The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1878-04-13
THE PACIFIC
THE PACIFIC
SATURDAY Y. APRIL Is.
From scribner's Monthly for APRIL
THE MOSAIC CREATION AND
MODERN SCIENCE.
BY C. B.

All religions have their cosmogonies. The
question, whence and how the world came into
! existence, has been asked from the earliest days.
The idea of dictatorship is universal. Combined
with ignorance and superstition, it has given
birth to cosmogonic myths which sometimes
excite admiration by their beauty, but more
often establishment by their grotesqueness. AS
knowledge increased and superstition vanished.
their falsehood became evident, and they are
remembered only as curious examples of what
the human mind is capable of believing.
Of the many accounts of the origin OF all
things, only one retains any hold upon the faith
of nations which have become civilized and edu-
Gated. This one is recorded in the first chapter
of Genesis, and, whatever its merits or defects,
at least is remarkable for its great antiquity, and
for the fact that it comes to US from a nation
who, at the time we first hear of the story, were
just emerging from slavery, and who, whatever
their capabilities, never formed a system of
natural philosophy, or added anything to the
sum of human knowledge in any department
of physical science. This people produced in
the deserts of Arabia a cosmogony having in it
enough truth, or at least enough resemblance of
truth, to command the belief of some of the
profoundest thinkers of this most enlightened
century. If it be denied that the Hebrews pro-
duced the account, to them must be attributed
the credit of valuing it SO highly that they pre-
served it with the utmost care, while, on the
supposition that the story is of Egyptian or
ASbyFldU Origin, tuOcc HdtlOub, dlluOuRn uOtcu
for their scientific requirements, allowed it to
pass into oblivion, or at most to live in the
strangely corrupted story lately exhumed from
the ruins of NineVeh.
1t is, however, indisputable that many persons
of equal acuteness, some of them distinguished
for their great knowledge of the worlds ante
human story, look upon this account as little
better than the monstrous stories of the Hindus.
1t is, they say, of purely human origin, the
work of some long-forgotten sage, who, under
the feryid sun of the East, threw into a semi
poetical form the results of his cogitations upon
the great problem of existence. So persuaded
are they of the business of their opinion, that
one of their number-Professor Huxley-has
publicly announced that " the student of science
will no longer trouble himself with these theo-
logies - while another-Professor Tyndall-
says that they " smile at the abortive efforts of
its friends to make the beautiful myths and
stories of Genesis square with science"
IF that account be but a myth, it is easy to
determine it's value but if it be a sober state
ment of actual occurrences arranged in their
true order, the mind is startled at its far-reach-
ing consequences. To ascertain which it is, is a
matter, therefore, of great Importance. There
are, as far as l can see, only two ways of doing
this. We may show that the Bible is from God,
and then satisfy ourselves that the first chapter
is an integral portion of the book. Or, we may
compare its statements with the facts of our
worlds history as science has made them known.
Until within little more than a couple of decades,
owing to the limited and erroneous " science -
then current, the former was really the only
method available, and it was satisfactory to those
who believed the Bible a revelation from God
himself. But to those who do not accept the
Bible, this kind of proof has no weight. They
require the second mode of ascertaining the
truth or falsehood of that account, and claim
that such a trial of it's veracity will result in
clear proof that the God of nature and truth had
- ---k - &c, --@1nak,A~ HI-- A. a. -
abounds in false statements and chronological
errors. This they have said SO positively and
persistently that the world has, in a large degree,
come to accept it as true and some who love
and revere the Bible have thought it necessary to
take refuge in saying that it was never intended
to teach science, and, therefore, one ought not to
expect it to reveal scientific truths; or as DR..
Cocker puts it, the story g is ~poetical, symbol
cal, and meteorological" &" Theistic Concep-
ton of the World" page 1881 The defenders
of such a cOsmogony have nothing to fear, for
they have nothing to lose.
Whether there is any need of such avoidance
of difficulty can be ascertained only by c~ollating
the account with the facts of our globes ante
human history. Perhaps in this case, as in
many Others, the safer course is to face the dan
ger square. l propose, as briefly as possible, to
see what there is in it.
An examination of the account shows it to
consist of two kinds of statements. In the one,
SOu Is represented DIS Sd Lying VI uOIDR , IL the
other is a series of facts (f they are facts) per-
tanning to the physical development of the earth
and it's contents. The former is outside of our
science. We have no test to apply, no COMPARE
son to make. The latter is fairly within its
domain. 1t is only of this that l propose to
speak.
If we knew the actual history of the earth
from the beginning to man, it is self evident that
we should be able to decide upon the claims of
this narrative, for, knowing the facts, it would
be easy to see if they were stated correctly. The
question may be asked, are we now in a condition
to apply such a test? Perhaps not fully so, yet
quite near it. Geology and astronomy have
but as to the period following the
T~ertiary-the Glacial-there is as yet great con-
fict Of opinions. Up to that time the record is,
for the present purpose, sufficiently complete,
and undisputed.
1t is greatly to be regretted that no one of the
scientists who have so positively assured
US that the story in Genesis is too erroneous to
be worthy of serious consideration, has not given
cosmogOny from a purely scientific stand point,
the statements should be true and the
order correct am, therefore, compelled to do
what might be so much better done by others.
If, however, L err in any particular as to what
says, the cause of truth need not suffer
or some Of these gentlemen will, 1 trust, be
willing even yet TO favor the world with an ante
human history of our globe treating briefly and
of the identical matters spoken of in
Genesis, giving only admitted facts and emitting
argument and discussion. 1 add these lImita-
ions, because it is easy for a master of words SO
% becloud the matter that simple men will be
ost in a fog of learned, half-anglicized terms,
md callow theories.
To facilitate the present comparison of the
wo accounts, | shall give first a result attained
y scientists, and Immediately afterward what
doses says on the same subject. l propose to
ONE down only to the creation of man oversees
-27), since possibly some human element NAV
liter that enter into the account.
THE TWO ACCOUNTS.
As to the Origin and PrimordiaI Condition of
he Earth.-An scientists are agreed that our
lobe is not eternal. Professor Huxley stated
lis belief to this effect very clearly in his first
York lecture. According to Herbert
spencer, it owes its existence to IS the Unknown
,ource of things" and Tyndall assigns it to a
inscrutable to the human intellect"
In Genesis, i. I, we read " In the beginning
iod created the heaven and the earth
As to the primordial condition of our earth.
here is perfect agreement among all these men,
nd Professor Huxley but stated the result of the