in this, that they rose to the air as if it were a requisite, whereas
other germs, such as those belonging to the process of fermentation,
could exist without oxygen. This led to an additional form of
experiment, with the view of deciding whether bacteria could be
destroyed by withdrawal of air; and if so, whether the bacteria would
reappear after the existing microscopic life had been stifled. Tyndall
began by applying the air-pump. Under this process the bacteria were
enfeebled greatly, but not destroyed. Thereafter Sprengel pumps were
used, by means of which the air dissolved in the infusions was
withdrawn, as well as that diffused in the spaces above. In numerous
cases there was success in destroying the germs by removal of the air in
this way without any boiling process. In these cases, the air was
carefully restored, precautions being adopted to guard against admission
of germinal forms, and in no case did life reappear in the infusions. As
in the more common style of experiment, the warmth suitable could not
charm the life back again; so in this, the restoration of oxygen, could
not secure restoration of life.
Thus evidence from all sides directed surely to the conclusion that the
alleged discovery of "spontaneous generation" was a delusion, the result
of hasty and insufficient experiment. Dr. Bastian, nevertheless, stuck
heroically to his original position, and came into conflict with M.
Pasteur of Paris, by means of a communication which the English
Professor had sent to the Academy of Sciences in July of the previous
year, 1876. In the beginning of 1877, M. Pasteur threw down an explicit
challenge to Professor Bastian, which resulted in the appointment of a
commission to observe the experiments and adjudicate. With this
terminates the history of nearly ten years of curious and singular
investigation, and Dr. Bastian himself has supplied the history of the
closing scene, laying open the whole correspondence to public
investigation, as if he were unconscious of the complete demolition of
his favorite theory of "spontaneous generation." The 15th of July, 1877,
witnessed the close of a battle he had been fighting against steadily
increasing odds, and which he had begun in June, 1870. Dr. Bastian's
position was "that a solution of boiled potash caused bacteria to appear
in sterile urine at fifty degrees Cent., added in a quantity sufficient
to neutralize the latter." These he regarded as the physico-chemical
conditions for spontaneous generation of bacteria.
The challenge from M. Pasteur was in these terms;--"I defy Dr. Bastian
to obtain, in the presence of competent judges, the result to which I
have referred with sterile urine, on the sole condition that the
solution of potash which he employs be pure, _i. e._, made with pure
water and pure potash, both free from organic matter. If Dr. Bastian
wishes to use a solution of impure potash, I freely authorize him to
take any in the English or any other Pharmacopoeia, being diluted or
concentrated, on the sole condition that that solution shall be raised
beforehand to one hundred and ten degrees for twenty minutes, or to one
hundred and thirty degrees for five minutes."
A Commission was appointed by the Academy, and Dr. Bastian agreed to
appear before it, but only on conditions he laid down greatly
restricting the range of inquiry. He ignored the first and most
searching form of M. Pasteur's challenge; claimed that the adjudication
of the Commission should be only on the second; and further stated that
if the Commission were "to express an opinion upon the interpretation of
the fact attested, and upon its bearings on 'the germ theory of
fermentation,' or 'spontaneous generation,'" he would respectfully
decline to take part in this wider inquiry. The Commission refused to be
restricted to the worst form of the experiment, and to be bound to
withhold an opinion as to its bearing on the question of "spontaneous
generation." Dr. Bastian went to Paris, but the members of the
Commission declined to deal with less than the challenge given, and the
meeting was never properly constituted. "Thus ended," as Dr. Bastian has
said, "the proceedings of this remarkable Commission of the French
Academy." The proceedings ended before they had begun. Dr. Bastian by
his restrictions, surrendered the real question at issue, and
practically acknowledged that he would not submit it to the judgment of
the Commission. He sought only testimony as to his own form of
experiment, which there was then good reason to know was accurate,
because M. Pasteur had stated a temperature too low, and a time too
short, but which was at the same time an experiment of no scientific
value for establishing "spontaneous generation." Thus ended a battle
which had been protracted long after it was to all observers manifestly
lost.
The discussion thus narrated may be easily overestimated, but there
seems even more risk that the manifest failure should lead to an
oversight of the value of the protracted investigations. These convey
lessons of special value to scientific inquirers on the one hand, and to
theologians on the other. They are of great value for illustrative
purposes in such a course of lectures as the present, and that because
they provide needful training for intelligent observation of the advance
of science.
The promulgation of the development theory of species has given a
conception of the unity of organic life in the world, which even in its
most modified form has an imposing grandeur. Influenced by this,
scientific men are naturally concerned to make out, if possible, some
connection between inorganic and organic being. To work at this, is part
of the inevitable task of science, even though the result should be only
to establish the helplessness of science in dealing with it.
We have chemical and dynamical theories of life which stimulate
repetition of experiments, in the hope that some grand discovery may be
made. Those just described present a curious illustration. In the
circumstances, we can well understand the persistence with which Dr.
Bastian clung to his supposed discovery of the physico-chemical
conditions for production of living organism.
Science finds in these experiments a fresh lesson of the need for
caution, guarding against the hampering influence of popular notions, as
in reference to the probable effects of the boiling process. For if the
experiments have proved a failure so far as support to a theory of
spontaneous generation is concerned, they have revealed a tenacity of
life belonging to the lowest microscopic organisms, far beyond higher
organic forms, and the consequent weakness of ordinary human devices in
struggling against the development of such germs. These experiments also
emphasize the need for attention to the laws of rational procedure, as
well as to skill in experimental observation, if science is to be
exempted from needless toils.
Theology has here also a lesson of patience, for it may well leave
science to do its own work, undisturbed by apprehensions as to possible
consequences to morality and religion. All that the telescope can
reveal, and the microscope can make known, through years of
experimenting, we wish to have discovered, for only thus shall we come
to understand the world's lessons of wisdom and power lying far beyond
the range of our unaided vision. All the churches of Christ have reason
to hail the extension of scientific knowledge. Those who set high
account on patient interpretation of the written Revelation, have reason
to value this laborious reading out of the lessons written in the book
of Nature.
A wider and more general result may be expected than that which bears
directly on the relations of science and religion. All intelligent
readers of scientific discussions will find discipline from pondering
these experiments. They illustrate the toil connected with scientific
research, the risks which beset such inquiry, and the limits of
scientific investigations. There lies in these experiments a warning of
the constant need for falling back not only on the laws of evidence, but
also on the laws of reason. The mere conception of "spontaneous
generation," rigidly interpreted, were a curiosity, coming wonderfully
near a contradiction of scientific thought itself, which seeks for
causes, and repudiates uncaused occurrences. There may naturally enough
be a discovery of the chemical elements belonging to definite types of
organism, or of the form and measure of energy operating in life. Even
when surmising "that possibly we may by the help of physical principles,
especially that of the dissipation of energy, sometime attain to a
notion of what constitutes life, mere vitality, nothing higher,"
Professor Tait has thought it needful to add, "but let no one imagine
that, should we ever penetrate this mystery, we shall thereby be enabled
to produce, except from life, even the lowest form of life."[N] If it
were suggested that physico-chemical elements could originate life,
chemistry would easily supply the ingredients. If it were hinted that
reliance might be placed exclusively on the action of air or of heat for
producing living organism from inorganic matter, this were to fall back
on the old elemental philosophy of ancient Greece, which the thought of
Greece easily repudiated without the aid of experimental science.
Attention is, however, here concentrated on the failure of these
experiments meant to establish "spontaneous generation," and in this
failure we find illustration of the fact that supposed conflicts between
science and religion are often misunderstandings and nothing more, based
on unreliable experiments or unwarranted expectations.
One other fact deserves to be recorded and placed in companionship with
that just stated, that some of the alleged conflicts between science and
religion are delusively so described, on account of misunderstanding or
misrepresentation of religion. They are fictitious articles, requiring
to be properly branded, and quietly laid aside. A single illustration
may suffice, taken from Dr. Draper's _History of the Conflict between
Religion and Science_, which is easily accessible, and reasonably claims
some attention in connection with the present subject. The criticism
here offered is not meant to carry a general condemnation of the book.
This work includes a vast deal more than it's title suggests; in the
midst of much that is extraneous, there is not a little of valuable
historical matter written in a clear and attractive style. The book is,
however, in many parts misleading, often by its style suggesting that
the author has allowed himself to be carried away in his eagerness to
make out serious conflict. The plan of the book is hardly compatible
with fairness. This may be illustrated by reference to the grounds for
selecting illustrations of Christianity. Our author says, "In speaking
of Christianity reference is generally made to the Roman Church, partly
because its adherents compose the majority of Christendom, partly
because its demands are the most pretentious, and partly because it has
commonly sought to enforce those demands by the civil power."[O] In view
of these explanations, it may be in a sense satisfactory, as suggesting
more harmony between science and religion than the general tenor of the
book conveys, that Professor Draper has "had little to say" respecting
the Protestant and Greek Churches. But the reasons for making the Roman
division of the Church representative of the whole are far from
satisfactory. It is as if one were bent on fighting, but determined
always to select the weakest antagonist to be found. Nor is the case
improved by the defence offered. Dr. Draper says, "In thus treating the
subject, it has not been necessary to pay much regard to more moderate
or intermediate opinions, for, though they may be intrinsically of great
value, in conflicts of this kind it is not with the moderates, but with
the extremists, that the impartial reader is mainly concerned. Their
movements determine the issue."[P] This is, I think, an unwise
conclusion. Extremists may determine the erratic deflections of a
movement; they do not decide its issues. They discover the heat, rather
than the thought, involved in intellectual conflict. They contribute to
vortex movement, rather than onward.
In consequence of his plan of procedure, Dr. Draper gives often a
misleading view of the relative positions of religion and science. A
reference to Chapter VI. will afford illustration. The subject is,
"Conflict Respecting the Nature of the World." The two prominent
contrasts placed at the head of this chapter are these:--"Scriptural
view of the world; the earth a flat surface: scientific view; the earth
a globe." These are, indeed, complete contrasts; but the question is,
Are they accurately stated? Is there any warrant for saying that
Scripture teaches that the earth is a flat surface? Most Bible readers
of the present day will take this as quite a discovery. That there was
long and earnest discussion of the question whether the earth was flat
or a globe, is certain. But it is erroneous to refer to Scripture as the
source of the former position. The opening of the chapter sufficiently
disposes of the suggestion. Dr. Draper says,--"An uncritical observation
of the aspect of nature persuades us that the earth is an extended level
surface which sustains the dome of the sky, a firmament dividing the
waters above from the waters beneath; that the heavenly bodies--the sun,
the moon, the stars--pursue their way moving from east to west, their
insignificant size, and motion round the motionless earth, proclaiming
their inferiority. Of the various organic forms surrounding man none
rival him in dignity, and hence he seems justified in concluding that
every thing has been created for his use--the sun for the purpose of
giving him light by day, the moon and stars by night. Comparative
theology shows that this is the conception of nature universally adopted
in the early phase of intellectual life. It is the belief of all nations
in all parts of the world in the beginning of their civilization."[Q]
In determining the relations of religion and science it is impossible to
accept a passage so general, and full of mixed references as this. There
is, indeed, no reason to complain of statements as to the general
impressions resulting from "an uncritical observation" of nature, and of
the testimony which may be drawn from "comparative theology." Such
references are to be valued, as belonging to an important branch of
inquiry; but they are not to be mixed up with statements concerning
Scripture teaching. Such commingling leads to confusion, and deprives a
discussion of historical accuracy and scientific precision. In view of
the immense practical, as well as scientific interests involved, it is
needful to guard against loose statements encouraging a belief in
conflict between religion and science, where no such conflict exists.
The passage here selected is taken as an example, and its criticism will
indicate what claims religion has a right to make upon scientific men in
their management of such discussions. It may be that with equal reason a
similar claim can be turned upon defenders of religion in view of their
criticisms of scientific discussions. But the real value of such
investigations, from whatever side they come, depends upon accurate and
guarded statement. It is to be feared, however, that Dr. Draper's theory
that "extremists determine the issue," may tempt him to favor a
different rule.
To state that the scriptural view of the world is, that "the earth is a
flat surface," is misrepresentation. And the variety of form into which
this statement is thrown throughout the chapter makes it greatly worse.
Thus our author speaks of "the flat figure of the earth, as revealed in
the Scriptures,"[R] as if this quasi-scientific statement were part of
Bible revelation. Again he speaks of "the theological doctrine of the
flatness of the earth" being irretrievably overthrown.[S] Once more,
where speaking of the Copernican system of astronomy, he speaks of
Copernicus not only as influenced by his exposure to punishment from the
Roman Church, but as being "aware that his doctrines were totally
opposed to revealed truth."[T] These successive statements involve
additional exaggeration.
Our author gives no references which the reader may examine for himself.
There can be little doubt that he points to the exceedingly grand and
impressive passage at the opening of the book of Genesis. But in that
passage there is nothing to support the statement that "the flat figure
of the earth" is part of Bible revelation. That the earth has been
supposed flat, and that this is really taught in Scripture, are two very
different things. The Bible which says, that "the earth was without form
and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep," and records the
will of the Supreme Ruler at a later stage in these words, "And God said
let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and
let the dry land appear,"[U] does something quite the opposite of
teaching that "the earth is a flat surface."
Nor do the Scriptures teach that "the earth sustains the dome of the
sky." In remote times such an opinion as to the resting-place for the
great dome had its supporters. But there is no pretext for attributing
the teaching of this to the Bible. The scriptural statement is "God made
the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament
from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God
called the firmament Heaven." There is no reader of these words, even if
he have only "an uncritical observation of the aspect of nature," who
can suppose that the "firmament" here means "the dome of the sky." This
statement places certain waters "_above_ the firmament," and there is no
one who is at once a reader of the Bible, and an observer of nature, who
thinks of the clouds as above the sky; but every one knows that there
is an expanse which bears these water treasures far up from the earth's
surface. The word rendered "firmament,"[V] from the Vulgate
_firmamentum_, really means "expanse," and most naturally and obviously
refers to the atmosphere surrounding the earth, upon which the clouds
are borne aloft, and carried to and fro. Taking into account the want of
scientific knowledge of the structure of the earth in far past ages, and
the representations inconsistent with facts which found currency, the
true marvel is that the statements of Scripture so simply and naturally
harmonize with discoveries not made till the sixteenth century of the
Christian era. This is a marvel which will more deeply impress us the
longer it is pondered.
If we extend our consideration to the cruder notions which found
acceptance in the dark ages, such as that to which Bruno referred, that
the earth is a flat surface, _supported on pillars_, the scriptural
evidence pled in its favor appears grotesquely inadequate. The passages
are these. First stands Hannah's outburst of devotional feeling on the
occasion of presenting her son Samuel before the Lord. In magnifying the
greatness of God, she says, "the pillars of the earth are the Lord's,
and he hath set the world upon them."[W] Next come the utterances of
Job, when enlarging on the power of the Almighty. In one of his replies
to his irritating counsellors, when speaking of the works of Jehovah, he
says, "which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof
tremble."[X] In another passage of similar construction, he says of God,
"He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come
to an end. The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his
reproof."[Y] There is no Bible reader who can readily fall into such an
obvious mistake as to treat these highly figurative utterances, as if
they were formal revelations concerning the structure of the universe.
As well might we, in reading the words of Paul concerning the position
and influence of prominent disciples in the early church, in which he
says that James, Cephas, and John "seemed to be pillars," proceed to
deduce from this statement the revelation that the spiritual kingdom is
a flat surface on which are based the pillars upholding the heavenly
kingdom into which the Saviour has entered.
This short reference to the structure and relative position of the
earth, will suffice to illustrate the fact that in dealing with the
alleged conflicts between religion and science, it is needful to cast
aside a number of manufactured difficulties, which do not arise from
legitimate interpretation of Scripture. The particular criticism here
introduced is adopted for a general purpose,--to lessen complications,
and secure a proper understanding of the actual relation of the Bible to
scientific research.
From a very early period in the history of scientific inquiry, it has
been more or less clearly recognized that the Bible is not a
science-revelation, but a revelation of religious truth and duty,
discovering the true ideal and destiny of man in fellowship with God.
Let us have it kept clear on both sides, that there is no divine
revelation of scientific truth. Nature is its own revelation, and the
only revelation, whose secrets must be laboriously sought out by
successive generations of investigators, from all of whom is required
patient, persevering research, with undeviating and single love of
truth. Those early inquirers who found themselves in painful contact
with the persecuting power of the Roman Church, such as Galileo, and
Bruno, recognized to some extent that conflict with the Church and
conflict with the Bible were not exactly identical. And those of us who
are clearly and resolutely on the side of religious faith and religious
life, have need to ponder this lesson of history, that those defending
the Bible have not always been guided by its teaching in their defence,
and have not always fully apprehended the Bible teaching on the subject
with which their efforts were concerned.
But what we most need in these days to keep conspicuous is the true view
of the Bible as a professed revelation from God. It does not profess to
be a revelation of facts such as scientific appliances are adequate to
ascertain, while it does profess to discover facts both as to the
universe and as to man, which science can not approach. It is not a
history of the earth, but it includes within it, historical records of
events closely connected with man's moral and spiritual well-being. It
does not train man "to regard himself as the principal object of the
care of Nature";[Z] it does not even suggest thought in this direction,
but it teaches that God cares for righteousness more than he cares for
material things; that man as a being of flesh and blood is unspeakably
insignificant, his life being "even a vapor that appeareth for a little
time, and then vanisheth away";[AA] that his spiritual life, in the love
of God and in fellowship with him, is immeasurably great, the purpose of
the Bible concerning man, as revealed by Jesus Christ, God's Son, being
this, that man shall be like to God in moral purity.
From these few statements it may readily appear what is the attitude of
the Bible towards science. It leaves man to his own research for the
structure of science in all its divisions; it proffers no help in such
work; but has a range of application quite beyond the area traversed by
science.