798 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



with a light heart. I confess I am not, and my reason for this back- 

 wardness Avill doubtless surprise Mr. Gladstone. It is that, rather 

 more than a quarter of a century ago (namely, in February, 1859), 

 when it was my duty, as President of the Geological Society, to de- 

 liver the Anniversary Address,* I chose a topic which involved a very 

 careful study of the remarkable cosmogonical speculation originally 

 promulgated by Imraanuel Kant, and subsequently by Laplace, which 

 is now known as the nebular hypothesis. With the help of such little 

 acquaintance with the principles of physics and astronomy as I had 

 gained, I endeavored to obtain a clear understanding of this specula- 

 tion in all its bearings. I am not sure that I succeeded ; but of this 

 I am certain, that the problems involved are very difficult, even for 

 those who possess the intellectual discipline requisite for dealing with 

 them. And it was this conviction that led me to express my desire to 

 leave the discussion of the question of the asserted harmony between 

 Genesis and the nebular hypothesis to experts in the appropriate 

 branches of knowledge. And I think my course was a wise one ; but, 

 as Mr. Gladstone evidently does not understand how there can be any 

 hesitation on my part, unless it arises from a conviction that he is in 

 the right, I may go so far as to set out my difficulties. 



They are of two kinds — exegetical and scientific. It appears to me 

 that it is vain to discuss a supposed coincidence between Genesis and 

 science, unless we have first settled, on the one hand, what Genesis 

 says, and, on the other hand, what science says. 



In the first place, I can not find any consensus among Biblical 

 scholars as to the meaning of the words " In the beginning God cre- 

 ated the heaven and the earth." Some say that the Hebrew word 

 bara, which is translated " create," means " made out of nothing." I 

 venture to object to that rendering, not on the ground of scholarship, 

 but of common sense. Omnipotence itself can surely no more make 

 something "out of" nothing than it can make a triangular circle. 

 What is intended by " made out of nothing " appears to be " caused 

 to come into existence," with the implication that nothing of the same 

 kind previously existed. It is further usually assumed that " the heav- 

 en and the earth" means the material substance of the universe. 

 Hence the " Mosaic writer " is taken to imply that, where nothing of 

 a material nature previously existed, this substance appeared. That 

 is perfectly conceivable, and therefore no one can deny that it may 

 have happened. But there are other very authoritative critics who 

 say that the ancient Israelite f who wrote the passage was not likely 

 to have been capable of such abstract thinking, and that, as a matter 

 of philology, bara is commonly used to signify the " fashioning," or 



* Reprinted in "Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews," 1870. 



\ " Ancient," doubtless, but his antiquity must not be exagi;eratcd. For example, 

 there is no proof that the " Mosaic " cosmogony was known to the Israelites of Solomon's 

 time. 



