46 
“ All that the modern theologian has to do, therefore, is to confess that 
his interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis was inadequate, and requires 
correction; and that he has to thank science for having pointed out his 
mistake.” 
Now, nothing there is said about evolution, but it is clearly implied that 
we are all mistaken in supposing that we had gained a right idea from the 
words, “ God created man.” When last here, I said that I, for one, was 
quite prepared to give up the old doctrine that God created man, and to 
accept the new one that the monads had developed him, upon good reason 
being shown ; but the reason has not been shown, and until it is, I must 
hold that “ no man having drunk old wine straightway desireth new ; for he 
saith, the old is better.” Mr. Henslow, in page 18, says it is nothing to him 
whether he is the descendant of an ape or not : — 
“ It neither prevents nor helps me to do this, to hear either that I was or 
was not descended from an ape, an ascidian, or an amoeba ! If the probability 
be proved to outweigh the improbability, I am ready to accept it ; and I care 
not so long as truth prevail.” 
Now, I do not believe that such is my descent ; and I say, further, that if I 
were to hold this theory, the moral effect on me would be unspeakable when 
contrasted with the actual knowledge that my first father was made in the 
image of the Creator. I cannot take it as nothing that my first father was 
made in God’s image, and that has a very different moral effect upon me 
from what is told here. Where is the evidence to support the evolutionists’ 
view ? They talk of the eye ; but Darwin himself confesses the immense 
difficulty in accounting for the origin of the eye, even in its most rudi- 
mentary forms. Remember, we are dealing with what Professor Whewell 
calls “ dead matter,” and with the theory that life itself was produced from 
dead matter. The highest authorities maintain that there must have been 
a period of 30,000 years for the coral reefs of Florida to have been raised ; 
but what is Dr. Carpenter’s testimony as to the foraminifera there ? He 
tells us that there is no evidence of an advance in type, and that what we 
do see is that variations concur to attest this fact, that the foraminifera, 
however much they vary, never turn into anything else, but must always 
remain what they were . But I do not dwell upon such facts as that the 
Silurian fuci and algae, and the plants in the coal-measures would disprove 
the progressive developments, nor upon the fact that the development for 
which Darwin contends is not continuous ; and yet if not continuous it is 
discontinuous, for it is not development unless you can bring all the links 
together. But I come to such a fact as this, that Darwin himself admits : 
“I cannot account for the rudiment of an eye.” I do not wonder at it, 
because you have to get it out of something as unlikely to form an eye as 
this pencil — you have to get it out of the inorganic. No doubt Mr. Henslow 
says, “ I contend for a vitalized organism,” but I am speaking of the theory 
as it is propounded by others who will not accept it with his limitations. 
The author of the Vestiges of Creation says that the first step in the 
