58 



REV. G. F. WHIDBOKNE, M.A., F.G.S., ON 



experts on the side of religion and they knov\^ what the Bible, 

 broadly interpreted, has to say, we should be ready to listen to that 

 side of the subject, and I think this question of the converging lines 

 of religion and science is a very important one. 



Dr. SCHOFIELD. — I think the argument of this paper, in its 

 general terms, as universally accepted, that " In the beginning God 

 created the heaven and the earth," has long passed from a religious 

 statement into a scientific fact, accepted, in various terms, one 

 may say, by all thoughtful scientists, and therefore I think that the 

 larger part of this paper, beautifully thought out as it is, contains 

 matter generally accepted. Only Mr. Whidborne has shown us, in 

 the way he puts it before us, the steps by which it can be argued 

 out. 



There are only three possible propositions — either the world must 

 have created itself, or it must be eternal, or some one must have 

 created it. The first two are generally discredited, and the third 

 leads us to the First Cause, and is accepted by all Christians. 

 When you read Mr. Whidborne's postulates as to what nature 

 should be like in his twenty-two or twenty-three propositions, of 

 course we are quite aware that nature is not like the picture, so 

 the author gives his reasons for the discrepancy in his section 

 headed " Modification of it required by the Bible conception of 

 evil," but then you see scientists who do not accept the Bible do 

 not accept that. Mr. Whidborne, myself, and I suppose all of us, 

 believe that the First Cause was a God of love and light. The 

 conception of evil is of course a mystery, and the account given of 

 it in the Bible is not accepted by all scientists. They regard it as 

 a real stumbling block to scientific theology, and I think it must 

 continue to be so to those who do not accept the Bible. I do not 

 think it is possible to reach God without the Bible — you cannot 

 without it discover the first cause of life and the first cause of evil. 

 Mr. Whidborne accounts for this according to us, who are Christians 

 by the Biblical conception of evil. 



Then I would just like to say that the paper is of particular value, 

 I think, in presenting evolution definitely as a method and not as a 

 force. Mr. Whidborne seems to find a great difficulty when he 

 says, " It is not easy to imagine that in introducing new elements 

 of creation into the world, in building up new stages of advance 

 throughout the ages, He should have caused them all to come 



