273 
bound, as a scientific society, to accept it as a thing proved in any sense 
such as certainly the scientific discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton. Darwinism 
is a thing which is now on its trial before the scientific world : it is in a period 
of probation. A great deal may be said for it, and a great deal may also be 
said against it ; but this is not the question before us. For my own part I 
heartily wish that this paper had been constructed, as Dr. Irons has suggested, 
entirely on a scientific basis, and totally irrespective of the bearings of the 
question upon Scripture ; but that line has not been taken, and the unfor- 
tunate part of the paper seems to me to be, that in some measure it proves 
Darwinism to be consistent with Scripture. Of course I am well aware that 
this is not intended. Thus in section 17 it is stated that Darwinism ne- 
cessitates the creation, or the existence, of a vegetable world before the 
creation of an animal world, — the very statement made in the first chapter of 
the Book of Genesis . 
Dr. Bree. — You have misread the passage. In it I state what, in my 
own belief, must have been the sequence, if evolution were true. 
Mr. Titcomb. — That is the point. Darwinism, properly understood, does 
take that line. It assumes the precedence of inorganic evolution from 
molecular atoms ; and (as I understand it) of vegetating evolution also, 
previous to the evolution of animal life from its first protoplasm. Hence 
the passage in section 18 of the paper, which seems to say that Darwinism 
must be wrong, because the vegetable world must have preceded the 
animal world, is, in my judgment, a non sequitur altogether. So far 
as it may be used as an argument it rather confirms Moses, and puts 
Darwinism on a scriptural basis ; for the argument here used is that 
Darwinism, if true, requires us to believe that vegetation was created before 
animal life. 
Dr. Bree.-— Allow me to mention that you have misapprehended my 
meaning. In detailing the views you refer to, I was stating what I considered 
was essentially necessary for evolution to effect, supposing that doctrine to be 
• true. I pointed out that it must take that line ; but I did not say that was 
the line taken by the evolutionists. Quite the contrary : they do not believe 
anything of the kind. 
My. Titcomb. — That is a matter of opinion. I believe that if Darwin were 
here he would say there has been the same amount of matter ever since the 
first creation, although by the correlation of forces there have been a variety 
of shapes in which that matter has existed. He would go back to inorganic 
matter, to molecular atoms scattered throughout the universe, which must 
have preceded by long ages the first germ of life. The whole theory of 
modern science, and of the school we are now discussing, seems to me to 
require this. 
Dr. Irons. — Were those molecular atoms all homogeneous, or was there a 
great variety of them ? 
Mr. Titcomb. — I believe the Darwinian school hold that there was a great 
variety ; and the theory of Huxley and Darwin is that they preceded the 
origin of life. 
