311 
You must have your facts as a foundation ; and you must not draw con- 
clusions, whether deductive or merely inductive, beyond the facts which are 
there. There is too great a disposition on the part of men of science to cut 
up science into detached parts ; and, like the mathematician who deals with 
a bit of astronomy instead of the whole, you get them entirely overlooking 
many important considerations, and this prevents them finding themselves to 
be mistaken. This is entirely because science is cut up in this way ; for it is 
obvious that you cannot have two things true which contradict each other. 
Mr. Garbett was out of tune with the rest of his paper when he spoke of 
science and theology being at issue, because he began by pointing out that 
true science could not possibly be wrong. If there is an issue between 
science and revelation, it must be because that which we call science is not 
really science, or else we have some error in the revealed Scriptures. Now 
if it be proved by science that there were races of men created, according to 
Professor Macdonald’s theory, whose descendants are still living in different 
parts of the world, or, according to the extraordinary and new theory of 
this paper, none of whose descendants are now living, I would say that 
equally in both cases there must be some error in the Biblical narrative. 
Those who have been accustomed to read of Adam as being the first man, 
and of all men dying in Adam and being renewed in Christ, — all Scriptural 
students would at least be startled if you could prove from science that there 
was a race of men of which the Bible seems to know nothing. But I do 
think that if instances are brought forward in a paper like this, they should 
be instances on which there is no disagreement at all ; but in this case, with 
regard to the theories of the antiquity of man, there is the widest disagree- 
ment. There are hardly any two theories upon the subject which are at all 
reconcileable with each other. You should also consider the changing con- 
dition of geology, and remember that this theory of the antiquity of man is 
a deduction from a now antiquated geology, based upon fossil remains now 
found in different strata. As Mr. Titcomb has pointed out, you may have 
one theory, apparently supported by good evidence, in one year; and a year 
or two afterwards it may have to be entirely given up. 
Admiral Fishbourne. — There is one point which I think has not had 
sufficient justice done to it, and that is the necessity for harmony existing 
through all branches of knowledge. God is the common author of all things, 
and I cannot see the necessity for any one who is studying one department 
of knowledge to assume, because he thinks he has got his facts arranged 
judiciously, that his deductions are exact, and that he is to ignore the con- 
tradictions between his facts and those of others. The last paper which we had 
read here is an illustration of the necessity for that harmony. The author of 
that paper spoke favourably of Darwin’s evolution theory ; and yet he was a 
theologian, or rather a clergyman, though I consider his argument was 
directly opposed to the whole of the Biblical scheme. Geology recognizes a 
flood, and has it stamped upon the strata of the earth ; but how can a theo- 
logian point to the Flood or to the fall of man on the evolution principle ? 
Any man, whether he admits the Scriptural doctrine of the Fall or not, must 
YOL. IV. Y 
