Paul’s advice to Timothy was to beware of “oppositions of science, falsely so called.” Many things have been called scientific demonstrations, which, after research, and facts have proved to be only the assumptions of professedly scientific men. True science and truth from the Bible or any other source must agree. The true science of man must agree with the scripture declaration that without Christ there is no immortal life. As the brain is the organ of the mind, and thought the peculiar functions of the brain, so there can be no conscious existence separate from the existence of a real body. David declares, in the day a man dies “his thoughts perish.” Ps. 146:4. The following article from the Record Union on the danger of scientific speculation is to the point; and we would call especial attention to that portion of the article which shows that science does not establish the doctrine of an immortal entity in man:— “The progress of the dispute between science and theology has been attended by some singular, though by no means unnatural, developments. The dogmatic spirit which has for so long a period characterized the theologians, has by insensible gradations passed over to their opponents, and while the former have manifested a tendency to moderate their pretensions, the latter have become arbitrary and positive far beyond the warrant of their scientific gains. No doubt it would be unfair to apply this remark to all scientists. Of the larger class, namely, the specialists, it is certainly not true, since they as a rule altogether refuse to speculate upon the implications of scientific discovery, and are content with the modest results of patient and constant research in their allotted spheres.” “But the scientists who are best known to the world are those whose forte is generalization, and these are continually tempted to overstep the clearly defined boundaries of scientific knowledge, and to insist upon the acceptance of the more or less crude and baseless hypotheses which they adopt as working theories, in the light of thoroughly attested truths. These men have latterly done much to endanger the reputation of legitimate science, by the recklessness of their dogmatism, and, at length their demands have provoked a very high scientific authority to enter an earnest protest, and record a serious warning, against this illegitimate mode of procedure. The authority referred to is Professor Virchow, of Munich, one of the most accomplished of German physiologists. In a lecture recently delivered to a scientific association he took this dangerous tendency for his theme. The opportunity was afforded by a demand of Haeckel, to the effect that the most radical extensions of the Darwinian hypothesis should be taught as the latest fruit of scientific research, in the schools of Germany.” “In reply to this proposition Professor Virchow stated that there was no warrant as yet for the unhesitating acceptance of the Darwinian theory. That while it appeared to offer a solution of the process of physical development in many respects, it was necessary to point out that it was no more than a hypothesis; that scientific research had thus far utterly failed to supply some of the most necessary facts to its establishment; that in fact recent discoveries had made against it in several particulars; and that it was therefore not justifiable to teach it to the rising generation as the truth of science. This protest is all the more forcible since Virchow himself has long been a believer in the Darwinian theory, which he has materially assisted to expand and develop. He points out, moreover, that unless scientists moderate their tendency to jump to conclusions, and to make untenable assumptions, they will inevitably expose science to the same dangers which have overtaken theology. The dogmatism of the latter received a deadly blow when it was demonstrated that its assumptions were quite incompatible with science. But this was because the demonstrations of science were then confined to accomplished facts, and they were obviously embodied truths, against which mere speculation fell impotent.” “The moment however, that scientists leave the firm ground of demonstratable truths and attempt flights into the region of abstract speculation or imagination, they become as other men, and their strength departs, like Sampson’s when his hair was shorn. Huxley and Tyndall, projecting their fancy forward into space, and discerning in protoplasm the promise and potency of all forms of life, or recognizing in man a mere mechanical organization, are on no firmer ground than the theologians who erect such elaborate structures upon assumptions which none but the theological mind can take for granted. The genuine scientist never allows his imagination to play these tricks with him. He does not seek to cross chasms which his knowledge fails to supply him the means of bridging, by plying the wings of his fancy. When he cannot discern the secret of psychical action, he does not spring to the conclusion that it is only a manifestation of molecular force; he simply says that he does not understand it, and that he has so far attained no clue to the solution of the great problem. This moderation and conservatism, however, are too tame for the more impulsive and ardent followers of science, and besides they are strongly tempted to give the coup de grace to theology, even if to do so it becomes necessary to advance somewhat beyond the point where the firm ground ends abruptly.” “Professor Tyndall and Professor Huxley are both masterly expositors of science, and their remarkable ability in this direction has no doubt helped to lure them on into dangerous places. The habit of dealing with theological dogmatism may also be accountable to some extent for their slips and digressions; but whatever the cause, it is not the less certain that they have both committed themselves unwarrantably, in assuming that the revelations of science justify the adoption of materialistic doctrines. It is due to Mr. Darwin to point out that he has never countenanced or abetted these unscientific excursions into the region of speculation, and that he has been far more modest and far more cautious in his claims than the majority of his followers. The latter have indeed assumed so dogmatic a position that, as Professor Virchow points out, if later discoveries should compel the rejection of the Darwinian theory, the world would be very apt to withdraw its confidence from science, and to declare, and not without reason, that it was as little to be trusted as theology.” “It is indeed refreshing to contrast the modesty of this veteran scientist with the arrogant intolerance of some of his most distinguished brethren, both in Germany and England. Virchow is probably one of the first living chemists, and has passed almost a lifetime in the laboratory; yet he says that the extent of his acquirements is a knowledge of what he does not know, and that the longer he lives the vaster this region of the unknown appears to him. To such men rash speculation is abhorrent, for they live for science, and true science is knowledge, not conjecture. Working theories are of course indispensable to the student, but he mistakes his vocation if at any time he ceases to observe the broad line of demarcation between fact and theory, and especially does he do so if he confounds the two together, and attempts to piece out the fragmentary revelations of science by such illegitimate methods. “Between the untempered enthusiasm of the scientific imagination, which perceives in protoplasm the promise and potency of all forms of life, and the religious enthusiasm which perceives in the consecrated wafer the very body of an incarnated Deity, the difference is one merely of degree, and not of kind. “Professor Tyndall would no doubt declare that the doctrine of transubstantiation is unthinkable to him, and yet the belief which he has announced rests upon no more scientific foundation than that mystical dogma, and depends for its acceptance upon a play of the imagination which is as wholly alien to all genuine processes of scientific research. “The theologian posits a soul, of the existence of which he can give no satisfactory evidences. The imaginative scientist, on the other hand, fails to discover the genesis of mind in matter, and jumps to the conclusion that mind and matter are merely differing manifestations of an identical mechanical force. It is evident that these two theories are equally void of demonstration; but the theory of the theologian has one decided advantage over that of the imaginative scientist; for there clearly does exist a something which we call mind, the connection of which with matter cannot be established, and the manifestations of which are at variance with all our experience of what we know as matter. There is, therefore, a rational presumption in behalf of a psychical element in man; a something which is more than the scalpel or the microscope can render an account of; while the other hypothesis involves the rejection, without reason, of a mass of experiences and observations all of which work against its probability. It is obvious, too, that science is endangered by whatever tends to pin its votaries to an undemonstrated hypothesis, since all such movements operate to retard inquiry for the pure sake of truth, and bias research in favor of the pet theory. Scientists should not ride hobbies, in fact. “The pursuit of truth demands constant sacrifices, and freedom from all prejudices. The earnest seeker must be prepared to abandon the most seductive beliefs at the imperative demand of science, and he must cheerfully resign whatever fancies or speculations tend to hamper his progress toward the goal. It is in this spirit alone that science can be usefully, worthily, and faithfully followed, and because this is so the warning of Professor Virchow is a timely and a necessary one.”