610 Objections to Capt. Huttons Theory. 



The first at the date of the fall of man, and his expulsion from 

 Eden : that the curse called forth by his transgressions " immediately 

 operated in reducing the temperature of climates ;" "by which nu- 

 merous species of animals and plants became extinct :"* thus ac- 

 counting for the organic remains, which we find deposited previous 

 to the completion of the secondary geological strata. 



The second revolution he dates at the Mosaic deluge, by which, 

 he says, " the temperature of climates was still further reduced;" 

 and again, " various species of plants and animals destroyed :"f this 

 revolution forming the tertiary and diluvial strata, and the fossil 

 remains which are found therein, being thus accounted for. 



I. The most obvious objection to the above account of the first re- 

 volution is the absence of all mention in the Mosaic record of either 

 of the remarkable events thereon attending ; viz. the change of tempe- 

 rature, and the destruction of such various tribes of plants and ani- 

 mals as we find embedded in the transition and secondary strata ; 

 which entire silence is sufficient to throw discredit on the probability 

 of these events. No mention is made of any part of the creation 

 having been destroyed, or any new creation made when our parents 

 were expelled from Eden. We are merely told that they were driven 

 from the confines of the blessed spot, into the wide world beyond, 

 which had been so lately the scene of creation of the vegetable king- 

 dom, and of " every living creature after his kind." 



II. But although we have no direct testimony of these destructive 

 events, the author adduces two verses of the first Chapter of Genesis 

 (v. 29 and 30), which he considers sufficiently explicit to warrant 

 the conclusion he has come to : these verses say, that to every beast of 

 the earth, every fowl of the air, and creeping thing was given " every 

 green herb for meat ;" ergo, it is argued, there could have been no 

 carnivora at that time ; — ergo carnivora were created subsequent to 

 the Fall. Now this position may easily be disputed when it is re- 

 membered, that even in the short record we have of the period previ- 

 ous to the Fall, we have positive mention of at least one carnivorous 

 animal; viz. the serpent: but passing over this objection, and granting 

 that the chain of argument so far holds good, such argument cannot 



* Calcutta Journal of Natural History, p. 397. 

 t Ibid. p. 398. 



