24 
between us—viz.: Was the body of Adam born or not born ?—that plea 
therefore “begs the question ;” certainly no logician would consent to 
meet the charge of non sequitur by submitting a petitio principit. 
Nor will the plea that the critic “begged the question” remove the inco- 
herency, for that plea is an ignoratio elenchi, it will not cohere with the 
only point the critic undertook to prove, or cared to prove, or needed to 
prove, viz.: that even though Adam’s body had been created by Evolu- 
tion, still that would be no contradiction of the Bible statement, that 
God created his body of the dust of the ground; upon that we based 
the argument, that the assertion that Adam’s body was ‘not evolved” 
because it was “created,” was incoherent; and that the assertion that 
the Scriptures contradicted the “evolution” of Adam’s body because the 
Scriptures assert “creation” of Adam’s body, was incoherent ; and there- 
fore that the conclusion, that evolution and the Scriptures are ‘mutual 
contradictories,” because the Scriptures affirm that Adam’s body was 
“created,” is a non sequitur. Our task was to prove, not the “har- 
mony” according to the Doctor’s school, but the “non-contradiction”’ 
according to the Woodrow school. According to the former school, 
the Doctor’s task was, not merely to “maintain,” but to prove by ‘good 
and necessary consequence,” that Adam’s body “was not born” ; before 
he could coherently draw the conclusion, that the Bible and evolution 
were “mutually contradictory.” According to the latter school, my 
task, in order to refute the Doctor, was, not to prove that Adam’s body 
was born; but simply to prove (as I did), that whether it was born or 
not born; whether generated like the body of Girardeau, of Isaac, or of 
Jesus, or not generated at all ; whether evolution of Adam’s budy were 
true or false; still the Bible remained uncontradicted, because it gave 
no testimony for or against evolution; it was neutral; it was “silent.” 
The Professor’s thesis was—The Bible and evolution are “mutually con- 
tradictory ;’’ my thesis was the contradictory opposite—The Bible and 
evolution are “not” mutually contradictory. If, therefore, evolution be 
true, the Bible is not contradicted ; equally so, therefore, if evolution be 
false, still the Bible is not contradicted. So far, therefore, as the 
‘4igsue” between us is concerned, I had no interest whatever in maintain- 
ing the truth or falsity of evolution in general, or of Adam’s body in 
particular ; whether he was born or not born, the criticism of the Doc- 
tor’s argument, viz., “incoherent,” remains. Hither Adam was born or 
he was not born; in either event he was “created out of the ground ;” 
in either event the Bible and evolution are not “mutually contradictory ;” 
in either event the Doctor’s argument is incoherent. My argument was 
