West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1905-11-02
IN THE BEGINNING.
THIRD ARTICLE.

THIRD ARTICLE.
The former articles on this subject endeav-
ored to harmonic the ''Valian'' OF "Canopy
Theory of creation with the Genesis record
in the divine oraeles, which we MAINTAIN are
the fountain Of all truth, written by inspira.
ton of God and therefore infalhble lapart
from errors of iranscribers, etc) The
articles were not an apology for the Scrip
lures in the sense of an excuse for their
claims, but contention that the sublime
statements in Genesis in few sentences have
anticipated modern history, that the most
critical scientific researches most remarkably
eorToborate them, and that the discrepancies
are the errors of Gelogists who, while com
ing more and more into accord, have not vet
reached full development Near one half
the arguments Of fifty years ago are set aside
to-day with regard to developments Of the
earlier ages; especially of the Paleozoic
period, that is the second main division of
the geological record as at present classified,
and analogous to the grid and 4th day of
Genesis.
II the geological strata had been a princi-
pal aim Of the articles a chart would have
been necessary to distinguish the Periods,
Eras, Series and Subdivisions of the story
which any who have the interest may obtain
to day.
We respectfully suggest that the objector
of the Morgantown Chronisle is quite as
competent as any other to take the ''olher
side Of the questions m the controversy in
the Argus. The only difficulty we anticipate
with him or any other dispu,ani Is 10 prevent
a revision Of our propositions, We are con-
hdent that the Scriptures are self Sustaining,
and further, that some Of the theories Of our
times have no excuse for existence except to
dseredit the Bible
The Genesis record mas been pronounced
Trustworthy By the mos, eminent Scientists,
q few Of whose names are given IN the
articles that vsxsd the Chronicle, and as
regards the Evolution Theory a careful
analysis by Prof. Stokes, +. r. S., Sir 7. r.
Bennett, Viee-Pres. r. S., Prof Beale, r.
r. S. and others, all advocates Of the theory,
reported at a recent meenting Of the Victoria
Philosophical Institute, that, "as YET, no
scientific evidence had been met with giving
eountenance 20 the theory that man had been
evolved from a lower order Of animals, and
Prof. Firchow lwho BE- not a protested
Christian had declared a complete absence
Of any fossil type Of lower stage in the
development Of man; and that any positive
advance In the province Of prehistoric anihro-
pologY has actually removed us further from
proofs Of sach connsetion;- With
The rest of the animal kingdom. In this,
Prof Bauaude, the great pslocontologisi,
had concuusd, declaring that in none Of bis
Investigations bad he found any one fossil
species develop into another there was no
evidence Of any species, fossil or other, los
ing iis peculiar charsciedslicI % acquire new
ones belonging to other species; for instance,
however similar The dog 10 the wolfe. there
was no connecting link, and the same vas
The case among extinct species, there vas no
gradual passage from one 10 another"
Thus, instead Of lbe Evolution idea We
have The testimony Of iis own advocates that
every plant and animal that exist 20 day
upon The earth began 10 be, during the great
Tertiary age, and had no place among the
plants and animals Of the great secondary
division The representative Of each
species ceased 10 be a, well defined lines.
and their places occupied BY entirely disuae,