104 THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION 



had arrived at this view, and he declared it to be 

 the dogma of the creation. ' This is the more remark- 

 able as this dogma is based upon the Bible, and 

 Father Wasmann tells us that we must not look for 

 scientific accuracy in the biblical account of the 

 creation. I think it altogether wrong to attack the 

 Bible in any way, and I fully agree with Father 

 Wasmann in asserting the Bible not to be a text-book 

 of natural science, nor a manual of zoology or 

 astronomy. But what is the result ? We are not 

 to refer a zoological question to the Bible ! We 

 scientists have nothing whatever to do with the 

 Bible. Father Wasmann has some scruples about 

 admitting constant interference on the part of the 

 Creator, for such interference would be degrading 

 to Him. For my part, if a Creator exists, I fail to 

 see why He should not always interfere. If we 

 admit that the Creator works through natural laws, 

 we need only assume that the laws were in the 

 beginning laid down by the Creator.' 



My answer to Professor Plate is as follows : 

 Even if there were no Bible and no dogmas 

 of the Catholic Church, as thoughtful scientists 

 we should have to ask ourselves whether we are 

 to assume a monophyletic or a polyphyletic 

 evolution of organisms. The reasons deter- 

 mining my answer to this question are scientific. 

 (See p. 15 in the first lecture.) In saying there- 

 fore that the biblical dogma of the creation 



