232 FACTS AISTD THEORIES. 



dantly, and also in an abundance of birds, those of to- 

 day. 



Notice, it is not water creatures in one period, and in 

 another birds, but both at once. 



That division of the animal kingdom which includes 

 present cattle and wild beasts and other land creatures, 

 came last of all. 



These are facts, not theories. They are the teachings 

 of science, and not that of man in the infancy of the 

 race, not that of Egypt, nor of Assyria, nor of Rome, 

 nor of the last century, nor of fifty years ago, but of the 

 latter part of the nineteenth century. Yet, so far as it 

 goes, it is a paraphrase of the first chapter of Genesis 

 without changing the order of a single item. Nor is it 

 any answer to say what everybody knows, that the geo- 

 logical plants and animals long preceded living species, 

 for it was impossible for Moses to have alluded to them, 

 since Geology was not then dreamed of, and if God was the 

 author of the account, which our agnostic friends so 

 strenuously deny. He could not have referred to the first 

 vegetation as including grass or fruit trees, for He knew 

 better. For like reasons, it is, I think, evident that the 

 account has no reference to the extinct fossil animals. 

 Moses knew nothing of them and God knew infinitely 

 too much to include cattle among the first land ani- 

 mals. 



I submit that this more than counterbalances the op- 

 position of immature theories which have yet to establish 

 their own right to be. It Justifies the claim that es- 

 tablished science is not hostile to that epitome of the 

 pre- Adamic history of our world which is found in our 

 bibles. Only when in the stage of callow theory, or 

 when it substitutes Miiton for Moses, does science show 

 such tendencies. 



What lesson would I have the reader draw from this 



discussion ? 



iss 



