To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

I should like to state as well as I can another side to the Parks controversy than the very limited one of your editorial.

To begin with--are men (Dr. Parks, Bishop Lawrence, or even a layman, it makes no difference who); are they justified in saying every Sunday, "I believe . . . and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, Who was born of the Virgin Mary . . .", and then turning directly round by denying the Virgin Birth? I can think of nothing to call such action but plain lying and hypocrisy. If anyone can find honesty and consistency in it, I should be glad to see his reasoning--but I fear it will have to be a mass of quibbles.

Next--would the church be justified in changing the Creeds? Now the Anglican Catholic Church (commonly known in this country as the Episcopal Church) bases its whole Catholic claim on two facts; its acceptance of the Creeds, and its Apostolic Succession. It would scarcely be reverent to pull down this structure by changing the Creeds, as the structure was founded by Christ. Neither would it be wise, for the Church would then fall into the seething whirlpool of two hundred and fifty-six protestant sects; which, as they become more modernistic, become more agnostic and farther from Christianity.

Finally--is the Church justified in existing at all, since it must keep the Creeds and believe them? "What place," you must ask, "has an organization which demands belief in occurrences science proves impossible; what place has it among modern educated persons?" There lies the kernel of the whole so-called "Conflict between Religion and Science". There is no such conflict; there never can be, for Science and Religion have no inter-relation. Man's scientific instrument is his reason; his religious instrument is his mystical power. When reason is applied to Religion, there is naturally discord. It is as if one tried to play a violin with a saw. But that is enough of generalizations on this point; now for particulars. "How," you say, "can a man who agrees with scientific thinking agree also with the idea of the Virgin Birth, which Science and experience show to be impossible?" If you speak thus, you forget another part of "Scientific thought", a part which holds that Science and experience have shown little with likelihood of surety, and nothing with certainty of it. Hence the Virgin Birth cannot be counted out on that score. Furthermore, all who deny the possibility of Virgin Birth forget that there is a class of happenings, or miracles, which confound and contradict the usual scientific occurrences, if the two groups are considered together, even as is the case when the corresponding human powers of reason and mysticism are mixed.

The great moral to be drawn from this controversy is keep distinct things apart. Do not confuse Science and Religion, Science and Art, or Science and anything else which is not Science. For Science is what must be rebuked on this score today, when it interferes with Religion's affairs, just as Religion has been rebuked for interfering with Science in the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance. Keep things clear; for heaven's sake don't mix them all into one muddy whole.  RICHARD LINN EDSALL '26