139 
and of nearly every denomination, had agreed to that ; and I ask those who 
taunted them with their disagreement, to produce so many articles of 
scientific faith, which they would all adopt (hear), or which they had ever 
adopted, for one century. (Hear, hear.) Nay, I challenge men of science to 
produce such a confession of faith in the truths of science, as is contained in 
the Apostles’ Creed, upon which they were agreed at the present moment, or 
upon which they had agreed even for the last ten years. (Hear, hear.) When 
they have done that, it would be time enough to taunt Christians with 
their differences of opinion on matters of faith. (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. Ince. —It was not my intention to take any part in the discussion ; 
but I desire to mention a remarkable circumstance which, perhaps, no one 
else in the room is aware of, and that is, that within the last few days some 
twenty specimens of terebratulae have been found in this country, off Skye. 
On the previous Friday night I had the pleasure of examining one, and when 
I took it into my hand it was still alive, though just dying. I think it impor- 
tant to mention this fact as bearing out the arguments of Dr. Burnett, to 
whom our best thanks are due for the very valuable paper he has con- 
tributed. 
Mr. Warington. In the few remarks which I shall make upon the paper, 
I shall occupy as little time as possible. It struck me that the paper was 
one which, if any sceptic had been present, would have afforded him an 
opportunity for very severe criticism. It appears to me that there is one 
radical fault in Dr. Burnett’s argument, and a very radical fault it is. The 
absence of Dr. Burnett would make one loath to speak of it in a critical 
manner ; but it seems to me as if he had overlooked what the true mode of 
reasoning is by which any science obtains its conclusions. He admits that 
scientific induction in geology is just and right up to a certain point ; but 
he argues that it is presumptuous to go one step further. He admitted that 
geology was right in saying that the remains of veritable animals had been found 
in the earth, which animals certainly died ; but he contended that it was 
presumption on the part of geologists to say that those animals died before 
Adam was created. But the kind of reasoning by which geologists arrived at 
the one fact was precisely identical in principle with the kind of reasoning by 
which they arrived at the other. The difference was merely in degree. How 
was it, when a bone was discovered in the earth, that they were able to say 
that it was the bone of an animal ? Was it possible to give mathematical proof 
of it ? It was certainly impossible ; no one could tell whether it was the bone 
of an animal or not, except by analogy. They were enabled to recognize it 
as a bone, from its resemblance in form to the bones of animals with which 
they were acquainted; but that was all the proof that could be given, and 
they had no other grounds for arriving at the conclusion that it was a bone. 
It was quite possible that there might be such a structure unconnected 
with a living animal, and that there might be such a form unconnected with 
life ; but inasmuch as no human being had ever known of such a thing, it was 
taken as proof that the structure was a bone, and that the bone was the 
bone of a living animal which had died. It was a proof which rested solely 
