. 25 
based, not upon the supposition that the one was true and the other 
false, but upon the supposition that no matter which alternative was 
true, the Bible was not contradicted ; but inasmuch as these alternatives 
are themselves ‘‘mutually contradictory,” the one must be true and the 
other false; but, which was true and which was false, was to me, so far 
as my argument was concerned, a matter of supreme indifference ; be- 
cause that argument was based on the supposition that either one or the 
other might be true. 
That what has been detailed above, was really my line of argument 
will be fully confirmed by reading the Pamphlet, pages 3to5. The 
first step was to prove that “there is no contradiction between creation 
by ‘natural’ process and ‘Evolution.’ The second step was to prove 
that ‘there is no contradiction between creation by ‘miracle’ and ‘Evolu- 
tion.’” If creation by “miracle” does not include ‘special’’ creation, 
then I should like to be informed what it does include? The Doctor 
may say, ‘Creation by miracle does not include all special creations; 
because it does not include creation by supero-non-contra-natural meth- 
od; “‘if thus he shall insist, then we shall insist, that to affirm this meth- 
od of the creation of Adam’s body, is flatly to contradict the literal word 
of God, for it says that “the Lord God formed man dust of the ground;” 
but the Doctor would say: “The Lord God formed man ex nihilo in 
absolutely the first instance.” 
Then our conclusion was: “Therefore, although the Bible teaches 
that God created the body of Adam, still it say be true that Adam’s 
body (as Girardeau’s body) came by Evolution; for certainly Girar- 
deau’s did, and yet God is equally Girardeau’s Creator as he was 
Adam’s.” (Pamphlet, p. 5.) And let me add just here, that the 
Bible teaches of all men (and therefore of Girardeau) no less than of 
Adam, that the Lord God formed them “dust of the yround.” Now, 
then, our argument was and is, that to argue—Adam’s body was 
not “evolved”; because God “created” Adam's body, was to argue 
incoherently. To argue “incoherently,” is to conclude without justi- 
jication from the premises ; the conclusion against “Evolution” be- 
cause of “creation,” is to conclude without justification from the pre- 
mises; the Doctor’s argument was of this kind, as has been shown 
(Pamphlet, pages 3 to 5) ; therefore the Doctor’s argument is incoherent. 
How does the “Reply” seek to set aside this train of reasoning? Lis- 
ten: ‘“Where, then, is the contradiction between the creation and the 
evolution of Adam’s body? I answer: None whatever, if Adam’s body 
was created like mine—that is, through birth. . . . Now, we maintain 
