ON THE CREATION AND GOD. 15 



Still, however scientifically prompted, however skilfully 

 shaped, however superior to the rude cosmogonies of non- 

 scientific ages that we now dismiss as only fit for chil- 

 dren, they are only guesses. They are only attempts at 

 the solution of the problem being given a world or a 

 system of worlds, to determine how they were made ; 

 a problem so transcendent that the highest human solu- 

 tions may be no more than rude approximations. And 

 all real verification is out of the question ; since, however 

 true our theory of the past process of construction, a 

 competing and more plausible theory is, we see, always 

 possible ; while, if worlds are now anywhere made in 

 stellar space according to our formula, it is still impos- 

 sible to prove the fact, owing to the remoteness of the 

 phenomenon. We must not, then, with some, treat the 

 nebular hypothesis in either of its forms as if it contained 

 the whole truth which explained fully and finally the 

 process of world-making. We must not erect it into an 

 article of scientific faith with the physicists and geolo- 

 gists, or make it an integral part of our philosophic sys- 

 tems with the evolution philosophers like Strauss and 

 Herbert Spencer. We are simply to consider the two 

 forms of the hypothesis as conjectures equal in poetic 

 grandeur, but unequal in scientific credit of the phe- 

 nomena, possibly portentous, abnormal, and wholly 

 beyond the reach of the scientific imagination to shape, 

 which preceded or accompanied the first appearance of 

 the earth, the sun, and the planets as globes in space. 

 They may both contain a certain proportion of truth ; 

 they may both be erroneous and misleading, even though 

 one might be less wide of the facts than the other. 



3. Let us now pursue the scientific narrative of the 

 creation, which starts from the nebular hypothesis as 

 accepted truth ; and for the moment let us also concede 



