Reprinted from “THE EARTH”
THE WORSHIP OF HUMAN INTELLECT
REMARKS UPON “THE VIEWS OF MODERN SCIENCE”
(A pamphlet by Rev. G. T. Manley, M.A.)
Retype with the help of a donation from a faithful Reader.
The Worship of Human Intellect, part 1 (of 2)
The pamphlet referred to above is evidently written in defence of modern science.
After quoting the names of its founders, which include Newton, Herschel, Professor Adams, Clerk, Maxwell, Boyle, Wallace, Darwin, Sir James Simpson, Prof. Adam Sedgwick, Young, Joule, and Faraday, the writer makes an apology at the bottom of the page as a footnote for not including those of Huxley and Tyndall,
However, he regards Faraday, Young, and Joule as physicists to be superior to Tyndall: and Darwin as a biologist preferable to Huxley. And the “conclusion” of the whole matter may be comprehended by critics for the truth when they consider the writer’s summing up, viz: that “all points to one conclusion, that the functions of science (i.e., so-called “science”) and Christianity are to purify each other!
I can only express my regret when I see such words as these in print; and the only charitable excuse for the one who penned them—impossible as it may seem—is that he must be ignorant of many of the tenets of both the Bible and modern science, otherwise he could hardly make such a statement.
But the worship of human intellect must cease. The exaltation of the human intellect is one of Satan’s most seductive idols, but the time has arrived when it must fall. And the redeemed will be delivered from its snare.
Mr. Manley quotes the following words (which are the words of some individual) quoted by Bishop Butler in his Analogy of Religion: “Christianity is not so much as a subject of enquiry……but it is now discovered to be fiction.”
Mr. M. then endeavours to prove therefrom, that because infidelity existed in 1736, “before a word of modern science had been written,” therefore it is not a cause for the present prevailing infidelity.
In upholding his position, the writer, after saying, “I do not think the state of Christianity so black to-day,” asks this question: “If science is the cause of unbelief at the close of the nineteenth century, what was its cause at the commencement of the eighteenth?” But there is no argument here. It is about equal to the contention that as before a certain disease was known in a particular country where people had suffered and died, therefore it was proven that since it (i.e., the new disease) appeared, it could neither be the cause of injury nor death.
The one line of argument is as sensible as the other. It must be apparent that before a thing exists it cannot affect anything. Therefore, before modern science existed it could not have caused infidelity. But now that IT DOES EXIST it is not the only cause for unbelief in the Word of God, and the teachings of His Son, Jesus Christ; nevertheless, it is an additional and powerful cause, and its evil influence operates upon two classes, viz.: those who understand something about its tenets, and those who know nothing about them, but accept the conclusions of those that do.
Apart from the lines of Truth no man can form satisfactory judgment on anything. The majority of people understand little about modern science, nor do they trouble Truth is the to
Truth is the Key
Knowledge understands the truth of the Bible. Therefore, they do not know where to set the dividing line between true science, and that which is described in Holy Writ as “science falsely so-called.” Only: the measuring rod of truth, prayerfully sought after and sought out, can rightly divide these two.
Very many professing Christians go on in a sort of “follow-the-leader” style, never dreaming that they are professing to have faith in two systems which contradict each other, and which if understood could not be held together in a reasonable mind. How can a man believe a thing he does not understand? It is impossible. If a man believes in another man’s teaching without understanding it, or proving it to be true, his faith is centred in the reliability of another man’s conclusions, but not in a thing which he does not understand.
No! Modern Scripture-contradicting science is not the only cause for infidelity, but it is an additional and a powerful cause, and it appears to me that its interpolation is the policy of Satan, and his evil instruments, who, although invisible are only so in substance but not in force of evil, influence and rule. And thus, Satan has retarded the progress and salvation of men, by shaking their faith in God’s Word, and in the Creator’s own account of His Creation as set forth therein.
The distance of Mars at opposition than 13 1/2 millions of miles, then how is it that the nearer stars are not seen to shift their apparent places when viewed from opposite sides of this enormous orbit?”
Of course, the usual assumptions were made to overcome this difficulty; namely, that the stars we look at are such an immense distance from us. But as the writer of the book under consideration adds: “This seemed wholly incredible even to the great observer Tycho Brahe, and hence the Copernican theory was not so generally accepted as it otherwise would have been.”
It is instructive to notice that the sun’s distance was then supposed to be 13 1/2 millions of miles, whereas we read: “it is now pretty well fixed at about 92,780,000”! This is rather a large difference of opinion, or measurement (?) for an “exact science.” But it is noticeable that however many mistaken guesses the astronomer’s intake, their teachings are always supposed to be “scientific”!
In this case even their mistakes must be “scientific” also, that is, they are “scientific mistakes”! We notice, further, that Mr. Wallace bases all his speculations on the theory of Evolution or development: and this theory of development or Evolution is based on the globular theory; the former explanation being the expansion, as it were, of the latter. This theory of Evolution contradicts the very first chapter of Genesis, as also the Fourth Commandment, in which the Creator tells us that he made the World in six literal days like the Sabbath or Seventh Day. But science, of course, knows of no beginning, as is confessed on p. 134 of Mr. Wallace’s book. He says:
“It cannot be too often repeated that no explanation; no theory; can ever take us to the beginning of things, but only one or two steps at a time into the slim past, which may enable us to comprehend, however imperfectly, the processes by which the work or the universe it is, has been developed out of some earlier and simpler condition.”
So, it appears after all those scientists know nothing of the beginning of the world. Thus, we see why those who reject the inspired account of Creation, as given in the Word of God, have not only nothing better to offer us in its place; but positively have to confess that they do not know, and cannot reasonably speculate as to how the world or the universe first began. Then why do they reject or ignore the inspired account? Simply because that account is diametrically opposed to their vain imaginations; and in admitting that account, they would have to admit an all-powerful personal and all wise Creator. However, there is one conclusion to which Professor Wallace comes, with which Zetetics will readily agree in fact it is his main contention, namely, that this is the only habitable world, as far as can be known to science. This is quite contrary to popular astronomical conclusions.
Something, therefore, is gained for the truth. But alas! the truth in this case is marred, becavse in maintaining his argument the Professor often illogically assumes that the earth is only “another planet.” I will quote some other of his conclusions:
(1) “That the stellar universe forms one connected whole; and its extent determinable.”
(2) “That the solar system is situated in the plane of the Milky Way, and not far removed from the centre of that plane. The earth is therefore nearly in the centre of the stellar universe.”
(3) “That this universe consists throughout of the same kinds of matter, and is subjected to the same physical and chemical laws.”
(4) “That no other planet in the stellar system than our earth is in. habited or habitable.”
(5) “That the probabilities are almost as great against any other sun (!) possessing inhabited planets.”
(6) “That the nearly central position of our (!) sun is probably a prominent one, and has been especially favourable, perhaps absolutely essential to life development upon the earth.”
Thus, we obtain the writer’s conclusions in the foregoing six propositions; in the last of which I again notice it is “life development” or Evolution, as against Creation.