69 



Again he says : — 



" Man is to be placed apart, as not only the head and culminating point 

 of the grand series of organic nature, but as in some degree a new and dis- 

 tinct order of being." 



I will not keep you more than one moment longer. I wish just to refer to 

 Darwin's "almost infinite series of generations." One of Darwin's very 

 difficult points is the sudden appearances of new groups of animals. He 

 says that if this occurred it would be entirely destructive of his theories, 

 and the only ground on which he rests the apparent finding of sudden 

 enormous numbers of new species is, that the intermediate links have not 

 been preserved. But if we go back to the Cambrian epoch, we find that 

 enormous numbers — I think four out of five kingdoms of invertebrates — are 

 fully representative and are in the highest perfection, and there is no record 

 whatever in the underlying strata of any predecessors of them. 



Dr. Porter. — There is not very much for me to reply to ; but the first 

 point I would venture to touch upon has reference to the remarks which 

 you. Sir (the Chairman), have offered on the subject of atoms. I listened 

 carefully to the words you used, and I thought there was one expression 

 which seemed to grant all I ask. You said there are no appliances with 

 Avhich we are at present acquainted which would enable us to separate or 

 divide an atom of matter, although you did not go so far as to say it was 

 inconceivable that an atom of matter should be divisible. 



The Chairman. — I contend only that there is no a 2)'>'iori reason why 

 atoms should not exist which cannot be divided by any of the forces actually 

 at work in the universe. I admit it to be unthinkable that there should be 

 any portion of matter which you cannot conceive to be divisible. 



Dr. Porter. — That is all I ask. I think it inconceivable that a particle 

 of matter, which as matter must possess length and breadth, is not 

 capable of subdivision. Nobody has ever yet discovered an atom of 

 matter. As to another point — that we are able to bring out the 

 great facts that are taught in regard to nature and man in the Bible — 

 facts as to the being of God, the origin of man, the origin of life — these 

 are all things that are stated, and that we ascertain from the Bible, rightly 

 interpreted. With reference to the question of life, various forms of 

 life have been referred to. My object was to show that the origin 

 of all life is to be traced to the distinct /lai of God — that no life, vegetable 

 or animal, or human, which is the highest development of animal life, can 

 have been derived from or evolved by mere matter. I might have entered 

 into fuller explanations on this point, but time did not permit. May I say in 

 conclusion that with regard to the proof of fundamental truths by history, 

 history will not exactly reach all the truths I have referred to in my paper. 

 The fundamental truths I speak of in it are these — the origin of matter and 

 of the existing material universe. History cannot reach back to the creation ; 

 neither can science. Creation is a matter of revelation, and as a matter of 

 necessity all our knowledge must be derived from revelation. T look on 

 that as a fundamental truth of Scripture. It involves the idea of the 



