The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1873-04-12
Answer to the Letter IS E."

oy correspondent who signs himself " f.. >
1t is not generally expected that man will
take much notice of anonymous criticisms,
nor that he will feel bound to attempt to
enlighten one WHO freely applies the word
"sinister " to those who may differ from
him. | believe it is generally supposed
among gentlemen, that such epithets are
evidence of weakness, not to speak of ill
manners, on the part of those who use
them. 1t is certainly easier to call names
and assail motives than to refute the de-
monstrated facts of science. The latter
your correspondent does not undertake to
do None Of my scientific arguments does
he venture to assail, except to roll the
Bible against them. But in all such con-
fiicts science has invariably whipped, not
the Bible, but the ignorance and folly of
those who have thrown the Sacred Word
under the wheel of knowledge. For all
that your correspondent attempts to show
to the contrary, every one of the scientific
facts presented in my lectures stands un-
contradicted, except in the effort to set the
Bible to making ugly faces at them. The
basis of my argument was that there is no
rule Of science to determine species IN tile ga
rious genera Of lO,osr animals, that does not
prooe plurality Of species in the genus homo.
Until this proposition is refuted, all effort
to oppose Revelation to it, is only to raise
the hand of faith against the impregnable
! bulwarks of science. If the cause of re-
ligien suffer. is it invariably does, in such
a conflict, the fault is certainly not to be
charged to men of science. 1t lies like
I stone at the door of that class of theologi-
ans who seem to possess much greater
/ capacity for believing than for reasoning
, But faith without knowledge is blind and
! gropes in eternal ignorance and delusion.-
! Your correspondent is blind enough to
declare that 1.-THE Bible was not designed
to teach men science" even while he tries
to pit the Sacred Volume against science.
! If the Bible is made to war upon science,
| it must certainly he answerable to the
| proofs of science. But, if the interpreted
| Word of the Almighty is arrayed against
the demonstrations of His Works, it must
be through the ignorance and folly of the
Interpreters. There can be no conflict
between the two, except what is produced
respondent thinks that my ''whole theory
of the origin of mankind directly antagon-
lied the plain account of the creation of
man y in the Bible. But in the lecture on
Science and Revelation" l showed that
my view was held by great number of
the most learned and devout clergy, and
especially by the learned Jewish Rabies,
who certainly ought to be allowed to inter
pref their own Scripture in questions in.
volving its phylology and history. The
fact that the most erudite and devout
christians are not agreed among themselves
in the opinion that the account in Genesis
teaches that Adam was the first and only
man created, ought to teach some modesty
to all but the most presumptuous in heap
ing censure upon the conclusions of science
in opposition TO that theory.
The letter " E is greatly alarmed by
the fear that if all species of men did not
descend from Adam they are not involved
in the terrible consequences of the fall of
Adam. l repeat that that is a question
with which science has nothing to do; but
humanity suggests that it would be most
fortunate thing for them if they are not
involved i'll Adams fall, since not one in a
Thousand million of these wild species, liy-
ing and dead, has even heard of the plan of
escape, or had either the means or capacity
of embracing the promise of Il Savior
If all the naturally barbarous species of
men are involved in the consequences of
Adams fall, there must be thousands and
thousands of millions more of these poor
wretches bowling in he'll than there are
human beings now inhabting the earth
Not only humanity, but reason stands
aghast at such proposition. But it is
one for which science is in no degree re-
spensible. If the letter " E - derives any
consolation from tor if he is not Mortified
at the dreadful thought-we, at least, claim
the right to pity the degradation into which
his intellect has fallen through the misuse
of Gods Sacred Word.
shall not fill your space with any ex-
tended remarks on what your correspon-
dent says i'll relation to Gains Danish ment.
The account makes no mention of any
children, except Cain and Abel, being born
to Adam until after the story of Gains
Punishment is told and finished If the
account is a confused medley with the be-
ginning in the middle, ard the end at the
commencement, and if Adams children
possessed fecundity beating that of cats
! and mice there might be some point in
"Es' remarks. But not any point
though, against science. for that stands
upon its own merits, independent of all
such speculative theories as the geographic
cal and populational character of q Nod"
of which not even Imagination pretends to
know anything. The only remarks nv
lecture contained on the subject were cred
tied to an eminent English clergyman, the
Rev. Dunbar Heath.
Nor need | use your valuable space in
noticing what your correspondent says
about the food, because | do not know of
lan
either in this country or Europe, who be-
lieves that the flood was universal, literally
covering the whole earth. There may be
such, but they certainly never can have
read the Rev. John Pye Smiths book on
that subject. "E " tells your readers that
lie "has examined the geography of Asia,
and finds that all the animals of Asia and
Australia and all the larger birds are en-
braced in catalogue of twenty different
species.' Then he has studied his lesson
very badly, for there are over thirty diff.
erent species ON the little continent of Aus
tralia alone, which have no Representations
in the ,faun0 Of any other portion of the
globe: and there are on the whole earth
over half million of different species of
animals. Your correspondent wants to
account for the different species of men
now inhabiting the various geological
IShliSo W lild1 "uliSl bIley III
sprung originally from one pair, the AL
mighty afterwards changed their physi-
| cal composition SO as TO adapt them to
their different sections Of their creation"
| But this change precisely amounts to new
creation, and just rs truly establishes the
origin of human species in their zones as
the scientific conclusion that they were
originally created there, does. The only
difference between the two theories is, that
the one supposes the scientific adaption to
be an after thought of the Almighty and
an amendment to the original creation,
while the other teaches that Gods work
from beginning, needed 10 amendment but
that every thing was, from the first crea-
tive act perfect for its species and its peri
3D. Which of these theories is most
worthy Of infinite wisdom and power,
am perfectly willing TO leave to the de-
cision of your intelligent readers, with this
| remark. that perfect adoption of men to
their different zones as an afterthought of
tho ('rp3tOr tr,,1y admits vi, =