Lectures on Evolution | Page 8

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 hypothesis--the 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 Genesis--as if very great pains had been taken that
there should be no possibility of mistake--is 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 judgment--it would be an
impertinence upon my part to volunteer even a suggestion--upon such a
subject. But, that being the state of