234 LIGHTS OF THE CHURCH AND SCIENCE vi 



naturally precedes it namely, Are these state- 

 ments true or false ? If they are true, it may be 

 worth while to go into the question of their 

 supernatural generation; if they are false, it 

 certainly is not worth mine. 



Now, not only do I hold it to be proven that 

 the story of the Deluge is a pure fiction ; but I 

 have no hesitation in affirming the same thing oi 

 the story of the Creation. 1 Between these two 

 lies the story of the creation of man and woman 

 and their fall from primitive innocence, which is 

 even more monstrously improbable than either of 

 the other two, though, from the nature of the case, 

 it is not so easily capable of direct refutation. It 

 can be demonstrated that the earth took longer 

 than six days in the making, and that the 

 Deluge, as described, is a physical impossibility ; 

 but there is no proving, especially to those who 

 are perfect in the art of closing their ears to that 

 which they do not wish to hear, that a snake did 

 not speak, or that Eve was not made out of one 

 of Adam's ribs. 



1 So far as I know, the narrative of the Creation is not now 

 held to be true, in the sense in which I have defined historical 

 truth, by any of the reconcilers. As for the attempts to stretch 

 the Pentateuchal days into periods of thousands or millions of 

 y(;ars, the verdict of the eminent Biblical scholar, Dr. Riehm 

 (Der biblische Schopfungsbericht, 1881, pp. 15, 16), on such 

 pranks of " Auslegungskunst " should be final. Why do the 

 reconcilers take Goethe's advice seriously ? 



" Im Auslegen seyd frisch und mnnter ! 

 Legt ihr's nicht aus, so legt was uuter." 



