Kvoluthm of Animul Life. 143 



•or races but never truly new species ; and, \\ lien extinguish- 

 ed, being replaced by other species of similar independent 

 origin. 



It is important to note what is really involved in the 

 issue thus stated. 



1. The theory of independent specific origins does not 

 necessarily im2)ly an appeal to direct, miraculous, special 

 acts of creation, outside of natural law. Its most zealous 

 advocates have always asserted the creative power in ordi- 

 nary birth. The catechism asks, " Who made you ? " not 

 -" Who made Adam ? " The answer is " God "; not " My 

 father and mother." And the old theory of specific origin 

 requires no greater miracle than birth. It involves merely, 

 first, the denial that species have originated from one an- 

 other ; and secondly, the declaration of complete ignorance 

 as to the manner in which they did originate. 



On the other hand. Evolution does not exclude the Divine 

 agency, but simply presents a process in which that power 

 may act as truly as in the process of birth. If the evolution- 

 ist does not believe that God made him and you and me, 

 he will probably not believe that God made anything. But 

 there is nothing in Evolution to force him to that conclusion. 

 In short, the whole controversy can be carried on perfectly 

 well by atheists, or by theists, on both sides ; and the odium, 

 unti-theologlcum, as well as the odium theologlcuvi, is quite 

 out of place in it. 



2. Neither theory involves the denial of design in the 

 universe. Evolution, indeed, indicates a far wider, more 

 harmonious and more comprehensive design, to one who is 

 willing to see any ; but pantheist, agnostic or atheist may 

 hold either view of the origin of species. There were athe- 

 ists plenty, before Spencer and Darwin were heard of. 



3. Neither theory affects the authority of Scripture. 

 Even the most extreme believer in the infallibility of the 

 letter of Scripture finds no description there of the manner 

 in which God ''created the heavens and the earth," or the 

 succession of living things, or man " out of the dust of the 

 earth." He finds no statement of a specific act any more 

 precise than that of a hundred natural phenomena, the sec- 

 ondary causes of which are now known. " He toucheth the 

 mountains, and they smoke ! " Does that contradict the 

 theory of volcanoes ? 



Moreover, in the interpretation of Scri])ture (still on the 



