ON THE PEDIGREE OF THE CORAL-REEFS OF ENGLAND. 209 
argument ; I will, therefore, say, the great field of nature. The evolutionists 
may show that certain species have been evolved from others, but they have 
never been able to prove that life has evolved itself. They have never been 
able to show that the moral qualities have been evolved from a lower state of 
existence, or that the intellect of mankind and the higher spiritual forms of 
life have been evolved. The great fault committed in this controversy is 
that we sometimes take different views of the meanings of words, such as the 
word “evolution,” and that we do not take a sufficiently extensive view of 
the facts from which we make our inductions. The real question at issue is 
whether at any particular time there has been an act of creation ; because, if 
there were an act of creation, certain qualities may have been attached to the 
thing created which may have evolved subsequent consequences. There was 
a paper published some time ago in the Nineteenth Century, in which 
Mr. Gladstone discussed this question, and Professor Huxley replied. 
Mr. Gladstone wisely took a somewhat legal view of the question and 
and reduced the controversy to this point : “ Is the first chapter of Genesis 
credible or is it not?” On this point I should be happy to put myself under 
the guidance of Mr. Gladstone rather than of those who, like Professor 
Huxley, take what I would venture to call a limited view of the ques- 
tion, and do not establish any conclusion. Learned natural philosophers 
may show evolution ina particular place, but, unless they show that every- 
thing has been evolved, they do not establish the conclusion that there has 
been no creation. The Creator may have willed that there should be 
evolution in a particular place, and, if that be so, it militates against the 
correctness of Professor Huxley’s conclusion. Undoubtedly, if this question 
had to be decided by an intelligent jury who had to deliver a verdict, 
“ay” or “no,” they must say that the case for evolution has not been 
proven. No doubt, when you have a controverted question before a jury, 
you have to look at all the facts and to frame a theory which explains the 
facts; and unless that theory explains all the facts, the verdict will be 
against the theory, and will be given on the other side. Certain ex- 
planations all evolutionists do give; but, although they explain some, 
they do not explain all the facts belonging to the natural philosophy 
around us. They do not show how inorganic nature has become endued with 
life or has been changed into organic nature, or how the lower animal life 
has become endowed with moral qualities, or how intellect or the higher 
forms of spiritual life is produced from the lower forms of animal life. 
The AurHor.—The last speaker has furnished a complete reply, such as 
I should otherwise have attempted to have given to Mr. Hammond. He 
has explained the fact which the first speaker was quite right in calling 
attention to, namely, that in the three instances in which I spoke of the 
continuity of things I have spoken of species and not of genera. The cases 
that have been referred to are those of the continuance and the recurrence 
of species ; and it is quite true that there has been no recurrence of species 
though there has been a recurrence of genera. I ought to have put that a 
little more plainly. I sbould have shown more clearly that species do not 
