GOD IN NATURE. 154 
the hypothesis of a creative fiat from a Being Himself living, 
conscious, powerful, and wise. Then, the adaptation to this life 
and the ever-advancing complexity of organisation connected with 
it of a thousand details as to the earth and its corresponding 
development, furnish a further argument properly from design : 
This is illustrated by the introduction along with man of so many 
animals fitted for his use. This argument would bear being more 
fully and explicitly drawn out. 
On the negative side, it is a great advantage for us to have it 
clearly stated by a geologist, first that the development theory does 
not exclude, nor even render unnecessary, the idea of a Creator ; 
and secondly, that the evidence for the theory is by no means 
sufficient to establish it. Any one with a common sense power of 
estimating evidence could see this latter point ; but geologists, like 
other specialists, have been so fond of claiming an exclusive right 
of judging evidence in their own speciality, that we who quoad hoc 
are laymen, have been almost afraid to state our conviction of the 
insufficiency of the evidence, lest our doing so should be attributed 
to theological bigotry. We shall be glad to quote on our side 
the authority of so eminent a geologist. We owe him special 
thanks for the suggestion that scientists may possibly over- 
estimate the evidence for a desired conclusion. However, it has 
always appeared to me to be still more important to realise that 
there is no theological objection whatever to the theory of evolu- 
tion, provided it be kept in mind that the theory is quite unable to 
account for the existence of life in the “one or very few forms” 
of life, which it postulates. It appears to me to enhance rather 
than detract from the glory of the Creator to believe that He 
impressed upon tbe primary living creature not only the marvellous 
attribute of life, but the still more amazing faculty of developing 
into the myriad forms of life that have been and are upon the 
globe. 
With respect to the origin of man, it does not seem to me 
to be a good answer to the sentimental objection that man is 
degraded by having assigned to him a pithecoid ape as his ancestor, 
to point to man’s self-degradation below the bestial level. Would 
it not be better to say that it is as noble to spring from a lower 
animal as to be formed from the dust of the earth? For in either 
case, the life and the spirit, which are man’s distinction, come from 
the Creator, and not from the material origin. Is not the develop- 
