EVOLUTION AND GENESIS 1 1 J 



though this chanced to be his own. His warning 

 is the very same that Cardinal Newman had given. 

 It is no exaggeration when he says: &quot;The rate 

 of change of scientific hypotheses is naturally 

 much more rapid than that of Biblical interpreta 

 tions, so that if an interpretation is founded on 

 such an hypothesis, it may help to keep the hy 

 pothesis above ground long after it ought to be 

 buried and forgotten.&quot; 6 



So much for scientific hypotheses, that in the 

 schools themselves are too often confounded with 

 scientific facts. Yet with these precautions in 

 mind, it is nonetheless well to show how &quot;the 

 Mosaic account tallies with the chronological de 

 velopment of the earth, as we now conceive of 

 it.&quot; 7 This we shall here attempt to do with ref 

 erence to the most scientific thought upon the sub 

 ject. 



Yet to correct current preconceptions, based 

 upon entirely false assumptions, a few suggestive 

 remarks may still profitably be made before we 

 approach this interesting task. We read much 

 in sociological and in general literature of the 

 Scripture &quot;myth&quot; of Creation. It is presumed 

 that the accounts given in the first chapter of 

 Genesis cannot be taken seriously by scientific men. 

 The fact that they have been so taken by many 



6 &quot;Life of Clerk Maxwell,&quot; p. 394. 



7 See Sir Bertram Windle, &quot;The Church and Science,&quot; pp. 171- 

 192. 



