GEOLOGY IN GENESIS.— II. 79 



Does all or any of the life of which we have any present knowledge first appear 

 full-grown, complete in form and parts, and with perfect adaptation to the ends of 

 its mature existence ? Do we not see at first only a speck, a germ, a motionless 

 seed or egg ; and do we not know that the full stature of any plant, animal or 

 man is reached only after a more or less slow and long-continued process of de- 

 velopment ? Yet the general idea of creation has been that it must be instan- 

 taneous. Where did we get the idea ? The only answer I can find is the echo 

 — where ! 



The fact that God looked upon the completed work of each day, and saw 

 that it was good somewhat reminds us of a proprietor inspecting work performed 

 by secondary agents. If we accept the nebular hypothesis we must conclude 

 that the members of our solar system were formed through the natural develop- 

 ment of physical law rather than by special and immediate creation. Dr. Cocker, 

 a strong adherent to the doctrine of divine agency in all creative work, after 

 careful study of the original finds that the Hebrew hara., meaning absolute crea- 

 tion, occurs only three times in the first chapter of Genesis, ist, in verse i, re- 

 ferring to the creation of matter; 2d, in verse 21, to the creation of animal life ; and 

 3d, in verse 27, to the origination of spirit-man in the image of God. These 

 three creations of matter, life and mind, he claims are the only creative acts or 

 actual originations. All others were formative, and formation supposes a some- 

 thing to be formed. If this be true, vegetable life was formed and was an out- 

 growth from pre-existing material. This may give a deeper meaning to the com- 

 mand. Let the earth bring forth plants ; and reminds one of Tyndall's " promise 

 and potency " of matter. 



One with much experience in examining the fossil -bearing rocks of the earth's 

 crust, can hardly fail to be convinced, if all the fossil forms which are called dis- 

 tinct species are really so, that, so far as outward form and occasional internal 

 structure indicate relationship, many species are genetically related to each other. 

 Any considerable collection will furnish specimens called by different ^names, and 

 said by trusted authorities to be entirely distinct, found in different layers of 

 rock, in which it would be extremly difficult to find as much difference as appears 

 between brothers and sisters of the same family, or between leaves from the 

 same tree. It is easy to arrange series of fossils, said to represent different spe- 

 cies, which so run into and overlap one another in their resemblances that it 

 would be safe to challenge any one to draw a satisfactory line of distinction be- 

 tween them. But this is far from proving evolution or even mediate rather than 

 special creation. It may only argue, as I believe it does, that the term "spe- 

 cies" is used in too restricted a sense. Till scientists and theologians can agree 

 as 'to the definition of species, at least among themselves, it is idle for one to say 

 what he does or does not believe in regard to the origin of species. 



Dr. J. W. Dawson, who is doubtless the most active and most trusted 

 champion on this side the Atlantic, of conservative views upon this subject, and 

 who deals the most effective blows against what he calls " the modern gospel of 

 evolution," renders " after its kind" as after its species, and holds that the "flora 



