4B 



enter the domain of the student of pure physical science. I 

 shall accept his own observations and demonstrations — not his 

 theories, nor his speculations, nor the results of the prolonga- 

 tion of his mental vision into the unknown — and I shall place 

 them side by side with the conclusions he has deduced from 

 them, and submit the process to a searching logical analysis. 

 Surely this is not presumption. If it be, then Herbert Spencer 

 is liable to the charge of presumption, for this is the plan he has 

 pursued in his profound treatise on biology. He thus writes : — 

 " We confess that nearly all we know of this department of bi- 

 ology has been learnt from his (Owen's) lectures and writings. 

 We pretend to no independent investigations, but merely to such 

 knowledge of the phenomena as he has furnished us with. Our 

 ]DOsition, then, is such that had Professor Owen simply enun- 

 ciated his generahsations, we should have accepted them on his 

 authority. But he has brought forward evidence to prove 

 them. By so doing he has tacitly appealed to the judgment 

 of his readers and hearers — has practically said, ' Here are 

 the facts : do they not warrant these conclusions ? ' And all 

 we propose to do, is to consider whether the conclusions are 

 warranted by the facts brought forward." 



I shall now endeavour to examine critically, according to 

 the plan adopted by Herbert Spencer, the attempts made by 

 scientists to solve certain great problems, and to solve them 

 in a manner directly opposed to the teaching of the Bible. 

 The problems ai'e as follow : — ■ 



I. The Origin of Matter and of the Existing Material 

 Universe. 



II. The Origin of Life. 



III. The Origin of Species. 



IV. The Origin of Mind; and connected therewith, the 

 Conceptions of a God and of a Future State. 



I. The Okiqin oe Matter and the Existing Material 

 Universe. 



I. The teachings of scientists on matter and the existing 

 material universe are not uniform. Nearly every scientific man 

 has a theory of his own ; and it so happens that the several 

 theories are inconsistent with each other, and in some cases 

 mutually destructive. Democritus, a Greek sage, who lived 

 about B.C. 4.00, propounded a theory of the universe, which 

 he seems to have derived from Leucippus. It was substantial 1}^ 

 adopted by the Latin poet Lucretius, whose object was thereby 

 to banish for ever from the mind of man all idea of a creating 

 and superintending Deity. Its latest expounder is Professor 



