If we are to understand the reason for this controversy between science and theology, we must take a far look back into man's history. Stephen Leacock remarks that whenever a professor discusses anything, he has to retreat at least 2,000 years to get a running start. Our retreat must be farther than that; it carries us to the earliest stage in which we are able to describe the thoughts of men. _At the beginning men attributed to superhuman spirits all activities in the world which they themselves did not perform._ If the wind blew, a spirit did it; if the sun rose, a spirit moved it; if a storm came, a spirit drove it. Natural law was non-existent to the primitive man; every movement in nature was the direct result of somebody's active will. From the mysterious whispering of a wind-swept field to the crashing thunder, what man did not cause the gods did. If, therefore, a primitive man were asked the cause of rain, he had but one answer: a god made it rain. That was his _scientific_ answer, for no other explanation of rain could he conceive. That was his _religious_ answer, for he worshiped the spirit on whom he must depend for showers. This significant fact, therefore, stands clear: _To primitive man a religious answer and a scientific answer were identical._ Sunrise was explained, not by planetary movements which were unknown, but by the direct activity of a god, and the Dawn then was worshipped in the same terms in which it was explained. The historic reason for the confusion between science and religion at once grows evident. _At the beginning they were fused and braided into one; the story of their relationship is the record of their gradual and difficult disentangling._