89 
scientific objectors further add that Genesis is erroneous also 
in principle, inasmuch as it clearly describes the creation of 
distinct species, and especially asserts most strongly the 
radical dissimilarity of man from other animals ; while Science 
is ever more and more tending to the conclusion that species 
are the result, not of creation, but of natural development, 
variation, and selection ; that man is no exception to this, but 
is, after all, no more than a developed, educated, or selected 
ape. 
To these objections against the Scripture cosmogony, the 
most diverse replies have been given, according to the taste, 
prejudice, or predilection of the replicant. They may be 
classified, however, roughly into the same three groups as 
those noticed under the first head. 
First, we have those who deny the contradictory assertions 
of Science as untrue. The time, order, manner, and principle 
of creation, according to these, were, in fact, exactly as Genesis 
represents; the objections of Science are false and unfounded. 
The fossil remains on which geologists lay stress are either 
pure illusions, or the results of the Deluge; the formation of 
rocks was carried on in a manner and at a speed wholly unlike 
anything observable at the present day, if, indeed, they were 
not at once created just as they are, without any process of 
formation at all ; the inferences deduced from the position and 
order of strata are hazardous and presumptuous ; the supposed 
natural origin of species little, if at all, short of atheistic blas- 
phemy. As m the former case, it is to be noted that this line 
ot answer, at first the most prevalent and popular, is now in 
regard to the most important objections in question, those, 
viz. of time and manner, pretty well given up ; the intrinsic 
weakness, and uncertainty of the other two (those of order 
and principle) allowing it there, however, full action still. But 
with respect to the time and manner of creation, the advocates 
of Scripture now generally adopt the second line of answer 
before indicated,— -that, namely, of denying the contradiction 
by modifying the interpretation of Scripture. 
This group of replicants is a very large one, and may con- 
veniently be again subdivided into three. The first of these 
subdivisions consists of those who hold that the narrative of 
Gen. 1. is a full, proper, and scientifically accurate account of 
the creation of the earth, the days spoken of being, not literal 
days of twenty-four hours each, but vast periods of indefinite 
duration, corresponding, and meant to correspond, to the 
periods disclosed by Geology. Some maintain this view by a 
larger and more comprehensive, but still simple scheme of in- 
terpretation, by which the narrative becomes a kind of pictorial 
g 2 
