ebate the questions the more contradictory they
seem to become. Every good mind needs unity in itself. No clear
thinker can be quite content when two distinct departments of thought
are at sharp variance in his mind. He may pursue one of two courses.
He may hold to one view with conviction and earnestness and look upon
the other as essentially false. To many religious people all science
that runs counter to their convictions is necessarily false. They
label it pseudo-science and pass it by. If the word pseudo-science is
unknown to them, they stigmatize it as rationalistic, or still worse
as materialistic and let it go at that.

The other course is to have faith both in religion and in science.

Such a fair-minded man must ask himself, what is the truth in the
matter? If the scientific fact is true it is to be believed. It may
run counter to what we have believed before. It may seem at first
entirely incredible. But when once he becomes convinced of its truth
the clear thinker must not only accept it, but must accept all
legitimate deductions from it. If it seems true to us we must believe
it. Absolute demonstrable truth, except in the simplest of matters is
almost unattainable. The best we can ordinarily get is a close
approach to certainty, and with this we must be content. In many
matters, indeed in most matters, we must trust the judgment of others
who are better trained in a particular line of thought.

As to the truth of geology we are certainly wise to accept for the
present the facts and principles commonly accepted by competent
geologists. In biology, we should respect the concurrent opinion of
important biologists. We must not assume that a few biologists who
think as we do are right against the biological world, or that a few
geologists who think as we do are right against the geological world.
For theology, we had better go to the educated theologian. But when it
comes to reconciling two of these and to catching the inherent
correspondence between them, it is often likely that each of these
groups of men is unable to see clearly the view-point of the other.
Here lies our freedom. Here we must either think for ourselves or
think with those wiser than ourselves whose opinions seem to us to
ring true and to focus for us our wavering and uncertain thought.

Among students of animals and plants there is no longer any question
as to the truth of evolution. That the animals of the present are the
altered animals