IN THE CREATION STORY OP GENESIS. 



78 



which belong to " the knowable," in the Spencerian use of that 

 term. It is therefore reasonable to be prepared for an even 

 larger element of mystery in matters with which " revelation " 

 professedly deals — God, man's relation to Him ; the great 

 Christian verities. Not even the most thorougli- going 

 materialist can charge as with superstition here, if he reflects 

 upon what the human intellecc can do in controlling and 

 directing the powers stored in Nature. We recognise the mind 

 or intellect of the Chemist behind the wonderful advances that 

 have been made in our day in synthetic chemistry : the mind of 

 a Bauer (c.g.^ in the synthesis of indigo \ the mind of an Emil 

 Fischer in the synthesis of sugar. ^' And we feel ourselves on 

 ground as logically safe, when we insist upon the factor of 

 directivity (as lately ably expounded by Professor George 

 Henslow)t being superadded to those factors that are included 

 in the Darwinian dogma of evolution hy natural selection through 

 survival of the fittest. We recognise that as playing its part in 

 those variations whereby "natural selection" is made possible. 

 Such directivity, we maintain, cannot find its full explanation 

 in mere chance changes in the environment calling into play 

 new reactions of the protoplasm of living beings : still less can 

 that account for the protoplasm itself, or for the differentiation 

 which has come about between ma,n and the anthropoids. On 

 this point it matters little whether the genus Homo is 

 structurally related more closely to the orang, the gorilla or the 

 chimpanzee among the anthropoidsj with whom he is said to 

 claim a descent from a common ancestry; the important point 

 is that anthropology and palaeontology combine to testify to his 

 a.ppearance in the created series at the place assigned to him by 

 the inspired writer, so far as that place could be assigned in 

 language intelligible to an unscientific age in the history of 

 mankind. The non-recognition of the distinction between the 

 Homo of the naturalist and the Man of Scripture and 

 philosophy may be said to constitute the fundamental fallacy 

 that vitiates the whole argument of the Romanes Lecture, 

 lately delivered at Oxford by Professor Kay Lankester, P.E.S. ; 



To these we may add the name of Ladenburg, recipient of a Royal 

 Society Medal in the year 1905. 



t See Christian Apologetics (London, John Murray, 1903), a series of 

 addresses delivered at University College, London. 



I See Review in Nature of Duckworth's Morphology and Anthropology, 

 \o\. Ixxi, p. 433. 



F 2 



