“Science Falsely so Called”

Improvement Era

Vol. XVII AUGUST, 1914 No. 10

"Science Falsely so Called"

BY DR. ROBERT C. WEBB

At the present day it is a familiar experience to be gravely

informed that ours is pre-eminently the "scientific age." We

learn in manifold connections that "science" and the "scientific

method" are rapidly revolutionizing every department of human

thought and endeavor. Nor is this altogether untrue indeed, as

:

no one can deny, the "scientific method," the method of practical

research and experiment, consummated by sufficient demonstra-

—

tion, the method by which may be achieved certain answers,

—

"yes" or "no," to the question, "will it work?" has gone far to

making the world over, particularly in the mechanical and prac-

tical sciences. Because, dating from Watt's discovery of the ex-

pansive energy of steam, in the latter half of the eighteenth cen-

tury, the habit of subordinating theories as to what "should be"

or "ought to be" to the practice of determining by patient and

intelligent experiment "that which is," we are accustomed already

to seeing results accomplished in actual fact, which have been

for ages among the hazy dreams of "unpractical" brains. Thus,

things which our forefathers of but a few generations past would

have ascribed to "witchcraft," or, simply, to the "devil," are now

merely the commonplaces of everyday life. Such are our tele-

phones, our railroads, our steamships, the wireless transmission

of intelligence, and dozens of other achievements, including the

—

new-born science of aviation the building and operating of real

flying-machines. The scientific method is, indeed, the real wiz-

ardry of which people only talked and wrote in former times. If

there was ever a "wizardry" of any other character, we might

claim with some show of consistency that it must have been in

some very real sense "scientific." (And does not the word

"wizard" mean "one who knows?")

In the midst of all this, however, comes the clear warning of

experience that, side by side with real science, there is also the

902 IMPROVEMENT ERA

"science falsely so called, which some professing have erred con-

cerning faith," and numerous other matters, in addition. Al-

though, as we have heard, this may be the "scientific age," there

is no sense in accepting the opinions of every ingenious and per-

suasive word-spinner as contributions to real science. Yet this

is the very thing that is done with as sickening a regularity as in

the darkest years of the "dark ages." Nor is there any warrant

for crediting a scientific character to the defectively supported

conclusions of even the most capable scientists. Thus several of

our foremost physicists, naturalists, astronomers, etc., have em-

—

braced the teachings of spiritism have even attempted to clothe

—

them with a semblance of scientific demonstration yet such fact

constitutes no over-impelling argument for their claims in the

minds of the average among us. Just as in former days, people

had their systems of astrology, which was not precisely the "star-

science;" of demonology, which was a very insecure foundation

for true medical theory and practice and of phrenology, which

;

was not what a scientific anatomist would consider an adequate

"brain-science;" so, at the present day, we have our systems of

Christian Science, so called, and of "scientific sociology," neither

of which is scientific in the sense applied to the scientific method

There are other, and even more widely accepted systems of infer-

ence and opinion, which are with as little actual warrant called

"scientific," just as there are, doubtless, very many men named

Hunter, who never fired a gun, set a snare, or took a life, even to

assuage the pangs of hunger. It is merely a matter of names in

the first case, as in the second.

Under ordinary conditions it would be highly superfluous to

treat this matter at all since, of course, the adherents of unscien-

;

tific "sciences" cannot be convinced of their errors by any really

scientific line of reasoning or demonstration. To argue to a

Christian Scientist, for example, that his system is not really

scientific would merely evoke the answer that it certainly is

"scientific in a higher sense," and there you are. Similarly, an

attempt to reason with an evolution-theologist or a "higher critic"

that he is laboring under numerous evident misconceptions would

move him merely to a pitying reminder of the fact that his critic

forgets the "great names" back of his opinions, and is not capable,

evidently, of comprehending the aims and character of real "schol-

arship." And there our efforts rest again since, as it seems, there

;

is an aristocracy of "learning," and our names are not enrolled

in its "Almanach." When, however, an utterly false system,

which is dubbed or christened by its adherents "scientific" in some

real sense, is erected into a standard for judging truth and re-

organizing knowledge; when the cloven foot of its essential ab-

surdity has tracked the broad areas of human thought, penetrat-

ing even to the sacred precincts of religion itself, it is high time

;

"SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED" 903

that voices were being raised in protest against the further pro-

pagation of a false culture, and a challenge issued to the con-

structive atheism, which, as when the devil disguises as an angel,

parades as the true "twentieth-century Christianity." Wewill

state, therefore, that we purpose examining and challenging the

truth, or even the scientific character, of the so-called "doctrine

—

of evolution" and the so-called "higher criticism" the second

—

being merely a corollary of the first not, primarilv, because they

are obnoxious to the type of religious thinking which we prefer,

but precisely because they are unintelligent, foolish, and baseless.

Such an attitude at the present dav may seem, to some, very sur-

prising indeed but the surprise will not be so great when we have

;

discussed the real nature and limitations of science, and the con-

ditions under which, in the world of sense experience, at least, a

prooosition may be said to be based on knowledge, and when,

evidently, on mere assumption.

The word "science" comes into our language, through the

French, from the Latin scientia, "knowledge," which derives, in

turn, from the verb scire, "to know." It means, therefore,

"knowledge," the material as well as the fact of positive sense

experience and record of some actual order. Properlv speaking,

however, it signifies rather codified knowledge, in which numbers

of known facts are arranged according to their evident similar-

ities, dissimilarities and relationships; and thus involves analysis

in individual cases as well as synthesis in the totalitv. The classi-

fication, which is an essential element in scientific studv and

greatly facilitates the acquisition of knowledge, is based upon

the natural tendency of the mind to association of facts and ex-

periences. To be really scientific, however, this association must

be based upon essential elements, rather than upon the fortuitous

conditions which determine it in many cases of ordinary experi-

ence. Sometimes such elements are small matters common to

large groups of facts which differ widely in other particulars

again, they are important considerations which are made to sep-

arate several facts, otherwise closely similar. Thus, botanists

form their great order Rosaceae, including with the rose group

several familiar fruit trees, largely on the fact that all the plants

in this order produce flowers of the same description. On the

other hand, zoologists separate the termites, or white ants, so

called, from the true ants, despite the similarity of their habits

and general structure, on the basis of the fact that the termites

—

have netted wings,- thus falling into the order Neuroptera —

—

while the true ants have membranous wings thus falling into

the order Hymenoptcra. No one would think, however, of clas-

sifying an octopus among birds, because it possesses a horny

beak, somewhat resembling that of a parrot nor, following Buf-

;

904 IMPROVEMENT ERA

fon's humorous suggestion, of classifying a crocodile among in-

sects, because it possesses a hard covering, or "exo-skeleton."

Because, therefore, science deals essentially with existing

facts, in their discovery, analysis and classification, on the basis

of essential resemblances and differences, its formulation and use

must involve a certain large and important field of inference and

theory. Thus, from practical familiarity with the sparks produced

in the discharge from Leyden jars, Mr. Franklin concluded that

lightning was to be explained by a similar set of conditions in

the clouds. This was a scientific inference, based on known facts,

and subsequently verified by his famous experiment with the

kite and the door key. On the basis of careful observation of

natural facts and operations, scientists in other branches have

been able to do still more surprising things. Unknown and un-

seen planets have been assumed to exist, with all the certainty

of a demonstration, on the basis of observed aberrations in the

behavior of known planets, which could be ascribed only to the

influence of unknown bodies; and subsequent observation has

verified the conclusions. Similarly, arguing solely from his

knowledge of comparative anatomy, and his entire familiarity

with the mechanical requirements in a living organism, Water-

house Hawkins, the English naturalist, in building the life-size

model of a megalosaurus at Sydenham, London, confidently

formed its back with a hump, like the "withers" of a horse, in

order, as he stated, to furnish a sufficient attachment for the mass

of muscle necessary to support and move the great bulk of the

head. Some anatomists were inclined to question the accuracy of

bis judgment, but the subsequent discovery of a nearly complete

skeleton of an animal of this species confirmed his conclusion.

In very similar fashion, after the development of scientific chem-

istry had indicated the fact that the known elements fall into

natural series, in the order of their atomic weights, and then of

their other characteristics, it was found that several gaps existed.

Other elements were, therefore, predicated, and their atomic

weights and other qualities were accurately estimated, as shown

by their subsequent identification and isolation thus vindicating

:

the validitv of the so-called "periodic law" of the elements.

In spite of all these surprising achievements of formal sci-

ence, it must be insisted that inference is a very uncertain guide

apart from strict consistency with known facts. In short, when

inference and theory extend beyond the just limits of known facts

and established laws, and strike out into the unknown, they cease

to be scientific in any accurate sense, and constitute what is known

as "philosophy," which is to say speculative thought. Nor is

philosophy a certain guide, except when known facts regarding

the universe and its constitution are kept consistently before the

mind. This is shown eminently well in the history of philosophy

;

"SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED" 9U5

from the beginning of recorded speculation to the present day.

Starting out to explain the facts of existence, numerous philoso-

phers have ended by actually inventing new and unheard-of varie-

ties of universe, possessed of all orders of astounding attributes,

and have accomplished nothing but to furnish interesting exam-

ples of the operation of the mind, very often under conditions

analogous to what, in the language of electrical science, is called a

"short circuit"— involving an internal circulation of energy, de-

void of effect in useful work on the outside. Thus, following on

a closely-knit line of "iron logic," Descartes reached the conclusion

that the material world consists in a plenum, which is to say a

"fulness," and that no movement could be possible, except in cir-

cles. Leibnitz, arguring with similar ability, postulated a universe

composed entirely of self-contained and mutually unrelated

monads, in which by his principle of emboitement des germes,

with the involved power of simulating objective experiences, con-

stitutes the total of our life in an apparent world of subject and

object. Bishop Berkeley argued that there could be no material

world, except so far as it existed as a "perception," by an essential

act of "spirit," which constitutes, he thought, the sum of all reality.

Other philosophers have reached similar, or totally diverse, con-

clusions, merely because of the attempt, common to them all, to

use the processes of pure thought, or logic, without regard to the

limiting influence of facts in experience and sense perception.

Thus, as we may see, logic is a dangerous instrument, except in

the hands of a competent master. It is like a two-edged sword,

as liable to cut the back of a careless wielder as to split the person

of his antagonist. If a sword could be .flfrlc with more than two

edges, it would furnish an even better simile.

When we consider the fact that the real aim of svstematic

—

philosophy is to explain the universe to discover and apply a

"world formula," as Prof. Tosiah Royce expresses it the un- —

escapable necessity of starting our speculations upon a basis of

perfectlv verifiable and relevant fact must be apparent. Without

a foundation, only failure can result, in spite of profound rea-

soning and careful adherence to premises. This rule was never

better exemplified than in the geocentric theorv of astronomy,

the Ptolemaic theorv so-called, which, failing to recognize the

now accepted fact that the sun, and not the earth, is the center

around which the planets revolve, postulated a complicated series

of cycles, epicycles and retrogressions, with other ingenious de-

vices to account for observed facts on the basis of an utterly

erroneous concept of the universe. Tt was in harmony, however,

with every known, or assumed fact then available to astronomers

the further facts being quite inaccessible to the ancient observers,

who had not been able to discover that the earth is a spheroid,

and who ignored all the evident inconsistencies in their processes

906 IMPROVEMENT ERA

of reasoning on the known facts. Consequently, the whole com-

plicated fabric of their system crumbled and vanished with the

demonstration of its one vital and fundamental error.

The modern so-called "law" of evolution, considered as a

practical "world formula," is a resultant of two distinct lines of

speculative thinking, which, while differing in origin, and in

nearly all particulars, have as a common aim the remodeling, or

reinterpretation, of all branches of knowledge and experience,

including the "data of the religious consciousness." The first of

these, in point of time, as well as of ultimate influence, is dis-

tinctly philosophical, as embodied in the theories of the noted Ger-

man thinker Hegel, which, until within a generation, enjoyed

considerable favor among Protestant theologians. The second

represents the zoological hypothesis of descent, as propounded by

Darwin and other earlier investigators, and elaborated by Herbert

Spencer into a "law," through the workings of which is produced

a continuous change, or series of changes, essential and inevitable,

"from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent

heterogeneity," with certain other concomitant consequences.

This elaborate definition was an attempt to reduce to formal

statement, with the widest applications, the simple Darwinian

theory that all the numerous varieties of life-forms are to be con-

sidered as so many variations actually produced from a common

ancestral type, necessarily simple in structure, by assuming the

existence of a natural agency, analogous to the selective activity of.

the human stock-breeder — who selects individuals for mating,

with the deliberate aim of producing some given finalities in the

—

offspring and which was called "natural selection." This agency,

it was assumed, operates to produce such "favored races" as are

best adapted to survive in the "struggle for life," thus giving the

sanction to Spencer's principle of the "survival of the fittest."

However, the theory of descent, or development, according

to which the unicellular egg — destined to mature into a highlv

—

complex, multicellular individual is made the type of the uni-

versal law of nature, accounting for all variant life-forms, and

all other variations whatever, was originated long before the dav

of Darwin and Spencer. By the assumption of various theories

to enforce the central idea of derivative descent, it was familiar

in the writings of numerous naturalists and philosophers for quite

a century. Hegel gave it expression in his famous "law of

trichotomy," the fundamental principle of his system of logic,

which was intended to illuminate all branches of knowledge on

the theorv that every formal idea consists of three essential ele-

ments, (1) the statement, (2) the counter-statement, or contra-

diction, (3) the svnthesis, by which the two find reconciliation and

harmonv in a higher union, or complete comprehension. This

rule of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, applied to the problem of crea-

:

"SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED" 907

tion, postulated "pure, original, indeterminate being" (the "thing-

in-itself," the"Absolute"), projecting itself into its antithesis, the

"relative" (called Werdcn, or "becoming"), a potentiality which,

in turn, eventuates every form of determinate being (called

Dasein, or "existence") the eternally completing process of crea-

tion, in which is involved a return toward, a "reconciliation" with

the "Absolute," as manifesting the perfection of the creative idea.

This beautiful and suggestive concept, which was not wholly

original with Hegel — its outlines being discernible in Hindu

speculations, and some other connections —when applied to theol-

ogy, explained the doctrine of the Trinity, also that of the Atone-

ment applied to history, the necessary progress, as argued, from

;

imperfect to perfect, from ignorance to finished knowledge, from

evil to complete good. The trouble was that it explained too

much, and that it explained it too easily being, like certain;

domestic implements, not perfectly "fool-proof." Thus multi-

tudes of half-fledged minds were enabled, by its help, to wallow

complacently in a conceit of omniscience, even as they do today

with the kind assistance of the evolution hypothesis. Thus,

Hegel's "law," rather than the speculations of zoological theorists,

seems to be responsible for the presently-current notion of certain

and inevitable progress into perfection, an idea which seems to

be involved in Tennyson's fervid lines

"Is there evil but on earth? or pain in every peopled sphere?

Well, be grateful for the sounding watchword, 'Evolution' here,

Evolution ever climbing after some ideal good,

And Reversion ever dragging Evolution in the mud."

—

Locksley Hall, Sixty Years After.

The similarity of its thought with that of the present seems

obvious when we remember Hegel's bold comparison between

himself and Christ, with a very strong suggestion of advantage in

his own case since he lived 1800 years later, hence at a period

;

further advanced in the grand process.

Thus, whether fathered by Hegel or the zoologists, it seems

clear that the doctrine of evolution was not originally an attempt

to explain puzzling facts and phenomena, but rather a speculative

hypothesis, whose justification is sought in facts and alleged facts.

It is the central dogma of the new dogmatism, which the faithful

must support by any available arguments, even at the cost of

remodeling all branches of human knowledge, as was actually

attempted by both Hegel and Spencer, and with no wondrous

results in either instance. It is the prevailing fashion in philoso-

phy, which attracts the allegiance of many minds, just as fashions

in clothing appeal to the tastes of some women and a few men.

Tt is the modern substitute for God, divine providence, and revela-

tion, which speciously explains error and wrong, as, in Emerson's

:

908 IMPROVEMENT ERA

phrase, "good in the making." It is a consoling "conviction"

for all sorts of feeble minds, who can thus gain fresh assurance

of the finality of their own pet conclusions, as an integral part of

a grand process of "man's gradual discovery of God and statement

of His eternal truth." In all these particulars it is a dangerous

and regrettable influence, encouraging superficial thinking and

actual degradation of learning to the supporting of a gratuitous

dogma. Its influence in religious thinking is seen in the develop-

ment of the loose and negative attitude, popularly dignified by

the term "liberalism," which indicates, precisely, lack of positive

conviction and a general unworthy and really unreligious com-

placency of mind. In this particular it parallels the influence of

Hegelian philosophy, as explained by Prof. Francis Bowen as

follows

"One source of the great popularity of Hegelianism, especially

with politicians and theologians, may be found in its conciliatory

character. It has a strong tendency to bridge over the separation of

parties and differences of creeds, and to effect compromises between

jarring opinions. * * * * The law of trichotomy, which is the

basis of the Hegelian logic, enables us to take up any two contra-

dictory ideas, and melt them into one synthetic notion which includes

them both. Hence, a consistent and expert Hegelian may repeat any

theological creed, join any political party, or defend any philosophical

system, without prejudice to the opinions which he formerly avowed."

— Modern Philosophy.

At the present day the matter is even worse, since the so-

called doctrine of evolution is an even better breeder of essential

hypocrisy than even the ingenious speculations of Hegel and all

his disciples. Schopenhauer, a violent opponent of Hegelianism,

and at the same time an equally strong antagonist of materialism,

as expressed in the vapid speculations of mere scientific special-

ists, "who know nothing else," speaks feelingly of "the steady

growth of unbelief in the face of all hypocritical dissembling and

the outward conformity to the Church." This is to be seen even

now, when men do not hesitate to make formal subscription to

creeds and formularies with contemptible mental reservations,

which they dignify under such names as "revised views," "larger

understandings," and "new meanings." Thus, even while it is

fashionable to hold that this "evolution" process has changed the

meaning of words, along with the physical conformation of ani-

mals, we will find candidates for ordination in sects, professing

full belief in the redemptive work of Christ, shamelessly advertis-

ing the fact that they are "unable to believe," for example, the

virgin birth of Christ, because that, like the story of Jonah and

the whale, it involves "violence to the law of evolution." This

alleged law would, we may judge, seem to be the "real gospel"

of our up-to-date preachers, who do not hesitate even to flaunt

essential atheism before the public in "new understandings of the

"SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED" 909

being and nature of God." When we hear such expressions, we

may understand merely that the word "God" is used as a synonym

for the "law of evolution," in spite of all the elaborate flounder-

ings and speculatings by which ingenious writers and so-called

"thinkers" have attempted to disguise it. Spencer and Huxley

are the Paul and Peter of the "new theology," and Hegel is its

John the Baptist. It must be said, however, to the credit of both

Spencer and Huxley that they were outspoken in their profession

of "agnosticism," which is to say the formal recognition of the

essential inability of the human reason to deal with matters apart

from the realm of observable and verifiable fact — which is to say,

with "final causes." They recognized that our knowledge, unless

supplemented, as we may suppose, by something beside, is limited

by the horizon of perceptible fact, and that we possess no senses

that can discern things beyond the horizon. But, there are always

"camp-followers" with every army, and even the most careful

thinkers— whatever their errors in matters of opinion have —

hordes of self-styled "disciples," who are of the kind character-

ized in the popular adage as those who "rush in where angels

fear to tread." An outspoken "atheist" may be credited with

the virtue of frankness, but an unbeliever in the livery of Chris-

tianity is a hateful spectacle —a mere charlatan. We will not

insult the dignities by calling him a "wolf in sheep's clothing;"

he is merely "an ass in a lion's skin."