78 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 



itsglf, and that creation was not a sort of slump-work to be perfected by the oper- 

 ation of a law of development, as fancied by some modern speculators. " Dr. 

 Clarke says, " Every plant and animal was so made as to produce its own kind 

 through endless generations." But when he adds: "This is proof that all fu- 

 ture generations of plants and animals have been seminally included in those 

 which God formed at the beginning," he admits as much of the theory of evolu- 

 tion as its most confident supporters claim. He even out-darwins Darwin. Ag- 

 assiz holds that animals of different species, and also of the same species, and even 

 the various races of men, were separately created in many different localities. 



Moses tells us plants were created on the third day, and no mention is made 

 of any further creation of plants. The only recorded creation of aquatic animals 

 was on the fifth day; and of land animals on the sixth day. And the record con- 

 veys to our minds the idea that the work of each day was presented for God's re- 

 vision or inspection, and in each case " God saw that it was good. " The works 

 ."were in weight and measure perfect and entire, lacking nothing," as Adam 

 Clarke interprets it. We would, therefore, be led to expect no additions thereto 

 in the future. But if geology teaches us anything, we there learn that all land 

 plants by no means came into existence before aquatic animals, and that many of 

 the latter made their first appearance after the formation of land animals. Geolo- 

 gists do not find land plants first or in the lowest rocks, but find marine animals 

 and plants about the same time. But in the rocks above those containing these 

 two forms of life, and consequently of later origin, are found remains of immense 

 quantities of land plants. These plants are not the same as any now living. Above 

 the strata containing ancient forms of plants are found new forms of marine life, 

 and higher still appear still later and entirely distinct forms of both plant and ani- 

 mal life. Every new form coming in before or after the period devoted to crea- 

 tions of that particular kind of life comes in without any Bible record. Now, if 

 on each creative day the work was made so complete as to be pronounced good, 

 we seem driven to one or the other of two conclusions : i. That each exteaded 

 beyond the dawn of succeeding days and even to recent time, which seems to 

 have no warrant in Scripture; or 2. That on each day God set agencies at work 

 capable of completing the introduction of all forms and varieties of the peculiar 

 kind of life to which that creative day was especially set apart. This points to the 

 idea of secondary agencies or delegated powers, and leads us to suppose that at 

 least some of God's creative acts were mediate rather than immediate. 



A few years ago nearly all theologians and a large majority of geologists 

 were believers in "special creation." But what is creation? Making out of 

 nothing. But howl What do we know of God's method of creation? In his 

 ivord he does not tell us except by implication, and if we ever know, this side the 

 grave, it must be from his works. And, no doubt, the mere implication of the 

 Bible, instead of positive statement, is designed to induce us to study nature to 

 find out. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the /i^//^r of kings to 

 search out z. matter." Now looking as deeply as tve can into this question, how 

 do we find, I mean by our own observation and experience, that God created ? 



