i 5 o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



of discovery, or prevent it from drawing such conclusions as may- 

 seem reasonable from the facts that come within its range. 



The second doctrine which the evolution hypothesis is solemnly 

 warned not to contradict is that which affirms that " mankind has 

 sinned and come short of the glory of God." Guilt and imperfection, 

 we are told and, as the present writer thinks, truly are not synony- 

 mous. " Sin is always a fall ; when we sin we go down from a higher 

 to a lower life." Now, what the evolutionist is concerned to know, is 

 whether he is required to affirm, or at the very least to refrain from 

 denying, that man was originally created perfect, and that, from that 

 condition of perfection, he fell by sin, more or less in the manner de- 

 scribed in the third chapter of Genesis. Dr. Abbott is not as distinct 

 upon this point as might be desired. Making all allowances for his 

 natural desire to "leave severely alone doubtful interpretations of the 

 third chapter of Genesis, and doubtful discussions respecting the origin 

 of the race," we might still have expected him to tell us clearly 

 whether he holds that the first human pair were created perfect 

 " very good " from every point of view and whether this is what he 

 requires the evolutionist also to believe. The latter might, I fear, have 

 some trouble with a doctrine of this kind ; but if he is merely asked 

 to believe that there is a radical difference between guilt and imper- 

 fection, he will not only be able to toe the mark without difficulty, 

 but, with the aid of Mr. Spencer, he will be able to discourse some- 

 what pertinently on the differences between guilt and imperfection. 

 The sense of guilt arises, he will say, when some higher law of con- 

 duct, the moral authority of which has been established in the manner 

 described in Chapter VII of the " Data of Ethics," has been set aside 

 under the influence of some lower but more clamorous motive. Such 

 lapses are incidental to man's upward struggle ; and in every such 

 case he undoubtedly has the sense of a fall. The illustrations which 

 Dr. Abbott gives of his meaning lead to the belief that he understands 

 nothing more by guilt than the falling away from some recognized 

 standard, some attained level, of conduct. If so, he has gone out of 

 his way to give a very unnecessary warning to his evolutionist brother. 

 " Every broken resolve," he says, " every high purpose lowered, every 

 sacrifice of reverence to sensual desire, of conscience to passion, of love 

 to greed, or ambition, or wealth, is a fall." Surely no decently-read 

 person supposes there is anything in the evolution philosophy that 

 conflicts with this. What the evolutionist is in doubt about is whether 

 the story of the Fall, as embodied in Christian doctrine, is a true 

 story whether the first human being was all made up of high pur- 

 pose, reverence, conscience, and love, and whether from that pristine 

 condition of purity he fell, by one act of disobedience, into that con- 

 dition of utter corruption described by theologians. There is no use 

 in mincing matters or using vague language. Either Dr. Abbott 

 summons the evolutionist to incorporate this doctrine in his philoso- 



