按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
time； and all that could be said； at most； would be； that so far
as the evidence could be traced； there was nothing to contradict
the hypothesis。 But when you look； not to the testimonial
evidencewhich； considering the relative insignificance of the
antiquity of human records； might not be good for much in this
casebut to the circumstantial evidence； then you find that
this hypothesis is absolutely incompatible with such evidence as
we have； which is of so plain and so simple a character that it
is impossible in any way to escape from the conclusions which it
forces upon us。
You are； doubtless； all aware that the outer substance of the
earth； which alone is accessible to direct observation； is not
of a homogeneous character； but that it is made up of a number
of layers or strata； the titles of the principal groups of which
are placed upon the accompanying diagram。 Each of these groups
represents a number of beds of sand； of stone； of clay； of
slate； and of various other materials。
On careful examination； it is found that the materials of which
each of these layers of more or less hard rock are composed are；
for the most part； of the same nature as those which are at
present being formed under known conditions on the surface of
the earth。 For example； the chalk； which constitutes a great
part of the Cretaceous formation in some parts of the world； is
practically identical in its physical and chemical characters
with a substance which is now being formed at the bottom of the
Atlantic Ocean； and covers an enormous area； other beds of rock
are comparable with the sands which are being formed upon sea…
shores； packed together； and so on。 Thus； omitting rocks of
igneous origin； it is demonstrable that all these beds of stone；
of which a total of not less than seventy thousand feet is
known； have been formed by natural agencies； either out of the
waste and washing of the dry land； or else by the accumulation
of the exuviae of plants and animals。 Many of these strata are
full of such exuviaethe so…called 〃fossils。〃 Remains of
thousands of species of animals and plants； as perfectly
recognisable as those of existing forms of life which you meet
with in museums； or as the shells which you pick up upon the
sea…beach； have been imbedded in the ancient sands； or muds； or
limestones； just as they are being imbedded now； in sandy； or
clayey； or calcareous subaqueous deposits。 They furnish us with
a record； the general nature of which cannot be misinterpreted；
of the kinds of things that have lived upon the surface of the
earth during the time that is registered by this great thickness
of stratified rocks。 But even a superficial study of these
fossils shows us that the animals and plants which live at the
present time have had only a temporary duration； for the remains
of such modern forms of life are met with； for the most part；
only in the uppermost or latest tertiaries； and their number
rapidly diminishes in the lower deposits of that epoch。 In the
older tertiaries； the places of existing animals and plants are
taken by other forms； as numerous and diversified as those which
live now in the same localities； but more or less different from
them； in the mesozoic rocks； these are replaced by others yet
more divergent from modern types； and； in the paleozoic
formations； the contrast is still more marked。 Thus the
circumstantial evidence absolutely negatives the conception of
the eternity of the present condition of things。 We can say；
with certainty； that the present condition of things has existed
for a comparatively short period； and that； so far as animal and
vegetable nature are concerned； it has been preceded by a
different condition。 We can pursue this evidence until we reach
the lowest of the stratified rocks； in which we lose the
indications of life altogether。 The hypothesis of the eternity
of the present state of nature may therefore be put out
of court。
Fig。 1。Ideal Section of the Crust of the Earth。
We now come to what I will term Milton's hypothesisthe
hypothesis that the present condition of things has endured for
a comparatively short time； and； at the commencement of that
time； came into existence within the course of six days。 I doubt
not that it may have excited some surprise in your minds that I
should have spoken of this as Milton's hypothesis； rather than
that I should have chosen the terms which are more customary；
such as 〃the doctrine of creation；〃 or 〃the Biblical doctrine；〃
or 〃the doctrine of Moses；〃 all of which denominations； as
applied to the hypothesis to which I have just referred； are
certainly much more familiar to you than the title of the
Miltonic hypothesis。 But I have had what I cannot but think are
very weighty reasons for taking the course which I have pursued。
In the first place； I have discarded the title of the 〃doctrine
of creation；〃 because my present business is not with the
question why the objects which constitute Nature came into
existence； but when they came into existence； and in what order。
This is as strictly a historical question as the question when
the Angles and the Jutes invaded England； and whether they
preceded or followed the Romans。 But the question about creation
is a philosophical problem； and one which cannot be solved； or
even approached； by the historical method。 What we want to learn
is； whether the facts； so far as they are known； afford evidence
that things arose in the way described by Milton； or whether
they do not； and； when that question is settled it will be time
enough to inquire into the causes of their origination。
In the second place； I have not spoken of this doctrine as the
Biblical doctrine。 It is quite true that persons as diverse in
their general views as Milton the Protestant and the celebrated
Jesuit Father Suarez； each put upon the first chapter of Genesis
the interpretation embodied in Milton's poem。 It is quite true
that this interpretation is that which has been instilled into
every one of us in our childhood； but I do not for one moment
venture to say that it can properly be called the Biblical
doctrine。 It is not my business； and does not lie within my
competency； to say what the Hebrew text does； and what it does
not signify； moreover； were I to affirm that this is the
Biblical doctrine； I should be met by the authority of many
eminent scholars； to say nothing of men of science； who； at
various times； have absolutely denied that any such doctrine is
to be found in Genesis。 If we are to listen to many expositors
of no mean authority； we must believe that what seems so clearly
defined in Genesisas if very great pains had been taken that
there should be no possibility of mistakeis not the meaning of
the text at all。 The account is divided into periods that we may
make just as long or as short as convenience requires。 We are
also to understand that it is consistent with the original text
to believe that the most complex plants and animals may have
been evolved by natural processes； lasting for millions of
years； out of structureless rudiments。 A person who is not a
Hebrew scholar can only stand aside and admire the marvellous
flexibility of a language which admits of such diverse
interpretations。 But assuredly； in the face of such
contradictions of authority upon matters respecting which he is
incompetent to form any judgment； he will abstain； as I do； from
giving any opinion。
In the third place； I have carefully abstained from speaking of
this as the Mosaic doctrine； because we are now assured upon the
authority of the highest critics and even of dignitaries of the
Church； that there is no evidence that Moses wrote the Book of
Genesis； or knew anything about it。 You will understand that I
give no judgmentit would be an impertinence upon my part to
volunteer even a suggestionupon such a subject。 But； that
being the state of opinion among the scholars and the clergy； it
is well for the unlearned in Hebrew lore； and for the laity； to
avoid entangling themselves in such a vexed question。
Happily； Milton leaves us no excuse for doubting what he means；
and I shall therefore be safe in speaking of the opinion in
question as the Miltonic hypothesis。
Now we have to test that hypothesis。 For my part； I have no
prejudice one way or the other。 If there is evidence in favour
of this view； I am burdened by no theoretical difficulties in
the way of accepting it； but there must be evidence。
Scientific men get an awkward habitno； I won't call it that；
for it is a valuable habitof believing nothing unless there is
evidence for it； and they have a way of looking upon belief
which is not based upon evidence； not only as illogical； but as
immoral。 We will； if you please； test this view by the
circumstantial evidence alone； for； from what I have said； you
will understand that I do not propose to discuss the question of
w