from his father, and handed down from his forefathers. It
has not been done traditionally, but in a different way, a
scientific way.' Our advertisement hoardings are crowded
with similar illustrations.

No account of science is fair unless it does justice to this
amazing vitality and growth. It is scarcely to be wondered
at that there has seemed to many to be an open conflict
with conventional religious views. For if we 'set no limit to
our journey' it is almost inevitable that there will be
tensions.

'The scientific spirit,' said Freud, 'engenders a particular atti-
tude to the problems of this world; before the problems of
religion it halts for a while, then wavers, and finally here steps
over the threshold. In this process there is no stopping. The
more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the
more widespread is the decline of religious belief, at first only
of the obsolete and objectionable expression of the same, then
of its fundamental assumptions also. The Americans,' he con-
cludes, 'who instituted the monkey trial in Dayton have alone
proved consistent.' ¹⁰

I want to stress this dynamic character of science. For with-
out recognising it, we cannot see the power which it wields.
Sir Richard Gregory, for many years the editor of our
scientific journal Nature, once wrote his epitaph. It begins
as follows:

My grandfather preached the gospel of Christ,
My father preached the gospel of Socialism,
I preach the gospel of Science.

There is good and bad in this; and the last thing which I
want to do is to pour scorn on it. This, as we shall see later,
would be quite fatal. For the moment we must be content
to trace this growth of influence, and see where it is leading

-7-