232 G. MACLOSKIE, D.SC, ETC., ON COMMON ERRORS 



The Rev. Dr. Pokte. — Perhaps I might be permitted to say, in 

 rei^ard to the statement that has been made in this room that God 

 is supposed to have created man out of nothing, or anything out 

 of nothing, that as far as I know Genesis there is no sucli 

 statement made, and as far as I know most oixlinary students of 

 the Bible never hold any such theory. We hold that God formed 

 this world as it now is by a process of stages, as we believe, from 

 what is described as something " without form and void." Tliere 

 is not a word about its being formed out of nothing. We know, I 

 hope, what that something " without foi^m and void " means. 

 Creation does not profess to go beyond this, that God took that 

 which existed then, and perhaps every process or stage lasted 

 millions of years. I suppose many of us believe (who are not 

 otherwise believers in evolution) in a certain sort of evolution 

 spoken of in the Bible, an evolution from a lower to a higher 

 thing. We believe in animals of which we are told remains are 

 amongst ns to-day, those strange, marvellous creatures that for 

 many generations lived on the earth and have passed away ; but 

 I think that many of the leading scientists acknowledge that 

 there is not the slightest link between successive generations of 

 various birds, beast?, and fishes. We speak of the successive 

 stages of the world, and when it comes to man himself we are told 

 that God formed man out of the red earth, that He took the earth 

 and built up man, and, as was said just now, God formed him a 

 perfect creature. 



Mr. Thkupp. — The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the 

 arguments of the two last speakers is that God did not create 

 material. To my mind that is an utter fnllacy. The great 

 mischief, I think, in all discussions of this question of evolution 

 is that it is assumed that evolution is proved. The great 

 dilliculty of studying the subject thoroughly prevents a very large 

 number from going into it, and therefore they more readily accept 

 as proved tliat whicli great men have laid before us. But now, to 

 refer to the paper itself, we see what a great assumption it is to 

 take evolution as proved and as a thing wi^ have to reconcile with 

 religion. At p. •222 you find these words : '" Neither natural 

 selection nor Neo-Lamarckism goes back to the real origin of 

 variations, a point which is yet unknown.'' In other words, 

 that the very first step of evolution is not proved — not known. 

 If people would only think thorouglily upon it and really study 



