T H E K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
136
How Science Changes Front By Leander 8. Keyser, D. D., Author of “Contending for the Faith,” “A System of Christian Evidence,” etc.
scientists to be inadequate. There are too many facts against it. The so-called planetesimal hypothesis is much in favor at present, and promises to supplant the other view. If you want to learn how inadequate the nebular1 hypothesis is, read the first chapter of one of the latest scientific books, “The Evolution of the Earth and its In habitants” (third printing, 1920), by five Yale University professors. The first chapter, entitled “The Origin of the Earth,” written by Professor Joseph Barrell, deals with the relative merits of the nebular hypothesis and the plane tesimal, and exposes the weakness of the former. The Physicists Then note the shifting of the physicists. Time was—we remember it as if it were yesterday—whep the atom was the ultimate particle of matter, sure! There were no two ways about it! All of us thought that the “atomic and molecular” theory of matter was settled once for all. And how eruditely did we talk about the atoms! But now-a- days science has changed its viewpoint, and declares that the atom is not near small enough to be the ultimate 'par ticle of matter; it is composed of ions and electrons; and it requires many thousands of these smaller particles to make the various kinds of atoms. Once, too, the Uni versal Ether— the Ether of Space— was necessary among the scientists as the substratum of all palpable substance, the connecting link in all space, and the purveyor of gravi tation. But now-a-days even the existence of this Ether is doubted by many scientists. Indeed, mahy of them are denying that matter is an entity at all; but what seems to be palpable substance, they say, is not real- matter, but only centers of electrical or other energy— as if nothing could be endued with force and could become phenomenal. The fact is, at present the physicists and chemists are “all at sea” regarding the nature and composition of ma terial substance. What a fluid unstable thing, anyway, is human science! How the wind will blow tomorrow np one knows. The Evolutionists Another change of front has recently taken place among the evolutionists, who boast so sonorously today that their theory has been “established” beyond a doubt. In our college days Darwinism was the vogue among the scientists who swallowed the theory of evolution. Natural and sex ual selection, the struggle for existence and the survival of th é'fittest were the shibboleths of the evolutionists of that day, and were sufficient to account for everything in the organic world, given a few primordial germs to start with. But today Darwinism as an explanation of the evolutionary process has been cast overboard by the scientists them selves. Scott, Bateson, Osborn, Conklin, Keen, and many others tell us so in papistic ipse dixits. Says Professor James H. Robinson in both Science and Harper’s Magazine, “Darwinism, as understood by paleontologists, is as dead as Mr. Bryan or Senator Rush of Kentucky would care to see it.” Dr. William W. .Keen, another advocate of evolu tion, agrees with this dictum, and complains that some un informed people today “confuse evolution with Darwin ism.” Here is another decided change in the world of science. Not so long ago the favorite theory among many sci entists was that man has descended from the monkey. Then they said, no, not the monkey, but the ape— the an- (Continued on Page 180)
OMETIMES it is said that Christian people have had to change their views more than once in the face of scientific discoveries; therefore it is as sumed that they are wrong today in upholding the doctrine of special creations, and will have to accept cer tain modern scientific hypotheses which are very much in vogue. The shift of position in view of the Copernican theory of the solar system is invariably cited by these ac cusers. No one will deny that theologians have sometimes had to change their conceptions about some things. The fact of their having done so proves that they are not too ultra-conservative to accept evidence when it becomes con vincing. But that certainly ought not to lead men to think that they must change their position for every wind that blows. Just now we are concerned with the fact that Christian people and their theologians are not the only ones who have had to shift positions before, advancing knowledge. How often proud science itself has had to change! Let us note some Instances. For many' centuries all the scientists held to the old Ptolemaic theory of the universe. They had worked it out to a degree of minuteness that was ingenious and wonder ful. A ll of us can' remember about their cycles and epi cycles. Aristotle, the philosopher, engaged in this high kind of theorizing. And so it went on for centuries, until the coming of Copernicud and Galileo. Even in their time many scientists scouted the1new hypothesis, and held it to be impossible and absurd. The great Swedish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who lived a centiiry after Copernicus, wrote a learned treatise against the CopBrnican theory, and held it up to ridicule. But, lo and behold, all the scientists finally had to succumb to the new views, just as did the churchmen. It was to the credit of both that they were persuaded by convincing evidence. It is also to the credit of both that they clung to the old views until the new views were validated. When Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood, all the scientists had to give up certain old theories of physiol ogy and fall in with the facts. In chemistry, physics, bi ology and embryology what a shifting of theories has char acterized the scientific world! A text-book on these sub jects that is ten years old can no longer be used in col leges and universities. The discovery of steam and elec tricity as motor forces changed the whole view of the phy sicists. That infant science, biology, has caused many revo lutions of viewpoint among the scientists. In his day Charles Lyell said:' “The French Institute enumerated not less than eighty geological theories which were hostile to the Scriptures; but not one of these theories is held today.’’ How often the scientists have been compelled to change front! put note the shifting of position that has taken place within the memory of some of us who are living today; and we are not so very aged. In our college days the nebular hypothesis was all the' vogue. It seemed that al most every person of intelligence accepted it as a fact, the physical scientists and the theologian alike. Well can we remember how the theologians were wont to prove, by an elaborate argument, that the'B ible and the nebular hypo thesis were in the most beautiful agreement. The writer confesses that he himself often took part in the efforts of the reconcilers. But today the theory is held by many
Made with FlippingBook HTML5