The bibliolater, however, tries to turn the edge of this strong point against his fetish by answering that the bible was not meant to teach science. Very well, if science is not the province of the bible, then, it leaves out one of the most important branches of knowledge, and to that extent it is inferior to the books that include science. But really, to say that the bible does not teach science, is to admit that it is unscientific, or false in its science. It may not have been the intention of Moses to deny the doctrine of evolution, but when he says the universe was made in six days, and apparently, out of nothing, he talks unscientifically, and, therefore, ignorantly and falsely. Joshua may not have intended to combat the law of gravitation, but when he stops both sun and moon for his private business, he makes himself a rival of Sir Isaac Newton by teaching a contrary science, that is to say, a false science. It is impossible for the bible to speak about the origin of man--the animals, vegetation and the formation of sun and star--without entering the field of science. When, therefore, its clerical defenders say that the bible was not meant to teach science, they really mean it is something else in the bible that is inspired, and not its science. It is then admitted that the science of the bible is not "inspired," and that the science of man is better than that of the bible; let us now see if the history of the bible is "inspired." If we desire the truth about the nations of antiquity--Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome--do we go to the bible for information? Are not the stones dug out of the ground, and the uncovering of buried cities, the reading of the inscriptions upon monument and pyramid, a more reliable source of knowledge than Hebrew gossip? Is it the bible or the hieroglyphics which have resisted the wear and tear of time that introduce us to the laws, institutions, the manners and morals of remote nations? Did Herodotus get his facts from the bible? Did Rawlinson discover his wonderful story of ancient empires in the bible? Did Gibbon copy his monumental history of the Roman world from the bible? There is to-day in the Louvre, in France, a stone, called the Hammurabi stone, which gives a truer glimpse into the public and private life of ancient Chaldea than all the five books of Moses. It is discoveries like the Hammurabi stone which enable us to understand also the bible and the sources it borrowed from. In the British museum are the sculptures, the slabs, the bas-reliefs, the mummies, the tombs, the thrones, and the gods of the world of long ago; and it is from them, and not from the anonymous and undated copies of lost documents which compose the bible that we receive accurate information concerning the races of the past. But, perhaps, the bible was not meant to teach history, any more than it was meant to teach science. The history of the bible is as unreliable as its science. What