But it is impossible to deny the strong feeling of probability that the commands would begin to be worked out, in the order in which they were uttered.

And here it is that the correspondence which undoubtedly exists, gives rise to controversy.

From one point of view it is just enough to encourage the “period” holders to try and arrange a scheme; but it is just hot enough to prevent their opponents (justly) taxing them with straining or “torturing” the text and failing fairly to make out their case after all.  From another point of view the correspondence is so far established, and so undeniably unprecedented (in human cosmogonies) and noteworthy, as to demand imperatively our careful consideration and compel us to account for it.

It will be observed, first of all, that the whole “creation” (omitting all incidental and preparatory works) is stated in groups each having an order within itself.

Group 1.  God created (both land and water) “vegetation”—­plants yielding seed, fruit-trees.

Group 2.  In water, not necessarily excluding amphibia:—­Great aquatic monsters; fish and all other creatures that move.  In air:—­Winged fowl.

Group 3.  On land generally—­for some forms are amphibious:—­Beasts (Carnivora), cattle (Ungulata, &c.), and other things that creep on the ground (the smaller and lower forms of life collectively).

The order within the groups is evidently of no consequence, because the writer does not adhere to it in two consecutive verses dealing with the same subject; while the “versions” seem to point to some variations in the text itself as to arrangement, though not as to substance.

But as regards the order of the groups themselves, it is, as I said, very natural (but yet not logically inevitable) to expect that when the results came to be existent on earth, those results should exhibit a sequence corresponding to the order in which the groups were created.  And it is never denied (in any of the most recent publications[1]) that to this extent nature confirms the belief.

[Footnote 1:  I have done my best to verify this from the well-known latest Manuals of Etheridge, Seeley, and Alleyne-Nicholson.]

I am aware that Professor Huxley’s recent articles may at first sight seem to go against this; but that is not so on any grounds of actual fact, but of a particular interpretation—­which I submit is wholly unwarranted.

For instance, it is insisted that the “sea-monsters” of the second group included sirenia and cetacea (dugongs, manatees, and whales, dolphins, &c.), which are mammals.  In that case a portion of the command would not have been obeyed—­a number of the designed forms would have been kept in abeyance—­for a long time.  And the same is still more true if bats—­a highly placed group of mammals—­were included in “winged fowl.”