346 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED 



tionist, "I do not know." He can tell you that he 

 has small samples which he believes represent more 

 or less fairly the great unknown record. At the same 

 time he must tell you that the unknown is unlike the 

 known, and that it consists largely of the lost links in 

 the chains of evolution. 



It is evident that there might be a conflict between 

 the known geological record and some other account 

 of creation, owing to the incompleteness of the for- 

 mer, whereas, if it were complete, such a discrepancy 

 might not exist. 



He who asserts a conflict between the account in 

 Genesis and the geological record, must show that his 

 knowledge of the latter is quite complete and correct. 

 This he will be both unable, and, generally, unwill- 

 ing to do, for the interest of his theory, if he is an 

 evolutionist, demands a most fragmentary known 

 record. 



It is evident, therefore, that no one is in a position 

 to prove that there is a conflict between the cosmog- 

 ony in Genesis and the great unknown cosmogony of 

 Geology. 



The cosmogony in Genesis is very general. It is an 

 outline painted with a few bold strokes. It was given 

 to a people who were in the infancy of civilization, 

 the masses of whom were ignorant and illiterate. A 

 complete history of creation, as it occurred through 

 the long geological ages, would have been useless to 

 them. They could not have understood it because of its 

 length and complexity, and because they were totally 

 ignorant of the facts on which the geological account 

 must be based. If it had been fully written for them, 

 it would have been bewildering. 



What object could have been accomplished by tell- 

 ing that people that Trilobites and Brachiopods 

 abounded in the Silurian, that Fishes of many kinds 



