68 REV. PROF. G. F. WRIGHT, ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE 
That “ Prince of Science ” is no longer with us. The whole civilised 
world is conscious of a great absence. Not by our Society only, 
but wherever science and philosophy have a home, Lord Kelvin’s 
name is known and honoured. A born investigator, he recognised 
the Creator through the Creation, and natural phenomena were 
to him avenues to the great First Cause. He consistently 
interpreted the secrets of Nature in the language of truth ; whatever 
he touched he beautified, and he illuminated science with the calm 
lustre of a Christian life. As we offer to Lord Kelvin’s memory the 
tribute of an affectionate admiration, we thank God for giving such 
a man. His work will remain with us as a permanent asset, his 
example as an inspiration. 
In connection with Darwin’s mistake, referred to by the author, one 
is reminded that this is not the only instance of the healthy common 
sense of the people rebuking the theories of a visionary scientist. 
Two very important points are emphasised in the paper. The 
first is the young anticpiity of Man, who is supposed to have made his 
appearance in Central Asia (where the temperature was not severe) 
at the close of the Glacial — or may I say at the beginning of the 
post-Glacial 1 — Period. According to Dana’s estimate of ratios, 
Man’s appearance took place about 5,000 years ago ; but the learned 
author seems to prefer 7,000. I would suggest that we take the 
mean of these two estimates, 6,000 years or thereabout, as the 
probable length of Man’s terrestrial tenancy up to the present time. 
This is in close agreement with that obtained by applying Dana’s 
ratios to Wallace’s estimate. It also accords with the belief 
of Professor McK. Hughes, that there is no real evidence of 
Man’s existence at a period more remote than “ the post-Glacial 
river gravels.” The second important point is that “the story of the 
Noachian Deluge becomes easily credible to the attentive student 
. . . .” With regard to this matter, scientists have progressed 
surely, if slowly : and, to quote the words of Sir J. W. Dawson, we 
may be satisfied that “ geological investigation has now finally taken 
its place along with sacred history in the vindication and illustration 
of the much-controverted and much-ridiculed flood of Noah.” 
I beg to second the vote of thanks. 
Mr. Martin L. Rouse, B.L. — We owe deep and cordial thanks 
to Professor Wright; for he has given us this paper, not as one 
who has any reputation to earn through our means, but as one who 
