The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of Nature | Page 7

a terrestrial mammal or reptile. In the same way
winged insects (if they are to be counted among the "air-population")
presuppose insects which were wingless, and, therefore, as "creeping
things," were part of the land- population. Thus theory is as much
opposed as observation to the admission that natural science endorses
the succession of animal life which Mr. Gladstone finds in Genesis. On
the contrary, a good many representatives of natural science would be
prepared to say, on theoretical grounds alone, that it is incredible that
the "air-population" should have appeared before the
"land-population"--and that, if this assertion is to be found in Genesis,
it merely demonstrates the scientific worthlessness of the story of
which it forms a part.
Indeed, we may go further. It is not even admissible to say that the
water-population, as a whole, appeared before the air and the
land-populations. According to the Authorised Version, Genesis
especially mentions, among the animals created on the fifth day, "great
whales," in place of which the Revised Version reads "great sea
monsters." Far be it from me to give an opinion which rendering is
right, or whether either is right. All I desire to remark is, that if whales
and porpoises, dugongs and manatees, are to be regarded as members
of the water-population (and if they are not, what animals can claim the
designation?), then that much of the water-population has, as certainly,

originated later than the land-population as bats and birds have. For I
am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate to admit that the
organisation of these animals shows the most obvious signs of their
descent from terrestrial quadrupeds.
A similar criticism applies to Mr. Gladstone's assumption that, as the
fourth act of that "orderly succession of times" enunciated in Genesis,
"the land-population consummated in man."
If this means simply that man is the final term in the evolutional series
of which he forms a part, I do not suppose that any objection will be
raised to that statement on the part of students of natural science. But if
the pentateuchal author goes further than this, and intends to say that
which is ascribed to him by Mr. Gladstone, I think natural science will
have to enter a caveat. It is not by any means certain that man--I
mean the species Homo sapiens of zoological terminology--has
"consummated" the land-population in the sense of appearing at a later
period of time than any other. Let me make my meaning clear by an
example. From a morphological point of view, our beautiful and useful
contemporary--I might almost call him colleague--the horse (Equus
caballus), is the last term of the evolutional series to which he
belongs, just as Homo sapiens is the last term of the series of
which he is a member. If I want to know whether the species Equus
caballus made its appearance on the surface of the globe before or
after Homo sapiens, deduction from known laws does not help
me. There is no reason, that I know of, why one should have appeared
sooner or later than the other. If I turn to observation, I find abundant
remains of Equus caballus in Quaternary strata, perhaps a little
earlier. The existence of Homo sapiens in the Quaternary epoch
is also certain. Evidence has been adduced in favour of man's existence
in the Pliocene, or even in the Miocene epoch. It does not satisfy me;
but I have no reason to doubt that the fact may be so, nevertheless.
Indeed, I think it is quite possible that further research will show that
Homo sapiens existed, not only before Equus caballus,
but before many other of the existing forms of animal life; so that, if all
the species of animals have been separately created, man, in this case,
would by no means be the "consummation" of the land-population.

I am raising no objection to the position of the fourth term in Mr.
Gladstone's "order"--on the facts, as they stand, it is quite open to any
one to hold, as a pious opinion, that the fabrication of man was the
acme and final achievement of the process of peopling the globe. But it
must not be said that natural science counts this opinion among her
"demonstrated conclusions and established facts," for there would be
just as much, or as little, reason for ranging the contrary opinion among
them.
It may seem superfluous to add to the evidence that Mr. Gladstone has
been utterly misled in supposing that his interpretation of Genesis
receives any support from natural science. But it is as well to do one's
work thoroughly while one is about it; and I think it may be advisable
to point out that the facts, as they are at present known, not only refute
Mr. Gladstone's interpretation of Genesis