the study of the past. The deciphering of man's past history is the great aim of Biology, and ultimately of all Science. For the question of Man's past is only a part of a greater question, the origin of all living

species.

are

1

We may say broadly that concerning the origin of species two theories, and only two, seem possible. The first theory is that every species is the result of an act of immediate creation. And every true species, however slightly it may differ from its nearest relative, represents such a creative act, and once created is practically unchangeable. This is the theory of immutability of species. According to the second theory all higher, probably all present existing, species only mediately the result of a creative act. The first living germ, whenever and however created, was infused with power to give birth to higher species. Of these and their descendants some would continue to advance, others would degenerate. Each theory demands equally for its ultimate explanation a creative act; the second as much as, if not more than, the first. According to the first theory the creative power has been distributed over a series of acts, according to the second theory it has been concentrated in one primal creation. The second is the theory of the mutability of species, or, in general, of evolution, but not necessarily of Darwinism alone.

The first theory is considered by many the more attractive and hopeful. Now a theory need not be attractive, nor at first sight appear hopeful, provided only it is true. But let me call your attention to certain conclusions which, as it appears to me, are necessarily involved in it. Its central thought is the prac

lution is a process, not a force. The power of the Creator is equally demanded in both cases; only it is differently distributed. And evolution is the very highest proof of the wisdom and skill of the Creator. It elevates our views of the living beings, must it not give a higher conception of Him who formed them? The plant in its first stages shows no trace of flowers, but of leaves only. Later a branch or twig, similar in' structure to all the rest, shortens. The cells and tissues which in other twigs turn into green leaves here become the petals and other organs of the rose or violet. Let us suppose for a moment that every rose and violet required a special act of immediate creation, would the springtime be as wonderful as now? Would the rose or violet be any more beautiful, or are they any less flowers because developed out of that which might have remained a common branch? The plant at least is glorified by the power to give rise to such beauty. And is not the creation of the seed of a violet or rose something infinitely grander than the decking of a flowerless plant with newly created roses? The attainment of the highest and most diversified beauty and utility with the fewest and simplest means is always the sign of what we call in man "creative" genius. Is not the same true of God? I think all feel the force of the argument here.

you

There were at one time no flowering plants. The time came at last for their appearance. Which is the higher, grander mode of producing them, immediate creation of every flowering species, or development of the flower out of the green leaves of some old club moss or similar form? The latter seems to me at least by far the higher mode. And to have created a

THE WHENCE AND THE WHITHER O

ground-pine which could give rise to a rose more difficult and greater than to have cre separately. It requires more genius, so to s gives us a far higher opinion of the gro does it disgrace the rose? We can look di ately at plants. The rose is still and alway and the oak an oak, whatever its origin. A lieve that we shall all readily admit that evol here a theory which does the highest honor to dom and power of the Creator. What if the kingdom is continually blossoming in ever forms? Does not the same reasoning hold tru with added force? I firmly believe that we sho unhesitatingly answer, yes, could we but be a that all men would everywhere and always believ we, men, were the results of an immediate creativ But why do we so strenouously object to the cation to ourselves of the theory of evolution? or two reasons are easily seen. We have all of great deal of innate snobbery, we would rather been born great than to have won greatness by most heroic struggle. But is man any less a man having arisen from something lower, and being fair way to become something higher? Certa not, unless I am less a man for having once bee baby. It is only when I am unusually cross and i table that I object to being reminded of my infan But a young child does not like to be reminded of He is afraid that some one will take him for a ba still. And the snob is always desperately afraid th some one will fail to notice what a high-born gentl

brute; the only genuine brute is a

degenerate man.

And we all recognize the strength of tendencies urging us downward. Is not this the often unrecognized kern

of our eagerness for some mark or

stamp that shall

prove to all that we are no apes, but men? It is not the pure gold that needs the "guinea stamp." If we are men, and as we become men, we shall cease to fear the theory of evolution. Now this is not the only, or perhaps the greatest, objection which men feel or speak against the theory. But I must believe that it has more weight with us than we are willing to admit.

But some say that the theory of immediate creation and immutability of species is the more natural and has always been accepted, while the theory of evolution is new and very likely to be as short-lived as many another theory which has for a time fascinated men only to be forgotten or ridiculed.

But the idea of evolution is as old as Hindu philosophy. The old Ionic natural philosophers were all evolutionists. So Aristophanes, quoting from these or Hesiod concerning the origin of things, says: "Chaos was and Night, and Erebus black, and wide Tartarus. No earth, nor air nor sky was yet; when, in the vast bosom of Erebus (or chaotic darkness) winged Night brought forth first of all the egg, from which in after revolving periods sprang Eros (Love) the much desired, glittering with golden wings; and Eros again, in union with Chaos, produced the brood of the human race." Here the formative process is a birth, not a creation; it is evolution pure and simple. "According to the ancient view," says Professor Lewis, "the present world was a growth; it was born, it came from something antecedent, not merely as a cause but as its seed,