may be simplified, the existence of something must be presupposed. Natural science cannot determine whence. this primary matter and these forces come. It cannot say that they come into existence from nothing; for manifold as are the changes which natural science observes and explains, it can bring forward no example of the self-evolution of a thing from nothing. Therefore at the end of the inquiry the dilemma remains, that either primary matter and certain forces have existed from all eternity, or they have been created through some cause which existed before and apart from them. Natural science cannot decide which of these two suppositions is the right one; for if in the course of her inquiry she does not find it necessary to postulate any creative force, it is all the more impossible for her to prove either the reality or the

1 For what follows, cf. Newman, Lectures and Essays on University Subjects. Deutinger, Renan und das Wunder, p. 90. Pfaff, Ueber die Entstehung der Welt und die Naturgetze, 1876. Pfaff, Kraft und Stoff,

impossibility of the creation of the primary substance at which her inquiry ends.

[ocr errors]

We

These questions then, What is the origin of matter, and is this its first condition? Has it always existed, or has it been called into being by an external force? Have the laws of nature always existed, or whence do they arise?—are for the man of science extra artem, his science is here at fault.1 Each one may have definite opinions and beliefs on the subject; but he has these as a philosopher, or as the follower of some religion, not as a man of science. We may say that this primary matter obliges us to believe in a Being through whom it exists, but if we come to this conclusion we have left the realms of science and entered those of philosophy and religion. Natural science tells, and can tell us, nothing on the subject. The man of science may say, Give me this primary matter and these forces, and I will construct the world as it at present stands; or, The world as it is may have been developed from this substance, and through the agency of these forces, but whether this substance and these forces have always existed, whether they evolved themselves from

1 "The first rule for the strict scientific man is to have nothing to do with things which do not and cannot come within the circle of his observation or experience; neither to deny nor to affirm them. Spirit, freedom, God, are not among the possible experiences of the follower of natural science; why should he then speak of them? Whether he affirms or denies them, he is alike inconsistent and confused. But if the man of science speaks of these things as a man, he should remember that the second rule for the strict investigator is never to judge or condemn anything till he has thoroughly examined it; that in order to judge astronomy one must have studied astronomy; in order to judge chemistry one must have studied chemistry; and that in the same way in order to judge philosophy, that is to say the above-named ideas, one must have studied philosophy thoroughly, in order not to be ridiculous in one's own eyes.”— Schleiden, Der Materialismus, p. 52.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »