THE GENESIS OF NAT ORE. 



57 



incomprehensible." I would not venture to impugn the meaning of 

 that expression, but if an equivalent could be found for it in 

 meaning I think it might be desirable, considering that in the 

 Athanasian Creed " incomprehensible " is used as meaning 

 illimitable, " whom the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain," beyond 

 all creation. If some equivalent could be found for that I think it 

 might be as well, as it is used in theology in another sense. 



Again he says, " As God is glorious," I note that Mr. Whidborne 

 speaks of beauty existing for itself and not for its utility. I think 

 that is amply borne out by Dr. Wallace in his " Tropical Forest," 

 where no human being had been before to study science. He speaks 

 of the floral world and birds of paradise generating, flourishing and 

 disappearing as unseen objects by man for generations, with no one 

 to enjoy their beauty : showing that these creatures exist for them- 

 selves and not for their utility. Some of the most glorious objects 

 of creation have only been seen the last thirty years by man. Some 

 of the most splendid birds of the most varied colours and most 

 gorgeous plumage are amongst these. 



Again he says, " As God is righteous." It struck me as I heard 

 that read, that the sting in objects of creation is a very recent thing, 

 and the bite on the contrary (dentition for mastication and olfence 

 — the organ of the teeth) is common to all objects, from man 

 downwards. Of course we see adaptations suitable for all require- 

 ments in the creation around us in the present day ; how moths of 

 the same species are varied in colour according to the country they 

 live in, and the colour and texture of the geological regions in which 

 they are found. The same kinds are very varied in the west of 

 Scotland and the middle of Iceland, because of the different-coloured 

 rocks, and for self-protection their tints will harmonize with the 

 colours of those stones. 



Walter A. Kidd, M.D. — There are many general points I 

 should like to refer to in connection with the paper. It is a most 

 valuable paper, and most courageously and properly maintains the 

 right of religion to have its voice heard on the subject of the 

 Genesis of Nature, which is not often maintained with sufficient 

 courage in discussion. Mr. Whidborne, who is himself a geologist, 

 has as much right to be considered an expert in this matter as 

 other scientists have on their side, for these questions run on 

 converging lines of evidence, and if Mr. AMiidborne and his like are 



E 2 



