273 



bound, as a scientific society, to accept it as a thing proved in any sense 

 such as certainly the scientific discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton. Parwinisra 

 is a thing which is now on its trial before the scientific world : it is in a period 

 of probation. A great deal may be said for it, and a great deal may also be 

 said against it ; but this is not the question before us. For my own part I 

 heartily wish that this paper had been constructed, as Dr. Irons has suggested, 

 entirely on a scientific basis, and totally irrespective of the bearings of the 

 question upon Scripture ; but that line has not been taken, and the unfor- 

 tunate part of the paper seems to me to be^ that in some measure it proves 

 Darwinism to be consistent with Scripture. Of course I am well aware that 

 this is not intended. Thus in section 17 it is stated that Darwinism ne- 

 cessitates the creation, or the existence, of a vegetable world before the 

 creation of an animal world, — the very statement made in the first chapter of 

 the Book of Genesis. 



Dr. Bree. — You have misread the passage. In it I state what, in my 

 own belief, must have been the sequence, if evolution were true. 



Mr. TiTCOMB. — That is the point. Darwinism, properly understood, does 

 take that line. It assumes the precedence of inorganic evolution from 

 molecular atoms ; and (as I understand it) of vegetating evolution also, 

 previous to the evolution of animal life from its first protoplasm. Hence 

 the passage in section 18 of the paper, which seems to say that Darwinism 

 must be wrong, because the vegetable world must have preceded the 

 animal world, is, in my judgment, a non sequitur altogether. So far 

 as it may be used as an argument it rather confirms Moses, and puts 

 Darwinism on a scriptural basis ; for the argument here used is that 

 Darwinism, if true, requires us to believe that vegetation was created before 

 animal life. 



Dr. Bree. — Allow me to mention that you have misapprehended my 

 meaning. In detailing the views you refer to, I was stating what I considered 

 was essentially necessary for evolution to effect, supposing that doctrine to be 

 true. I pointed out that it must take that line ; but I did not say that was 

 the line taken by the evolutionists. Quite the contrary : they do not believe 

 anything of the kind. 



Mr. TiTCOMB. — That is a matter of opinion. I believe that if Darwin were 

 here he would say there has been the same amount of matter ever since the 

 first creation, although by the correlation of forces there have been a variety 

 of shapes in which that matter has existed. He would go back to inorganic 

 matter, to molecular atoms scattered throughout the universe, which must 

 have preceded by long ages the first germ of life. The whole theory of 

 modern science, and of the school we are now discussing, seems to me to 

 require this. 



Dr. Irons. — Were those molecular atoms all homogeneous, or was there a 

 great variety of them ? 



Mr. TiTCOMB. — I believe the Darwinian school hold that there was a great 

 variety ; and the theory of Huxley and Darwin is that they preceded the 

 origin of life. 



