,transcribed from the #ahhe8 ,elliot ,stock edition by ,david ,price1 email ccx#jgdpglaf4org ,,evolution4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,by ,,rev4 ,,edward ,,hoare1 ,m4,a4 ,,vicar ,,of ,,tunbridge ,,wells1 ,,and ,,honorary ,,canon ,,of ,,canterbury4 99 99 99 99 99 ,reprinted from ,,the ,,churchman4 99 99 99 99 99 ,,london3 ,,elliot ,,stock1 #fb1 ,,paternoster ,,row1 ,e4,c4 99 99 99 99 99 ,price ,twopence4 ,,evolution4 ,,it may appear a very rash thing for any person who does not claim to be a man of science to presume to give an opinion on any of the theories of scientific men4 ,but there is a vast difference between the facts of science and the theories suggested for their explanation4 ,the facts are1 as it were1 the property of the investigators4 ,the investigators have a power of investigation which we outsiders have not1 and it would be folly for us who have not that power to presume to call in question their information4 ,but it is a very different matter with the theories either founded on these facts or invented to explain them4 ,when science has given us the facts common-sense can discuss the theories founded on them2 and1 without presuming to call in question the ascertained results of scientific investigation1 any person of ordinary intelligence may form his own opinion as to the conclusions derived from the known facts4 ,the scientific men know the facts1 and we do not2 but1 when they have told us the facts1 we can think as well as they4 ,this point was exceedingly well put by ,canon ,garbett at the ,norwich ,church ,congress in #ahfe4 ,he said3 8,beyond a certain point the conclusions and arguments of the man of science cease to be exclusively his own1 and become the common property of all men4 ,all argument rests on common principles1 and when once the facts of the case are clearly ascertained1 any man who is trained to reason correctly is competent to judge of them40 ,again3 8,let the man of science10 said ,canon ,garbett1 8reign supreme within his own sphere1 and let none but those trained in the same school and learned in the same craft venture to dispute with him as he gathers his facts and generalizes his rules4 ,but when all this is done1 and he proceeds to reason1 then it is different4 ,he steps out of his special department into a sphere open to all men alike4 ,tell me what your facts are1 and if ,i sufficiently master them ,i am as competent to judge of the validity of the conclusions drawn from them as the man of science himself40 ,there is scarcely any subject to which this principle applies more completely than it does to ,evolution2 for what is called 8the doctrine of ,evolution0 is only a theory4 ,it is not a collection of facts1 but a theory which some of its warmest advocates--as1 e4g41 ,professor ,drummond--declare to be 8still unproved40 #c ,while1 therefore1 we fully recognise that it would be the utmost folly 8to debate a point of natural history with ,darwin1 or a question of comparative anatomy with ,owen10 we may1 by the aid of common-sense1 form an opinion possibly as sound at theirs on the unproved theory which has been founded on the ascertained facts which those great investigators have placed within our reach4 ,this is all that ,i would attempt to do in the present paper4 ,i do not propose to call in question a single fact ascertained by men of science4 ,all that ,i would venture to do is to exercise the ordinary powers of thought in considering one of the theories which some scientific men have suggested as an explanation of those facts4 ,i say 8some scientific men10 for there is a very great difference of opinion amongst scientific men1 and no one can read the admirable papers produced by the ,victoria ,institute without perceiving now much accurate observation1 how wide a scientific knowledge1 and how great a force of ,baconian philosophy is arrayed against the theory just now in the fashion4 ,let us begin1 then1 with a few facts respecting which we are all agreed1 and which as they are sometimes called by the name of ,evolution1 are supposed to supply evidence of the correctness of the theory4 7#a7 ,we all believe in growth4 ,it is a matter of fact that the world is full of growth4 ,and this growth is not limited to gradual1 or continuous1 enlargement or development2 but consists sometimes in most remarkable sudden changes1 as when the egg becomes a chicken1 the caterpillar a chrysalis1 and the chrysalis a butterfly4 ,every living creature1 whether plant or animal1 has its own mode of growth2 and no living creature is born into the world in the fulness of its stature4 ,the man was once in his cradle1 the eagle in its egg1 the oak in its acorn2 and no one can point to any living thing1 either in the animal or vegetable kingdom1 that began life with the full development of all the powers or properties of its species4 ,whatever men may think of any theory1 as a matter of fact there is invariably growth as the first1 and most certain1 accompaniment of life4 7#b7 ,within certain limits we all believe in variations4 ,both plants and animals of the same species vary according to circumstances1 and are all more or less affected by country1 by climate1 and by culture4 ,amongst dogs1 e4g41 there are countless varieties of breed1 to say nothing of all the mongrels4 ,just so amongst flowers2 there are countless varieties of the rose1 and these varieties may be multiplied to any extent by culture4 ,there is1 moreover1 a power of adaptation to climate and other circumstances4 ,in colder climates animals of the same species have thicker coats than they have under the tropics4 ,there cannot be a question that both plants and animals will begin at once1 if placed in a new position1 to adapt themselves to it2 and1 as a general rule1 if they fail in such adaptation1 they die4 ,beyond all doubt1 as a matter of fact1 there are variations resulting both from parentage and environment4 ,we are told by naturalists that some of these variations are not of a permanent character1 as1 e4g41 in the case of pigeons1 of which it is stated by ,darwin that any number of breeds1 if left to themselves1 will in time revert to the common ,rock4 ,but still the fact remains1 that within certain limits there are numberless variations1 and that these variations may be transmitted to posterity4 ,some of these appear to have been produced in one way1 and some in another2 but1 however produced1 there they are2 and no one1 whether scientific or unscientific1 can for one moment call in question the fact4 7#c47 ,we all believe in progression4 ,we see progression all around us4 ,it appears to be a universal law that there should be perpetual movement4 ,sometimes there is advance1 and sometimes retrogression--but always movement2 for when there is no advance1 there is invariably decline4 ,then1 again1 as far as observation is concerned1 we find this progression gradual and continuous4 ,characters are gradually formed2 learning is gradually acquired2 power is gradually gained2 and the whole world advances by the gradual attainment of increasing knowledge4 ,such progression is seen both in creation and revelation4 ,in ,creation1 for no one supposes that the world was created and peopled by one instantaneous act of the ,creator4 ,there may be difficulties in some of the commonly received interpretations of some of the statements of that most wonderful narrative contained in ,gen4 i42 but there can be no doubt whatever that it teaches progression4 ,it begins with chaos1 and leads us step by step to a perfected cosmos4 ,at the outset2 8the earth was waste1 or without form1 and void1 and darkness was upon the face of the deep40 ,and at the end we see a fertile world covered with vegetation1 peopled by countless living creatures1 with man1 in the image of ,god1 at their head1 all enjoying the bright light of the sun in heaven2 and all in so perfect a condition that 8,god saw everything that ,he had made1 and behold it was very good40 ,but this change did not take place by one solitary act4 ,the world did not leap by one bound from one condition to the other4 ,there were1 according to ,scripture no less than six successive steps in the process4 ,let people explain the six days as they please1 and ,i fully acknowledge that there may be legitimate differences in their explanations4 ,but no one can doubt that the narrative teaches progression2 and that1 according to that narrative1 it pleased ,god by a series of successive acts to complete the work which ,he pronounced to be very good4 ,no one1 therefore1 who believes in the ,book of ,genesis can for one moment doubt progression in the work of the creation4 ,nor can there be the slightest doubt as to progression in ,revelation4 ,some people seem to speak of this as if it were a new discovery connected with the theory of ,evolution4 ,such persons ought to read an admirable book called 8,the ,philosophy of the ,plan of ,salvation10 written many years ago1 and new published by the ,religious ,tract ,society4 ,it is perfectly impossible to read through the ,old and ,new ,testaments as a complete book without seeing progression4 ,it is deeply to be deplored that such a man as ,professor ,drummond should have said1 as he is reported to have said in his ,sunday lectures1 at ,grosvenor ,house1 #e;a 8,the ,book of ,genesis must be regarded as presenting truth to children's minds20 and should have illustrated this by ,george ,macdonald's poem1 8,the ,baby10 adding1 8not literally true1 but true for the child4 ,so ,moses gave truth in the form of a poem4 ,if you say it is a scientific book1 ,i give it up2 but if you regard it as a poem1 then ,i can deal with it40 ,this appears to teach that the ,book of ,genesis is regarded by him as something like a nursery rhyme4 ,but the report #e;b is evidently abridged2 and ,i hope it is incorrect4 ,we know that there are sixty-six books in the ,bible2 but we also believe that it is 8a ,book0 complete in itself1 and with all its parts so beautifully proportioned that it forms one perfect whole for the gradual development of the whole counsel of ,god4 ,thus we believe that the one verse 7,gen4 iii #ae71 8,i will put enmity between thee and the woman1 and between thy seed and her seed2 it shall bruise thy head1 and thou shalt bruise his heel10 is the seed1 or germ1 of the whole ,gospel2 and that just as the oak is in the acorn1 so in these few words is contained the whole covenant of ,god4 ,the first twelve chapters of the ,book of ,genesis trace the pedigree of that seed of the woman till the call of the chosen family in ,abraham2 the historical books record the varied history of that family1 and show how sorely the heel of the woman's seed first bruised by the serpent2 while the prophecies enlarge1 and expand the blessed hope of final victory in the promised ,one4 ,at length the ,gospels reveal the long-expected ,christ2 and the ,acts and the ,epistles unfold the principles and progress of ,his kingdom1 till the whole is complete in the ,apocalypse1 where we read of 8the new heavens and the new earth10 with the curse of sin gone for ever1 with ,satan cast into the lake of fire1 and with the seed of the woman triumphant over death and hell4 ,as the acorn to the oak1 so is that first promise to the ,apocalypse4 ,it is no poem1 no myth1 no nursery rhyme1 but the germ of the whole counsel of ,god--a germ containing the whole ,gospel1 and requiring no less than four thousand years for its development4 ,let no one suppose1 therefore1 for a moment that we do not believe in progression1 for we see it throughout nature2 and we find it distinctly taught in ,scripture as a matter of historical fact1 both in creation and revelation4 ,but the fact of progression is a totally different thing from the theory of ,evolution2 and it is extremely important that the distinction should be carefully borne in mind2 for there are many1 and some of them clear-headed men1 who1 because they see the three things--growth1 variation1 and progression1 avow themselves believers in ,evolution1 though all the while they really reject what should be strictly termed 8the ,evolution theory40 ,what then is the theory of ,evolution8 ,what is it which ,bishop ,temple describes as 8just at present the leading scientific doctrine10 #f;a and for which he says the evidence 8is enormously great1 and increasing daily08 #f;b ,it is extremely difficult to answer the question2 for evolutionists themselves1 although they are perpetually trumpeting forth the superiority of their scientific accuracy1 very seldom take the trouble to tell us what they mean4 ,in a defence of ,mr4 ,drummond's book1 in the ,expositor1 the defender states1 with reference to an article of my own in the ,,churchman of ,february last1 that there are at least four theories of ,evolution2 and he also informs us which of the four it is that ,mr4 ,drummond teaches4 ,it is a pity that ,mr4 ,drummond did not tell us this in his book1 instead of leaving us to conclude1 as some of us have concluded that it was the doctrine of ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer that appeared to call forth his enthusiastic admiration4 ,bishop ,temple speaks of 8the two theories of ,evolution20 and what he does with the other two ,i do not know4 ,he describes the one as that of ,la ,place1 and the other as that of ,darwin2 the former being a theory for the construction of the universe1 and therefore by some called 8,cosmical ,evolution20 the other for the development of vegetable and animal life1 and therefore termed 8,biological ,evolution40 ,to begin with the ,biological4 ,this is briefly stated by ,bishop ,temple #g;a in the words3 8,it cannot be denied that ,darwin's investigations have made it extremely probable that the vast variety of plants and animals have sprung from a much smaller number of original forms40 ,so ,darwin1 in his summary1 #g;b writes3 8,the several classes of facts which have been considered in this chapter seem to me to proclaim so plainly that the innumerable species1 genera1 and families with which this world is peopled1 are all descended1 each within its own class or group1 from common parents1 and have all been modified in the course of descent1 that ,i should without hesitation adopt this view1 even if it were unsupported by other facts or arguments40 ,i presume that there are very few amongst us who would differ materially from either of these statements2 for both of them fully admit the original existence of a variety of common parents1 which is1 in fact1 a complete surrender of the whole position2 and ,darwin limits the modifications in the course of descent to changes1 8each within its own class or group40 ,now this is all for which the anti-evolutionist contends2 for all admit most freely the existence of most marked variations within the circles of the various groups4 ,but1 although in this passage there is this limitation1 as a matter of fact there is a great deal more claimed by both writers for ,evolution2 for the title of ,darwin's book1 8,the ,origin of ,species10 shows very clearly that he applies his theory not merely to variations within species1 but to the formation of the species within which these variations take place4 ,i do not gather from his book that his theory goes so far as to suppose that either plants or animals have passed over from one species to another1 both species being already in existence2 but rather that through the power of 8the struggle for existence10 8natural selection10 and 8survival of the fittest10 existing races have been so changed and modified that new species have been evolved out of them1 and that in every such evolution there has been what evolutionists consider to be improvement4 ,the arguments which ,bishop ,temple adduces for this theory are-- 7#a7 8,the unity of plan which can be found pervading any great class of animals seems to point to unity of ancestry40 #g;c ,he illustrates this by remarking that vertebrate animals are formed on a common plan4 7#b7 8,slight variations are perpetually being produced40 #g;d 7#c7 8,the frequent occurrence both in plants or animals of useless parts which still remain as indications of organs that once were useful1 and have long become useless40 #g;e ,but is this scientific evidence8 ,as to the #ast1 the ,bishop only claims for it that it 8seems to point40 ,as to the #bnd1 it quietly assumes the whole point at issue1 for no one denies that there are variations 8within each class or group10 and the fact that such variations exist within a certain class or group is no proof that they can extend beyond it4 ,and as for the #crd who knows that those that are called 8useless parts0 are really useless1 though their use may not be known8 ,and if they are useless now1 what evidence is there that they were once useful1 or were ever used8 ,there is not the slightest scientific evidence in any one of these three points for the theory which they are adduced to support4 ,there is not a single fact to prove the theory1 and all that can be said by the most ardent advocate is that the conjecture seems to be probable4 ,but how different is the evidence on the other side of the controversy6 ,there we find certain clearly-defined and indisputable facts which cannot be doubted1 and which cannot be reconciled with this new theory4 7#a7 ,biological ,evolution4 ,there cannot be a doubt that there are certain great classes of plants and animals found in the world1 which have certain distinct characteristics1 and which1 as a matter of fact1 do not merge into each other4 ,there seems to be considerable variation in the names given to them1 and they appear to be distinguished by the name sometimes of 8species10 sometimes of 8genus10 sometimes of 8class or group10 and sometimes of 8kind40 ,in the sentence quoted from ,darwin on p4 #f1 he speaks of species1 genera1 and families2 and describes them as being all descended each within its own class or group4 ,this confusion of terms is difficult to reconcile with the boasted claim to scientific accuracy4 ,that ,i may not be entangled by any questionable name ,i will distinguish these groups as ,a1 ,b1 ,c1 ,d1 etc41 and our question is whether they have been evolved from each other or through each other1 from a common stock2 or whether they are separate creations4 ,for the answer to this question let three facts be carefully considered4 7i47 ,there is the remarkable and clearly-established law of the sterility of all hybrids between any two of these great divisions4 ,both ,a and ,b may contain a great number of varieties1 and all the varieties of ,a can breed freely with each other4 ,in such case there is no failure of fertility in the progeny4 ,the same is true of ,b and all the varieties that spring from it4 ,if these varieties be expressed by the figures #a1 #b1 #c1 etc41 ,a#a may breed with ,a#b1 ,a#c1 or any other number1 and so may introduce a fresh variety in the race ,a4 ,but if ,a1 or any variation of ,a1 should breed with ,b1 or any variation of ,b1 there may be in the first instance a progeny2 but there is a fixed and invariable law of nature that there should be no perpetuation of that progeny1 for every individual so born is barren4 ,mules e4g41 can never give birth to mules1 and the mule race has no power of self-propagation4 ,now see how this bears on the subject of ,evolution4 ,if ,b were evolved out of ,a1 there would1 of course1 be countless intermediate variations1 and these variations would all have the power of perpetuating their kind4 ,a would produce ,a#a1 ,a#a would produce ,a#b1 and so on1 till ,a#ih would produce ,a#ii1 and1 finally1 to complete the series1 ,a#ii would produce ,a#ajj1 or ,b4 ,but at this point1 if the ,evolution theory is to be reconciled with facts1 a new and most strange law must be suddenly evolved2 and the continuity of law must be broken4 ,a#ih may breed with ,a#ii1 and their offspring may perpetuate their race2 but if ,a#ii should breed with ,a#ajj1 which is ,b1 it is true there may be offspring1 but that offspring will bare no power of self-perpetuation4 ,how can evolutionism explain such a fracture in the continuity of law8 ,and is not the scientific fact dead against the ,evolution theory8 7ii47 ,as a matter of fact we do not find that continuous chain of intermediate links which the theory requires4 ,the theory is1 that as there are to be no sudden jumps in nature1 the various numbers are evolved from each other in a vast series of almost imperceptible improvement2 and it follows of necessity that1 if the theory were true1 instead of finding distinct classes1 we should find various lines of progress stealing into each other in steps so minute that it would be very difficult to detect their differences4 ,if1 e4g41 man has been evolved from monkey there ought not to be a yawning chasm1 as there now is1 between the two1 but there ought to be a vast series of connecting links bridging the chasm between monkeyism and manhood2 and there ought to be a race of monkeys still existing so near to man in physical structure and mental power that the birth of man from such a parentage should be within the range of natural probability4 ,let ,a be monkey1 and ,b man1 then there ought to be a continuous line of intermediate numbers1 and ,a#ii ought to approximate so closely to ,b that it would be perfectly natural for ,b to be its child4 ,but where are these links to be found8 and what naturalist can discover them8 ,if the theory be true1 the process must still be going on1 and the world must be teeming with these intermediate races4 ,but where are they8 ,bishop ,temple as attempted to answer this question thus3 ,if it be asked why this variety does not range by imperceptible degrees from extreme forms in one direction to extreme forms in the other1 the answer is to be found in the enormous prodigality1 and the equally enormous waste of life and living creatures 4 4 4 ,eggs1 and seeds1 and germs are destroyed by millions1 and so in a less but still enormous proportion are the young that come from those that have not been destroyed4 ,there is no waste like the waste of life that is to be seen in nature 4 4 4 ,the inevitable operation of this waste1 as ,darwin's investigation showed1 has been to destroy all those varieties which were not well fitted to their surroundings1 and to keep those that were4 7,p4 #afe47 ,but if this be the solution of the difficulty1 how is it that those at the bottom of the scale remain8 ,one of the great principle employed to explain the theory is 8the survival of the fittest40 ,the result therefore must be continuous progress1 and the raison d'tre of each successive formation is its superior fitness above the form from which it sprang4 ,a#a survives because it is superior in fitness to ,a1 and ,a#b because it is superior to ,a#a1 and so forth4 ,the effect therefore of the ,bishop's principle would be that the inferior forms at the bottom of the scale would perish1 while the superior that have risen out of them1 by reason of their greater adaptation to their environment1 would survive4 ,but this is not the fact4 ,as a matter of fact1 ,a1 at the bottom of the scale1 survives1 though ,a#ii1 at the top1 is gone4 ,the countless multitude of intermediate formations has disappeared1 but the parent stock remains4 ,if ever there was a race of animals so near man as to render it nothing more than natural that it should give birth to man1 that race has wholly disappeared1 while animals vastly inferior still exist in all their strength4 ,such a fact appears to me to be fatal to the theory4 7iii47 ,but the geological evidence is stronger still4 ,if all these creatures have arisen in succession1 and perished1 we may well ask1 8,where are their bones80 ,each successive race1 according to the theory1 has been sufficiently powerful to overpower its predecessors1 and to reproduce its own kind4 ,it is clear1 therefore1 that we should naturally look for the geological remains of those once-powerful animals4 ,but here we are met by the hard1 stubborn1 rocky fact1 that there is no trace of them in the geological record4 ,we find the remains of ,a1 ,b1 ,c1 ,d1 etc41 but between them there is a complete hiatus2 and if there were #ajjj links between ,a and ,b1 the geologist cannot show you one of them4 ,he can show you ,a1 and he can show you ,b2 but as for ,a #bj1 #cj1 and #dj1 he can only tell you that they are not yet discovered4 ,i know that some good ,christian people are afraid of geology1 and in that ,i believe they make a great mistake2 for though ,i grant there may be danger in shallow1 superficial1 theoretical geology1 ,i never can doubt that the real record of the rocks is in perfect harmony with the real record of ,scripture4 ,so1 in this instance1 it has furnished us with an unanswerable proof that the evolutionist theory is not founded in fact1 and that nothing has yet been discovered in the geological record to shake our confidence in the grand1 old1 ,scriptural statement1 8,god made the beast of the earth after its kind1 and the cattle after their kind1 and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind3 and ,god saw that it was good40 ,we all know that it is not the object of the ,book of ,genesis to teach science2 and some1 ,i grieve to think1 are not afraid of calling it a myth1 or even a poem for the childhood of the world2 but ,i venture to affirm that the statement of the ,inspired ,book which describes each kind as a separate creation is more in accordance with well-known geological facts1 and is therefore more scientifically accurate than the theories of those who adopt the conjecture that the various kinds1 species1 or groups evolved themselves either from each other or from a common stock4 7#b7 ,cosmical ,evolution4 ,but if this be the case with ,biological ,evolution1 how is it with ,cosmical ,evolution1 or the evolution of inanimate matter8 ,bishop ,temple describes it as 8that which begins with ,laplace1 and explains the way in which the earth was fitted to be the habitation of living creatures20 #aa;a and again he says3 #aa;b ,it cannot1 then1 be well denied that the astronomers and geologists here made it exceedingly probable that this earth on which we live has been brought to its present condition by passing through a succession of changes from an original state of great heat and fluidity1 perhaps even from a mixture mainly consisting of gases2 that such a body as the planet ,jupiter represents one of the stages through which it has passed2 that such a body as the moon represents a stage toward which it is tending2 that it has shrank as it cooled1 and as it shrank formed the elevations which we call mountains1 and the depressions which contain the seas and oceans2 that it has been worn by the action of heat from within and water from without1 and in consequence of this action presents the appearance when examined below the surface of successive strata or layers2 that different kinds of animal and vegetable life have followed one another on the surface1 and that some of their remains are found in these strata now3 and that all this has taken enormous periods of time4 ,all this is exceedingly probable1 because it is the way in which1 as ,laplace first pointed out1 under well established scientific laws of matter1 particularly the law of gravitation and the law of the radiation of heat1 a great fluid mass would naturally change4 ,there is nothing in that explanation to militate against the ,scriptural accounts of the formation of the present world2 and it may have pleased ,god to make use of the laws of gravitation and radiation of heat in order to bring our world into its present form4 ,but the structure of the earth is not all1 or nearly all4 ,there is found on the earth1 and within it1 an infinite variety of substances4 ,there are metals2 such as gold1 silver1 lead1 iron1 etc4 ,there are precious stones of gorgeous beauty1 diamonds1 rubies1 etc41 etc4 ,there is vegetable matter of every description1 from the tenderest blade of grass to the hard wood of the forest oak4 ,and there are animals of all classes and all characters1 from the lowest mollusk to the most perfect and elaborate vertebrate4 ,and the question is1 ,what made them8 ,were they produced by the cooling of the earth8 ,was it gravitation or radiation that made the gold1 the ruby1 the fern1 the oak1 the animal1 and the water8 ,but in addition to these various substances1 the world abounds with what we call 8,laws40 ,there are the laws of electricity1 of heat1 of chemistry1 of force1 of motion1 etc42 besides those to which all these great changes are ascribed1 the laws of heat and gravitation--and1 ,what made them8 ,are they all the result of the cooling of the earth8 ,was one mass of fluid matter cooled into iron1 one into gold1 one into wood1 and one into flesh8 and did they all evolve from themselves by some mysterious power1 those wonderful laws of nature to which they are all subject and which they all obey8 ,in their case there was no 8struggle for existence10 no 8survival of the fittest10 and no 8natural selection0--no thought1 no mind1 no design1 and no plan in themselves2 and it is indeed hard to suppose that they not only evolved themselves1 but also evolved laws of such marvellous subtlety and power1 that their discovery and use form the greatest achievement of modern science4 ,it may perhaps interest some to know how it is all supposed to have been done1 and as ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer appears to be the great apostle of the theory1 ,i will give1 in his own words1 the conclusion of his elaborate argument4 ,in 8,first ,principles0 7p4 #cif7 he gives his great conclusion1 and prints it in italics that there may be no mistake as to its vast importance3 8,evolution10 he says1 8is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion1 during which the matter passes from an indefinite1 incoherent homogeneity to a definite1 coherent heterogeneity1 and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation40 ,is it for such as that that we are to give up our faith in the creation of ,god8 ,but this is not all1 for not merely is the earth filled with various substances1 and governed by various laws2 but there is a third element for which even ,mr4 ,spencer's definition fails to account1 and that is life4 ,there is life abounding everywhere2 but what science can tell us either what it is or whence it came8 ,was it produced either by gravitation or radiation8 ,did the cooling of the earth produce life on its surface8 ,i know no greater evidence of the utter failure of the evolutionist theory than the suggestion made on one occasion 7,i think in an inaugural address to the ,british ,association71 that life came in a meteoric stone from some already formed habitable world4 ,with reference to such an idea it is enough to ask four questions4 ,how did it get into that other world8 ,how did it attach itself to the meteoric stone8 ,how did it survive the awful blow which it must have experienced when it struck the earth8 and how did it spread itself when it found itself alone in the utter loneliness of an uninhabited world8 ,such is the theory of those who would struggle to create a world without a ,god2 and ,i venture to affirm that there is infinitely more true science in the words1 8,all things were made by ,him1 and without ,him was not anything made that was made4 ,in ,him was life1 and the life was the light of men40 ,but1 though ,i have thus followed ,bishop ,temple in his twofold division of the theory of ,evolution1 there is another twofold division which ,i regard as of incomparably greater importance4 ,i refer to the ,theistic and ,atheistic theory4 ,i4 ,there is a ,theistic theory1 for there can be no doubt whatever that many of those who accept the ,evolution theory hold it in the firm belief in the creative power of a self-existing ,creator4 ,bishop ,temple1 e4g41 states the question thus3 ,in the one case the ,creator made the animals at once such as they now are2 in the other case ,he impressed on certain particles of matter1 which either at the beginning or at some point in the history of ,his creation ,he endowed with life1 such inherent powers that in the ordinary course of time living creatures such as the present were developed4 ,the creative power remains the same in either case4 #ac ,for my own part1 ,i should be almost disposed to consider that the creative power was the greater on the theory of ,evolution2 for to make a germ which should evolve itself into all the countless varieties1 both of animate and inanimate existence1 is1 if possible1 a greater miracle than the creation of each separate species4 ,there is great skill shown in the manufacture both of a railway train and a steamboat1 but the skill would be of a much higher order if a person were to construct a train with its engine and all its carriages1 and impart to it the remarkable property that when it arrived at the sea-coast it should of itself without the action of man1 turn itself into a steamboat4 ,thus a person may hold the ,evolution theory to its fullest extent without entertaining the slightest doubt as to the creative power of our ,god4 ,indeed1 ,bishop ,temple says3 ,the doctrine of ,evolution leaves the argument for an intelligent ,creator and ,governor of the world stronger than it was before4 ,there is still as much as ever the proof of an intelligent purpose pervading all creation4 ,the difference is that the execution of that purpose belongs more to the original act of creation1 less to acts of government since4 ,there is more ,divine foresight1 there is less ,divine interposition2 and whatever has been taken from the latter has been added to the former4 7,p4 #abb47 ,there is such a joy in the blessed assurance of ,divine interposition1 and it seems so clearly taught in ,scripture1 that it is impossible to regard without the utmost jealousy the suggestion of even such a transfer as that described in these words4 ,but still1 however greatly we may regret the theory1 we are bound in justice to recognise the fact that those who hold it may believe in a ,creator ,god with a faith as firm and unshaken as that which brings peace to our own souls4 ,i cannot refrain from adding that this was the view of ,darwin himself4 ,he has been claimed as an ally by those who deny the creation of ,god2 so that it is most satisfactory to read such a passage as that with which his book concludes3 ,there is grandeur in this view of life1 with its several powers1 having been originally breathed ,,by ,,the ,,creator into a few forms or into one2 and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity1 from so simple a beginning endless forms1 most beautiful and most wonderful1 have been and are being evolved4 7,p4 #dbi47 ,we may wholly differ from him in his theory of ,evolution1 but we rejoice to agree with him in the conviction that life1 was originally breathed forth by the ,creator4 #b4 ,but there is also an ,atheistic theory of ,evolution1 which does1 in fact1 substitute ,evolution for ,god4 ,the doctrine of ,evolution is used1 according to ,bishop ,temple1 8to prove that no intelligence planned the world40 ,the theory seems to be that through the power of certain laws the original atoms have gradually evolved themselves into all the beauties and endless varieties of this thickly-peopled world4 ,it is pitiable to see the hopeless shifts to which intelligent men are driven in order to maintain such a theory4 ,they are compelled to face the questions1 8,whence came the atoms8 and now did the laws originate80 ,and ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer for an answer to such questions is compelled to resort to what he terms 8,the ,persistence of ,force40 ,we might push the inquiry one step farther1 and inquire what was the origin of this ,persistence of ,force8 and we cannot but wonder that a man who is considered one of the great thinkers of the age should not be compelled1 when thus driven into a corner1 to acknowledge with candour that his persistent force is nothing less than the omnipotence of ,god4 ,but no1 he cannot admit the existence of a ,god1 and in a note on p4 #aib of his 8,first ,principles10 he actually tells us that he and ,professor ,huxley invented the term 8,persistence of ,force10 instead of what used to be the term employed1 8,conservation of ,force10 because 8,conservation implies a ,conserver10 and that he denies4 ,thus his theory of ,evolution is employed to show how the world evolved itself without the interference of a ,creator1 or even a ,conserver of ,force4 ,the whole thing is supposed to have been done without design1 without plan1 without intelligence1 without skill1 and in fact without any action of mind or intelligent power4 ,the whole is supposed to be the result of certain unintelligent laws1 not ordained by any ,lawgiver1 or carried out by any ,conserver4 ,in other words1 the ,evolution theory is the ,atheist's substitute for ,god4 ,now surely1 if this be the case1 those who write and speak in favour of the ,evolution theory ought to be much more careful than some of them have been in defining what they are speaking of4 ,some of them speak of 8the doctrine of ,evolution10 as if there was only one doctrine1 and some speak in most rapturous terms of its most extraordinary value--as1 e4g41 when ,mr4 ,drummond said in ,grosvenor ,house that 8,it was the ,great thought of the century1 perhaps the greatest the world has ever found out20 but surely when they do so they are bound to tell us what they mean4 ,do they mean simply growth8 or progression8 or variation within species8 ,or do they mean evolution from species to species8 or the evolution of the inanimate world8 ,on such points there ought to be a clear and unmistakable definition4 ,above all1 do they mean an evolution by ,god1 or without ,him8 ,an evolution by the design of a divine ,person1 or by 8,persistence of ,force10 whatever that may be8 8,evolution10 in the vocabulary of ,mr4 ,spencer and his followers1 means nothing less than a theory for the formation of the world and all things therein1 without the action or design of a personal ,creator2 and surely it is to be deeply deplored that ,christian advocates should employ exactly the same term without the slightest caution or protest4 ,i do not say that in their writings there are no passages which1 if carefully collected and spliced together1 may indicate what they mean4 ,but what ,i maintain is1 that as the word 8,evolution0 is employed by them to express the mode according to which our ,heavenly ,father has formed the whole creation1 both animate and inanimate1 and by ,atheists to express the mode by which the world is supposed to have formed itself1 they ought not to use the word without making it as clear as the sun in heaven in what sense they employ it4 ,they may speak of 8,evolution0 as the great scientific theory of the day1 or as the greatest achievement of the age1 and unless they are much more careful than some have been1 their authority may be quoted as endorsing the theory invented by ,atheists and maintained by them in support of their ,atheism4 ,men's minds are governed by words1 and surely we have a right to ask of those who glory in scientific accuracy that they should clearly define what they mean1 and not leave their unscientific readers to discover1 as best they may1 whether they wish us to believe in self-evolution or ,divine formation2 in a self-evolution by ,persistence of ,force1 or in a marvellous creation by the design1 the skill1 and the omnipotence of ,god4 ,if they write about ,evolution in the loose way in which some have done lately while they appear to speak with admiration of ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer's philosophy1 they cannot be surprised if they are regarded as teaching his ,evolution theory1 and if the effect of their writing is to weaken faith and strengthen ,atheism4 ,but let no one suppose for one moment that1 because we deplore the loose1 inaccurate1 and unscientific manner in which some of those who glory in their scientific accuracy appear to confound fact and theory1 on that account we undervalue scientific investigations1 or think lightly of scientific facts4 ,in proof of this ,i would conclude this paper by an extract from the writings of a truly scientific investigator1 the late ,mr4 ,f4 ,buckland1 who writes3 ,of late years1 the doctrines of so-called ,evolution and ,development have seemingly gained ground among those interested in natural history2 but to put matters very straight1 ,i steadfastly believe that the ,great ,creator1 as indeed we are directly told1 made all things perfect and 8very good0 from the beginning2 perfect and very good every created thing is now found to be1 and will so continue to the end4 ,i am very willing to prove my case1 by holding a court at any time or place1 before any number of people of any class4 ,i would impanel a jury of the most eminent and skilful railway and mechanical engineers1 while the only witnesses ,i should call would be the fish fresh from the deep-sea trawler1 the city fish market1 or the fishmonger's slab3 ,i would adduce from them evidence of 8design1 beauty1 and order10 as evinced in such as the electric organs of the torpedo1 the gun-lock spine of the file-fish1 the water-reservoir and spectacles of the eel1 the teeth of the gilt-head bream1 the anchor of the lump-sucker and remora1 the colouring of the perch and bleak1 the ichthyophagous teeth of the pike1 shark1 and silvery hair-tail2 the tail of the fox shark1 the prehensile lips of the dory and sprat1 the nose of the barbel and dogfish1 the resplendence of the arctic gymnetrus and scabbard-fish1 the dagger in the tail of the sting-ray1 the nest of the stickleback1 the armour-plates of the sturgeon1 the nostril-breathing powers and store of fat in the salmon2 migrations of the salmon1 herring1 pilchard1 sprat1 and mackerel2 and1 above all1 the enormous fertility of fishes useful as food to the human race4 ,i am satisfied that ,i should obtain a verdict in favour of my view of the case1 namely1 that in all these wonderful contrivances there exists evidence of design and forethought1 and a wondrous adaptation of means to an end4 7,life1 p4 #dbd47 ,,footnotes4 #c ,address in ,grosvenor ,house1 ,may #c1 #ahhe4 #e;a ,may #c1 #ahhe4 #e;b ,in the ,christian ,commonwealth4 #f;a 8,bampton ,lectures10 p4 #afb4 #f;b ,ibid4 p4 #afg4 #g;a 8,bampton ,lectures10 p4 #afd4 #g;b 8,origin of ,species10 p4 #djc4 #g;c 8,bampton ,lectures10 p4 #afd4 #g;d ,ibid4 p4 #afd4 #g;e ,ibid41 p4 #aff4 #aa;a ,p4 #afg4 #aa;b ,p4 #afb4 #ac 8,lectures10 p4 #aad4