140 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON 
by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” The intellectual 
Fathers of the Church in the days of its early purity and power held 
the same view. They found it in the Bible. Do not think this 
strange ; sometime ago an Oxford Doctor of Science, writing to the 
Standard in relief of the difficulties of another correspondent, a D.I)., 
said, “ Given one who had never read the Bible nor was biased by 
current views of the Bible, but who was familiar with Biology and 
Evolution : upon reading the first chapter of Genesis he would be 
struck with agreement of Genesis with these modern scientific views.” 
Let me say, I never held any other view of the Creation but that of 
Evolution, and I learned it through the Bible ; and have had the 
privilege of presenting to this Society the fact that the Hebrew 
verbs teach Evolution pure and simple, as also the Hebrew for create. 
Dr. W. Woods Smyth, in reply to certain enquiries addressed to 
him, said : The system of Classification in Natural History is 
frequently adduced in support of Evolution. The difficulties of the 
Special Creation, view are insurmountable. Would the Creator for 
no reason place in the animals of to-day, including man, clear evidence 
of their being descended from earlier and lower forms 1 Would He 
give to the human embryo thirteen ribs, as in the case of the apes 1 
In the development of the chick, would He begin by first making 
an embryo fish with gill slits and their vascular supply and then 
undo His work and make a bird 1 Would He directly create 
creatures ready in tooth and claw to tear one another ? Evolution 
requires that such creatures should come to be, but no other view 
does. I can assure Professor Orchard that my views of the Hebrew 
word translated create are from Dr. Samuel Davidson. We have no 
higher authority to-day. 
Rev. Professor G. Frederick Wright, D.D. — It is interesting to 
notice that the speaker has had very little to say about Darwin ; 
which leads to the observation that Darwin rarely uses the word 
Evolution, and, in fact, was not an evolutionist in the sense that 
Spencer was. Indeed, he said of Spencer, that if he had observed 
more and written less, he would have conferred a favour upon the 
world. Darwin’s method of investigation was the opposite to that 
of Spencer. Spencer’s method was a priori with an unproved and 
impossible assumption to begin with, from which he attempted to 
unfold the whole universe. Darwin’s method was a posteriori. 
Beginning with the known variations in individuals and in species, 
