XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 301 



evolution, and whether Christians, as such, need take up 

 any definite attitude concerning it. 



As has been said, it is plain that physical science and 

 " evolution " can have uotliing whatever to do with absolute 

 or primary creation. The Eev. Baden Powell well ex- 

 presses this: "Science demonstrates incessant past changes, 

 and dimly points to yet earlier links in a more vast series 

 of development of material existence ; but the idea of a 

 heginning, or of creation, in the sense of the original opera- 

 tion of tlie Divine volition to constitute nature and matter, 

 is beyond the province of physical philosophy." ^ 



AVith secondary or derivative creation, physical science 

 is also incapable of conflict ; for the objections drawn 

 by some writers seemingly from physical science, are, 

 as has been already argued, really metaphysical, not 

 physical. 



Derivative creation is not a supernatural act, but is 

 simply the Divine action by and through natural laws. To 

 recoonize such action in such laws is a reli"ious mode of 

 regarding phenomena, which a consistent theist must ne- 

 cessarily accept, and which an atheistic believer must 

 similarly reject. But this conception, if deemed super- 

 fluous by certain naturalists, can never be shown to be 

 faUe by any investigations concerning natural laws, the 

 constant action of which it presupposes. 



The conflict has arisen through a misunderstandinfj. 

 Some have supposed that by "creation" was necessarily 

 meant either primary, that is, absolute creation, or, at 

 least, some supernatural action ; they have therefore op- 

 posed the dogma of " creation " in the imagined interest of 

 physical science. 



^ "Philosophy of Creation," Essay iii., § iv., p. 480. 



