Science has rendered invaluable service to society; her achievements are innumerable—­and the hypotheses of scientists should be considered with an open mind.  Their theories should be carefully examined and their arguments fairly weighed, but the scientist cannot compel acceptance of any argument he advances, except as, judged upon its merits, it is convincing.  Man is infinitely more than science; science, as well as the Sabbath, was made for man.  It must be remembered, also, that all sciences are not of equal importance.  Tolstoy insists that the science of “How to Live” is more important than any other science, and is this not true?  It is better to trust in the Rock of Ages, than to know the age of the rocks; it is better for one to know that he is close to the Heavenly Father, than to know how far the stars in the heavens are apart.  And is it not just as important that the scientists who deal with matter should respect the scientists who deal with spiritual things, as that the latter should respect the former?  If it be true, as Paul declares, that “the things that are seen are temporal” while “the things that are unseen are eternal,” why should those who deal with temporal things think themselves superior to those who deal with the things that are eternal?  Why should the Bible, which the centuries have not been able to shake, be discarded for scientific works that have to be revised and corrected every few years?  The preference should be given to the Bible.

The two lines of work are parallel.  There should be no conflict between the discoverers of real truths, because real truths do not conflict.  Every truth harmonizes with every other truth, but why should an hypothesis, suggested by a scientist, be accepted as true until its truth is established?  Science should be the last to make such a demand because science to be truly science is classified knowledge; it is the explanation of facts.  Tested by this definition, Darwinism is not science at all; it is guesses strung together.  There is more science in the twenty-fourth verse of the first chapter of Genesis (And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so.) than in all that Darwin wrote.

It is no light matter to impeach the veracity of the Scriptures in order to accept, not a truth—­not even a theory—­but a mere hypothesis.  Professor Huxley says, “There is no fault to be found with Darwin’s method, but it is another thing whether he has fulfilled all the conditions imposed by that method.  Is it satisfactorily proved that species may be originated by selection?  That none of the phenomena exhibited by the species are inconsistent with the origin of the species in this way?  If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, Mr. Darwin’s view steps out of the ranks of hypothesis into that of theories; but so long as the evidence adduced falls short of