76 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
table of creative periods given by him (p. 353) will perhaps show better 
than a long discussion what are the precise views he holds. It is as follows : — 
Parallelism op the Scriptural Cosmogony with the Astronomical 
and Geological History op the Earth. 
Biblical iEons 
Periods deduced from Scientific considerations 
The Beginning. 
First Day . — Earth mantled by the 
vaporous deep — Production of 
light. 
Second Day . — Earth covered by the 
waters — Formation of the atmo- 
sphere. 
Third Day . — Emergence of dry land 
— Introduction of vegetation. 
Fourth Day . — Completion of the 
arrangements of the solar system. 
Fifth Day . — Invertebrates and fishes, 
and afterwards great reptiles and 
birds created. 
Sixth Day . — Introduction of mam- 
mals — Creation of man and Edenic 
group of animals. 
Creation of Matter. 
Condensation of Planetary bodies 
from a nebulous mass — Hypothe- 
sis of original incandescence. 
Primitive universal ocean, and es- 
tablishment of atmospheric equi- 
librium. 
Elevation of the land which fur- 
nished the materials of the oldest 
rocks — Eozoic period of geology. 
Metamorphism of Eozoic rocks and 
disturbances preceding the Cam- 
brian epoch — Present arrange- 
ment of seasons — Dominion of 
“ Existing Causes ” begins. 
Palaeozoic period — Reign of inverte- 
brates and fishes. 
Mesozoic period — Reign of reptiles. 
Tertiary period — Reign of Mammals. 
Post-tertiary — Existing mammals 
and man. 
The seventh and eighth days we may omit. 
One has only to read over the simple narrative of the Biblical writer to 
see that a good deal of non-natural interpretation is necessary to arrive at 
this view of the meaning of the Genesiac cosmogony, even if we are pre- 
pared to accept without cavil the statements of the second column as giving 
absolutely the results of modern investigation. The Biblical writer says, 
“ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth/’ which is 
evidently a prefatory statement ; and he then goes on to describe how the 
operation of Creation was performed, but he says nothing about the creation 
of matter, which, we may fairly presume, had he thought about it, would 
have puzzled him as much as it did Sanchoniathon, Berosus, and the rest 
of them, including Principal Dawson himself. 
It is unnecessary to go further, as the table speaks for itself, and the reader 
will have little difficulty in recognizing the strained interpretation put upon 
the Scriptural record, in order to bring it into accordance with the assumed 
scientific results. It is clearly necessary to admit that some portions, at 
any rate, of the Bible are only the expression of human thoughts, and the 
most orthodox of us may safely regard this Genesiac account of the Creation 
as coming under such a category. 
It need hardly be said that Principal Dawson does not accept the modern 
doctrines of evolution, but at the same time he admits that if we understand 
evolution as signifying merely the carrying ouCof the plans of the Creator 
