284 
propounded, because their authors are scientific men. Mr. Titcomb says we 
are not bound to accept Mr. Darwin at present ; but that he believes some 
portions of Darwinism are consistent with Religion. Now, I believe 
that Darwinism must be taken as a whole, and that it has yet to be 
reconciled with the records of the Bible ; hence I cannot agree with him. 
He argued that we were not bound to accept Darwinism as proved, and 
adduced the observations made in the paper as indicative that the order 
of evolution, commencing first with vegetative, and then with animal life, 
was in accordance with the Mosaic theory. But I did not for a moment 
contend that my line of evolution was that which would be accepted 
by the evolutionist, but merely that it was the line which I considered 
the exigencies of his case required him to adopt, and it was intended 
by me as an argument against evolution. Suppose that the world was 
covered with verdure by means of the potentiality with which the first 
germ' was endowed, there would be myriads upon myriads of spots on the 
earth where the power to vary into an animal ought to be evolved, which 
would throw the whole matter into an absurd position. Mr. Titcomb spoke 
of infinite molecules existing before the first germ of life came into being. 
Granted ; but is it even probable that the Creator would have taken some 
of these molecules — converted them into living matter— endowing them with 
a potentiality by which they would be evolved in myriads upon myriads of 
years into all the living world we see around us ! Surely, such a mode of 
creation is not consistent with the teachings of the Bible ? He further asks 
“Does Darwinism of necessity imply that there is no Providence in 
Nature ?” I think it does. If the disciple of Mr. Darwin, or the evolutionist, 
were to put an exterior power as the cause of the changes which they say 
are produced by “ blind force,” there would be an end to one of the strongest 
objections to the theory. But then why use the terms “ Natural selection,” 
“variation,” “struggle for existence,” “survival of fittest”? These 
elements of evolution are incompatible with an external Divine power, 
which Mr. Titcomb will admit is the doctrine of the Bible. Where, 
in such a case, would be the necessity for elaborate works to prove 
that the “ blind forces ” of nature are sufficient to evolve a living being ? 
or that the world is “ self-regulative ” and self-adjusting ? The opinion can- 
not be entertained for a moment. The same speaker has objected to my 
applying the word “ chance ” to Mr. Darwin’s description of the mode by 
which variations caused “ struggles for existence.” But I gave Mr. Darwin’s 
explanation, which purely removed the expression to that of “ ignorance ” 
of the cause of variation. If “chance” means “ignorance,” what does 
Mr. Darwin mean by the struggles for existence where the strong 
overcome the weak and survive as the fittest ? Mr. Titcomb will per- 
ceive that the only alternative left is that God arranged that His crea- 
tures should be evolved from the lowest to the highest by creating 
the strong on purpose to subdue the weak, which is not, I think, a belief 
consistent with the teachings of Scripture. With regard to the objections 
to my strictures upon Professor Tyndall’s project for trusting the efficacy 
