(c) A third class of harmonists confess them selves unable to find perfect accord between the accounts, but ascribe the failure to the imperfec tion of the data furnished by geology. In the pres ent condition of our knowledge, they say, these discrepancies are insuperable; but geology is a new science, it is a growing science, and we may expect that when it gathers all the facts together, if indeed it ever shall succeed in doing so, its pic ture of the creative period will be identical with that of Genesis. That this is rather an abandon ment of the efforts to reconcile than a successful reconciliation of the accounts is evident on the face of it.
(2) But if harmonies of Genesis and geology have not been successful in general, must we ac cept the conclusion of the Collisionists, which is that these two cosmogonies contradict each other at every point ? Are the discrepancies between them actual contradictions? Those who answer in the affirmative do not agree among themselves. Some consider the first chapter of Genesis a legend or myth on a perfect level with the mytho logical cosmogonies of the ancients, and refuse to assign to it any value whatever. Others regard it as a legend indeed, but one in which the divine Spirit has chosen to embody certain great moral and spritual lessons. While the vehicle itself is no different from the myths of other ancient peo ple, the lessons conveyed to mankind through it raise it infinitely above them. Both forms of the collisionist view ignore the facts. There is a gen eral resemblance between the account in Genesis and that of geology which is worthy of attention.
(3) We arc thus led to the Parallelists' view of these accounts, which consists in putting them side by side and noting their resemblances and differ ences, without making an effort to bring about a reconciliation between them, if they should prove to be divergent, or expecting them to conflict upon the assumption that because the Genesis account is an ancient one it must necessarily conflict with modern science. The two records move upon dif ferent planes, but these two planes are parallel to one another. Each of them has a specific design and the details in each are selected and arranged with a view to making it a perfect means towards this end. Neither could he substituted for the other. Moreover, each is drawn up within a defi nite environment and its form is determined by this environment. The geological account is a nineteenth century grouping of certain facts with a view to satisfying a scientific need ; the Genesis account is a pre-Christian presentation emphasiz ing the place of God in the origin of the world. Perfect correspondence between them does not exist. And yet a general similarity of order can not be denied. This parellelism is such as grows out of the fact that both touch on the same main subject. But whereas one is intended to show up the First Cause and the ultimate purpose of the creation, the other aims to trace its course as a process possessing an interest of its own. The differences between the accounts are also precisely such as might have been expected from the pur pose and nature of each as compared with the other. The geological record apart from that of Genesis would be defective, as it cannot go back to the primary cause of the creation. The Genesis
account, compared with that of geology, cannot be regarded as accurate in every detail. But its lack of accuracy in no way militates against its being accepted as in general true. This "true ness" as Gladstone says "is truth or trueness as conveyed and comprehended by the mind of man; and further, by the mind of man in a comparative ly untrained and infant state." (Impregnable Rock, p. 38.) Language, and in fact all other modes of expression are means towards ends. It may occur that "with the aim in view, words of figure liter ally untrue might carry more truth home than words of fact ; words less exact will even now often carry more truth than words superior in exactness." (Impregnable Rock. p. 49.) (4) Biology. Apart from geology there has arisen another science of recent years which claims to have something to say on the early periods of the world's history, namely, the science of biology. And the point of con tact between biology and the cosmogony of Genesis is its adoption of the law of evo lution. Through the operation of this law biology claims to explain the successive appearance of the various forms of life as links in a connected chain. All that the cosmogony of Genesis had described as the creation of "grain," "herb," "fruit-tree yielding fruit," "moving creature that bath life," "fowl" flying above the earth, "sea-monster," "creeping thing," "cattle,"and "beast of the earth," and the physical frame and life of man himself, biology classifies under orders, classes, families, genera, species, and varieties; and traces them all in their multitudinous forms from a few primor dial germs, perhaps even from one. The question which is thus raised between Genesis and biology is: Can the theory of evolution be held in con sistency with the general trustworthiness of the account in Genesis? In order to obtain a satis factory answer to this question, it is necessary to posit first of all that biology has no right to and does not undertake to account for causes, but only for successions and varieties of phenomena. It can look upon evolution only as a process or method in nature, and not as a force or cause which brings things or entities into existence. In other words, we must distinguish between evolu tion as a method according to which the underly ing cause or causes bring about new forms out of old ones, and evolution as a philosophy of cause nr being. Further than this, biological evo lution must be understood as concerned simply with the phenomena of life and as distinguished from comical evolution, which undertakes to ex plain the origin of inorganic forms as well as forms of life upon the same principle. It does not come within the scope of the principle of bi ological evolution to inquire how life originated. It leaves the answer to that question to philos ophy. Naturally, philosophy aims to take up the question and answer it in a manner similar to that of biology through its theory of Cosmic evo lution. But with that biology has nothing to do. Assuming that life has somehow come on the earth, it traces it from its simple and single be ginning, by slow and gradual modifications—"in sensible gradations"—through successive forms and stages up to man.