moral
experience and in the teaching of Christ. In holding this we hold the
doctrine of the Fall, a doctrine, that is, that man's condition has
been throughout a parody of the divine intention, owing to the fact of
sin tainting and spoiling his development from the root. But
Christianity is not in any kind of way pledged against the doctrine of
development, only against the doctrine which no reasonable science can
hold, that the actual development of man has been the best or only
possible one. Nor, I have urged, can it be reasonably said that the
Christian doctrine of sin and of the Fall is bound up with one
particular interpretation of Genesis iii. All, then, that we must
admit in the way of collision between Christianity and science is, on
the one hand, that Christianity is not intended to teach men science,
and that when there is any great advance in human knowledge it takes a
little while for Christianity to extricate itself from the meshes of
the language and ideas belonging to one stage of scientific knowledge,
and to assimilate the terms and ideas of the new. But, on the other
hand, there is perennial and necessary warfare between Christianity and
materialistic science, or a science which denies the reality of moral
freedom. And as to Christianity giving up what is proper to its own
ground--its teaching about {235} freedom and sin and the Fall, and
God's purpose for man, and the love shown in his redemption--to give up
this is to give up what is the best and deepest motive of human
progress, and what is most surely certificated by the witness of Christ
and the spiritual experience of Christendom. Indeed all schemes of
human improvement are shallow and inadequate, which do not deal with
man as what, in fact, he has been proved to be, a sinful, that is a
fallen, being, needing not only education but redemption.

Before leaving this attempt to show that there is no necessary conflict
between biological and theological science, it is important to call the
attention of the intelligent public to the fact that what formerly
appeared to be the solid consistency of the 'Darwinian' creed, has been
broken up into a state not far removed from chaos. It has become
apparent how very little way has really been made towards showing what
have been the actual factors in evolution--how the fact of evolution
through variation has actually occurred. Thus Mr. Bateson[14] remarks,
'If the study of variation can serve no other