SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 132, 18 August 1870, Page 6

SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE.

A lecture on Science and the Bible was delivered by the Rev. A."^R. Fitchett, in the hall beneath the Trinity Wesleyan Church, Dunedin. We take the following extract from the report of the lecture as it appeared in the the " Daily Times " :— Attempts made from the Christian side to construct a harmony between the teachings of geology and the bible had not been very successful. The lecturer reviewed the schemes of Chalmers and of Miller, neither of which was satisfactory. He deprecated the attempt to reconoile geology and Genesis in every particular. A method of reconciliation accepted in the present imperfect state of science would probably be the sport or the shame of the next generation. The Mosaic record was strikingly corroborated by geology on two points, the progression of species from the lowest to the highest, and the crea- ! tion of light before the appearace of j the sun. The lecturer stated the argument against the universality of the delnge, and showed how a local inundation was consistent with the terms employed in G-enesis. Respecting Darwinism, the theory of development was not necessarily antagonistic to revelation, The German followers of Darwin were anxious to rid the world of the incubus of a Creator, but Darwin himself was not open to that charge. I It would matter little if it were proved that man was developed from the anthropoid apes, or even from forces latent in the mushroom and the sponge. He differed from the brutes in the possession of a moral nature, in virtue of which he was formed in the " image of God." Christianity was ready to accept Darwinism as soon as it became anything more than an hypothesis. Respecting the great antiquity claimed for man, the evidence yet to hand was not conclusive. The lecturer then passed in review the mythical theory of Strauss and the criticisms of Colenso and Renan. Their method was unscientific, and they were condemned by Hu xley 's canon. Respecting inspiration, the lecturer expressed his belief that the historical and genealogical portions of the Bible were not matter of revelation. A man was " inspired" to collect and collate facts and documents, and thus some of the Scripture histories were written. Good would arise from the oppositions of science and criticism. Many erroneous interpretations would be advanced. It was their duty to be tolerant of differences of opinion. A man was not necessarily an infidel who doubted the MosafliT authorship of some portions of the Pentateuch, or who thought that the history of the Fall was an allegory.