But some one will ask, You then accept the earlier theory, that the whole life-series that is now revealed to us by the rocks, from the Laurentian to the Recent, is excluded from the narrative; and that some special acts of creation, regarding only modern and surviving life-forms, were made immediately before man appeared?  By no-means; for such a theory is not only in itself improbable, but is contrary to all the evidence we possess of life-history on the earth, and is so hopeless that it is really not worth serious examination and refutation.

We have no evidence of any such gap—­such sudden change in the history of life.  Nor is it possible to find any place in the Mosaic story at which we could reasonably interpolate a long period, such as that indicated by the entire series of rock strata.  For a great part of such a period, not only must there have been a regular succession of life just the same in nature (though specifically different) as that now on earth, but a regular distribution of land and water, and a settled action of the sun and the seasons, would be required.  No; we must give up all the older methods which try to ignore the study of the word “created,” or to assume for it a meaning that it is not intended to bear.

All depends, then, on what is meant by such terms as “created,” “let there be,” “let the earth bring forth,” &c.  Perhaps it has occurred to but few of my readers seriously to examine into their own mental conception of an “act of creation.”  Some will readily answer, “Of course it means only that at the Divine fiat, any given species—­say an elephant—­appeared perfect, trunk, tusks, and all the peculiar development of skull and skeleton, where previously no such creature had existed.”  But what possible reason have they for this conclusion?  None whatever.  It has simply been carelessly assumed from age to age, because people at first knew no better; and when they began to know better, they did not stop to amend their ideas accordingly.

Of course, as Professor Huxley puts it, millions of pious Jews and Christians[1] supposed creation to mean a “sudden act of the Deity”—­i.e., to mean just what the knowledge of the time enabled them to imagine.  They could do nothing else.  The state of knowledge fifty years ago would not have rendered it possible for an article like Professor Huxley’s (that to which allusion has several times been made) to have been written at all.  What wonder, then, that the multitude did not understand what creation meant, and that a reasonable interpretation of the word has only become possible in quite recent times?  Surely all that is the fault of the reader, not of the text.  I do not even care that the writer himself did not fully apprehend the subject.  When a human prophet is entrusted with the divulgation of high and wonderful things, it is quite possible that he may have been to greater or less extent in the dark as to all or some of the communication he was writing.