50 



EEV. G. F. WHIDBOENE, E.G.S., ON 



to render it impossible that the Creator may, if he choose, have 

 ordained to work by this method, and by this alone. Evolution 

 thus becomes a subsidiary theory of method, which requires to 

 be proved by detailed evidence. It cannot be established by 

 assumption ; and at present its direct proof is confessedly not 

 complete. No doubt it has claimed a very general acceptance 

 at the present time among scientific authorities. But this is 

 the acceptance of a presumption based on a vast network 

 of facts united by assumptions, not of a consecutive proof 

 definite beyond controversy. There is still much to be 

 said about it on both sides. There are many and great 

 difficulties to it, some of which have been generally ignored, 

 some perhaps hardly as yet generally realized. Moreover, its. 

 supporters have been obliged to introduce extensive modifica- 

 tions into its aspect. While they have retained their con- 

 clusion, their explanations of its causes have varied, are varying^ 

 and are subjects of dispute. Certainly the great hypothesis 

 has been forced materially to change its form ; and it has 

 responded with Protean facility. Terms have been imported 

 into it, which would have been regarded as fundamentally 

 antagonistic to it in Darwin's time. liapid, almost sudden 

 change, has, for instance, been invoked to replace imperceptible 

 variation. It does not come within our present subject to 

 examine any of the facts upon which it is based, or the 

 difficulties and contradictions which appear to underlie it. It 

 is enough to remark, that, in spite of a vast accumulation of 

 apparently supporting evidence, it still rests very largely upon 

 inference and assumption ; and that many more lacts would be 

 required, and many of those very hard to get, beibre it could be 

 lield, at least in its extreme phase, to be infallibly established. 



But at present our question is this : — how does Evolution 

 stand, when viewed from the light of the scriptural conception 

 of God ? Does it seem an adequate explanation of the probable 

 methods of His working ? As we have tried to realize what 

 kind of creation might be expected to become from such a. 

 Creator, can we go a step further and conclude from our idea 

 of Him, that evolution looks as if it was the method — the only 

 method — He employed in its production ? We confess that 

 to us it seems, in this light, altogether too narrow an hypothesis, 

 too poor an explanation ! He, the all-wise, the all-providing, 

 worked to form the worlds ; and, in this world, to form existing 

 nature. Abounding signs of unison in nature point to His 

 Unity; but do they prove a unity in front of Him? Is it 

 probable that He, to whom all methods were possible, should 



