{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2631/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2631","id":"gutenberg_2631","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2631","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution","Paleontology","Science"],"text":"Produced by D.R. Thompson\n\n\n\n\n\nMR. GLADSTONE AND GENESIS\n\nESSAY #5 FROM \"SCIENCE AND HEBREW TRADITION\"\n\n\nBy Thomas Henry Huxley\n\n\n\nIn controversy, as in courtship, the good old rule to be off with the\nold before one is on with the new, greatly commends itself to my sense\nof expediency. And, therefore, it appears to me desirable that I should\npreface such observations as I may have to offer upon the cloud of\narguments (the relevancy of which to the issue which I had ventured to\nraise is not always obvious) put forth by Mr. Gladstone in the January\nnumber of this review, [1] by an endeavour to make clear to such of\nour readers as have not had the advantage of a forensic education the\npresent net result of the discussion.\n\nI am quite aware that, in undertaking this task, I run all the risks\nto which the man who presumes to deal judicially with his own cause is\nliable. But it is exactly because I do not shun that risk, but, rather,\nearnestly desire to be judged by him who cometh after me, provided that\nhe has the knowledge and impartiality appropriate to a judge, that I\nadopt my present course.\n\nIn the article on \"The Dawn of Creation and Worship,\" it will be\nremembered that Mr. Gladstone unreservedly commits himself to three\npropositions. The first is that, according to the writer of the\nPentateuch, the \"water-population,\" the \"air-population,\" and the\n\"land-population\" of the globe were created successively, in the order\nnamed. In the second place, Mr. Gladstone authoritatively asserts that\nthis (as part of his \"fourfold order\") has been \"so affirmed in our time\nby natural science, that it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion\nand established fact.\" In the third place, Mr. Gladstone argues that the\nfact of this coincidence of the pentateuchal story with the results\nof modern investigation makes it \"impossible to avoid the conclusion,\nfirst, that either this writer was gifted with faculties passing all\nhuman experience, or else his knowledge was divine.\" And having settled\nto his own satisfaction that the first \"branch of the alternative is\ntruly nominal and unreal,\" Mr. Gladstone continues, \"So stands the plea\nfor a revelation of truth from God, a plea only to be met by questioning\nits possibility\" (p. 697).\n\nI am a simple-minded person, wholly devoid of subtlety of intellect, so\nthat I willingly admit that there may be depths of alternative meaning\nin these propositions out of all soundings attainable by my poor\nplummet. Still there are a good many people who suffer under a like\nintellectual limitation; and, for once in my life, I feel that I have\nthe chance of attaining that position of a representative of average\nopinion which appears to be the modern ideal of a leader of men, when\nI make free confession that, after turning the matter over in my mind,\nwith all the aid derived from a careful consideration of Mr. Gladstone's\nreply, I cannot get away from my original conviction that, if Mr.\nGladstone's second proposition can be shown to be not merely inaccurate,\nbut directly contradictory of facts known to every one who is acquainted\nwith the elements of natural science, the third proposition collapses of\nitself.\n\nAnd it was this conviction which led me to enter upon the present\ndiscussion. I fancied that if my respected clients, the people of\naverage opinion and capacity, could once be got distinctly to conceive\nthat Mr. Gladstone's views as to the proper method of dealing with grave\nand difficult scientific and religious problems had permitted him to\nbase a solemn \"plea for a revelation of truth from God\" upon an error as\nto a matter of fact, from which the intelligent perusal of a manual of\npalaeontology would have saved him, I need not trouble myself to\noccupy their time and attention [167] with further comments upon his\ncontribution to apologetic literature. It is for others to judge whether\nI have efficiently carried out my project or not. It certainly does not\ncount for much that I should be unable to find any flaw in my own case,\nbut I think it counts for a good deal that Mr. Gladstone appears to have\nbeen equally unable to do so. He does, indeed, make a great parade of\nauthorities, and I have the greatest respect for those authorities whom\nMr. Gladstone mentions. If he will get them to sign a joint memorial to\nthe effect that our present palaeontological evidence proves that birds\nappeared before the \"land-population\" of terrestrial reptiles, I shall\nthink it my duty to reconsider my position--but not till then.\n\nIt will be observed that I have cautiously used the word \"appears\" in\nreferring to what seems to me to be absence of any real answer to my\ncriticisms in Mr. Gladstone's reply. For I must honestly confess that,\nnotwithstanding long and painful strivings after clear insight, I am\nstill uncertain whether Mr. Gladstone's \"Defence\" means that the\ngreat \"plea for a revelation from God\" is to be left to perish in the\ndialectic desert; or whether it is to be withdrawn under the protection\nof such skirmishers as are available for covering retreat.\n\nIn particular, the remarkable disquisition which covers pages 11 to\n14 of Mr. Gladstone's last contribution has greatly exercised my mind.\nSocrates is reported to have said of the works of Heraclitus that he who\nattempted to comprehend them should be a \"Delian swimmer,\" but that, for\nhis part, what he could understand was so good that he was disposed\nto believe in the excellence of that which he found unintelligible. In\nendeavouring to make myself master of Mr. Gladstone's meaning in these\npages, I have often been overcome by a feeling analogous to that\nof Socrates, but not quite the same. That which I do understand has\nappeared to me so very much the reverse of good, that I have sometimes\npermitted myself to doubt the value of that which I do not understand.\n\nIn this part of Mr. Gladstone's reply, in fact, I find nothing of which\nthe bearing upon my arguments is clear to me, except that which relates\nto the question whether reptiles, so far as they are represented by\ntortoises and the great majority of lizards and snakes, which are land\nanimals, are creeping things in the sense of the pentateuchal writer or\nnot.\n\nI have every respect for the singer of the Song of the Three Children\n(whoever he may have been); I desire to cast no shadow of doubt upon,\nbut, on the contrary, marvel at, the exactness of Mr. Gladstone's\ninformation as to the considerations which \"affected the method of\nthe Mosaic writer\"; nor do I venture to doubt that the inconvenient\nintrusion of these contemptible reptiles--\"a family fallen from\ngreatness\" (p. 14), a miserable decayed aristocracy reduced to mere\n\"skulkers about the earth\" (_ibid._)--in consequence, apparently,\nof difficulties about the occupation of land arising out of the\nearth-hunger of their former serfs, the mammals--into an apologetic\nargument, which otherwise would run quite smoothly, is in every way to\nbe deprecated. Still, the wretched creatures stand there, importunately\ndemanding notice; and, however different may be the practice in that\ncontentious atmosphere with which Mr. Gladstone expresses and laments\nhis familiarity, in the atmosphere of science it really is of no avail\nwhatever to shut one's eyes to facts, or to try to bury them out of\nsight under a tumulus of rhetoric. That is my experience of the \"Elysian\nregions of Science,\" wherein it is a pleasure to me to think that a man\nof Mr. Gladstone's intimate knowledge of English life, during the last\nquarter of a century, believes my philosophic existence to have been\nrounded off in unbroken equanimity.\n\nHowever reprehensible, and indeed contemptible, terrestrial reptiles may\nbe, the only question which appears to me to be relevant to my\nargument is whether these creatures are or are not comprised under the\ndenomination of \"everything that creepeth upon the ground.\"\n\nMr. Gladstone speaks of the author of the first chapter of Genesis as\n\"the Mosaic writer\"; I suppose, therefore, that he will admit that it\nis equally proper to speak of the author of Leviticus as the \"Mosaic\nwriter.\" Whether such a phrase would be used by any one who had an\nadequate conception of the assured results of modern Biblical criticism\nis another matter; but, at any rate, it cannot be denied that Leviticus\nhas as much claim to Mosaic authorship as Genesis. Therefore, if one\nwants to know the sense of a phrase used in Genesis, it will be well\nto see what Leviticus has to say on the matter. Hence, I commend\nthe following extract from the eleventh chapter of Leviticus to Mr.\nGladstone's serious attention:--\n\n   And these are they which are unclean unto you among the creeping\n   things that creep upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and\n   the great lizard after its kind, and the gecko, and the land\n   crocodile, and the sand-lizard, and the chameleon. These are\n   they which are unclean to you among all that creep (v. 29-3l).\n\nThe merest Sunday-school exegesis therefore suffices to prove that when\nthe \"Mosaic writer\" in Genesis i. 24 speaks of \"creeping things,\" he\nmeans to include lizards among them.\n\nThis being so, it is agreed, on all hands, that terrestrial lizards,\nand other reptiles allied to lizards, occur in the Permian strata. It\nis further agreed that the Triassic strata were deposited after these.\nMoreover, it is well known that, even if certain footprints are to be\ntaken as unquestionable evidence of the existence of birds, they are\nnot known to occur in rocks earlier than the Trias, while indubitable\nremains of birds are to be met with only much later. Hence it follows\nthat natural science does not \"affirm\" the statement that birds were\nmade on the fifth day, and \"everything that creepeth on the ground\" on\nthe sixth, on which Mr. Gladstone rests his order; for, as is shown\nby Leviticus, the \"Mosaic writer\" includes lizards among his \"creeping\nthings.\"\n\nPerhaps I have given myself superfluous trouble in the preceding\nargument, for I find that Mr. Gladstone is willing to assume (he does\nnot say to admit) that the statement in the text of Genesis as to\nreptiles cannot \"in all points be sustained\" (p. 16). But my position\nis that it cannot be sustained in any point, so that, after all, it\nhas perhaps been as well to go over the evidence again. And then Mr.\nGladstone proceeds as if nothing had happened to tell us that--\n\n   There remain great unshaken facts to be weighed. First, the fact\n   that such a record should have been made at all.\n\nAs most peoples have their cosmogonies, this \"fact\" does not strike me\nas having much value.\n\n    Secondly, the fact that, instead of dwelling in generalities, it\n    has placed itself under the severe conditions of a chronological\n    order reaching from the first _nisus_ of chaotic matter to\n    the consummated production of a fair and goodly, a furnished and\n    a peopled world.\n\nThis \"fact\" can be regarded as of value only by ignoring the fact\ndemonstrated in my previous paper, that natural science does not\nconfirm the order asserted so far as living things are concerned; and\nby upsetting a fact to be brought to light presently, to wit, that, in\nregard to the rest of the pentateuchal cosmogony, prudent science has\nvery little to say one way or the other.\n\n   Thirdly, the fact that its cosmogony seems, in the light of the\n   nineteenth century, to draw more and more of countenance from\n   the best natural philosophy.\n\nI have already questioned the accuracy of this statement, and I do not\nobserve that mere repetition adds to its value.\n\n   And, fourthly, that it has described the successive origins of\n   the five great categories of present life with which human\n   experience was and is conversant, in that order which geological\n   authority confirms.\n\nBy comparison with a sentence on page 14, in which a fivefold order is\nsubstituted for the \"fourfold order,\" on which the \"plea for revelation\"\nwas originally founded, it appears that these five categories are\n\"plants, fishes, birds, mammals, and man,\" which, Mr. Gladstone affirms,\n\"are given to us in Genesis in the order of succession in which they are\nalso given by the latest geological authorities.\"\n\nI must venture to demur to this statement. I showed, in my previous\npaper, that there is no reason to doubt that the term \"great sea\nmonster\" (used in Gen. i. 21) includes the most conspicuous of great sea\nanimals--namely, whales, dolphins, porpoises, manatees, and dugongs; [2]\nand, as these are indubitable mammals, it is impossible to affirm that\nmammals come after birds, which are said to have been created on the\nsame day. Moreover, I pointed out that as these Cetacea and Sirenia are\ncertainly modified land animals, their existence implies the antecedent\nexistence of land mammals.\n\nFurthermore, I have to remark that the term \"fishes,\" as used,\ntechnically, in zoology, by no means covers all the moving creatures\nthat have life, which are bidden to \"fill the waters in the seas\" (Gen.\ni. 20-22.) Marine mollusks and crustacea, echinoderms, corals, and\nforaminifera are not technically fishes. But they are abundant in the\npalaeozoic rocks, ages upon ages older than those in which the first\nevidences of true fishes appear. And if, in a geological book, Mr.\nGladstone finds the quite true statement that plants appeared before\nfishes, it is only by a complete misunderstanding that he can be led\nto imagine it serves his purpose. As a matter of fact, at the present\nmoment, it is a question whether, on the bare evidence afforded\nby fossils, the marine creeping thing or the marine plant has the\nseniority. No cautious palaeontologist would express a decided opinion\non the matter. But, if we are to read the pentateuchal statement as\na scientific document (and, in spite of all protests to the contrary,\nthose who bring it into comparison with science do seek to make a\nscientific document of it), then, as it is quite clear that only\nterrestrial plants of high organisation are spoken of in verses 11\nand 12, no palaeontologist would hesitate to say that, at present, the\nrecords of sea animal life are vastly older than those of any land plant\ndescribable as \"grass, herb yielding seed or fruit tree.\"\n\nThus, although, in Mr. Gladstone's \"Defence,\" the \"old order passeth\ninto new,\" his case is not improved. The fivefold order is no more\n\"affirmed in our time by natural science\" to be \"a demonstrated\nconclusion and established fact\" than the fourfold order was. Natural\nscience appears to me to decline to have anything to do with either;\nthey are as wrong in detail as they are mistaken in principle.\n\nThere is another change of position, the value of which is not so\napparent to me, as it may well seem to be to those who are unfamiliar\nwith the subject under discussion. Mr. Gladstone discards his three\ngroups of \"water-population,\" \"air-population,\" and \"land-population,\"\nand substitutes for them (1) fishes, (2) birds, (3) mammals, (4)\nman. Moreover, it is assumed, in a note, that \"the higher or ordinary\nmammals\" alone were known to the \"Mosaic writer\" (p. 6). No doubt it\nlooks, at first, as if something were gained by this alteration; for,\nas I have just pointed out, the word \"fishes\" can be used in two senses,\none of which has a deceptive appearance of adjustability to the \"Mosaic\"\naccount. Then the inconvenient reptiles are banished out of sight; and,\nfinally, the question of the exact meaning of \"higher\" and \"ordinary\"\nin the case of mammals opens up the prospect of a hopeful logomachy. But\nwhat is the good of it all in the face of Leviticus on the one hand and\nof palaeontology on the other?\n\nAs, in my apprehension, there is not a shadow of justification for the\nsuggestion that when the pentateuchal writer says \"fowl\" he excludes\nbats (which, as we shall see directly, are expressly included under\n\"fowl\" in Leviticus), and as I have already shown that he demonstrably\nincludes reptiles, as well as mammals, among the creeping things of the\nland, I may be permitted to spare my readers further discussion of\nthe \"fivefold order.\" On the whole, it is seen to be rather more\ninconsistent with Genesis than its fourfold predecessor.\n\nBut I have yet a fresh order to face. Mr. Gladstone (p. 11) understands\n\"the main statements of Genesis\" in successive order of time, but without\nany measurement of its divisions, to be as follows:--\n\n1. A period of land, anterior to all life (v. 9, 10). 2. A period of\nvegetable life, anterior to animal life (v. 11, 12). 3. A period of\nanimal life, in the order of fishes (v. 20). 4. Another stage of animal\nlife, in the order of birds. 5. Another in the order of beasts (v. 24,\n25). 6. Last of all, man (v. 26, 27).\n\nMr. Gladstone then tries to find the proof of the occurrence of a\nsimilar succession in sundry excellent works on geology.\n\nI am really grieved to be obliged to say that this third (or is it\nfourth?) modification of the foundation of the \"plea for revelation\"\noriginally set forth, satisfies me as little as any of its predecessors.\n\nFor, in the first place, I cannot accept the assertion that this order\nis to be found in Genesis. With respect to No. 5, for example, I hold,\nas I have already said, that \"great sea monsters\" includes the Cetacea,\nin which case mammals (which is what, I suppose, Mr. Gladstone means by\n\"beasts\") come in under head No. 3, and not under No. 5. Again, \"fowl\"\nare said in Genesis to be created on the same day as fishes; therefore\nI cannot accept an order which makes birds succeed fishes. Once more,\nas it is quite certain that the term \"fowl\" includes the bats,--for in\nLeviticus xi. 13-19 we read, \"And these shall ye have in abomination\namong the fowls... the heron after its kind, and the hoopoe, and the\nbat,\"--it is obvious that bats are also said to have been created at\nstage No. 3. And as bats are mammals, and their existence obviously\npresupposes that of terrestrial \"beasts,\" it is quite clear that the\nlatter could not have first appeared as No. 5. I need not repeat my\nreasons for doubting whether man came \"last of all.\"\n\nAs the latter half of Mr. Gladstone's sixfold order thus shows itself to\nbe wholly unauthorised by, and inconsistent with, the plain language\nof the Pentateuch, I might decline to discuss the admissibility of its\nformer half.\n\nBut I will add one or two remarks on this point also. Does Mr. Gladstone\nmean to say that in any of the works he has cited, or indeed anywhere\nelse, he can find scientific warranty for the assertion that there was a\nperiod of land--by which I suppose he means dry land (for submerged land\nmust needs be as old as the separate existence of the sea)--\"anterior to\nall life?\"\n\nIt may be so, or it may not be so; but where is the evidence which would\njustify any one in making a positive assertion on the subject? What\ncompetent palaeontologist will affirm, at this present moment, that he\nknows anything about the period at which life originated, or will\nassert more than the extreme probability that such origin was a long\nway antecedent to any traces of life at present known? What physical\ngeologist will affirm that he knows when dry land began to exist, or\nwill say more than that it was probably very much earlier than any\nextant direct evidence of terrestrial conditions indicates?\n\nI think I know pretty well the answers which the authorities quoted by\nMr. Gladstone would give to these questions; but I leave it to them to\ngive them if they think fit.\n\nIf I ventured to speculate on the matter at all, I should say it is by\nno means certain that sea is older than dry land, inasmuch as a solid\nterrestrial surface may very well have existed before the earth was cool\nenough to allow of the existence of fluid water. And, in this case,\ndry land may have existed before the sea. As to the first appearance of\nlife, the whole argument of analogy, whatever it may be worth in such a\ncase, is in favour of the absence of living beings until long after\nthe hot water seas had constituted themselves; and of the subsequent\nappearance of aquatic before terrestrial forms of life. But whether\nthese \"protoplasts\" would, if we could examine them, be reckoned\namong the lowest microscopic algae, or fungi; or among those doubtful\norganisms which lie in the debatable land between animals and plants,\nis, in my judgment, a question on which a prudent biologist will reserve\nhis opinion.\n\nI think that I have now disposed of those parts of Mr. Gladstone's\ndefence in which I seem to discover a design to rescue his solemn \"plea\nfor revelation.\" But a great deal of the \"Proem to Genesis\" remains\nwhich I would gladly pass over in silence, were such a course\nconsistent with the respect due to so distinguished a champion of the\n\"reconcilers.\"\n\nI hope that my clients--the people of average opinions--have by this\ntime some confidence in me; for when I tell them that, after all, Mr.\nGladstone is of opinion that the \"Mosaic record\" was meant to give\nmoral, and not scientific, instruction to those for whom it was written,\nthey may be disposed to think that I must be misleading them. But let\nthem listen further to what Mr. Gladstone says in a compendious but not\nexactly correct statement respecting my opinions:--\n\n   He holds the writer responsible for scientific precision: I look\n   for nothing of the kind, but assign to him a statement general,\n   which admits exceptions; popular, which aims mainly at producing\n   moral impression; summary, which cannot but be open to more or\n   less of criticism of detail. He thinks it is a lecture. I think\n   it is a sermon. (p. 5).\n\nI note, incidentally, that Mr. Gladstone appears to consider that the\n_differentia_ between a lecture and a sermon is, that the former, so\nfar as it deals with matters of fact, may be taken seriously, as meaning\nexactly what it says, while a sermon may not. I have quite enough on my\nhands without taking up the cudgels for the clergy, who will probably\nfind Mr. Gladstone's definition unflattering.\n\nBut I am diverging from my proper business, which is to say that I have\ngiven no ground for the ascription of these opinions; and that, as a\nmatter of fact, I do not hold them and never have held them. It is Mr.\nGladstone, and not I, who will have it that the pentateuchal cosmogony\nis to be taken as science.\n\nMy belief, on the contrary, is, and long has been, that the pentateuchal\nstory of the creation is simply a myth. I suppose it to be an hypothesis\nrespecting the origin of the universe which some ancient thinker found\nhimself able to reconcile with his knowledge, or what he thought was\nknowledge, of the nature of things, and therefore assumed to be true.\nAs such, I hold it to be not merely an interesting, but a venerable,\nmonument of a stage in the mental progress of mankind; and I find it\ndifficult to suppose that any one who is acquainted with the cosmogonies\nof other nations--and especially with those of the Egyptians and the\nBabylonians, with whom the Israelites were in such frequent and intimate\ncommunication--should consider it to possess either more, or less,\nscientific importance than may be allotted to these.\n\nMr. Gladstone's definition of a sermon permits me to suspect that he may\nnot see much difference between that form of discourse and what I call\na myth; and I hope it may be something more than the slowness of\napprehension, to which I have confessed, which leads me to imagine\nthat a statement which is \"general\" but \"admits exceptions,\" which is\n\"popular\" and \"aims mainly at producing moral impression,\" \"summary\" and\ntherefore open to \"criticism of detail,\" amounts to a myth, or perhaps\nless than a myth. Put algebraically, it comes to this, _x=a+b+c_; always\nremembering that there is nothing to show the exact value of either _a,_\nor _b,_ or _c._ It is true that _a_ is commonly supposed to equal 10,\nbut there are exceptions, and these may reduce it to 8, or 3, or 0; _b_\nalso popularly means 10, but being chiefly used by the algebraist as a\n\"moral\" value, you cannot do much with it in the addition or subtraction\nof mathematical values; _c_ also is quite \"summary,\" and if you go into\nthe details of which it is made up, many of them may be wrong, and their\nsum total equal to 0, or even to a minus quantity.\n\nMr. Gladstone appears to wish that I should (1) enter upon a sort of\nessay competition with the author of the pentateuchal cosmogony; (2)\nthat I should make a further statement about some elementary facts in\nthe history of Indian and Greek philosophy; and (3) that I should show\ncause for my hesitation in accepting the assertion that Genesis is\nsupported, at any rate to the extent of the first two verses, by the\nnebular hypothesis.\n\nA certain sense of humour prevents me from accepting the first\ninvitation. I would as soon attempt to put Hamlet's soliloquy into\na more scientific shape. But if I supposed the \"Mosaic writer\" to be\ninspired, as Mr. Gladstone does, it would not be consistent with my\nnotions of respect for the Supreme Being to imagine Him unable to frame\na form of words which should accurately, or, at least, not inaccurately,\nexpress His own meaning. It is sometimes said that, had the statements\ncontained in the first chapter of Genesis been scientifically true, they\nwould have been unintelligible to ignorant people; but how is the matter\nmended if, being scientifically untrue, they must needs be rejected by\ninstructed people?\n\nWith respect to the second suggestion, it would be presumptuous in me\nto pretend to instruct Mr. Gladstone in matters which lie as much within\nthe province of Literature and History as in that of Science; but if\nany one desirous of further knowledge will be so good as to turn to\nthat most excellent and by no means recondite source of information, the\n\"Encyclopaedia Britannica,\" he will find, under the letter E, the word\n\"Evolution,\" and a long article on that subject. Now, I do not recommend\nhim to read the first half of the article; but the second half, by my\nfriend Mr. Sully, is really very good. He will there find it said that\nin some of the philosophies of ancient India, the idea of evolution is\nclearly expressed: \"Brahma is conceived as the eternal self-existent\nbeing, which, on its material side, unfolds itself to the world by\ngradually condensing itself to material objects through the gradations\nof ether, fire, water, earth, and other elements.\" And again: \"In the\nlater system of emanation of Sankhya there is a more marked approach to\na materialistic doctrine of evolution.\" What little knowledge I have\nof the matter--chiefly derived from that very instructive book,\n\"Die Religion des Buddha,\" by C. F. Koeppen, supplemented by Hardy's\ninteresting works--leads me to think that Mr. Sully might have\nspoken much more strongly as to the evolutionary character of Indian\nphilosophy, and especially of that of the Buddhists. But the question is\ntoo large to be dealt with incidentally.\n\nAnd, with respect to early Greek philosophy, [3] the seeker after\nadditional enlightenment need go no further than the same excellent\nstorehouse of information:--\n\n   The early Ionian physicists, including Thales,\n   Anaximander, and Anaximenes, seek to explain the world as\n   generated out of a primordial matter which is at the same time\n   the universal support of things. This substance is endowed with\n   a generative or transmutative force by virtue of which it passes\n   into a succession of forms. They thus resemble modern\n   evolutionists since they regard the world, with its infinite\n   variety of forms, as issuing from a simple mode of matter.\n\nFurther on, Mr. Sully remarks that \"Heraclitus deserves a prominent\nplace in the history of the idea of evolution,\" and he states, with\nperfect justice, that Heraclitus has foreshadowed some of the special\npeculiarities of Mr. Darwin's views. It is indeed a very strange\ncircumstance that the philosophy of the great Ephesian more than\nadumbrates the two doctrines which have played leading parts, the one\nin the development of Christian dogma, the other in that of natural\nscience. The former is the conception of the Word {Greek text}[logos]\nwhich took its Jewish shape in Alexandria, and its Christian form [4] in\nthat Gospel which is usually referred to an Ephesian source of some\nfive centuries later date; and the latter is that of the struggle for\nexistence. The saying that \"strife is father and king of all\" {Greek\ntext}[...], ascribed to Heraclitus, would be a not inappropriate motto\nfor the \"Origin of Species.\"\n\nI have referred only to Mr. Sully's article, because his authority is\nquite sufficient for my purpose. But the consultation of any of the\nmore elaborate histories of Greek philosophy, such as the great work of\nZeller, for example, will only bring out the same fact into still more\nstriking prominence. I have professed no \"minute acquaintance\" with\neither Indian or Greek philosophy, but I have taken a great deal of\npains to secure that such knowledge as I do possess shall be accurate\nand trustworthy.\n\nIn the third place, Mr. Gladstone appears to wish that I should discuss\nwith him the question whether the nebular hypothesis is, or is not,\nconfirmatory of the pentateuchal account of the origin of things. Mr.\nGladstone appears to be prepared to enter upon this campaign with a\nlight heart. I confess I am not, and my reason for this backwardness\nwill doubtless surprise Mr. Gladstone. It is that, rather more than\na quarter of a century ago (namely, in February 1859), when it was my\nduty, as President of the Geological Society, to deliver the Anniversary\nAddress, [5] I chose a topic which involved a very careful study of the\nremarkable cosmogonical speculation, originally promulgated by Immanuel\nKant and, subsequently, by Laplace, which is now known as the nebular\nhypothesis. With the help of such little acquaintance with the\nprinciples of physics and astronomy as I had gained, I endeavoured to\nobtain a clear understanding of this speculation in all its bearings.\nI am not sure that I succeeded; but of this I am certain, that the\nproblems involved are very difficult, even for those who possess the\nintellectual discipline requisite for dealing with them. And it was this\nconviction that led me to express my desire to leave the discussion of\nthe question of the asserted harmony between Genesis and the nebular\nhypothesis to experts in the appropriate branches of knowledge. And I\nthink my course was a wise one; but as Mr. Gladstone evidently does not\nunderstand how there can be any hesitation on my part, unless it arises\nfrom a conviction that he is in the right, I may go so far as to set out\nmy difficulties.\n\nThey are of two kinds--exegetical and scientific. It appears to me that\nit is vain to discuss a supposed coincidence between Genesis and science\nunless we have first settled, on the one hand, what Genesis says, and,\non the other hand, what science says.\n\nIn the first place, I cannot find any consensus among Biblical scholars\nas to the meaning of the words, \"In the beginning God created the\nheaven and the earth.\" Some say that the Hebrew word _bara,_ which is\ntranslated \"create,\" means \"made out of nothing.\" I venture to object to\nthat rendering, not on the ground of scholarship, but of common sense.\nOmnipotence itself can surely no more make something \"out of\" nothing\nthan it can make a triangular circle. What is intended by \"made out\nof nothing\" appears to be \"caused to come into existence,\" with the\nimplication that nothing of the same kind previously existed. It is\nfurther usually assumed that \"the heaven and the earth\" means the\nmaterial substance of the universe. Hence the \"Mosaic writer\" is taken\nto imply that where nothing of a material nature previously existed,\nthis substance appeared. That is perfectly conceivable, and therefore\nno one can deny that it may have happened. But there are other very\nauthoritative critics who say that the ancient Israelite [6] who\nwrote the passage was not likely to have been capable of such abstract\nthinking; and that, as a matter of philology, _bara_ is commonly used\nto signify the \"fashioning,\" or \"forming,\" of that which already\nexists. Now it appears to me that the scientific investigator is\nwholly incompetent to say anything at all about the first origin of the\nmaterial universe. The whole power of his organon vanishes when he has\nto step beyond the chain of natural causes and effects. No form of the\nnebular hypothesis, that I know of, is necessarily connected with any\nview of the origination of the nebular substance. Kant's form of it\nexpressly supposes that the nebular material from which one stellar\nsystem starts may be nothing but the disintegrated substance of a\nstellar and planetary system which has just come to an end. Therefore,\nso far as I can see, one who believes that matter has existed from all\neternity has just as much right to hold the nebular hypothesis as one\nwho believes that matter came into existence at a specified epoch. In\nother words, the nebular hypothesis and the creation hypothesis, up to\nthis point, neither confirm nor oppose one another.\n\nNext, we read in the revisers' version, in which I suppose the ultimate\nresults of critical scholarship to be embodied: \"And the earth was waste\n['without form,' in the Authorised Version] and void.\" Most people seem\nto think that this phraseology intends to imply that the matter out of\nwhich the world was to be formed was a veritable \"chaos,\" devoid of law\nand order. If this interpretation is correct, the nebular hypothesis\ncan have nothing to say to it. The scientific thinker cannot admit the\nabsence of law and order; anywhere or anywhen, in nature. Sometimes law\nand order are patent and visible to our limited vision; sometimes\nthey are hidden. But every particle of the matter of the most\nfantastic-looking nebula in the heavens is a realm of law and order\nin itself; and, that it is so, is the essential condition of the\npossibility of solar and planetary evolution from the apparent chaos.\n[7]\n\n\"Waste\" is too vague a term to be worth consideration. \"Without form,\"\nintelligible enough as a metaphor, if taken literally is absurd; for a\nmaterial thing existing in space must have a superficies, and if it has\na superficies it has a form. The wildest streaks of marestail clouds\nin the sky, or the most irregular heavenly nebulae, have surely just as\nmuch form as a geometrical tetrahedron; and as for \"void,\" how can that\nbe void which is full of matter? As poetry, these lines are vivid and\nadmirable; as a scientific statement, which they must be taken to be\nif any one is justified in comparing them with another scientific\nstatement, they fail to convey any intelligible conception to my mind.\n\nThe account proceeds: \"And darkness was upon the face of the deep.\" So\nbe it; but where, then, is the likeness to the celestial nebulae, of the\nexistence of which we should know nothing unless they shone with a light\nof their own? \"And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.\"\nI have met with no form of the nebular hypothesis which involves\nanything analogous to this process.\n\nI have said enough to explain some of the difficulties which arise in\nmy mind, when I try to ascertain whether there is any foundation for\nthe contention that the statements contained in the first two verses\nof Genesis are supported by the nebular hypothesis. The result does not\nappear to me to be exactly favourable to that contention. The nebular\nhypothesis assumes the existence of matter, having definite properties,\nas its foundation. Whether such matter was created a few thousand\nyears ago, or whether it has existed through an eternal series of\nmetamorphoses of which our present universe is only the last stage, are\nalternatives, neither of which is scientifically untenable, and neither\nscientifically demonstrable. But science knows nothing of any stage\nin which the universe could be said, in other than a metaphorical and\npopular sense, to be formless or empty; or in any respect less the seat\nof law and order than it is now. One might as well talk of a fresh-laid\nhen's egg being \"without form and void,\" because the chick therein is\npotential and not actual, as apply such terms to the nebulous mass which\ncontains a potential solar system.\n\nUntil some further enlightenment comes to me, then, I confess myself\nwholly unable to understand the way in which the nebular hypothesis is\nto be converted into an ally of the \"Mosaic writer.\" [8]\n\nBut Mr. Gladstone informs us that Professor Dana and Professor Guyot are\nprepared to prove that the \"first or cosmogonical portion of the Proem\nnot only accords with, but teaches, the nebular hypothesis.\" There is\nno one to whose authority on geological questions I am more readily\ndisposed to bow than that of my eminent friend Professor Dana. But I\nam familiar with what he has previously said on this topic in his\nwell-known and standard work, into which, strangely enough, it does not\nseem to have occurred to Mr. Gladstone to look before he set out upon\nhis present undertaking; and unless Professor Dana's latest contribution\n(which I have not yet met with) takes up altogether new ground, I am\nafraid I shall not be able to extricate myself, by its help, from my\npresent difficulties.\n\nIt is a very long time since I began to think about the relations\nbetween modern scientifically ascertained truths and the cosmogonical\nspeculations of the writer of Genesis; and, as I think that Mr.\nGladstone might have been able to put his case with a good deal more\nforce, if he had thought it worth while to consult the last chapter of\nProfessor Dana's admirable \"Manual of Geology,\" so I think he might have\nbeen made aware that he was undertaking an enterprise of which he had\nnot counted the cost, if he had chanced upon a discussion of the subject\nwhich I published in 1877. [9]\n\nFinally, I should like to draw the attention of those who take interest\nin these topics to the weighty words of one of the most learned and\nmoderate of Biblical critics: [10]--\n\n   \"A propos de cette premiere page de la Bible, on a coutume de\n   nos jours de disserter, a perte de vue, sur l'accord du recit\n   mosaique avec les sciences naturelles; et comme celles-ci tout\n   eloignees qu'elles sont encore de la perfection absolue, ont\n   rendu populaires et en quelque sorte irrefragables un certain\n   nombre de faits generaux ou de theses fondamentales de la\n   cosmologie et de la geologie, c'est le texte sacre qu'on\n   s'evertue a torturer pour le faire concorder avec\n   ces donnees.\"\n\nIn my paper on the \"Interpreters of Nature and the Interpreters of\nGenesis,\" while freely availing myself of the rights of a scientific\ncritic, I endeavoured to keep the expression of my views well within\nthose bounds of courtesy which are set by self-respect and consideration\nfor others. I am therefore glad to be favoured with Mr. Gladstone's\nacknowledgment of the success of my efforts. I only wish that I could\naccept all the products of Mr. Gladstone's gracious appreciation, but\nthere is one about which, as a matter of honesty, I hesitate. In fact,\nif I had expressed my meaning better than I seem to have done, I doubt\nif the particular proffer of Mr. Gladstone's thanks would have been\nmade.\n\nTo my mind, whatever doctrine professes to be the result of the\napplication of the accepted rules of inductive and deductive logic to\nits subject-matter; and which accepts, within the limits which it\nsets to itself, the supremacy of reason, is Science. Whether the\nsubject-matter consists of realities or unrealities, truths or\nfalsehoods, is quite another question. I conceive that ordinary geometry\nis science, by reason of its method, and I also believe that its axioms,\ndefinitions, and conclusions are all true. However, there is a geometry\nof four dimensions, which I also believe to be science, because its\nmethod professes to be strictly scientific. It is true that I cannot\nconceive four dimensions in space, and therefore, for me, the whole\naffair is unreal. But I have known men of great intellectual powers who\nseemed to have no difficulty either in conceiving them, or, at any\nrate, in imagining how they could conceive them; and, therefore,\nfour-dimensioned geometry comes under my notion of science. So I think\nastrology is a science, in so far as it professes to reason logically\nfrom principles established by just inductive methods. To prevent\nmisunderstanding, perhaps I had better add that I do not believe one\nwhit in astrology; but no more do I believe in Ptolemaic astronomy, or\nin the catastrophic geology of my youth, although these, in their day,\nclaimed--and, to my mind, rightly claimed--the name of science. If\nnothing is to be called science but that which is exactly true from\nbeginning to end, I am afraid there is very little science in the world\noutside mathematics. Among the physical sciences, I do not know that any\ncould claim more than that it is true within certain limits, so narrow\nthat, for the present at any rate, they may be neglected. If such is the\ncase, I do not see where the line is to be drawn between exactly true,\npartially true, and mainly untrue forms of science. And what I have said\nabout the current theology at the end of my paper [_supra_ pp. 160-163]\nleaves, I think, no doubt as to the category in which I rank it. For all\nthat, I think it would be not only unjust, but almost impertinent,\nto refuse the name of science to the \"Summa\" of St. Thomas or to the\n\"Institutes\" of Calvin.\n\nIn conclusion, I confess that my supposed \"unjaded appetite\" for the\nsort of controversy in which it needed not Mr. Gladstone's express\ndeclaration to tell us he is far better practised than I am (though\nprobably, without another express declaration, no one would have\nsuspected that his controversial fires are burning low) is already\nsatiated.\n\nIn \"Elysium\" we conduct scientific discussions in a different medium,\nand we are liable to threatenings of asphyxia in that \"atmosphere of\ncontention\" in which Mr. Gladstone has been able to live, alert and\nvigorous beyond the common race of men, as if it were purest mountain\nair. I trust that he may long continue to seek truth, under the\ndifficult conditions he has chosen for the search, with unabated\nenergy--I had almost said fire--\n\n   May age not wither him, nor custom stale\n   His infinite variety.\n\nBut Elysium suits my less robust constitution better, and I beg leave to\nretire thither, not sorry for my experience of the other region--no one\nshould regret experience--but determined not to repeat it, at any rate\nin reference to the \"plea for revelation.\"\n\n\n\n\nNOTE ON THE PROPER SENSE OF THE \"MOSAIC\" NARRATIVE OF THE CREATION.\n\nIt has been objected to my argument from Leviticus (_supr\u00e0_ p. 170) that\nthe Hebrew words translated by \"creeping things\" in Genesis i. 24\nand Leviticus xi. 29, are different; namely, \"reh-mes\" in the former,\n\"sheh-retz\" in the latter. The obvious reply to this objection is that\nthe question is not one of words but of the meaning of words. To borrow\nan illustration from our own language, if \"crawling things\" had been\nused by the translators in Genesis and \"creeping things\" in Leviticus,\nit would not have been necessarily implied that they intended to denote\ndifferent groups of animals. \"Sheh-retz\" is employed in a wider sense\nthan \"reh-mes.\" There are \"sheh-retz\" of the waters of the earth, of\nthe air, and of the land. Leviticus speaks of land reptiles, among other\nanimals, as \"sheh-retz\"; Genesis speaks of all creeping land animals,\namong which land reptiles are necessarily included, as \"reh-mes.\" Our\ntranslators, therefore, have given the true sense when they render both\n\"sheh-retz\" and \"reh-mes\" by \"creeping things.\"\n\nHaving taken a good deal of trouble to show what Genesis i.-ii. 4 does\nnot mean, in the preceding pages, perhaps it may be well that I should\nbriefly give my opinion as to what it does mean. I conceive that the\nunknown author of this part of the Hexateuchal compilation believed,\nand meant his readers to believe, that his words, as they understood\nthem--that is to say, in their ordinary natural sense--conveyed the\n\"actual historical truth.\" When he says that such and such things\nhappened, I believe him to mean that they actually occurred and not that\nhe imagined or dreamed them; when he says \"day,\" I believe he uses the\nword in the popular sense; when he says \"made\" or \"created,\" I believe\nhe means that they came into being by a process analogous to that which\nthe people whom he addressed called \"making\" or \"creating\"; and I think\nthat, unless we forget our present knowledge of nature, and, putting\nourselves back into the position of a Phoenician or a Chaldaean\nphilosopher, start from his conception of the world, we shall fail to\ngrasp the meaning of the Hebrew writer. We must conceive the earth to\nbe an immovable, more or less flattened, body, with the vault of heaven\nabove, the watery abyss below and around. We must imagine sun, moon,\nand stars to be \"set\" in a \"firmament\" with, or in, which they move;\nand above which is yet another watery mass. We must consider \"light\" and\n\"darkness\" to be things, the alternation of which constitutes day and\nnight, independently of the existence of sun, moon, and stars. We must\nfurther suppose that, as in the case of the story of the deluge, the\nHebrew writer was acquainted with a Gentile (probably Chaldaean or\nAccadian) account of the origin of things, in which he substantially\nbelieved, but which he stripped of all its idolatrous associations by\nsubstituting \"Elohim\" for Ea, Anu, Bel, and the like.\n\nFrom this point of view the first verse strikes the keynote of the\nwhole. In the beginning \"Elohim [11] created the heaven and the earth.\"\nHeaven and earth were not primitive existences from which the gods\nproceeded, as the Gentiles taught; on the contrary, the \"Powers\"\npreceded and created heaven and earth. Whether by \"creation\" is meant\n\"causing to be where nothing was before\" or \"shaping of something which\npre-existed,\" seems to me to be an insoluble question.\n\nAs I have pointed out, the second verse has an interesting parallel in\nJeremiah iv. 23: \"I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void;\nand the heavens, and they had no light.\" I conceive that there is no\nmore allusion to chaos in the one than in the other. The earth-disk lay\nin its watery envelope, like the yolk of an egg in the _glaire,_ and the\nspirit, or breath, of Elohim stirred the mass. Light was created as a\nthing by itself; and its antithesis \"darkness\" as another thing. It\nwas supposed to be the nature of these two to alternate, and a pair of\nalternations constituted a \"day\" in the sense of an unit of time.\n\nThe next step was, necessarily, the formation of that \"firmament,\" or\ndome over the earth-disk, which was supposed to support the celestial\nwaters; and in which sun, moon, and stars were conceived to be set, as\nin a sort of orrery. The earth was still surrounded and covered by the\nlower waters, but the upper were separated from it by the \"firmament,\"\nbeneath which what we call the air lay. A second alternation of darkness\nand light marks the lapse of time.\n\nAfter this, the waters which covered the earth-disk, under the\nfirmament, were drawn away into certain regions, which became seas,\nwhile the part laid bare became dry land. In accordance with the notion,\nuniversally accepted in antiquity, that moist earth possesses the\npotentiality of giving rise to living beings, the land, at the command\nof Elohim, \"put forth\" all sorts of plants. They are made to appear thus\nearly, not, I apprehend, from any notion that plants are lower in the\nscale of being than animals (which would seem to be inconsistent with\nthe prevalence of tree worship among ancient people), but rather because\nanimals obviously depend on plants; and because, without crops and\nharvests, there seemed to be no particular need of heavenly signs for\nthe seasons.\n\nThese were provided by the fourth day's work. Light existed already; but\nnow vehicles for the distribution of light, in a special manner and\nwith varying degrees of intensity, were provided. I conceive that the\nprevious alternations of light and darkness were supposed to go on; but\nthat the \"light\" was strengthened during the daytime by the sun, which,\nas a source of heat as well as of light, glided up the firmament from\nthe east, and slid down in the west, each day. Very probably each\nday's sun was supposed to be a new one. And as the light of the day was\nstrengthened by the sun, so the darkness of the night was weakened by\nthe moon, which regularly waxed and waned every month. The stars are,\nas it were, thrown in. And nothing can more sharply mark the doctrinal\npurpose of the author, than the manner in which he deals with the\nheavenly bodies, which the Gentiles identified so closely with their\ngods, as if they were mere accessories to the almanac.\n\nAnimals come next in order of creation, and the general notion of the\nwriter seems to be that they were produced by the medium in which\nthey live; that is to say, the aquatic animals by the waters, and the\nterrestrial animals by the land. But there was a difficulty about flying\nthings, such as bats, birds, and insects. The cosmogonist seems to have\nhad no conception of \"air\" as an elemental body. His \"elements\" are\nearth and water, and he ignores air as much as he does fire. Birds \"fly\nabove the earth in the open firmament\" or \"on the face of the expanse\"\nof heaven. They are not said to fly through the air. The choice of a\ngenerative medium for flying things, therefore, seemed to lie between\nwater and earth; and, if we take into account the conspicuousness of\nthe great flocks of water-birds and the swarms of winged insects, which\nappear to arise from water, I think the preference of water becomes\nintelligible. However, I do not put this forward as more than a probable\nhypothesis. As to the creation of aquatic animals on the fifth, that of\nland animals on the sixth day, and that of man last of all, I presume\nthe order was determined by the fact that man could hardly receive\ndominion over the living world before it existed; and that the \"cattle\"\nwere not wanted until he was about to make his appearance. The other\nterrestrial animals would naturally be associated with the cattle.\n\nThe absurdity of imagining that any conception, analogous to that of\na zoological classification, was in the mind of the writer will be\napparent, when we consider that the fifth day's work must include\nthe zoologist's _Cetacea, Sirenia,_ and seals, [12] all of which are\n_Mammalia;_ all birds, turtles, sea-snakes and, presumably, the\nfresh water _Reptilia_ and _Amphibia;_ with the great majority of\n_Invertebrata._\n\nThe creation of man is announced as a separate act, resulting from a\nparticular resolution of Elohim to \"make man in our image, after our\nlikeness.\" To learn what this remarkable phrase means we must turn to\nthe fifth chapter of Genesis, the work of the same writer. \"In the day\nthat Elohim created man, in the likeness of Elohim made he him; male and\nfemale created he them; and blessed them and called their name Adam in\nthe day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty\nyears and begat _a son_ in his own likeness, after his image; and called\nhis name Seth.\" I find it impossible to read this passage without being\nconvinced that, when the writer says Adam was made in the likeness of\nElohim, he means the same sort of likeness as when he says that Seth was\nbegotten in the likeness of Adam. Whence it follows that his conception\nof Elohim was completely anthropomorphic.\n\nIn all this narrative I can discover nothing which differentiates it, in\nprinciple, from other ancient cosmogonies, except the rejection of all\ngods, save the vague, yet anthropomorphic, Elohim, and the assigning\nto them anteriority and superiority to the world. It is as utterly\nirreconcilable with the assured truths of modern science, as it is\nwith the account of the origin of man, plants, and animals given by the\nwriter of the second chief constituent of the Hexateuch in the second\nchapter of Genesis. This extraordinary story starts with the assumption\nof the existence of a rainless earth, devoid of plants and herbs of the\nfield. The creation of living beings begins with that of a solitary man;\nthe next thing that happens is the laying out of the Garden of Eden, and\nthe causing the growth from its soil of every tree \"that is pleasant to\nthe sight and good for food\"; the third act is the formation out of the\nground of \"every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air\";\nthe fourth and last, the manufacture of the first woman from a rib,\nextracted from Adam, while in a state of anaesthesia.\n\nYet there are people who not only profess to take this monstrous legend\nseriously, but who declare it to be reconcilable with the Elohistic\naccount of the creation!\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _The Nineteenth Century,_ 1886.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Both dolphins and dugongs occur in the Red Sea, porpoises\nand dolphins in the Mediterranean; so that the \"Mosaic writer\" may have\nbeen acquainted with them.]\n\n[Footnote 3: I said nothing about \"the greater number of schools of\nGreek philosophy,\" as Mr. Gladstone implies that I did, but expressly\nspoke of the \"founders of Greek philosophy.\"]\n\n[Footnote 4: See Heinze, _Die Lehre vom Logos,_ p. 9 _et seq._]\n\n[Footnote 5: Reprinted in _Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews,_ 1870.]\n\n[Footnote 6: \"Ancient,\" doubtless, but his antiquity must not be\nexaggerated. For example, there is no proof that the \"Mosaic\" cosmogony\nwas known to the Israelites of Solomon's time.]\n\n[Footnote 7: When Jeremiah (iv. 23) says, \"I beheld the earth, and, lo,\nit was waste and void,\" he certainly does not mean to imply that the\nform of the earth was less definite, or its substance less solid, than\nbefore.]\n\n[Footnote 8: In looking through the delightful volume recently published\nby the Astronomer-Royal for Ireland, a day or two ago, I find the\nfollowing remarks on the nebular hypothesis, which I should have been\nglad to quote in my text if I had known them sooner:--\n\n\"Nor can it be ever more than a speculation; it cannot be established\nby observation, nor can it be proved by calculation. It is merely\na conjecture, more or less plausible, but perhaps in some degree,\nnecessarily true, if our present laws of heat, as we understand them,\nadmit of the extreme application here required, and if the present order\nof things has reigned for sufficient time without the intervention of\nany influence at present known to us\" (_The Story of the Heavens,_ p.\n506).\n\nWould any prudent advocate base a plea, either for or against\nrevelation, upon the coincidence, or want of coincidence, of the\ndeclarations of the latter with the requirements of an hypothesis thus\nguardedly dealt with by an astronomical expert?]\n\n[Footnote 9: Lectures on Evolution delivered in New York (American\nAddresses).]\n\n[Footnote 10: Reuss, _L'Histoire Sainte et la Loi,_ vol. i, p. 275.]\n\n[Footnote 11: For the sense of the term \"Elohim,\" see the essay entitled\n\"The Evolution of Theology\" at the end of this volume.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Perhaps even hippopotamuses and otters!]","title":"Mr. Gladstone and Genesis: Essay #5 from \"Science and Hebrew Tradition\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":9506}