being the same at certain altitudes as that of the Arctic region, the life of 
the plants commenced in each place ? As to the question of evolution, I have 
listened to many of the lecturers on that subject, and have not yet heard an 
argument that would in the least convince any plain man accustomed to 
simple language and exercising only such understanding as I pretend to 
possess. I am sorry to have taken up the time of the meeting, and am afraid 
I have rather gone out of the way in expressing my views. 
Mr. T. K. Callard, F.G.S. — Starting with the assumption that the Reve- 
lation of God must be in harmony with what He has done in nature, I 
would remark that, going back to the earliest forms of life — say to the bac- 
teria — I thoroughly agree with what has been said by Professor Beale and Dr. 
Wallich ; but I do not think that they have gone quite far enough, because, 
admitting that they have put the point in a satisfactory way, I think that 
even Darwin would have conceded as much as they. He would certainly 
have admitted a Creator, and would have allowed that life did not originate 
from the non-living. In fact, he starts with a Creator ; and the Evolution 
doctrine, which is regarded as so important, which has been so much 
discussed of late, and which bears the name of Darwin, also begins with a 
Creator ; but it afterwards leaves the process of development to natural and 
physical laws. The question which I regard as the most important — relates to 
the being and origin of man. With regard to Revelation, I would say that if 
the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15, is a part of the Revelation of 
God, that Epistle clearly speaks, not only of man, but of the first man, and 
contrasts that first man — Adam — with Christ. Well, if that be Revelation, 
the question is : Does the hypothesis which not only Haeckel, but Darwin, 
gives us as that of the origin of man, harmonise with what we are told in 
that chapter ? I think it does not. There was a first man — so the Apostle 
Paul seems to have believed, and so he has taught us. But if we go to the 
Evolution theory, where, I ask, is the first man ? If man came from an 
anthropoid ape, in what way did he come ? If it were by such infinitesimal 
changes as the evolutionists speak of, then I ask, when did the first 
man appear ? There must have been some hundreds of generations 
between the anthropoid ape and man. Where, therefore, can you put 
your finger and say, “ This is the first man, of whom the Apostle Paul 
has spoken ”? We have got, for generations, partly ape and partly man. 
If Paul were correct, where was the anthropoid ape, from which man came, 
in the Pliocene period ? We are told that in the Miocene they have found 
the bones of the ape ; but the Pliocene came after the Miocene, and no bone 
of an anthropoid ape has been found in the Pliocene period. Then we 
come to the Pleistocene ; and geologists are pretty well agreed that we 
must not put man further back than that. Man must be put on this side 
of the Glacial period. Is there, then, any evidence of an anthropoid ape 
having lived through the Glacial period ? If the Glacial period and the 
Pliocene period were interposed between man and the anthropoid ape, then, 
I ask, how could man by any possibility have come from the ape ? And, if 
