Accordingly, as has already been urged, in regard of this question we are precisely where men have always been,—dependent upon arguments such as satisfied philosophers like Cicero, who declared that when we regard the starry heavens the existence of a Deity of surpassing intelligence must appear no less obvious than that of the sun in the sky.[146]
That scientific enlightenment is not incompatible with such reasoning, we have sufficient evidence in the fact that amongst those whose conclusions are wholly in accord with Cicero's, men are to be found standing in the very front rank of Science.
Like the Roman orator, Sir Isaac Newton declared that the existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics, and that to treat of God is therefore a part of Natural Philosophy.[147][{104}]
We assume, as absolutely self-evident [say Professors Stewart and Tait][148] the existence of a Deity, who is the Creator and Upholder of all things.
When we contemplate the phenomena of vision, [says Sir G. G. Stokes,][149] it seems difficult to understand how we can fail to be impressed with the evidence of design thus imparted to us. But design is altogether unmeaning without a designing mind. The study then of the phenomena of nature leads us to the contemplation of a Being from whom proceeded the orderly arrangement of natural things that we behold.
Lord Kelvin's recent declaration is even more vigorous.[150]
I cannot say that with regard to the origin of life Science neither affirms nor denies creative power. Science positively affirms creating and directive power, which she compels us to accept as an article of belief.
Thirty years earlier Clerk-Maxwell in concluding his famous lecture before the British Association[151] thus spoke concerning Molecules:
They continue this day as they were created, perfect in number and measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we reckon[{105}] among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they are essential constituents of the image of Him who in the beginning created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist.
It is of course not to be denied that there are eminent men of science who altogether dissent from such opinions, and reject Theism as false, or at least as lacking any rational claim on our acceptance. That, however, is not the point. The above testimonies have not been adduced as if their authority could settle the question, which is one to be determined not by authority, but by argument. At the same time, it is abundantly evident that it is not argument but supposed authority which influences the great majority of those who style themselves rationalists. By what modes of reasoning their creed is supposed to be established they have usually little idea: but they firmly believe, as they are constantly assured, that no one who knows what Science is can pretend to credit an antiquated doctrine which she has entirely exploded. It is to show what degree of truth attaches to such statements, that our witnesses have been called—and for this purpose their testimony is undoubtedly sufficient. As Lord Rayleigh in his Presidential address told the British Association:[152]