ON CREATION OR EVOLUTION. 213 



pursued, are directly opposed." The word. " creation, " is there 

 ambiguous ; it might mean " creation," simply, i.e., bringing into 

 being by God, out of nothing, but His infinite capacity to will or 

 cause ; or it may mean what is now commonly called " special 

 creation," — immediate and. direct creation of species in their 

 present state. In whichever sense Dr. Kidd means us to take 

 the word, I should object to the statement. If in the first, he is 

 setting up an imaginary opposition between Evolution and Theology. 

 If Evolution were proved, it would not in the least render creative 

 acts unnecessary or impossible. Most evolutionists have seen that. 

 Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, Spencer, Tyndall, Romanes, Clifford, 

 and others can be quoted as stating that Evolution supplies no 

 argument against the possihilitij of creative acts. And if the 

 theory of Evolution is often stated to rely " solely ujDon natural 

 causation, dispensing with supernatural intelligence and action," 

 I presume no evolutionist would be so rash as to assert that it 

 precludes, and is incompatible with supernatural intelligence and 

 guidance. The possibility of an original creation, which is 

 absolutely essential to Christian theology, or of a Divine Per- 

 sonal Intelligence immanent in nature, is a question which natural 

 science cannot decide one way or the other. 



The whole question is as to the mode of creation. And this 

 brings us to the second possible meaning of the word in 

 the sentence I have quoted above from Dr. Kidd. It is of 

 course plain that Evolution and " Special Creation" are con- 

 tradictory to the other, though " Creation hy Evolution " is a 

 possible third alternative, which I regret that Dr. Kidd ignores. 

 And, with regard to the opposition between the theories of 

 Evolution and Special Creation, I would like to point out that 

 the Christian Faith is not committed to the theory of Special 

 Creation. That theory was manufactured mainly by seventeenth 

 and eighteenth century science.* There had, of course, been 

 commentators on Genesis in all ages, who had interpreted the 

 Bible in terms of it ; but there had been great authorities of 

 influence, like St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who 

 preferred a crude " evolutionary " interpretation. Neither was 

 regarded as essential. Theology refuses to be held responsible 

 for either. She can absorb the theory of Evolution, I think. 



* Eay, Liunseus, Cuvier. 



