Evolution is no more diagnostic of a man's
views concerning theism than is politics. The
custom, therefore, of sharply distinguishing two
kinds of evolution, theistic and atheistic, is unfortu-
nate. One might as well speak of theistic and athe-
istic gravitation. Theists and atheists may accept
or reject either theory, but the fact of such accep-
tance or rejection in no way changes the scientific
character of the theory as such, nor does it even
remotely touch the evidences for the existence of a
God. These evidences stand quite apart from the
truth or falsity of evolution.

Science deals only with secondary causes; it
never reaches the first cause. It traces effects to
causes and these to pre-existing causes and so on
until the process must stop, hanging in mid air as
it were, without finding the first cause. Infinity
lies back of every phenomenon, even the simplest.
Observation, experiment, and reason are the organs
of science and with these alone it cannot reach "Him
whom eye hath not seen nor ear heard." And yet
where science ends faith begins, and like the child
or the savage, the philosopher or scientist may still
say, "In the beginning--God."

If the universe is finite and had a beginning,
there must have been a first cause which was itself
uncaused. But if the universe is really eternal,
nature and natural law are also eternal. Which
of these two conceptions is correct can never be

-211-