Creation

The universe comprises the infinity of worlds, both of those we see and those we do not see; all animate and inanimate beings; all the stars that revolve in space, and all the fluids with which space is filled.

The universe includes countless worlds, both those we see and those we do not see. It includes all living and nonliving beings, all the stars that revolve in space, and all the fluids that fill space.

37. Has the universe been created, or has it existed from all eternity, like God?

37. Was the universe created, or has it always existed, like God?

"Assuredly the universe cannot have made itself; and if it had existed from all eternity, like God, it could not be the work of God."

"Clearly, the universe could not have created itself. And if it had existed for all eternity, like God, it could not have been God's creation."

Reason tells us that the universe cannot have made itself, and that, as it could not be the work of chance, it must be the work of God.

Reason tells us that the universe could not have created itself. It could not have come about by chance, so it must be God's work.

38. How did God create the universe?

38. How did God create the universe?

"To borrow a well-known expression, by His will. Nothing can give a better idea of the action of that all-powerful will than those grand words of Genesis, "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

"To use a familiar expression, by his will. Nothing better shows the power of that all-powerful will than the grand words of Genesis: "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

39. Can we know how worlds are formed?

39. Can we know how worlds are formed?

"All that can be said on this subject, within the limits of your comprehension, is this: Worlds are formed by the condensation of the matter disseminated in space."

"All that can be said on this subject, within the limits of your understanding, is this: Worlds form when matter scattered throughout space condenses."

40. Are comets, as is now supposed, a commencement of condensation of the primitive matter—worlds in course of formation?

40. Are comets, as people now suppose, primitive matter beginning to condense into worlds?

"Yes; but it is absurd to believe in the influence attributed to them. I mean, the influence which is commonly attributed to them; for all the heavenly bodies have their share of influence in the production of certain physical phenomena."

"Yes, but it is absurd to believe they have the influence commonly attributed to them. I mean the influence people usually claim they have. All heavenly bodies do have some influence on certain physical events."

41. Is it possible for a completely formed world to disappear, and for the matter of which it is composed to be again disseminated in space?

41. Can a fully formed world disappear, with its matter spreading through space again?

"Yes. God renews worlds as He renews the living beings that inhabit them."

"Yes. God renews worlds just as he renews the living beings that live on them."

42. Can we know the length of time employed in the formation of worlds—of the earth, for instance?

42. Can we know how long it took worlds to form, such as the earth?

"This is a matter in regard to which I can tell you nothing, for it is only known to the Creator; and foolish indeed would he be who should pretend to possess such knowledge, or to number the ages of such a formation."

"I can tell you nothing about this matter, because only the Creator knows. Anyone who claimed to know or to count the ages of such a formation would be foolish indeed."

43. When did the earth begin to be peopled?

43. When did people first begin to inhabit the earth?

"In the beginning all was chaos; the elements were mixed up in a state of confusion. Gradually those elements settled into their proper places, and then appeared the orders of living beings appropriate to the successive states of the globe."

"In the beginning, everything was chaos. The elements were mixed together in confusion. Gradually, they settled into their proper places. Then different kinds of living beings appeared, suited to each successive state of the earth."

44. Whence came the living beings that appeared upon the earth?

44. Where did the living beings that appeared on earth come from?

"The germs of these were contained in the earth itself, awaiting the favourable moment for their development. The organic principles came together on the cessation of the force which held them asunder, and those principles formed the germs of all the living beings that have peopled the earth. Those germs remained latent and inert, like the chrysalis and the seed of plants, until the arrival of the proper moment for the vivification of each species. The beings of each species then came together and multiplied."

"The germs of these were contained in the earth itself, waiting for the right time to develop. The organic principles came together when the force holding them apart ceased. They then formed the germs of all the living beings that have populated the earth. Those germs remained dormant and inactive, like a chrysalis or a plant seed. They stayed that way until the right time came for each species to come to life. The beings of each species then came together and multiplied."

45. Where were the organic elements before the formation of the earth?

45. Where were the organic elements before the earth formed?

"They existed, so to say, in the fluidic state, in space, in the midst of the spirits, or in other planets, awaiting the creation of the earth in order to begin a new existence on a new globe."

"They existed, so to speak, in a fluid state. They were in space among the spirits, or on other planets. They were waiting for the earth to be created so they could begin a new existence on a new world."

Chemistry shows us the molecules of inorganic bodies uniting to produce crystals of regular forms that are invariable for each species, as soon as those molecules find themselves in the conditions necessary to their combination. The slightest disturbance of those conditions suffices to prevent the union of the material elements, or, at least, to prevent the regular arrangement of the latter which constitutes the crystal. Why should not the same action take place among the organic elements? We preserve for years the seeds of plants and of animals, which are only vivified at a certain temperature and under certain conditions: grains of wheat have been seen to germinate after the lapse of centuries. There is, then, in seeds a latent principle of vitality, which only awaits the concourse of favourable circumstances to develop itself. May not that which takes place under our eyes every day have also taken place at the origin of the globe? Does this view of the formation of living beings brought forth out of chaos by the action of the forces of nature itself detract in any way from the glory of God? So far from doing this, the view of creation thus presented to us is more consonant than any other with our sense of the vastness of His power exerting its sway over all the worlds of infinity through the action of universal laws. This theory, it is true, does not solve the problem of the origin of the vital elements, but Nature has mysteries which it is as yet impossible for us to explain.

Chemistry shows us how molecules in inorganic matter combine to form crystals. These crystals have regular shapes that are constant for each species. They form as soon as the molecules encounter the conditions needed to combine. The slightest disturbance can prevent the material elements from joining. Or it can at least prevent them from arranging themselves in the regular pattern that forms a crystal. Why could the same process not occur among organic elements? We preserve plant and animal seeds for years. They come to life only at a certain temperature and under certain conditions. Grains of wheat have been known to germinate after centuries. Seeds therefore contain a latent principle of vitality that only awaits favorable conditions to develop. Could what happens before our eyes every day not also have happened at the origin of the globe? Does this view in any way diminish the glory of God? It holds that living beings emerged from chaos through the action of nature’s own forces. Far from diminishing God’s glory, this view of creation better reflects our sense of the vastness of his power than any other. Through universal laws, his power governs all the worlds of infinity. This theory, it is true, does not solve the problem of the origin of the vital elements. But Nature has mysteries that we cannot yet explain.

46. Do any living beings come into existence spontaneously at the present day?

46. Do any living beings arise spontaneously today?

"Yes: but the primal germs of these already existed in a latent state. You are constantly witnesses of this phenomenon. Do not the tissues of the human body and of animals contain the germs of a multitude of parasites, that only await for their development the occurrence of the putrid fermentation necessary to their life? Each of you contains a slumbering world of microscopic beings in process of creation."

“Yes, but their original germs already existed in a dormant state. You constantly witness this phenomenon. Don’t human and animal tissues contain the germs of countless parasites? These germs only await the decay and fermentation necessary for them to develop and live. Each of you contains a sleeping world of microscopic beings in the process of creation.”

47. Was the human species among the organic elements contained in the terrestrial globe?

47. Was the human species among the organic elements contained in the Earth?

"Yes; and it made its appearance at the time appointed by the Creator. Hence the statement that man was 'formed out of the dust of the ground.'"

"Yes. It appeared at the time set by the Creator. That is why it is said that man was 'formed from the dust of the ground.'"

48. Can we ascertain the epoch of the appearance of man and of the other living beings on the earth?

48. Can we determine when humans and other living beings first appeared on earth?

"No; all your calculations are chimerical."

"No. All your calculations are imaginary."

49. If the germs of the human race were among the organic elements of the globe, why are human beings not produced spontaneously at the present day, as they were at the time of its origin?

49. If the seeds of the human race were among Earth's organic elements, why don't humans arise spontaneously today as they did at the beginning?

"The first beginning of things is hidden from us; nevertheless, it may be asserted that the earliest progenitors of the human race, when once brought into existence, absorbed in themselves the elements necessary to their formation in order to transmit those elements according to the laws of reproduction. The same may be said in regard to all the different species of living beings."

"The very beginning of things is hidden from us. Nevertheless, we can say that the earliest ancestors of the human race absorbed the elements needed for their formation once they came into existence. They then passed those elements on according to the laws of reproduction. The same may be said of all the different species of living things."

50. Did the human race begin with one man only?

50. Did the human race begin with just one man?

"No; he whom you call Adam was neither the first nor the only man who peopled the earth."

"No, the man you call Adam was neither the first nor the only man to inhabit the earth."

51. Is it possible to know at what period Adam lived?

51. Is it possible to know when Adam lived?

"About the period which you assign to him; that is to say, about 4000 years before Christ."

"Around the time you place him, about 4,000 years before Christ."

The man of whom, under the name of Adam, tradition has preserved the memory, was one of those who, in some one of the countries of the globe, survived one of the great cataclysms which at various epochs have changed its surface, and who became the founder of one of the races that people the earth at the present day. The laws of nature render it impossible that the amount of progress which we know to have been accomplished by the human race of our planet long before the time of Christ could have been accomplished so rapidly as must have been the case if it had only been in existence upon the globe since the period assigned as the date of Adam. The opinion most consonant with reason is that which regards the story of Adam as a myth, or as an allegory personifying the earliest ages of the world.

Tradition has preserved the memory of a man named Adam. He was one of the people who survived a great catastrophe somewhere on Earth. Such catastrophes have changed the planet's surface at various times. Adam went on to become the founder of one of the races living on Earth today. We know that humanity had made great progress long before the time of Christ. If humanity had existed on Earth only since the date assigned to Adam, that progress would have been extremely rapid. The laws of nature make such rapid progress impossible. The most reasonable view is that the story of Adam is a myth or an allegory. In this allegory, Adam represents the earliest ages of the world.

52. What is the cause of the physical and moral differences that distinguish the various races of men upon the earth?

52. What causes the physical and moral differences between the various races of people on earth?

"Climate, modes of life, and social habits. The same differences would be produced in the case of two children of the same mother, if brought up far from one another, and surrounded by different influences and conditions; for the children thus diversely brought up would present no moral resemblance to each other."

"Climate, ways of life, and social habits. The same differences would arise between two children of the same mother if they were raised far apart under different influences and conditions. For children raised in such different ways would have no moral resemblance to each other."

53. Did the human race come into existence on various points of the globe?

53. Did the human race originate in different places around the world?

"Yes, and at various epochs; and this is one of the causes of the diversity of human races. The people of the primitive periods, being dispersed abroad in different climates, and forming alliances with those of other countries than their own, gave rise perpetually to new types of humanity."

"Yes, and at different times. This is one cause of the diversity of human races. People in early times spread into different climates and formed unions with people from other countries. This continually gave rise to new types of humanity."

—Do these differences constitute distinct species?

Do these differences make them separate species?

"Certainly not. All of them constitute but a single family. Do the differences between the varieties of the same fruit prevent their all belonging to the same species?"

"Certainly not. They all belong to a single family. Do different varieties of the same fruit not all belong to the same species?"

54. If the human species do not all proceed from the same progenitor, should they, on that account, cease to regard one another as brothers?

54. If all humans do not descend from the same ancestor, should they stop seeing one another as brothers?

"All men are brothers in virtue of their common relation to the Creator, because they are animated by the same spirit, and tend towards the same goal. The human mind is always prone to attach too literal a meaning to statements which are necessarily imperfect and incomplete."

"All people are brothers because they share a relationship with the Creator. They are animated by the same spirit and move toward the same goal. The human mind is always prone to take statements too literally, even though they are necessarily imperfect and incomplete."

55. Are all the globes that revolve in space inhabited?

55. Are all the worlds moving through space inhabited?

"Yes; and the people of the earth are far from being, as you suppose, the first in intelligence, goodness, and general development. There are many men having a high opinion of themselves who even imagine that your little globe alone, of all the countless myriads of globes around you, has the privilege of being inhabited by reasoning beings. They fancy that God has created the universe only for them. Insensate vanity!"

“Yes, and the people of Earth are far from being the most intelligent, good, or generally developed, as you suppose. Many people have a high opinion of themselves. They even imagine that your little planet alone has the privilege of being inhabited by thinking beings. They believe this among the countless planets around you. They imagine that God created the universe only for them. What foolish vanity!”

God has peopled the globes of the universe with living beings, all of whom concur in working out the aims of His providence. To believe that the presence of living beings is confined to the one point of the universe inhabited by us is to cast a doubt on the wisdom of God, who has made nothing in vain, and who must therefore have assigned to all the other globes of the universe a destination more important than that of gratifying our eyes with the spectacle of a starry night. Moreover, there is nothing in the position, size, or physical constitution of the earth to warrant the supposition that it alone, of the countless myriads of globes disseminated throughout the infinity of space, has the privilege of being inhabited.

God has filled the worlds of the universe with living beings. All of them work together to carry out the purposes of his providence. To believe that living beings exist only in the one place we inhabit is to doubt God’s wisdom. He has made nothing in vain. He must therefore have given all the other worlds a greater purpose than pleasing us with a starry night. Moreover, nothing about Earth’s position, size, or physical makeup supports the belief that it alone has the privilege of being inhabited. Countless worlds are scattered throughout the infinity of space.

56. Is the physical constitution of all globes the same?

56. Are all worlds made of the same physical materials?

"No; they do not at all resemble one another."

"No, they don't resemble each other at all."

57. The physical constitution of the various worlds not being the same for all, does it follow that the beings who inhabit them have different organisations?

57. Since worlds differ in their physical makeup, does it follow that the beings who live on them have different physical structures?

"Undoubtedly it does; just as, in your world, fishes are organised for living in the water, and birds for living in the air."

“Of course it does, just as fish in your world are adapted to live in water, and birds to live in the air.”

58. Are the planets furthest removed from the sun stinted in light and heat, the sun only appearing to them of the size of one of the fixed stars?

58. Do the planets farthest from the sun receive too little light and heat, since the sun appears to them no larger than a distant star?

"Do you suppose that there are no other sources of light and heat than the sun? And do you count for nothing the action of electricity, which, in certain worlds, plays a very much more important part than in your earth? Besides, how do you know that the beings of those worlds see in the same manner as you do, and with the aid of organs such as yours?"

"Do you think the sun is the only source of light and heat? And do you give no importance to electricity? On some worlds, it plays a much greater role than it does on Earth. Besides, how do you know that beings on those worlds see as you do, using organs like yours?"

The conditions of existence for the beings who inhabit the various worlds must be supposed to be appropriate to the sphere in which they are destined to live. If we had never seen fishes, we should be at a loss to understand how any living beings could exist in the sea. So in regard to all the other worlds, which doubtless contain elements that are unknown to us. In our own earth, are not the long polar nights illumined by the electrical displays of the aurora borealis? Is it impossible that, in certain worlds, electricity may be more abundant than in ours, and may subserve, in its general economy, various important uses not imaginable by us? And may not those worlds contain in themselves the sources of the heat and light required by their inhabitants?

The living conditions of beings on different worlds must suit the world where they are destined to live. If we had never seen fish, we would struggle to understand how living beings could exist in the sea. The same is true of all the other worlds, which doubtless contain elements unknown to us. On our own Earth, aren't the long polar nights lit by the electrical displays of the aurora borealis? Could electricity be more abundant on certain worlds than on ours? Might it serve various important purposes in the workings of those worlds that we cannot imagine? And might those worlds contain their own sources of the heat and light their inhabitants need?

59. The different nations of the earth have formed to themselves widely divergent ideas of the creation; ideas always in harmony with their degree of scientific advancement. Reason and science concur in admitting the fantastic character of certain theories. The explanation of the subject now given through spirit-communication is confirmatory of the opinion which has long been adopted by the most enlightened exponents of modern science.

59. The nations of the earth have formed widely different ideas about creation. These ideas have always reflected their level of scientific advancement. Both reason and science agree that certain theories are fanciful. The explanation now given through spirit communication confirms the view long held by the most enlightened representatives of modern science.

This explanation will no doubt be objected to, on the ground that it is in contradiction with the statements of the Bible; but a careful examination of those statements shows us that this contradiction is more apparent than real, and that it results from the interpretation which has been given to expressions whose meaning is allegorical rather than historical.

No doubt some will object that this explanation contradicts the Bible. But a careful reading of the Bible shows that the contradiction is more apparent than real. It comes from the way people have interpreted passages that are allegorical rather than historical.

The question of the personality of Adam, regarded as the first man, and sole progenitor of the human race, is not the only one in regard to which the religious convictions of the world have necessarily undergone modification. The hypothesis of the rotation of the earth round the sun appeared, at one time, to be in such utter opposition to the letter of the Bible, that every species of persecution was directed against it, and against those who advocated it. Yet the earth continued to move on in its orbit in defiance of anathemas; and no one, at the present day, could contest the fact of its movement without doing violence to his own powers of reasoning.

The question of whether Adam was the first man and the sole ancestor of humanity is not the only issue on which religious beliefs have necessarily changed. The theory that the earth orbits the sun once seemed to contradict the literal words of the Bible completely. The theory and those who supported it faced every kind of persecution. Yet the earth continued in its orbit despite the condemnations. Today, no one could deny that it moves without defying their own powers of reason.

The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text; yet science, positive, inexorable, steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the world of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages. This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.

The Bible also says that the world was created in six days, around 4000 years before the Christian era. Before that time, the earth did not exist. It was then created out of nothing. This is what the sacred text explicitly declares. Yet science presents definite, undeniable proof to the contrary. The history of the earth’s formation is written permanently in fossils. They prove beyond denial that the six days of creation are successive periods, each of which may have lasted millions of ages. This is not merely a claim or an opinion. It is a fact as certain as the earth’s motion, and even theology can no longer refuse to admit it. Yet this admission gives another example of the errors we make when we take often figurative language as literal truth. Should we therefore conclude that the Bible is nothing but a collection of errors? No. But we must admit that people have made mistakes in the way they interpret it.

Geology, in its study of the archives written in the structure of the globe itself, has ascertained the order of succession in which the different species of living beings have appeared on its surface, and this order is found to be in accordance with the sequence indicated in the book of Genesis, with this difference, viz., that the earth, instead of issuing miraculously from the hand of God in the course of a few days, accomplished its formation under the impulsion of the Divine will, but according to the laws and through the action of the forces of nature, in the course of periods incalculable by us. Does God appear less great and less powerful for having accomplished the work of creation through the action of forces, and according to laws, of His own ordaining? And is the result of the creative energy less sublime for not having been accomplished instantaneously? Evidently not; and puerile indeed must be the mind that does not recognise the grandeur of the Almighty Power implied in this evolution of the worlds of the universe through the action of eternal laws. Science, so far from diminishing the glory of the Divine action, displays that action under an aspect still more sublime, and more consonant with our intuitive sense of the power and majesty of God, by showing that it has been accomplished without derogation from the laws which are the expression of the Divine will in the realm of nature.

Geology studies the record written in the structure of the earth itself. It has established the order in which different species of living beings appeared on its surface. This order agrees with the sequence given in the book of Genesis, with one difference. The earth did not emerge miraculously from the hand of God in a few days. Instead, it formed under the impulse of the divine will, but through natural forces and according to natural laws. Its formation took place over periods of time beyond our ability to calculate. Does God seem less great and powerful because he created the world through forces and laws of his own making? Is the result of his creative power less sublime because he did not create it instantly? Clearly not. A mind must be truly childish not to recognize the grandeur of the Almighty Power revealed in this process. Through eternal laws, he brought the worlds of the universe into being. Far from diminishing the glory of divine action, science shows it in an even more sublime light. It shows divine action in a way that better accords with our intuitive sense of God's power and majesty. For science shows that creation took place without any departure from the laws that express the divine will in nature.

Modern science, in accordance with the Mosaic record, proves that man was the last in the order of creation of living beings. But Moses puts the universal deluge at the year of the world 1654, while geology seems to show that the great diluvian cataclysm occurred before the appearance of man, because, up to the present time, the primitive strata contain no traces of his presence, nor of that of the animals contemporaneous with him. But this point is far from being decided. Various recent discoveries suggest the possibility of our being destined to ascertain that the antiquity of the human race is much greater than has been hitherto supposed; and should this greater antiquity become a matter of certainty, it would prove that the letter of the Bible, in regard to the date assigned by it to the creation of man, as in regard to so many other matters, can only be understood in an allegorical sense. That the geological deluge is not that of Noah is evident from the lapse of time required for the formation of the fossiliferous strata; and, if traces should eventually be discovered of the existence of the human race before the geological deluge, it would be evident either that Adam was not the first man, or that his creation dates back from a period indefinitely remote. There is no arguing against fact; and the antiquity of the human race, if proved by geological discovery, would have to be admitted, just as has been done in regard to the movement of the earth and the six days of the creation.

Modern science, in agreement with the account of Moses, proves that humans were the last living beings created. But Moses dates the universal flood to the year 1654 of the world. Geology seems to show that the great flood occurred before humans appeared. So far, the earliest rock layers contain no traces of humans or the animals that lived alongside them. But this question is far from settled. Various recent discoveries suggest that we may find the human race is much older than previously thought. If this greater age were established, it would show that the Bible's date for the creation of humans can only be understood allegorically. The same is true of many other matters in the Bible. The time needed for fossil-bearing rock layers to form makes it clear that the geological flood was not Noah's flood. Traces of humans may eventually be found from before the geological flood. If so, either Adam was not the first man, or his creation dates back to an indefinitely remote time. There is no arguing against facts. If geological discoveries proved the human race was older, we would have to accept it. We have already done the same with the movement of the earth and the six days of creation.

The existence of the human race before the geological deluge, it may be objected, is still doubtful. But the same objection cannot be urged against the following considerations:—Admitting that man first appeared upon the earth 4000 years before Christ, if the whole of the human race, with the exception of a single family, were destroyed 1650 years afterwards, it follows that the peopling of the earth dates only from the time of Noah—that is to say, only 2500 years before Christ. But when the Hebrews emigrated to Egypt in the eighteenth century before Christ, they found that country densely populated, and already in possession of an advanced civilisation. History also shows that, at the same period, India and various other countries were equally populous and flourishing, to say nothing of the chronological tables of other nations, which claim to go back to periods yet more remote. We must, therefore, suppose that, from the twenty-fourth to the eighteenth century before Christ—that is to say, in the space of 600 years—the posterity of a single individual was able to people all the immense countries which had then been discovered, not to speak of those which were then unknown, but which we have no reason to conclude were destitute of inhabitants; and we must suppose, still further, that the human race, during this brief period, was able to raise itself from the crass ignorance of the primitive savage state to the highest degree of intellectual development—suppositions utterly irreconcilable with anthropological laws.

It may be objected that human existence before the geological flood is still doubtful. But the same objection cannot be made against the following argument. Suppose humans first appeared on earth in 4000 BC. Suppose, too, that everyone except a single family was destroyed 1,650 years later. It follows that the earth's population dates only from Noah's time, around 2500 BC. But when the Hebrews migrated to Egypt in the eighteenth century BC, they found a densely populated country with an advanced civilization. History also shows that India and various other countries were equally populous and prosperous at the same time. The chronological records of other nations claim to go back even further. We must therefore suppose that one person's descendants populated all the vast countries then discovered between the twenty-fourth and eighteenth centuries BC. That is a span of just 600 years. We must also account for countries then unknown, which we have no reason to believe were uninhabited. And we must suppose that, in this short time, humanity rose from the profound ignorance of the primitive savage state to the highest level of intellectual development. These suppositions are utterly incompatible with anthropological laws.

The diversity of the various human races confirms this view of the subject. Climate and modes of life undoubtedly modify the physical characteristics of mankind, but we know the extent to which these modifications can be carried, and physiological examination conclusively proves that there are between the different races of men constitutional differences too profound to have been produced merely by differences of climate. The crossing of races produces intermediary types; it tends to efface the extremes of characteristic peculiarities; but it does not produce these peculiarities, and, therefore, creates only new varieties. But the crossing of races presupposes the existence of races distinct from each other; and how is the existence of those to be explained if we attribute their origin to a common stock, especially if we restrict the production of these various races to so brief a period? How is it possible to suppose, for example, that the descendants of Noah could have been, in so short a time, transformed into Ethiopians? Such a metamorphosis would be as inadmissible as that of a wolf into a sheep, of a beetle into an elephant, of a bird into a fish. No preconceived opinion can withstand, in the long run, the evidence of opposing facts. But, on the contrary, all difficulty disappears if we assume that man existed at a period anterior to that which has hitherto been commonly assigned to his creation; that Adam commenced, some 6000 years ago, the peopling of a country until then uninhabited; that the deluge of Noah was a local catastrophe, erroneously confounded with the great geological cataclysm; and, finally, if we make due allowance for the allegorical form of expression characteristic of the Oriental style, and common to the sacred books of every people.

The diversity of human races supports this view. Climate and ways of life undoubtedly change people’s physical characteristics. But we know how far these changes can go. Physiological study conclusively proves that races have fundamental differences too deep to have been caused by climate alone. When races interbreed, they produce intermediate types. Interbreeding tends to reduce extreme differences in characteristics, but it does not produce those characteristics. It therefore creates only new varieties. But interbreeding assumes that distinct races already exist. How can we explain their existence if we trace them to a common ancestry? This is especially difficult if we allow so little time for the different races to emerge. For example, how could Noah’s descendants have become Ethiopians in such a short time? Such a transformation would be as impossible as a wolf becoming a sheep, a beetle an elephant, or a bird a fish. In the long run, no fixed belief can withstand the evidence of opposing facts. But all these difficulties disappear if we make the following assumptions. People existed before the time commonly assigned to their creation. About 6,000 years ago, Adam began to populate a country that had until then been uninhabited. Noah’s flood was a local catastrophe, mistakenly confused with the great geological cataclysm. Finally, we must give due weight to the allegorical language characteristic of the Oriental style and common to the sacred books of every people.

It is unwise to insist upon a literal interpretation of figurative statements of which the inaccuracy may, at any moment, be rendered evident by the progress of scientific discovery; but the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries. And it is only when the religious sentiment shall have been enlightened by its union with scientific truth that religious belief, thus rendered invulnerable to the attacks of scepticism, will take the place of scepticism in the minds and hearts of men.

It is unwise to insist on taking figurative statements literally. Scientific discoveries may expose their inaccuracies at any moment. But the basic principles of religion have nothing to fear from scientific discoveries. Instead, they are strengthened and ennobled when brought into harmony with them. Religious belief will replace skepticism in people’s minds and hearts only when religious feeling is enlightened by scientific truth. Then religious belief will be immune to the attacks of skeptics.