,,the ,,interpreters ,,of ,,genesis     
,,and ,,the ,,interpreters ,,of ,,nature
  ,,essay #d ,,from ,,science ,,and     
,,hebrew ,,tradition   ,by ,thomas      
,henry ,huxley    ,our fabulist warns   
those who in quarrels interpose of the  
fate which is probably in store for     
them2 and1 in venturing to place myself 
between so powerful a controversialist  
as ,mr4 ,gladstone and the eminent      
divine whom he assaults with such vigour
 in the last number of this ,review1 #a 
,i am fully aware that ,i run great     
danger of verifying ,gay's prediction4  
,moreover1 it is quite possible that my 
zeal in offering aid to a combatant so  
extremely well able to take care of     
himself as ,m4 ,reville may be thought  
to savour of indiscretion4  ,two        
considerations1 however1 have led me to 
face the double risk4 ,the one is that  
though1 in my judgment1 ,m4 ,reville is 
wholly in the right in that part of the 
controversy to which ,i propose to      
restrict my observations1 nevertheless  

he1 as a foreigner1 has very little     
chance of making the truth prevail with 
,englishmen against the authority and   
the dialectic skill of the greatest     
master of persuasive rhetoric among     
,english-speaking men of our time4 ,as  
the ,queen's proctor intervenes1 in     
certain cases1 between two litigants in 
the interests of justice1 so it may be  
permitted me to interpose as a sort of  
uncommissioned science proctor4 ,my     
second excuse for my meddlesomeness is1 
that important questions of natural     
science--respecting which neither of the
 combatants professes to speak as an    
expert--are involved in the controversy2
 and ,i think it is desirable that the  
public should know what it is that      
natural science really has to say on    
these topics1 to the best belief of one 
who has been a diligent student of      
natural science for the last forty      
years4  ,the original ,prolegomenes de  
l',histoire des ,religions has not come 
in my way2 but ,i have read the         

translation of ,m4 ,reville's work1     
published in ,england under the auspices
 of ,professor ,max ,muller1 with very  
great interest4 ,it puts more fairly and
 clearly than any book previously known 
to me1 the view which a man of strong   
religious feelings1 but at the same time
 possessing the information and the     
reasoning power which enable him to     
estimate the strength of scientific     
methods of inquiry and the weight of    
scientific truth1 may be expected to    
take of the relation between science and
 religion4  ,in the chapter on ,the     
,primitive ,revelation the scientific   
worth of the account of the ,creation   
given in the book of ,genesis is        
estimated in terms which are as         
unquestionably respectful as1 in my     
judgment1 they are just2 and1 at the end
 of the chapter on ,primitive           
,tradition1 ,m4 ,reville appraises the  
value of pentateuchal anthropology in a 
way which ,i should have thought sure of
 enlisting the assent of all competent  

judges1 even if it were extended to the 
whole of the cosmogony and biology of   
,genesis3--     ,as1 however1 the       
original traditions of nations sprang up
 in an    epoch less remote than our own
 from the primitive life1 it is         
indispensable to consult them1 to       
compare them1 and to associate    them  
with other sources of information which 
are available4    ,from this point of   
view1 the traditions recorded in        
,genesis    possess1 in addition to     
their own peculiar charm1 a value of the
    highest order2 but we cannot        
ultimately see in them more than a      
venerable fragment1 well-deserving      
attention1 of the great    genesis of   
mankind4   ,mr4 ,gladstone is of a      
different mind4 ,he dissents from ,m4   
,reville's views respecting the proper  
estimation of the pentateuchal          
traditions1 no less than he does from   
his interpretation of those ,homeric    
myths which have been the object of his 
own special study4 ,in the latter case1 

,mr4 ,gladstone tells ,m4 ,reville that 
he is wrong on his own authority1 to    
which1 in such a matter1 all will pay   
due respect3 in the former1 he affirms  
himself to be wholly destitute of that  
kind of knowledge which carries         
authority1 and his rebuke is            
administered in the name and by the     
authority of natural science4  ,an air  
of magisterial gravity hangs about the  
following passage3--      ,but the      
question is not here of a lofty poem1 or
 a skilfully    constructed narrative3  
it is whether natural science1 in the   
patient exercise of its high calling to 
examine facts1 finds    that the works  
of ,god cry out against what we have    
fondly    believed to be ,his word and  
tell another tale2 or whether1 in       
this nineteenth century of ,christian   
progress1 it substantially    echoes    
back the majestic sound1 which1 before  
it existed as a    pursuit1 went forth  
into all lands4     ,first1 looking     
largely at the latter portion of the    

narrative1    which describes the       
creation of living organisms1 and       
waiving    details1 on some of which 7as
 in v4 #bd7 the ,septuagint seems to    
vary from the ,hebrew1 there is a grand 
fourfold division1 set    forth in an   
orderly succession of times as follows3 
on the    fifth day     #a4 ,the        
water-population2    #b4 ,the           
air-population2    and1 on the sixth    
day1    #c4 ,the land-population of     
animals2    #d4 ,the land-population    
consummated in man4    ,now this same   
fourfold order is understood to have    
been so    affirmed in our time by      
natural science1 that it may be taken as
    a demonstrated conclusion and       
established fact4 7p4 #fif74            
,understood8 ,by whom8 ,i cannot bring  
myself to imagine that ,mr4 ,gladstone  
has made so solemn and authoritative a  
statement on a matter of this importance
 without due inquiry--without being able
 to found himself upon recognised       
scientific authority4 ,but ,i wish he   

had thought fit to name the source from 
whence he has derived his information1  
as1 in that case1 ,i could have dealt   
with #adc his authority1 and ,i should  
have thereby escaped the appearance of  
making an attack on ,mr4 ,gladstone     
himself1 which is in every way          
distasteful to me4  ,for ,i can meet the
 statement in the last paragraph of the 
above citation with nothing but a direct
 negative4 ,if ,i know anything at all  
about the results attained by the       
natural science of our time1 it is a    
demonstrated conclusion and established 
fact that the fourfold order given by   
,mr4 ,gladstone is not that in which the
 evidence at our disposal tends to show 
that the water1 air1 and                
land-populations of the globe have made 
their appearance4  ,perhaps ,i may be   
told that ,mr4 ,gladstone does give his 
authority--that he cites ,cuvier1 ,sir  
,john ,herschel1 and ,dr4 ,whewell in   
support of his case4 ,if that has been  
,mr4 ,gladstone's intention in          

mentioning these eminent names1 ,i may  
remark that1 on this particular         
question1 the only relevant authority is
 that of ,cuvier4 ,but great as ,cuvier 
was1 it is to be remembered that1 as    
,mr4 ,gladstone incidentally remarks1 he
 cannot now be called a recent          
authority4 ,in fact1 he has been dead   
more than half a century2 and the       
palaeontology of our day is related to  
that of his1 very much as the geography 
of the sixteenth century is related to  
that of the fourteenth4 ,since #ahcb1   
when ,cuvier died1 not only a new world1
 but new worlds1 of ancient life have   
been discovered2 and those who have most
 faithfully carried on the work of the  
chief founder of palaeontology have done
 most to invalidate the essentially     
negative grounds of his speculative     
adherence to tradition4  ,if ,mr4       
,gladstone's latest information on these
 matters is derived from the famous     
discourse prefixed to the ,ossemens     
,fossiles1 ,i can understand the        

position he has taken up2 if he has ever
 opened a respectable modern manual of  
palaeontology1 or geology1 ,i cannot4   
,for the facts which demolish his whole 
argument are of the commonest notoriety4
 ,but before proceeding to consider the 
evidence for this assertion we must be  
clear about the meaning of the          
phraseology employed4  ,i apprehend that
 when ,mr4 ,gladstone uses the term     
water-population he means those animals 
which in ,genesis i4 #ba 7,revised      
,version7 are spoken of as the great sea
 monsters and every living creature that
 moveth1 which the waters brought forth 
abundantly1 after their kind4 ,and ,i   
presume that it will be agreed that     
whales and porpoises1 sea fishes1 and   
the innumerable hosts of marine         
invertebrated animals1 are meant        
thereby4 ,so air-population must be the 
equivalent of fowl in verse #bj1 and    
every winged fowl after its kind1 verse 
#ba4 ,i suppose ,i may take it for      
granted that by fowl we have here to    

understand birds--at any rate primarily4
 ,secondarily1 it may be that the bats  
and the extinct pterodactyles1 which    
were flying reptiles1 come under the    
same head4 ,but whether all insects are 
creeping things of the land-population1 
or whether flying insects are to be     
included under the denomination of      
winged fowl1 is a point for the decision
 of ,hebrew exegetes4 ,lastly1 ,i       
suppose ,i may assume that              
land-population signifies the cattle and
 the beasts of the earth1 and every     
creeping thing that creepeth upon the   
earth1 in verses #be and #bf2 presumably
 it comprehends all kinds of terrestrial
 animals1 vertebrate and invertebrate1  
except such as may be comprised under   
the head of the air-population4  ,now   
what ,i want to make clear is this3 that
 if the terms water-population1         
air-population1 and land-population are 
understood in the senses here defined1  
natural science has nothing to say in   
favour of the proposition that they     

succeeded one another in the order given
 by ,mr4 ,gladstone2 but that1 on the   
contrary1 all the evidence we possess   
goes to prove that they did not4 ,whence
 it will follow that1 if ,mr4 ,gladstone
 has interpreted ,genesis rightly 7on   
which point ,i am most anxious to be    
understood to offer no opinion71 that   
interpretation is wholly irreconcilable 
with the conclusions at present accepted
 by the interpreters of nature--with    
everything that can be called a         
demonstrated conclusion and established 
fact of natural science4 ,and be it     
observed that ,i am not here dealing    
with a question of speculation1 but with
 a question of fact4  ,either the       
geological record is sufficiently       
complete to afford us a means of        
determining the order in which animals  
have made their appearance on the globe 
or it is not4 ,if it is1 the            
determination of that order is little   
more than a mere matter of observation2 
if it is not1 then natural science      

neither affirms nor refutes the fourfold
 order1 but is simply silent4  ,the     
series of the fossiliferous deposits1   
which contain the remains of the animals
 which have lived on the earth in past  
ages of its history1 and which can alone
 afford the evidence required by natural
 science of the order of appearance of  
their different species1 may be grouped 
in the manner shown in the left-hand    
column of the following table1 the      
oldest being at the bottom3--           
,formations          ,first known       
appearance of      ,quaternary4         
,pliocene4      ,miocene4      ,eocene4 
,vertebrate air-population 7,bats74     
,cretaceous4      ,jurassic4            
,vertebrate air-population 7,birds and  
,pterodactyles74      ,triassic4        
,upper ,palaeozoic4      ,middle        
,palaeozoic4  ,vertebrate               
land-population 7,amphibia1             
,reptilia 874      ,lower ,palaeozoic4  
,silurian4         ,vertebrate          
water-population 7,fishes74             

,invertebrate air and land-             
population 7,flying ,insects and        
,scorpions74        ,cambrian4          
,invertebrate water-population 7much    
earlier1 if ,eozoon is animal74  ,in the
 right-hand column ,i have noted the    
group of strata in which1 according to  
our present information1 the land1 air1 
and water populations respectively      
appear for the first time2 and in       
consequence of the ambiguity about the  
meaning of fowl1 ,i have separately     
indicated the first appearance of bats1 
birds1 flying reptiles1 and flying      
insects4 ,it will be observed that1 if  
fowl means only bird1 or at most flying 
vertebrate1 then the first certain      
evidence of the latter1 in the ,jurassic
 epoch1 is posterior to the first       
appearance of truly terrestrial         
,amphibia1 and possibly of true         
reptiles1 in the ,carboniferous epoch   
7,middle ,palaeozoic7 by a prodigious   
interval of time4  ,the water-population
 of vertebrated animals first appears in

 the ,upper ,silurian4 #b ,therefore1 if
 we found ourselves on vertebrated      
animals and take fowl to mean birds     
only1 or1 at most1 flying vertebrates1  
natural science says that the order of  
succession was water1 land1 and         
air-population1 and not--as ,mr4        
,gladstone1 founding himself on         
,genesis1 says--water1 air1             
land-population4 ,if a chronicler of    
,greece affirmed that the age of        
,alexander preceded that of ,pericles   
and immediately succeeded that of the   
,trojan war1 ,mr4 ,gladstone would      
hardly say that this order is understood
 to have been so affirmed by historical 
science that it may be taken as a       
demonstrated conclusion and established 
fact4 ,yet natural science affirms his  
fourfold order to exactly the same      
extent--neither more nor less4          
,suppose1 however1 that fowl is to be   
taken to include flying insects4 ,in    
that case1 the first appearance of an   
air-population must be shifted back for 

long ages1 recent discovery having shown
 that they occur in rocks of ,silurian  
age4 ,hence there might still have been 
hope for the fourfold order1 were it not
 that the fates unkindly determined that
 scorpions--creeping things that creep  
on the earth par excellence--turned up  
in ,silurian strata nearly at the same  
time4 ,so that1 if the word in the      
original ,hebrew translated fowl should 
really after all mean cockroach--and ,i 
have great faith in the elasticity of   
that tongue in the hands of ,biblical   
exegetes--the order primarily suggested 
by the existing evidence--       #b4    
,land and air-population2      #a4      
,water-population2  and ,mr4            
,gladstone's order--       #c4          
,land-population2      #b4              
,air-population2      #a4               
,water-population2  can by no means be  
made to coincide4 ,as a matter of fact1 
then1 the statement so confidently put  
forward turns out to be devoid of       
foundation and in direct contradiction  

of the evidence at present at our       
disposal4 #c  ,if1 stepping beyond that 
which may be learned from the facts of  
the successive appearance of the forms  
of animal life upon the surface of the  
globe1 in so far as they are yet made   
known to us by natural science1 we apply
 our reasoning faculties to the task of 
finding out what those observed facts   
mean1 the present conclusions of the    
interpreters of nature appear to be no  
less directly in conflict with those of 
the latest interpreter of ,genesis4     
,mr4 ,gladstone appears to admit that   
there is some truth in the doctrine of  
evolution1 and indeed places it under   
very high patronage4       ,i contend   
that evolution in its highest form has  
not been a      thing heretofore unknown
 to history1 to philosophy1 or to       
theology4 ,i contend that it was before 
the mind of ,saint ,paul      when he   
taught that in the fulness of time ,god 
sent forth ,his      ,son1 and of       
,eusebius when he wrote the ,preparation

 for the      ,gospel1 and of ,augustine
 when he composed the ,city of ,god     
7p4 #gjf74  ,has any one ever disputed  
the contention1 thus solemnly           
enunciated1 that the doctrine of        
evolution was not invented the day      
before yesterday8 ,has any one ever     
dreamed of claiming it as a modern      
innovation8 ,is there any one so        
ignorant of the history of philosophy as
 to be unaware that it is one of the    
forms in which speculation embodied     
itself long before the time either of   
the ,bishop of ,hippo or of the ,apostle
 to the ,gentiles8 ,is ,mr4 ,gladstone1 
of all people in the world1 disposed to 
ignore the founders of ,greek           
philosophy1 to say nothing of ,indian   
sages to whom evolution was a familiar  
notion ages before ,paul of ,tarsus was 
born8 ,but it is ungrateful to cavil at 
even the most oblique admission of the  
possible value of one of those          
affirmations of natural science which   
really may be said to be a demonstrated 

conclusion and established fact4 ,i note
 it with pleasure1 if only for the      
purpose of introducing the observation  
that1 if there is any truth whatever in 
the doctrine of evolution as applied to 
animals1 ,mr4 ,gladstone's gloss on     
,genesis in the following passage is    
hardly happy3--     ,god created    7a7 
,the water-population2    7b7 ,the      
air-population4     ,and they receive   
,his benediction 7v4 #bj-bc74     #f4   
,pursuing this regular progression from 
the lower to the    higher1 from the    
simple to the complex1 the text now     
gives us    the work of the sixth day1  
which supplies the land-population1     
air and water having been already       
supplied 7pp4 #fie1 #fif74  ,the gloss  
to which ,i refer is the assumption that
 the air-population forms a term in the 
order of progression from lower to      
higher1 from simple to complex--the     
place of which lies between the         
water-population below and the          
land-population above--and ,i speak of  

it as a gloss1 because the pentateuchal 
writer is nowise responsible for it4    
,but it is not true that the            
air-population1 as a whole1 is lower or 
less complex than the land-population4  
,on the contrary1 every beginner in the 
study of animal morphology is aware that
 the organisation of a bat1 of a bird1  
or of a pterodactyle presupposes that of
 a terrestrial quadruped2 and that it is
 intelligible only as an extreme        
modification of the organisation of a   
terrestrial mammal or reptile4 ,in the  
same way winged insects 7if they are to 
be counted among the air-population7    
presuppose insects which were wingless1 
and1 therefore1 as creeping things1 were
 part of the land-population4 ,thus     
theory is as much opposed as observation
 to the admission that natural science  
endorses the succession of animal life  
which ,mr4 ,gladstone finds in ,genesis4
 ,on the contrary1 a good many          
representatives of natural science would
 be prepared to say1 on theoretical     

grounds alone1 that it is incredible    
that the air-population should have     
appeared before the land-population--and
 that1 if this assertion is to be found 
in ,genesis1 it merely demonstrates the 
scientific worthlessness of the story of
 which it forms a part4  ,indeed1 we may
 go further4 ,it is not even admissible 
to say that the water-population1 as a  
whole1 appeared before the air and the  
land-populations4 ,according to the     
,authorised ,version1 ,genesis          
especially mentions1 among the animals  
created on the fifth day1 great whales1 
in place of which the ,revised ,version 
reads great sea monsters4 ,far be it    
from me to give an opinion which        
rendering is right1 or whether either is
 right4 ,all ,i desire to remark is1    
that if whales and porpoises1 dugongs   
and manatees1 are to be regarded as     
members of the water-population 7and if 
they are not1 what animals can claim the
 designation871 then that much of the   
water-population has1 as certainly1     

originated later than the               
land-population as bats and birds have4 
,for ,i am not aware that any competent 
judge would hesitate to admit that the  
organisation of these animals shows the 
most obvious signs of their descent from
 terrestrial quadrupeds4  ,a similar    
criticism applies to ,mr4 ,gladstone's  
assumption that1 as the fourth act of   
that orderly succession of times        
enunciated in ,genesis1 the             
land-population consummated in man4  ,if
 this means simply that man is the final
 term in the evolutional series of which
 he forms a part1 ,i do not suppose that
 any objection will be raised to that   
statement on the part of students of    
natural science4 ,but if the            
pentateuchal author goes further than   
this1 and intends to say that which is  
ascribed to him by ,mr4 ,gladstone1 ,i  
think natural science will have to enter
 a caveat4 ,it is not by any means      
certain that man--,i mean the species   
,homo sapiens of zoological             

terminology--has consummated the        
land-population in the sense of         
appearing at a later period of time than
 any other4 ,let me make my meaning     
clear by an example4 ,from a            
morphological point of view1 our        
beautiful and useful contemporary--,i   
might almost call him colleague--the    
horse 7,equus caballus71 is the last    
term of the evolutional series to which 
he belongs1 just as ,homo sapiens is the
 last term of the series of which he is 
a member4 ,if ,i want to know whether   
the species ,equus caballus made its    
appearance on the surface of the globe  
before or after ,homo sapiens1 deduction
 from known laws does not help me4      
,there is no reason1 that ,i know of1   
why one should have appeared sooner or  
later than the other4 ,if ,i turn to    
observation1 ,i find abundant remains of
 ,equus caballus in ,quaternary strata1 
perhaps a little earlier4 ,the existence
 of ,homo sapiens in the ,quaternary    
epoch is also certain4 ,evidence has    

been adduced in favour of man's         
existence in the ,pliocene1 or even in  
the ,miocene epoch4 ,it does not satisfy
 me2 but ,i have no reason to doubt that
 the fact may be so1 nevertheless4      
,indeed1 ,i think it is quite possible  
that further research will show that    
,homo sapiens existed1 not only before  
,equus caballus1 but before many other  
of the existing forms of animal life2 so
 that1 if all the species of animals    
have been separately created1 man1 in   
this case1 would by no means be the     
consummation of the land-population4  ,i
 am raising no objection to the position
 of the fourth term in ,mr4 ,gladstone's
 order--on the facts1 as they stand1 it 
is quite open to any one to hold1 as a  
pious opinion1 that the fabrication of  
man was the acme and final achievement  
of the process of peopling the globe4   
,but it must not be said that natural   
science counts this opinion among her   
demonstrated conclusions and established
 facts1 for there would be just as much1

 or as little1 reason for ranging the   
contrary opinion among them4  ,it may   
seem superfluous to add to the evidence 
that ,mr4 ,gladstone has been utterly   
misled in supposing that his            
interpretation of ,genesis receives any 
support from natural science4 ,but it is
 as well to do one's work thoroughly    
while one is about it2 and ,i think it  
may be advisable to point out that the  
facts1 as they are at present known1 not
 only refute ,mr4 ,gladstone's          
interpretation of ,genesis in detail1   
but are opposed to the central idea on  
which it appears to be based4  ,there   
must be some position from which the    
reconcilers of science and ,genesis will
 not retreat1 some central idea the     
maintenance of which is vital and its   
refutation fatal4 ,even if they now     
allow that the words the evening and the
 morning have not the least reference to
 a natural day1 but mean a period of any
 number of millions of years that may be
 necessary2 even if they are driven to  

admit that the word creation1 which so  
many millions of pious ,jews and        
,christians have held1 and still hold1  
to mean a sudden act of the ,deity1     
signifies a process of gradual evolution
 of one species from another1 extending 
through immeasurable time2 even if they 
are willing to grant that the asserted  
coincidence of the order of ,nature with
 the fourfold order ascribed to ,genesis
 is an obvious error instead of an      
established truth2 they are surely      
prepared to make a last stand upon the  
conception which underlies the whole1   
and which constitutes the essence of    
,mr4 ,gladstone's fourfold division1 set
 forth in an orderly succession of      
times4 ,it is1 that the animal species  
which compose the water-population1 the 
air-population1 and the land-population 
respectively1 originated during three   
distinct and successive periods of time1
 and only during those periods of time4 
,this statement appears to me to be the 
interpretation of ,genesis which ,mr4   

,gladstone supports1 reduced to its     
simplest expression4 ,period of time is 
substituted for day2 originated is      
substituted for created2 and any order  
required for that adopted by ,mr4       
,gladstone4 ,it is necessary to make    
this proviso1 for if day may mean a few 
million years1 and creation may mean    
evolution1 then it is obvious that the  
order 7#a7 water-population1 7#b7       
air-population1 7#c7 land-population1   
may also mean 7#a7 water-population1    
7#b7 land-population1 7#c7              
air-population2 and it would be unkind  
to bind down the reconcilers to this    
detail when one has parted with so many 
others to oblige them4  ,but even this  
sublimated essence of the pentateuchal  
doctrine 7if it be such7 remains as     
discordant with natural science as ever4
  ,it is not true that the species      
composing any one of the three          
populations originated during any one of
 three successive periods of time1 and  
not at any other of these4              

,undoubtedly1 it is in the highest      
degree probable that animal life        
appeared first under aquatic conditions2
 that terrestrial forms appeared later1 
and flying animals only after land      
animals2 but it is1 at the same time1   
testified by all the evidence we        
possess1 that the great majority1 if not
 the whole1 of the primordial species of
 each division have long since died out 
and have been replaced by a vast        
succession of new forms4 ,hundreds of   
thousands of animal species1 as distinct
 as those which now compose our water1  
land1 and air-populations1 have come    
into existence and died out again1      
throughout the aeons of geological time 
which separate us from the lower        
,palaeozoic epoch1 when1 as ,i have     
pointed out1 our present evidence of the
 existence of such distinct populations 
commences4 ,if the species of animals   
have all been separately created1 then  
it follows that hundreds of thousands of
 acts of creative energy have occurred1 

at intervals1 throughout the whole time 
recorded by the fossiliferous rocks2    
and1 during the greater part of that    
time1 the creation of the members of the
 water1 land1 and air-populations must  
have gone on contemporaneously4  ,if we 
represent the water1 land1 and          
air-populations by a1 b1 and c          
respectively1 and take vertical         
succession on the page to indicate order
 in time1 then the following schemes    
will roughly shadow forth the contrast  
,i have been endeavouring to explain3   
,genesis 7as interpreted by      ,nature
 7as interpreted by           ,mr4      
,gladstone74                 natural    
science74             b b b             
c#a a#c b#b                c c c        
c  a#b b#a                a a a         
b  a#a b                                
a  a  a  ,so far as ,i can see1 there is
 only one resource left for those modern
 representatives of ,sisyphus1 the      
reconcilers of ,genesis with science2   
and it has the advantage of being       

founded on a perfectly legitimate appeal
 to our ignorance4 ,it has been seen    
that1 on any interpretation of the terms
 water-population and land-population1  
it must be admitted that invertebrate   
representatives of these populations    
existed during the lower ,palaeozoic    
epoch4 ,no evolutionist can hesitate to 
admit that other land animals 7and      
possibly vertebrates among them7 may    
have existed during that time1 of the   
history of which we know so little2 and1
 further1 that scorpions are animals of 
such high organisation that it is highly
 probable their existence indicates that
 of a long antecedent land-population of
 a similar character4  ,then1 since the 
land-population is said not to have been
 created until the sixth day1 it        
necessarily follows that the evidence of
 the order in which animals appeared    
must be sought in the record of those   
older ,palaeozoic times in which only   
traces of the water-population have as  
yet been discovered4  ,therefore1 if any

 one chooses to say that the creative   
work took place in the ,cambrian or     
,laurentian epoch1 in exactly that      
manner which ,mr4 ,gladstone does1 and  
natural science does not1 affirm1       
natural science is not in a position to 
disprove the accuracy of the statement4 
,only one cannot have one's cake and eat
 it too1 and such safety from the       
contradiction of science means the      
forfeiture of her support4  ,whether the
 account of the work of the first1      
second1 and third days in ,genesis would
 be confirmed by the demonstration of   
the truth of the nebular hypothesis2    
whether it is corroborated by what is   
known of the nature and probable        
relative antiquity of the heavenly      
bodies2 whether1 if the ,hebrew word    
translated firmament in the ,authorised 
,version really means expanse1 the      
assertion that the waters are partly    
under this expanse and partly above it  
would be any more confirmed by the      
ascertained facts of physical geography 

and meteorology than it was before2     
whether the creation of the whole       
vegetable world1 and especially of      
grass1 herb yielding seed after its     
kind1 and tree bearing fruit1 before any
 kind of animal1 is affirmed by the     
apparently plain teaching of botanical  
palaeontology1 that grasses and         
fruit-trees originated long subsequently
 to animals all these are questions     
which1 if ,i mistake not1 would be      
answered decisively in the negative by  
those who are specially conversant with 
the sciences involved4 ,and it must be  
recollected that the issue raised by    
,mr4 ,gladstone is not whether1 by some 
effort of ingenuity1 the pentateuchal   
story can be shown to be not disprovable
 by scientific knowledge1 but whether it
 is supported thereby4      ,there is   
nothing1 then1 in the criticisms of ,dr4
 ,reville but     what rather tends to  
confirm than to impair the old-fashioned
     belief that there is a revelation  
in the book of ,genesis     7p4 #fid74  

,the form into which ,mr4 ,gladstone has
 thought fit to throw this opinion      
leaves me in doubt as to its substance4 
,i do not understand how a hostile      
criticism can1 under any circumstances1 
tend to confirm that which it attacks4  
,if1 however1 ,mr4 ,gladstone merely    
means to express his personal           
impression1 as one wholly destitute of  
that kind of knowledge which carries    
authority1 that he has destroyed the    
value of these criticisms1 ,i have      
neither the wish nor the right to       
attempt to disturb his faith4 ,on the   
other hand1 ,i may be permitted to state
 my own conviction1 that1 so far as     
natural science is involved1 ,m4        
,reville's observations retain the exact
 value they possessed before ,mr4       
,gladstone attacked them4   ,trusting   
that ,i have now said enough to secure  
the author of a wise and moderate       
disquisition upon a topic which seems   
fated to stir unwisdom and fanaticism to
 their depths1 a fuller measure of      

justice than has hitherto been accorded 
to him1 ,i retire from my self-appointed
 championship1 with the hope that ,i    
shall not hereafter be called upon by   
,m4 ,reville to apologise for damage    
done to his strong case by imperfect or 
impulsive advocacy4 ,but1 perhaps1 ,i   
may be permitted to add a word or two1  
on my own account1 in reference to the  
great question of the relations between 
science and religion2 since it is one   
about which ,i have thought a good deal 
ever since ,i have been able to think at
 all2 and about which ,i have ventured  
to express my views publicly1 more than 
once1 in the course of the last thirty  
years4  ,the antagonism between science 
and religion1 about which we hear so    
much1 appears to me to be purely        
factitious--fabricated1 on the one hand1
 by short-sighted religious people who  
confound a certain branch of science1   
theology1 with religion2 and1 on the    
other1 by equally short-sighted         
scientific people who forget that       

science takes for its province only that
 which is susceptible of clear          
intellectual comprehension2 and that1   
outside the boundaries of that province1
 they must be content with imagination1 
with hope1 and with ignorance4  ,it     
seems to me that the moral and          
intellectual life of the civilised      
nations of ,europe is the product of    
that interaction1 sometimes in the way  
of antagonism1 sometimes in that of     
profitable interchange1 of the ,semitic 
and the ,aryan races1 which commenced   
with the dawn of history1 when ,greek   
and ,phoenician came in contact1 and has
 been continued by ,carthaginian and    
,roman1 by ,jew and ,gentile1 down to   
the present day4 ,our art 7except1      
perhaps1 music7 and our science are the 
contributions of the ,aryan2 but the    
essence of our religion is derived from 
the ,semite4 ,in the eighth century     
,b4,c41 in the heart of a world of      
idolatrous polytheists1 the ,hebrew     
prophets put forth a conception of      

religion which appears to me to be as   
wonderful an inspiration of genius as   
the art of ,pheidias or the science of  
,aristotle4  ,and what doth the ,lord   
require of thee1 but to do justly1 and  
to love mercy1 and to walk humbly with  
thy ,god8  ,if any so-called religion   
takes away from this great saying of    
,micah1 ,i think it wantonly mutilates1 
while1 if it adds thereto1 ,i think it  
obscures1 the perfect ideal of religion4
  ,but what extent of knowledge1 what   
acuteness of scientific criticism1 can  
touch this1 if any one possessed of     
knowledge1 or acuteness1 could be absurd
 enough to make the attempt8 ,will the  
progress of research prove that justice 
is worthless and mercy hateful2 will it 
ever soften the bitter contrast between 
our actions and our aspirations2 or show
 us the bounds of the universe and bid  
us say1 ,go to1 now we comprehend the   
infinite8 ,a faculty of wrath lay in    
those ancient ,israelites1 and surely   
the prophet's staff would have made     

swift acquaintance with the head of the 
scholar who had asked ,micah whether1   
peradventure1 the ,lord further required
 of him an implicit belief in the       
accuracy of the cosmogony of ,genesis6  
,what we are usually pleased to call    
religion nowadays is1 for the most part1
 ,hellenised ,judaism2 and1 not         
unfrequently1 the ,hellenic element     
carries with it a mighty remnant of     
old-world paganism and a great infusion 
of the worst and weakest products of    
,greek scientific speculation2 while    
fragments of ,persian and ,babylonian1  
or rather ,accadian1 mythology burden   
the ,judaic contribution to the common  
stock4  ,the antagonism of science is   
not to religion1 but to the heathen     
survivals and the bad philosophy under  
which religion herself is often         
well-nigh crushed4 ,and1 for my part1 ,i
 trust that this antagonism will never  
cease2 but that1 to the end of time1    
true science will continue to fulfil one
 of her most beneficent functions1 that 

of relieving men from the burden of     
false science which is imposed upon them
 in the name of religion4  ,this is the 
work that ,m4 ,reville and men such as  
he are doing for us2 this is the work   
which his opponents are endeavouring1   
consciously or unconsciously1 to hinder4
     ,,footnotes  ,footnote #a3 ,the    
,nineteenth ,century4  ,footnote #b3    
,earlier1 if more recent announcements  
are correct4  ,footnote #c3 ,it may be  
objected that ,i have not put the case  
fairly inasmuch as the solitary insect's
 wing which was discovered twelve months
 ago in ,silurian rocks1 and which is1  
at present1 the sole evidence of insects
 older than the ,devonian epoch1 came   
from strata of ,middle ,silurian age1   
and is therefore older than the         
scorpions which1 within the last two    
years1 have been found in ,upper        
,silurian strata in ,sweden1 ,britain1  
and the ,united ,states4 ,but no one who
 comprehends the nature of the evidence 
afforded by fossil remains would venture

 to say that the non-discovery of       
scorpions in the ,middle ,silurian      
strata1 up to this time1 affords any    
more ground for supposing that they did 
not exist1 than the non-discovery of    
flying insects in the ,upper ,silurian  
strata1 up to this time1 throws any     
doubt on the certainty that they        
existed1 which is derived from the      
occurrence of the wing in the ,middle   
,silurian4 ,in fact1 ,i have stretched a
 point in admitting that these fossils  
afford a colourable pretext for the     
assumption that the land and            
air-population were of contemporaneous  
origin4