152 
with most of us. Then with regard to the number of species taken into the 
ark, I am certainly glad to have anything like an anti-Darwinian opinion ex- 
pressed, so long as it is expressed upon good grounds ; but I believe that Mr. 
Darwin’s theory could not have won or kept its place among naturalists at 
all, unless it had had some kind of foundation on actual facts, upon which 
the more extravagant hypothesis which goes by Mr. Darwin’s name has 
been based. If there is anything that modern science with regard to 
zoology bears testimony to, it is the reverse of what Mr. Davison tells 
us. We need not suppose that every now known species was taken into 
the ark : I thought the account says only all the genera — all the animals 
“ after their land ” ; and I do not believe there were so many species in 
the world 4,000 or 5,000 years ago as Mr. Davison assumes. Take the 
case of dogs : why, you are getting new breeds every day, and, in fact, we 
know very little yet of these extraordinary “ sports ” of nature. But in 
order to make out as strong a case as possible, Mr. Davison gives us these 
large figures, as showing the number of creatures that would require accom- 
modation in the ark : — mammalia, 1,658 ; birds, 6,266 ; reptiles, 642 ; and 
insects, about 500,000. And why does he give us these 500,000 insects ? I 
never heard before that insects were taken into the ark. Mr. Davison tells 
us correctly from the Scriptures, that “ all flesh died that moved upon the 
earth” But insects, as a rule, occupy the air. Then he seems inclined to 
think that some provision must have been made in the ark for the preserva- 
tion of certain fresh- water fish. We know that brackish water will kill 
fresh-water fish in the present day ; but in regard to the Deluge, fresh water 
might in many places have been kept from mixing with the salt, or greatly 
diluted by springs : and I am not ' sure that we are entitled to ignore the 
element of miracle to the extent that Mr. Davison seems inclined to do. On 
the contrary, I think that if the narrative proves anything, it certainly proves 
the miraculous bringing of the Flood ; and I do not think it would be wise in 
us to say, if the Flood was brought miraculously, that there might not have 
been something miraculous also in the mode of sustaining life. Then it 
should be remembered that animals when in a dormant condition exist for 
a long time without food ; and so animals, when not moving about in their 
ordinary habitats, would be likely to'live on a very small quantity of food, and 
not require as much as when roaming wildly through the forests. Some of 
the difficulties with regard to the supply of food for so large a number of 
animals may, therefore, be got over in that way. But I do not want to strain 
anything, either in the Scriptures or in science. I wish equally to avoid the 
misinterpretation of Scripture and the putting forward as veritable science 
mere conjectures and rash theories which are not worthy of the name. Certainly 
geology has not reached to that stage where its teaching can deserve to be 
called science, if we mean by science something which gives us definite 
knowledge. If we have any quasi-science in as yet a struggling condition, 
it is geology. According to geology now, you have no foundation even 
invented for any of the strata which have been laid down : we do not know 
ip the least how or upon what they were first laid. We have had a theory 
