Q. E. D. | Page 6

wholly different in degree and
different in kind from any process going on around us that we call a
natural process. These elements of high atomic weight that break down
into others of lower atomic weight may be so rare because they have
been about all used up in this process. At any rate, so far from revealing
the origin of matter as a process now going on, these phenomena are an
objective demonstration that all matter is more or less unstable and
liable under some unknown but ever-acting force to lose some portion
of that fund of energy with which it seems to have been primarily
endowed. Not the evolution of matter but the degeneration of matter is
the plain and unescapable lesson to be drawn from these facts. The
varieties of matter may change greatly, and one variety or one chemical
element may be transformed into another. But this transformation is by
loss and not by gain. It is degeneration and not upward evolution that is

now opened up before our astonished eyes by this peep into the
ultimate laboratories of nature; and he is surely a blind observer who
cannot read in these facts the grand truth that all this substance called
matter with which science deals in her manifold studies must at some
time in the past, I care not when, have been called into existence in
some manner no longer operative. The past eternity of matter, as well
as its progressive development from the simple to the complex, seems
manifestly out of consideration in view of the facts as we now know
them. There is no ambiguity in the evidence. So far as modern science
can throw light on the question, there must have been a real Creation of
the materials of which our world is composed, a Creation wholly
different both in kind and in degree from any process now going on.
IV
A supposed objection has been raised to this view, based on the
vastness of the universe as we now know it. Whether or not the
universe is really infinite in extent, it is certainly of an extent that is
practically infinite, so far as our powers of observation or of reasoning
are concerned. But this practically infinite universe is not a bit harder to
account for than would be a definitely limited universe, say of the size
of our solar system. If the spectroscope shows that the far distant parts
of the universe contain many of the same elements as are found in our
solar system, we need not be surprised, since all are alike the work of
the same Creator. Nor would this fact that the universe seems to be
composed of similar materials throughout tend in any way to prove that
all these parts of the universe were brought into existence at the same
time, nor yet that our solar system was refashioned out of some of the
common stock of the universe already on hand, as the nebular
hypothesis supposes. For all that we can tell to the contrary, it would
seem probable that the materials of our solar system were called into
existence expressly for the position they are now occupying; and this
seems to be the plain import of the record in Genesis. Of one thing,
however, we can be certain,--these materials must at some time have
been called into existence by methods or ways that are no longer in
operation around us. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth."
V
Some remarks are necessary here regarding the homogeneousness of

matter, or the idea that the various elements are composed of
primordial units which are themselves alike, mere duplicates of each
other. If this should prove to be really the case, as seems to be quite
likely in the light of the facts given above, would it not be a veritable
triumph for materialism? By no means. On the contrary, I think I can
show in a very few words not only that this homogeneousness of matter
is the only rational view of the composition of the material universe,
but also that it is the only view consistent with Christian Theism and
with the doctrine of Creation.
The theory of the atoms with their inherent and unchangeable
properties, which prevailed during the greater part of the nineteenth
century, naturally led us to look upon these properties as inherent in the
things themselves. This was indeed materialism. This view, however,
constantly impelled us to find out the essential differences between the
various kinds of atoms, so as to "account for" their varying behaviors.
And no matter how far we push such inquiries, this materialistic
attitude of mind will control us so long as we think we are dealing with
substances which are intrinsically different. If the