214 WALTEE KIDD, ESQ., M.D., P.Z.S., 



■with less difficulty blian the other, if it sliould pi-ove the true 

 one. Of course, I am assuming that the old-fashioned (but un- 

 authoritative) view regarding the inspiration of scripture, which 

 would make us look to Genesis for infallible natural science, and 

 not merely for great spiritual truths taught in the imperfect 

 scientific language of remote centuries, must be laid aside for one 

 which is more true to the facts. 



NOTES BY MAJOR W. H. TURTON, R.E., ON DR. 

 KIDD'S PAPER ON "CREATION OR EVOLUTION." 



(1) T am unable to agree with what the author says as 

 to Creation and Evolution being opposite theories, the former 

 alone showing design ; or pei'haps I do not attach the same 

 meaning to Evolution as he does. As I understand the term it is 

 the process by which all forms of organic life have been developed 

 out of the earliest form, and a process is not a cause. Each slight 

 variation must have been caused somehow. It cannot be due to 

 chance or accident, for this is merely a convenient term for the 

 results of certain forces of nature when we are unable to calculate 

 them, and strictly speaking cannot cause anything. And therefore 

 Evolution requires an Evolver, just as much as Creation requires 

 a Creator, and the opposing theories Avould in my opinion be 

 better expressed as Creation hy Evolution, or Creation hy separate 

 acts. Each equally shows design, each equally requires a Designer. 

 Only on the former hypothesis (that of P^volntion) the design ix 

 seen to be on a grander and more comprehensive scale, and 

 therefore more worthy of the Designer. 



(2) Moreover, I do not agree with the theoi'y that the geological 

 epochs can be fitted in between the second and third verse of 

 Genesis I. The evidence appears to me to be overwhelmingly in 

 favour of the view that the word dmj in Genesis I. denotes an 

 indefinite period of time, though the subject scarcely falls within 

 the present paper. 



Mr. RoREirr P. C. Corfe writes : — 



The most able lecture to which we have just listened conies as 



