' we mee 
600 
undertaken to make such schemes of recon- 
ciliation, and that which we finally and some- 
what laboriously constructed was very similar 
to that of Professor Guyot. But latterly we 
have thrown all such aside, as belittling a tran- 
scendently great and serious subject. But for 
those who think differently, we give a very 
brief account of the book, with some reflections 
thereon. 
Professor Guyot’s scheme differs from many 
others in the fact that his-first two days are 
wholly cosmic, and not terrestrial. First 
comes, of course, the creation of matter, its 
chaotic or nebulous condition, and the energiz- 
ing of it by the brooding spirit. This is pre- 
paratory. Then, as the first day’s work, is the 
creation of light. This, according to Guyot, 
was the condensation of the nebulous mass by 
gravity, and the consequent development of 
heat and light. The second day’s work is 
the creation of the firmament, or expanse. The 
expanse here spoken of is the interplanetary 
space. ‘This day, therefore, corresponds to the 
formation and separation of the planets (the 
earth among the number) from the still nebu- 
lous sun. The scene is now transferred to the 
earth, and the correspondence is henceforward 
with the geological record. The third day’s 
work was the separation of land and water (by 
unequal contraction of the earth), and the crea- 
tion of plants ; at first, according to our author, 
only of the lowest kinds (protophytes). This 
corresponds to the early archaean. ‘The fourth 
day’s work was the placing in the heavens 
of sun, moon, and stars, for marking of days 
and nights, and times and seasons. This, ac- 
cording to our author, was the first appearance 
of the heavenly bodies by the clearing of the 
sky, heretofore completely obscured by clouds 
of vapor. This was a necessary preparation 
for animals and higher plants. It corresponds 
to later archaean. The work of the fifth day 
was the creation of animals (and our author 
thinks many higher plants also), monsters of 
the deep, creeping things, and fowl of the 
air. This corresponds to the whole paleozoic 
and mesozoic. The work of the sixth day 
was, first, the creation of four-footed beasts 
(mammals), and afterwards of man. This 
corresponds to the cenozoic or tertiary, and 
quaternary. The seventh day was rest, — 
no creative work, no new continents, no new 
organic forms. This corresponds to the psy- 
chozoic, or present. Throughout, of course, 
the days are regarded as cosmogonic, not solar 
days. 
Such is a very brief sketch of the scheme. 
Those who wish to understand it more fully, 
SCIENCE. 
[Vor. IIL, No. 67. 
and especially to see the skilful way in which 
the details are worked out, must read the book. 
A few words now in the way of reflection 
and criticism. Professor Guyot draws special 
attention to the fact, that the word bara 
(‘ create ’) is used in connection with only three 
events; viz., the creation of matter, of sen- 
tient life (animals), and of spirit (man). In 
connection with other events, another word is 
used. He makes much of this in connection 
with the apparent chasm which exists between 
inorganic forces and life, and between the 
sentient soul (anima) of animals and the self- 
conscious spirit of man. Certainly there are 
great gaps at these points; but surely science 
would place the second one, not between plants 
and animals, but between plants and minerals. 
The bara, therefore, should come, not on the 
fifth day, but on the third. 
Again: Professor Guyot assumes that life 
is an immaterial principle, not correlated with 
the other forces of nature as these are with 
each other, and connects this with the appar- 
ent impossibility of abiogenesis, or origin of 
life by inorganic forces ; and this, again, with 
the necessity, as he thinks, of a rupture of the 
continuity of nature, and of a supernatural in- 
terference at the time of introduction of life on 
the surface of the earth. Now, as to the first 
point: we think that nearly all scientific men — 
believe that life-force is derivable, and in fact 
is always derived, from physical and chemical 
forces, under appropriate conditions. One of 
these necessary conditions seems now to be the 
previous existence at the very place and time 
of living matter. Abiogenesis seems now to be 
impossible. Life is a necessary condition of 
derivation of life-force, but none the less is it 
derived from lower forces by transmutation. 
This brings us to the second point. Most 
persons, even many scientific men, seem to 
think that the truth of the doctrine of evolution 
is conditioned on the occurrence, or at least 
the possibility, now, in this geological epoch, 
of abiogenesis. We do not think so: on the 
contrary, we think that the impossibility of 
abiogenesis now is exactly what a clear con- 
ception of the law of evolution would lead us 
to expect. The mistake which leads some to 
imagine that abiogenesis is a necessary cor- 
ollary of evolution is of the same kind as that 
which leads some persons to imagine that evo- 
lution implies the capability of any one of the 
lower animals to develop into man. Golden 
opportunities in evolution occur but once. 
Birds, doubtless, came from reptiles; but this 
is not going on now. Reptiles came through 
amphibians from fishes, but a salmon may not — 
