FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   >>  
ientific book, yet the acceptance of all that it contained would not force the surrender of any point of Christian doctrine. Hence we say that there is no contradiction between science and theology, between nature and religion. It is otherwise with the _constructions and the interpretations_ which the scientists place upon the facts of science. For instance, there is an evident similarity of structure in many animals; they are built on a similar plan; their organs have similar or even identical functions. These are simply facts ascertained by observation. Their acceptance does not place any burden on Christian faith. But scientists interpret these facts to mean that there is progressive development in animal and plant life. They have found certain laws (Natural Selection and others) by means of which they require only forces resident in matter to explain the universe. On their hypothesis there is no necessity of miracles nor need we believe in God. Observe, this is the result of speculation, not observation; interpretation of facts, but not a conclusion drawn from facts themselves. It is not science but scientists that are opposed to the Christian religion. This view is supported also by the reflection that the history of speculative thought has ever revealed an anti-Christian intent and purpose, a fatal bias of scientists and philosophers against the teachings of Christianity. The modern anatomist and physiologist may declare that his science precludes the necessity of faith in God and of prayer; that through his research he has become a materialist, an atheist. But even in the Middle Ages, when practically all of anatomy and physiology was yet unexplored, the physicians of that day were as materialistic as those of our own. The medieval saying was: "Tres physici, duo athei," "of every three physicians, two are atheists." The science of the Middle Ages differed very materially from the science of our own day. Is it not clear that the same result cannot be produced by causes so dissimilar? That materialism and atheism which scientists announce as a result, is really the starting point of their speculations. Otherwise, how account for the fact that physicists are, as a rule, gross materialists now as they were forty years ago, although all theories regarding the composition of matter have been radically altered since that day? Evidently, the modern scientist is not on account of his research and speculation induced t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   >>  



Top keywords:

science

 

scientists

 

Christian

 

result

 
similar
 
physicians
 

Middle

 

modern

 

matter

 

necessity


research

 

observation

 

account

 

speculation

 

acceptance

 

religion

 

materialistic

 
atheists
 

differed

 

medieval


physici
 
unexplored
 

prayer

 

precludes

 

doctrine

 

physiologist

 

declare

 
materialist
 

physiology

 

anatomy


practically

 
atheist
 

surrender

 
contained
 

materially

 

materialists

 
physicists
 
theories
 

Evidently

 

scientist


induced

 

altered

 

composition

 

radically

 

produced

 

anatomist

 
dissimilar
 

speculations

 
Otherwise
 

ientific