50 
time, I think we need not despair, supposing that doctrine to be ever esta- 
blished, which I do not believe it will, of reconciling even these with it. 
There is, for example, the passage stating that “The Lord God formed 
man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath 
of life, and man became a living soul. 5 * If we believe that the dust of 
the ground consisted of particles on which the Creator had conferred the 
power of developing first into vegetable and animal life, and afterwards 
into human life, I do not see that there need be any difficulty in reconciling 
this passage with the doctrine of evolution. It would seem to me that it 
might be done with quite as little, or even less violence to the words of 
Moses, than is involved in the interpretation adopted by certain geologists 
who explain the six days as being six lengthened periods of years. I thank 
the Meeting for the kindness with which they have heard me, and I beg to 
move the resolution which has been placed in my hands. 
Sir Joseph Fayrer, K.C.S.I., F.R.S. — My Lord, Ladies, and Gentlemen, 
I have much pleasure in seconding the resolution that has just been put. It 
is very gratifying to know that the Victoria Institute is progressing so satis- 
factorily, that it has increased its members so materially during the past few 
years by the addition of names of persons of education, of culture, and of 
influence ; and that it continues to diffuse its beneficial influence so widely, 
not only at home but in foreign countries. I feel, my Lord, that I have very 
little right to speak here, nor should I have dreamt of doing so if I had 
not been invited. I am quite a recent associate of this Society ; I have 
therefore had very little opportunity of making myself acquainted with its 
work, or of becoming familial* with its proceedings. Still, I am not alto- 
gether ignorant. I have read the Journal, I have heard several of the 
papers, I have listened with much attention and interest, and I hope profit, 
to the discussions that have followed those papers, and I have become con- 
vinced thereby that, conducted upon principles of philosophic and sound 
scientific inquiry, the Institute deserves the support that it receives, and that 
it is well calculated to produce great benefit. I observe in the Report one 
paragraph which refers to antagonism between science and revelation. I 
trust where such an antagonism does exist that the influence of this Society 
will make itself felt. For my own part I believe that there can be no 
antagonism betwixt religion and science (hear, hear) — between true science 
and real religion. Men may misapprehend, they may misinterpret one, or 
they may be totally ignorant of the other ; they may give rise to discussions 
that may be characterised by acrimony, by harsh terms, by offensive epithets ; 
that is the antagonism between individuals, it is not the antagonism between 
religion and science. My conviction is that the more science is known and 
studied, the more it is developed, the less appearance of antagonism there 
will be between it and religion. I think I may venture to say it with all 
deference, that there is far too great a tendency in the present day to decry 
men of science, to use harsh terms of them, to call them infidels, and 
by many other opprobrious terms. Now I really believe that for the most 
part they deserve no such epithets. Their object, I believe, is as honestly 
I 
