59 
PRIMITIVE MAN AND REVELATION* 
By Principal J. W. Dawson, LL.D., F.R.S., M‘Gill College, Montreal. 
Hon. For. Correspondent op the Victoria Institute. 
The battle-ground of opposition in the name of Science and Philosophy to 
the Holy Scriptures is ever changing, but in modern times most of it, in so 
far as Science is concerned, has centred on the early history of the earth and 
man as contained in Genesis. One portion of the controversy may be held 
to be disposed of. The geological record is so manifestly in accordance with 
the Mosaic history of creation that to all those (unfortunately as yet too few) 
who have an adequate knowledge of both stories, the anticipation of our 
modern knowledge of Astronomy, Physics, and Geology in the early chapters 
of Genesis is so marked as to constitute a positive proof of inspiration. 
Recent discoveries and hypotheses have given another turn to the discussion-, 
and have directed it to questions relating to primitive man and the con- 
nection of the modern period with previous geological eras. Man, we are 
told, is a descendant of inferior animals. His primitive condition was one 
of half brutal barbarism. His rise to the actual position of humanity was 
through countless ages of progressive development, extending over periods 
vastly longer than those of Sacred history. These doctrines, . supported by 
much plausible show of proof, are given forth by popular writers as ascer- 
tained results of scientific research, and we are asked to accept a new Genesis, 
shorn of all the higher spiritual features of that with which we are familiar, 
holding forth no idea of individual life and salvation, but only a dim prospect 
of some elevation of the race as the result of an indefinite struggle for exist- 
ence in the future. 
Many good men are naturally anxious as to whereto this may grow, and 
whether we are not on the brink of a decided breach between the Word of 
God and the study of the earliest human remains. My own belief is that 
the doctrines of the antiquity and descent of man, as held by the more ex- 
treme evolutionists, have attained to their maximum degree of importance, 
and that henceforth the more advanced speculators must retrace their steps 
toward the old beliefs, leaving, however, some most valuable facts in explana- 
tion of the early history of man. The subject is too extensive to allow of a 
full exposition of my reasons for this belief in the time to which this address 
must be limited, but I may refer to a few of the most recent facts in proof of 
my statement. 
The physical characters of the known specimens of primitive men are un- 
favourable to the doctrine of evolution. Theories of derivation would lead 
us to regard the most degraded races of men as those nearest akin to the 
primitive stock ; and the oldest remains of man should present decided ap- 
proximation to his simian ancestors. But the fact is quite otherwise. With 
the exception of the celebrated Neanderthal skull, which stands alone, and 
is of altogether unascertained date, the skulls, of the most ancient European 
men known to us, are comparable with those of existing races, and further* 
* The Value of Dr. Dawson’s paper will be apparent to all who have 
watched the controversy, of which the Flint Implement discussion is one 
phase ; it was read at the New York Conference last year, and he has 
now kindly placed a revised and corrected copy ih my hands.— [E d.] 
