A study of the real meaning of the Record, in the light of what may be fairly regarded as proved facts, cannot be without its use to the Christian.  If it be true that a certain amount of information on the subject of creation is contained in revelation, it must have been so contained for a specific purpose—­a purpose to be attained at some stage or other of the history of mankind.  It is possible also that the study will bring to light a probable, or at any rate a possible, explanation of some of those apparent (if they are not real) “dead-locks” which occur in pursuing the course of life history on the earth.

Such considerations will naturally have more weight with the Christian believer than with those who reject the faith.  But at least the advantage of them remains with the believer, till the contrary is shown.  The extreme evolutionist may cling to the belief that at some future time he will be able to account for the entrance of LIFE into the world’s history, that he will be able to explain the connection of MIND with MATTER; or he may hope that the sterility of certain hybrid forms will one day be explained away, and so on.  But till these things are got over, the believer cannot be reproached as holding an unreasonable belief when his creed maintains that Life is a gift and prerogative of a great Author of Life; that Mind is the result of a spiritual environment which is a true, though physically intangible, part of nature; and that the absence of any proof that variation and development cross certain—­perhaps not very clearly ascertained, but indubitably existing—­lines, points to the designed fixing of certain types, and the restriction of developmental creation to running in certain lines of causation up to those types, and not otherwise.

It can never be unreasonable to believe anything that is in exact accordance with facts as ascertained at any given moment of time—­unless, indeed, the fact is indicated by other considerations as being one likely to disappear from the category of fact altogether.[1]

Enough has thus, I hope, appeared, to make the appearance of this little work, at least excusable; what more may be necessary to establish its claim to be read must depend on what it contains.

I have only to add that I can make no pretension to be a teacher of science.  I trust that there is no material error of statement; if there is, I shall be the first to retract and correct it.  I am quite confident that no correction that may be needed in detail will seriously affect the general argument.

[Footnote 1:  At present it is an ascertained fact that certain chemical substances are elements incapable of further resolution.  But there are not wanting indications which would make it a matter of no surprise at all, if we were to learn to-morrow that the so-called element had been resolved.  Such a fact is an example of what is stated in the text; and a belief based on the absolute and unchangeable stability of such a fact would not be unassailable.  But none of the above stated instances of “dead-lock” in evolution are within “measurable distance” of being resolved.]