Evolution. 203 



hand, Creation was the rallying cry ; on the other, 

 Evolution and Darwin. But what meant the opposed 

 terms ? It is surely but reasonable to ask the ques- 

 tion. The evolutionists conceded the reasonable- 

 ness, and gladly accepted the ordeal. Could less be 

 required of the creationists ? In reverential mood 

 would I submit the alternatives. If they repel, 

 blame not me. I have long and fruitlessly searched 

 for better. 



Creation implies the actual fashioning of forms in 

 full panoply, and with all the characteristics of their 

 kind. But when it was asked how this had been 

 effected the answer was vague and evasive. Did 

 *' elemental atoms flash into living tissues ? " Was 

 there vacant space one moment and an elephant ap- 

 parent the next ? Or did a laborious God mould out 

 of gathered earth a body to then endue with life ? 

 The questions are surely pertinent, for only by such 

 means can we conceive of creation. But passionate 

 disclaimers and angry denunciations greeted him who 

 would frame such conceptions in exact language. 

 Metaphysical jargon and rhetoric about divine pur- 

 poses might sophisticate, but could not answer. 



Evolution denotes the derivation of living beings 

 from preceding in endless succession. Variation in 

 progeny, limited heredity, and time are its correla- 

 tives. These being conceded, the peopling of the 

 globe with its life, past and present, is conceivable. 



What was the evidence to support the conflicting 

 conceptions ? 



For creation it was urged that the universal con- 

 sensus of mankind supported it ; that divine revela- 



I 



