102 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



also to this evidence were Tevie\yed. In this connection Dr. Smith j^aid 

 a high tribute to the scientific labors and the theistic principles and in- 

 fluence of Prof. Agassiz, expressing the conviction, at the same time, 

 that Prof. Agassiz's scientific opinion as to the origin of species repre- 

 sented a failing cause. 



The objection arising from the absence of uniting links in the fos- 

 siliferous remains of species was considered, and the refutation claimed 

 to be made by the evolutionists was given in detail. This answer to 

 the objection is found in the fact of the imperfection of the geological 

 record, and the almost entire destruction of organic remains. The 

 evolutionist claims that if it were not for the law by which less fa- 

 vored varieties of animal life disappeared, the breaks between species 

 would not exist. Specific distinctions would be impossible. In this 

 connection Dr. Smith considered the basis of specific classification, 

 giving a review of the old controversy between nominalism and real- 

 ism on this subject. He also pointed out how certain laws — such as 

 those of the transmission of likeness to an original type ; the tendency 

 to variation ; the increase of animal life in a geometrical ratio ; and 

 the consequent struggle for existence — would, according to the theory 

 of evolution, give rise to the phenomena of sjDCcific distinction. 



At this point Dr. Smith claimed that, if it should finally be estab- 

 lished that this progress in I^ature is continuous until it reaches and 

 includes man, it would no more militate against the idea of a personal 

 Creator than the fact that the process of evolution existed at all. If 

 God has chosen that any part of the process shall be without distinct 

 and special creative acts, there is no reason why the whole process 

 may not be, and the continuous chain of evolution run back to the one 

 original creative act. It must be remembered, however, that the argu- 

 ment proceeds all the time upon the supposition of an incessant and 

 ubiquitous exercise of the will and the agency of a personal God, in 

 every atom of matter, or every force-centre, and thus underlying and 

 pervading the whole phenomenal universe. 



As the theory of evolution touches only phenomena and the laws 

 of their succession, it excludes no hypothesis as to what lies back of 

 phenomena, and the existence of a personal God must be assailed, if 

 assailed at all, upon other and metaphysical grounds. 



Dr. Smith remarked that, although the subject assigned him re- 

 quired him to consider merely the relation between the theory of evo- 

 lution and the doctrine of a personal Creator, yet, inasmuch as it was 

 his desire to show that even if the theory is true it afiects no interest 

 of Christianity injuriously, he would say a word in regard to the 

 Scriptural account of the creation. The interpretation of the Bible 

 is more or less modified in each succeeding age, and is thus more and 

 more correctly understood. The Bible has passed through the crisis 

 cf astronomical and geological investigation, and its authority is not 

 only unimpaired, but is increased by the ease with which it is found 



