68 
The Chairman. — Professor Kirk’s point is that you cannot get particular 
origin from phenomena : the oak, and not the acorn, must precede the oak. 
Mr. Poyer. — I think considerable light is thrown upon this matter by the 
4th and 5th verses of the 2nd chapter of Genesis : — 
u These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they 
were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 
and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the 
field before it grew.” 
That, to my mind, is conclusive upon the point 
The Chairman. — I do not think you are at all at issue with Professor Kirk. 
Mr. Poyer. — Probably not. The argument is generally good, and logically 
maintained throughout its whole structure. Further on, in treating of 
Mr. Darwin’s theories, Professor Kirk says : — 
“In carrying out his idea of innumerable atoms such as would fly, each to 
its respective bone or part of a bone, or any other part of the material body, 
he speaks of the smallness of the atoms of the virus of small-pox that convey 
the disease, and of the small portions of diseased mucus from a plague- 
stricken ox, which is sufficient to corrupt the whole mass of a healthy animal 
when introduced into its blood ; and he says : ‘ The organic particles with 
which the wind is tainted over miles of space by certain offensive animals 
must be infinitely minute and numerous, yet they strongly affect the olfactory 
nerves.’ But there are no such particles, any more than there are ‘ organic 
particles ’ in the sounds that affect the auditory nerves. He is dreaming of 
the old notion that led men to calculate all the 4 imponderables ’ ; such as 
how light a bushel of smell must be, when a vase could give off as much as 
would fill and refill a large hall with that material for weeks or months 
together ! He forgets that all such notions are banished from tolerably in- 
formed minds, and that smells, like sounds, consist of movements only.” 
But I fancy the medical faculty would be rather against him there, and that 
he would find it extremely difficult to account for the spread of diseases if 
there are no morbific atoms carried in the elements 
The Chairman.— I think that is a very important point. 
Mr. Poyer. — I must say one word more. Even if Mr. Darwin is to 
prevail, he must considerably alter his terms. When he talks of “ the variety 
of species,” he is uttering a palpable contradiction ; for species, whilst it 
admits of modifications, does not admit of variety. It would not be species 
if it did, for species is represented in a particular normal or regular form. 
Now, how can climate or the art of man effect a change in that ? I would 
venture to suggest that species is the incarnation, the embodiment, of the 
Divine idea, and as such it is unsusceptible of those varieties which Mr. 
Darwin speaks of, though capable of modifications within the limits of 
species. (Hear, hear.) 
Rev. C. A. Row. — I quite agree generally with Professor Kirk’s paper, 
which I think is constructed upon very fair principles. I think, however, 
that there is considerable doubt as to what Professor Kirk meant in speaking 
of life. There is considerable diversity in the way in which life is spoken of 
