MONISTIC EVOLUTION 149 



my bones, and flesh of my flesh. But monists prob 

 ably attach little value to such ideas. 



It may be proper to add here that, in his refer 

 ences to Adam, Haeckel betrays a weakness, not 

 unusual with his school, in putting a false gloss on 

 the old record of Genesis. The statement that man. 

 was formed from the dust of the ground implies no 

 more than the production of his body from the com 

 mon materials employed in the construction of other 

 animals ; this also in contradistinction from the 

 higher nature derived from the inbreathing or in 

 spiration of God. The precise nature of the method 

 by which man was made or created is not stated by 

 the author of Genesis. Further, it would have been 

 as easy for divine power to create a pair as an indi 

 vidual. If this was not done, and if after the lesson 

 of superiority taught by the inspection of lower 

 animals, and the lesson of language taught by nam 

 ing them, the first man in his deep sleep is con 

 scious of the removal of a portion of his own flesh, and 

 then on awaking has the woman brought to him 

 all this is to teach a lesson not to be otherwise learnt. 

 The Mosaic record is thus perfectly consistent with 

 itself and with its own doctrine of creation by 

 Almighty Power. 



I have quoted the above passages as examples of 

 the more jocose vein of the Jena physiologist ; but 

 they constitute also a serious revelation of the in 

 fluence of his philosophy on his own mind and heart 



