[Footnote 1:  Those who want a specimen of the way in which extreme evolutionists will romance (it can be called nothing else) will do well to read Dr. Haeckel’s “History of Creation,” only they must be on their guard at every step.  The author constantly states as facts (or, perhaps, with an impatient “must have been”) the existence of purely hypothetical forms, of which there is no kind of evidence.  To such ends does the love of completeness lead!]

Such extremes are no part of true science, and have neither helped the progress of knowledge, nor advanced the condition of mankind.  But, on the other hand, let us hear no more of a sweeping condemnation of the theory of Evolution as a whole; let us beware of any insistence on, or assumption of, the supposed fact that God created separately—­ready-made and complete—­all known animal forms, bringing them up from the ground, like the armed men in the Greek legend, from the dragon’s teeth.

We have no more right to dogmatize and assume a scheme of creation from a popular and long-accepted interpretation of the Bible, than the evolutionist has to ignore the palpable evidences of Divine guidance and design, and construct a theory or organic being which ignores both.

PART II.

CHAPTER X.

THE GENESIS NARRATIVE—­ITS IMPORTANCE.

We have now completed the first portion of our inquiry:  there remains the second, which, to a large class, at any rate, will appear of not less importance.  For the Scriptures, which they have been taught to trust, contain a brief but direct and positive statement regarding Creation, as well as numerous other less direct allusions to the subject, all (as far as I know) in unquestioned harmony with the first.

Is the account in the Book of Genesis true?  It is necessary to answer this question, because, even if a general belief in an Almighty Author and Designer of all things is shown to be reasonable, still the Scripture ought surely to support the belief; and it would be strange if, when we came to test it on this subject, we found its professed explanations would not stand being confronted with the facts.

No one will, I think, deny that the question is important.  Writers of the “anti-theological” school still continue to insist on the falsity of the Mosaic narrative, as if the error was not yet sufficiently slain, and was important enough to be attacked again and again.  And theological writers, down to the most modern, continue to explain the text in one way or another;—­besides, they admit the importance, under any circumstances.  I do not forget that there is a school of thought, which is distinctly Christian in its profession, but does not allow the importance.  It would regard the narrative as addressed to Jews only, and therefore as one which does not concern us.  If that was all, it would not be needful for me to discuss the position.  But it has been held, not only that the narrative does not concern us, but also that it is certainly inaccurate.