Brunetière made his criticism as follows: “For the last two or three centuries, science has promised to change the face of the earth, to dispel every mystery; she has not done so. She is powerless to resolve the sole problems that are essential, that concern the origin of man, the rules for his conduct, and his future destiny. We know now that natural science can teach us none of these matters. Thus, in the battle between science and religion, science has been defeated, because she has had to admit her powerlessness precisely where religion is most strong. For religion gives the solutions that science has failed to supply. Religion teaches us what we can learn neither from anatomy nor from physiology, that is to say, what we are, whither we are going, and how we ought to act. Religion and science supplement each other; and, as science can do nothing for morality, it becomes the duty of religion to take her place.” It has been replied to Brunetière, that his recriminations are unfounded, first, because science has never undertaken to solve the great problems of the aim of life and the proper basis of morality; next, because it is probable that these problems will never be solved by the human understanding. Charles Richet, a well-known French physiologist, made a vain effort to find any written evidence that science had promised to solve the great problems which have absorbed the attention of Tolstoi and Brunetière as well as of quite a large section of humanity. “In what standard works has science made the astonishing promises that M. Brunetière recalls with so much bitterness?” asked Richet.[281] “I have now before me,” he proceeded, “the Manuel du baccalauréat ès sciences (Guide to a Degree in Science). It is a summary of contemporary scientific ideas. I have looked through it in vain for promises—it contains no promises.”[282]