argument for Revelation were presented in as closely reasoned a manner, so that the two views might be justly compared.

There is an important paragraph on p. 14 of the lecture. Professor Fleming, commenting on the words of the book of Genesis, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," says: "That assertion implies that if we could go far enough back in time we should arrive at events which were not the mere physical or natural consequences of a previously existing state, but that there was a discontinuity due to operations by a self-conscious Power quite independent of the Universe of things." Does this mean that the forces of Evolution were operating prior to the events referred to in the opening verses of Genesis, and that at the time of the Creation described therein there was an intervention of God? If so, exception will probably be taken by many to such a view. However, a consideration of the opening verses of Genesis : "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form,' does seem to point to the fact that the first chapter of Genesis describes, not the Creation, but the re-forming of the earth out of existing material which was present owing to a prior creation, apparently in a state of ruin. How the earth came to be without form we are not told.

In a recent issue of the Manchester Guardian, a lecture by Professor J. C. Drummond, of University College, London, was reported, dealing with the part played by Chemistry in elucidating the doctrine of Evolution. Professor Drummond is reported to have said: "The bridging of the gap between the inorganic and the organic now presented no difficulties. But what of that other breach of continuity which seemed so much wider and more profound-the origin of Life. For my own part, I believe that as this apparently impassable gap is approached, the nearer we come to it the nearer we shall realize that it is an insignificant depression in the contour of the land, and that one simple experiment in bridging will enable us to pass from one side to the other. If you ask me to present you with any evidence to support my view I can, I fear, give you little or none that will carry any weight, but I ask you to permit me to speculate, as you have allowed my brother biologist to do for so long, if I give you an assurance that my efforts will be no more wild than his have often been."

D

men.

Such a view as this does not carry weight with serious-minded The Bible presents the Creator as creating suddenly by His own Almighty Power. It is said of Christ that, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." It is by this revelation that I stand, in spite of any modern Evolutionist teaching to the contrary.

Mr. THEODORE ROBERTS said: This paper contrasts very favourably with one read here lately by Professor McCready Price, who declared that the theory of Evolution could not be reconciled with the Genesis account of Creation. Professor Fleming, with better knowledge of the present attitude of Evolutionists, finds no such impasse between Scripture and the latest scientific account of Evolution. Dr. Fleming's main argument seems to be the old one from design, with regard to which Darwin wrote that he had never been able to make up his mind whether it was a valid one. The order which the lecturer describes in Nature differs somewhat from that produced by human mechanics, for man makes a row of pins exactly alike, whereas God makes every blade of grass different from another.

I hope that this paper may serve to allay the fears of some of those "little faith" Bible loyalists who have been strenuously fighting against the evolutionary theory of the origin of species, as if a belief in the inspiration of the Book of Genesis depended on ability to prove Evolution false. I confess that my faith in God and in the inspiration of the Pentateuch has prevented my ever feeling any ground for anxiety if Evolution should prove true. What the Caliph is reported to have said about the books in the Alexandrian Library that if they disagreed with the Qur'an they were false and must be destroyed, and, if they agreed with it, they were unnecessary, and should therefore equally be destroyed-describes my attitude to all scientific theories. If they disagree with Scripture, I believe they will ultimately be found wrong and disappear, as has already happened with Darwin's theory of Evolution by simple natural selection or the survival of the fittest. If, on the other hand, a scientific theory, such as we have been considering to-day, is consistent with a belief in Scripture, it is quite unnecessary as an aid to our faith, and need not therefore be considered in that connection.

But for the sake of the brother who is so weak in the faith as to fear lest his faith be overthrown by Evolution, I am grateful for this paper. It will also be of service to some who may have to contend earnestly, against uninstructed adversaries, for the faith once delivered to the saints, because it shows that, with regard to the present-day theory of Evolution, there is no contradiction between Genesis and true science.

Mr. W. HOSTE said: I think we are greatly indebted to the Professor for his learned paper, which is truly admirable for the purpose for which it was written. He noticed with interest the quotation on p. 22 from Professor H. F. Osborn, of the U.S.A., at the British Association meetings at Oxford lately. It agrees very well with that "Prince of Scientists," Lord Kelvin, when speaking in the same circumstances in 1894, in answer to an appeal from the then Lord Salisbury: "I have always felt that the hypothesis of natural selection does not contain the true theory of Evolution, if Evolution there has been in biology" [my italics]. The amateur Evolutionistespecially the amateur religious one-knows no ifs, no doubts, no regrets, no misgivings. He is not afraid. It and the Biblical account are equally true! He knows by intuition it is so, and is quite positive! Such an one is also painfully unaware, when the true scientific world has made forced strategic movements in the rear, that such is the case. At Cardiff, about four years ago, a certain scientific clergyman, preaching before the British Association, is reported to have exclaimed in an ecstasy of opportunism, " O Darwin! Thou hast conquered!" One cannot help wondering what the learned members of the Association had in their minds at that moment. It is not etiquette to interrupt a clergyman, but they must have thought, "He is speaking to the great Gallery."

I should like to be allowed to add a few further words from the same address of Dr. Osborn which I noted at the time: “The outstanding speculations of Darwin's and Herbert Spencer's time, about the causation of the origin of species, have been pared down by laboratory analysis to a mere vestige of their former selves, and the overweening confidence of one School of Causation had been displaced by diffidence, doubt, and even agnosticism." In other words, Darwinism in the technical sense is as dead and buried as its

36

PROFESSOR J. A. FLEMING, M.A., D.SC., F.R.

distinguished inventor, who, if alive to-day, would ce a Darwinist. Evolution is bereft of its explanation, an doubted whether it will find another or even better proo

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr. F. C. WOOD wrote: I have been pleased to read Professor Fleming, partly because of its reasonable partly because it shows that there are some at least be able to judge of these things who are not carried theory of Evolution, although we are constantly told th or intelligent man doubts that theory.

Sometime since I listened to an address on Religion " by one of the leading exponents of the theory and was surprised to find that he gave no solid basis ab being a science, but theorized all along the line, and, simple question as to proof, was unable to give a sati As a matter of fact, he did not deal with science a When dealing with religion, the only statement he m if Evolution should be proved to be true, then the in the world was, and must ever remain, an insol His address left me more than ever convinced that the of the Creation of man was the true one.

The Bible account is couched in very simple 1 myself, I think the account given in Gen. ii is a rep given in Gen. i, but that, for special reasons, it goes m But the Bible, from God's point of view, is one book, a account is corroborated in other parts. I would men of the Preacher: "Lo, this only have I found, G man upright but they have sought out many inver Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: shall return unto God who gave it." Our Lord also s ye not read, that He which made them at the beginni male and female," and then quoted from Gen. ii to referred to Adam and Eve. Again, our Lord referred murderer from the beginning, evidently referring to th Garden of Eden, because He spoke of him as a liar and th

66

St. Paul, whose doctrine came from Heaven-h chosen Apostle to the Gentiles-wrote his long logica

the end of Rom. v, all based on the first man Adam and his disobedience. I read a few years ago of a celebrated Cambridge Professor who, at an important gathering, practically stated that no intelligent person now believed in the accuracy of that statement by Paul. I would like to say that during a long career I have had to do with a very large number of Christian men who knew their Bible well, but I never knew one of them to doubt the Genesis account of man's creation. In the great resurrection chapter also, we read: Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” In another Epistle, Paul wrote: Adam was first formed, then Eve: and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression." Then again, we have the two great genealogies, one in Chronicles and the other in Luke's Gospel, the latter to trace our Lord as Man, back to Adam.

66

66

I refer to these Biblical passages so that we may see that, if Evolution is true, then everything stated above cannot be true, and in that case we must lose faith in the truthfulness of the New Testament as well as the Old. I know well that it is said by some that the Genesis account of the creation of man can be harmonized with the theory of Evolution. This I very much doubt, as my mind is not so constituted as to make two such opposing doctrines agree with one another.

Major LEWIS M. DAVIES, R.A., F.G.S., wrote: I have read Dr. Fleming's paper with great interest. The numerous facts to which he draws attention certainly seem to render impossible any purely naturalistic interpretation of Nature. The question, however, remains as to whether we can leave it at that. Personally, I hardly think that students of Scripture can do so; for it seems to me that Scripture demands our belief in occasional divine interventions, both in the past and in the future history of our world, of a kind which cannot be satisfied even by linking the word "Creation" to "Evolution," but imply creation in the most absolute sense of the word.

The subject is too big to discuss in a few lines, but I may refer to what we are told about the creation of Eve in the past and the Return of our Lord in the future. Those who believe, as I do, that untold numbers of dead Christians will be raised in an instant, and the living be changed in an instant so as never to see death, will not