27 
or (b) in the second instance. But we have seen that creation (1) nat- 
ural, or (2) miraculous, does not exclude evolution ; Adam’s body, there- 
fore, whether a ‘‘natural” or a “miraculous’’ creation, does not exclude 
evolution ; it may therefore have been created by evolution; therefore 
the Doctor’s argument, which mediated the preof of non-evolution of 
Adam’s body, through the term “creation”—[whether “natural or mir- 
aculous”—seeing it must be one or the other]—in the premise—‘‘crea- 
tion excludes evolution” —is a non sequitur. 
To illustrate again: the Doctor’s argument is tantamount to this: 
The whale cannot be a reptile; because it is a vertebrate. 
Criticism ; Since vertebrate includes reptile, the Doctor’s argument 
is ‘“incoherent”—even though it ve true that the whale is not a reptile. 
“Reply” : But since the whale is a “special” class of vertebrate, my 
argument is not incoherent. 
Criticism ; Since vertebrate includes reptile as a “special” class, the 
argument is still incoherent, even though it be true that the whale is not 
a reptile. There are four “special” classes of vertebrates: 1. Mammals. 
2. Birds. 3. Reptiles. 4. Fishes. You do not prove that the whale is 
not a “reptile” by proving that it is a ‘vertebrate’; neither do you 
prove that it is not a reptile by proving that it is a “special” class of ver- 
tebrates ; for, although it is a “vertebrate” and even a “special” class of 
vertebrate, yet for all that the ‘‘whale” may be a “reptile.” It does 
not behoove me to prove that the whale is not areptile; even though I 
admit that, still your argument is incoherent. But it does devolve upon 
you to prove your proposition by proving “whale” to be—‘mamma],;” 
or “bird ;’”’ or “fish”—something that excludes “reptile.” Now just so 
in the matter of “creation ;” granting, for argument’s sake, the Doctor’s 
fourfold subdivision, viz.: 1. Natural. 2. Miraculous: (1) contra-nat- 
ural; (2) “ex nihilo in the second instance.” 3. “Hix nihilo in abso- 
lutely the first instance.” You do not prove anything against ‘‘evolu- 
tion” by proving “creation” of Adam's body; you prove nothing against 
it by proving “special” creation of Adam’s body; for, this being true, 
still “evolution” may be affirmed of the “creation” of Adam’s body. 
Neither does it behoove me to prove that Adam’s body is an instance of 
evolution—that is not my proposition; my proposition is, that your ar- 
gument is a non sequitur ; and that therefore, so far as regards your 
argument. Adam’s body may be an “evolution.” On the contrary, how- 
ever, it does behoove you—in order to sustain your proposition—viz. : 
that “creation’’ of Adam’s body is ‘‘not evolution’”—to prove (1) not 
that it was a “creation”—that is admitted; (2) not that it was a “‘spe- 
