Year: 1876

THE three lectures which Huxley has re-
Gently delivered before crowded houses in New


York, have invested this theory with fresh in
terest, and have as matter of course stirred up
the more excitable of the religionisIs to fierce
opposition. There is large class of well-mean-
ing people who believe that the theory of Evo-
luton is Darwinism, and that Darwinism is
Atheism, but we must acknowledge that TO US
the developement theory appears more con-
sistent with what we know of Gods plan of
work from actual observation than any other.
1t may appear to be inconsistent with the
Biblical version of the creation of the animal
world, but no more so than the teachings of
geology are inconsistent with the literal de-
clarations of Genesis, which only a few years
ago it was a heresy to doubt, that the world
was made out of nothing in less time than
week Many wise and reverent Christians
(says the N. y Lndsp=ndsnt) either warmly
advocate or willingly accept development.
AT the present day nearly all students of the
laws of life are Darwinists in the broader
sense of the word. They are believers in the
originaton of species by birth and develop
ment, and not by special creation. OF these
fair proportion, as large a proportion as of
lawyers or of statesmen, believe in God and
in Christianity. They are an exceptionally
intelligent body of men, thinkers by careful
training, and they believe that one can accept
heartily the cardinal truths of our faith, and
yet hold that man aud all animals and plants
are developed from primordial vital germs.
Some respect should be paid to such men.
They deserve it. They may be wrong in
holding both to development and religion;
but the presumption is that they are not. In
this matter the theologians are at disadvan-
tage. They do not have the final word in this
matter of development. The belief of the
world is to be settled utterly without their
advice. Not what they say, but what the
scientists say, is to conclude the debate.
Whether species have been produced by de-
velopment or by creation is question of fact,
to be settled purely by scientific evidence. 1t
is not matter of philosophy or of morals, to
be decided by consulting the psychical or
ethical consciousness nor is it matter of
revelation, to be decided by consulting the
Word of God. For the conclusion we must
examine to see whether new species are being
now produced about us and whether the re-
cords which the earth has preserved of its own
history tell us anything on the subject This
is a task of the naturalist and not of the re-
ligionist; and, SO far as we can judge at pre-
sent, the answer which the naturalists will
give is in favor of the new theory.


Evolution does not deny God. Nearly all
evolutionists are theists. We acknowledge
that it appears to remove God little further
off: but that is only in seeming. God may
be just as active and present in law as he is
in miracle. Be it remembered that every
single conquest which science has made in
reducing phenomena under the sway of law
has appeared to many to put God at a greater
distance. But by it Gods government has
only been made more orderly and his own
character more glorious.


Many wise men hold, with Professor Asa
Gray, that the argument for the existence of
God drawn from design is not destroyed nor
even weakened by the theory of evolution.
They see designer in the law and progress
of the evolution of an eye or hand as clearly
as in its absolute creation. Now allow us a
God, and revelation is an easy deduction.
That evolution is inconsistent with the literal
prosaic Interpretation of the story of Adam
created ds moro out of dust, and Eve out of
his rib, we do not deny; but the story of
Eden is so true in its essence and yet carries
SO many signs of symbolic or poetical mean
ing that this fact need disturb none but those
who will not listen to reason. 1t is even true
thai the story Of the fall of man in its most
literal Interpretation, with the doctrine of i'm
putation of Adams sin included, is not utterly
inconsistent with development, though it is
with Darwinism. None but the most rigid
defenders of an Interchangeable faith, settled to
its minutie some centuries ago, need fear the
doctrine