816 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



ing the scriptural record, for it was, as is well known, the view 

 accepted by some of the most illustrious of the Greek and Latin 

 Fathers. The Alexandrine school was almost a unit in favor of 

 allegorism as against literalism.* All are familiar with the conten- 

 tion of the late Bishop Clifford, who regarded the first thirty-four 

 verses of Genesis as a ritual hymn, and as nothing more than a pre- 

 lude to what follows. Even some of the most conservative of our 

 modern commentators of Scripture freely admit that the history of 

 creation, as unfolded in Genesis, may be understood in an allegorical 

 as well as in a literal sense. From this is manifest how weak is the 

 argument in favor of creationism which is based solely on the Gene- 

 siac narrative. 



The argument founded on the doctrine of the fathers is of no 

 more weight than that based on Scripture, while that which may be 

 adduced from the teachings of modern biblical research is practi- 

 cally nil. Creationism, then, I repeat, is possible, but there is 

 nothing in a reasonable interpretation of Genesis which makes it at 

 all probable, while all the conclusions of contemporary science ren- 

 der it not only in the highest degree improbable, but also exhibit 

 it as completely discredited and as unworthy of the slightest con- 

 sideration as a working hypothesis to guide the investigator in the 

 study of Nature and Nature's laws. 



But this en passant. My theme is not evolution, but rather the 

 bearing of evolution on teleology, or the doctrine of the final causes 

 of things. Paley, Chalmers, and the authors of the Bridgewater 

 Treatises laid special stress on the argument from design, and, indeed, 

 the chief object they had in view in writing their books, which were 

 classics in their day, was to exhibit the purposiveness of Nature, to 

 prove that from the evidence of design, which is everywhere mani- 

 fest in the visible universe, we must necessarily infer the existence of 

 a designer. And so conclusive was the argument, as then framed, 

 that even the most skeptical and those most opposed to revealed truth 

 were forced to admit that the facts of Nature bear witness to the 

 existence and controlling influence of mind in the universe. Vol- 

 taire declared, " Rien n'ebranle en moi cet axiome, tout ouvrage de- 

 montre un ouvrier " ; and Hume, in words no less positive, affirmed 

 that " the whole frame of Nature bespeaks an intelligent maker." 



With the appearance, however, of Charles Darwin's epoch-mak- 

 ing Origin of Species it was at once recognized on all hands that the 

 design argument had to be materially modified if it were any longer 

 to have the slightest validity. As for the exponents of the mechan- 

 ical school of philosophy, especially those who rejoice in the new- 



* See the writer's work, Bible, Science, and Faith, Part I. 



