A single glance at this theory and its relation to Mosaic cosmogony reveals the fact that there can be no conflict between the two. The nebular hypothesis leaves the question of the First Cause out of view as beyond the reach of science strictly so called. It begins with the "heavens and the earth ;" i. e., the universe as already created in a chaotic mass; it assumes further that motions, is suingin heat and light, have been inserted into this mass, perhaps created together with it, and then proceeds to account for the formation of planets and suns, and within these (especially within the terrestrial sphere) for the formation of the firma ment and the separation of the waters above and the waters beneath. The correspondence between the two is, however, from the nature of the case very general. At one point, this correspondence is particularly striking and unexpected. According to the nebular hypothesis, as well as according to the Mosaic account, light precedes the formation of the sun and the other celestial bodies.
At the point where the nebular hypothesis leaves the story of the origin of the world, the science of geology takes it up and continues it.
(2) Geology. When the earth's crust was formed in accordance with the laws mentioned in the above brief sketch of the nebular hypothe sis, it was surrounded by a dense mass of vapors. Part of this mass was condensed and precipitated to the surface of the earth, con stituting a continuous and all-enveloping sea. The rest remained suspended in the form of an unbroken shell of thick, impenetrable cloud or hy grosphere. The further condensation of the cen tral mass of the earth caused shrinkages and wrinklings on the surface. The elevations thus formed appeared as mountains and continents, while the became the basins of the oceans and seas. Meantime, life in its lowest forms also appeared, though science does not un dertake to say whence and how. But life, once introduced, went on progressing and becoming more and more complex and differentiated. The earliest forms of life appear to have been "com prehensive" or intermediary between animal and vegetable. Out of these arose the protophyies, or first plants, and the protozoa, or first animals. Then appeared fishes, next reptiles, next birds ; last mammals, followed by man. This order is not the same as that given in the six days, or stages, of creation in Genesis. For here, plants of all kinds —"grass, herbs, fruit, trees, yielding fruit after their kind"—are created on the third day. Fishes, or sea-monsters—"moving creatures that move" —and birds, are created on the fifth day ; and liv ing creatures or beasts, defined as "cattle and creeping things"—reptiles—and finally man, were created on the sixth day. The discrepancies are
seen at a glance and have led to many ways of looking at them.
(3) Discrepancies. In general, these may be reduced to three classes: (1) Those of the Harmonists (2) those of the Collisionists ; and (3) those of the Parallelists.
(I) The Harmonists strive to bring the data fur nished by geology into perfect accord with the Genesis narrative. As the facts of geology are fixed and admit of but a single interpretation, any attempt to remove the discrepancies between the teachings of this science and the portraiture of Genesis must be based on some interpretation of the Biblical text. Of such interpretations, there have been attempted a very large number. It will be sufficient to mention here some that have ob tained currency among Bible students.
(a) The first of the systems of harmonization is that according to which Genesis and geology give accounts of totally different matters. Ac cording to this view Genesis i:t, states in a single sentence the fact of the creation of the world, in cluding the earth with all its contents. Between this verse, however, and what follows, there is a gap. The second verse begins with a devastation and ruin. This is not primitive chaos, but the re sult of a convulsion or cataclysm. "The earth was without form and void and darkness .was upon the face of the deep." All that geology now discovers and deciphers of the earth's history be longs to the period preceding the cataclysm ob scurely alluded to in this statement. The subse quent portion of the chapter gives, according to this view, an account of the reconstruction of the terrestrial world after this cataclysm, in six or dinary or solar days of twenty-four hours each. Of such geology could naturally know and say nothing. Thus the two accounts are mutually supplementary and the harmony be tween them is complete. The difficulties of this method of reconciliation need not here be pointed out.
(b) Another way of harmonizing Genesis and geology is that proposed by geologists like Hugh Miller, Dana and Dawson, and accepted by such men as Gladstone. These authorities, though dif fering among themselves, have this in common, that they take the Hebrew words meaning "grain," "herbs," "trees," "birds," "reptiles" and give them broader meanings than the same admit of in other passages, and thus create artificial correspond ences between the two accounts. Such spondences,ho•ever.though seen by their own au thors, are not readily accepted by others as evi denced by the differences among the harmonists of this class. And in general, Hebrew scholars have failed to endorse the interpretations put on Hebrew terms by them. In some cases, Hebraists have gone further and protested against these in terpretations.