mr. gladstone and genesis- 第4部分

origin　of　things。　Mr。　Gladstone　appears　to　be　prepared　to　enter

upon　this　campaign　with　a　light　heart。　I　confess　I　am　not；　and

my　reason　for　this　backwardness　will　doubtless　surprise　Mr。

Gladstone。　It　is　that；　rather　more　than　a　quarter　of　a　century

ago　（namely；　in　February　1859）；　when　it　was　my　duty；　as

President　of　the　Geological　Society；　to　deliver　the　Anniversary

Address；　I　chose　a　topic　which　involved　a　very　careful　study

of　the　remarkable　cosmogonical　speculation；　originally

promulgated　by　Immanuel　Kant　and；　subsequently；　by　Laplace；

which　is　now　known　as　the　nebular　hypothesis。　With　the　help　of

such　little　acquaintance　with　the　principles　of　physics　and

astronomy　as　I　had　gained；　I　endeavoured　to　obtain　a　clear

understanding　of　this　speculation　in　all　its　bearings。　I　am　not

sure　that　I　succeeded；　but　of　this　I　am　certain；　that　the

problems　involved　are　very　difficult；　even　for　those　who　possess

the　intellectual　discipline　requisite　for　dealing　with　them。

And　it　was　this　conviction　that　led　me　to　express　my　desire　to

leave　the　discussion　of　the　question　of　the　asserted　harmony

between　Genesis　and　the　nebular　hypothesis　to　experts　in　the

appropriate　branches　of　knowledge。　And　I　think　my　course　was　a

wise　one；　but　as　Mr。　Gladstone　evidently　does　not　understand　how

there　can　be　any　hesitation　on　my　part；　unless　it　arises　from　a

conviction　that　he　is　in　the　right；　I　may　go　so　far　as　to　set

out　my　difficulties。



They　are　of　two　kindsexegetical　and　scientific。　It　appears　to

me　that　it　is　vain　to　discuss　a　supposed　coincidence　between

Genesis　and　science　unless　we　have　first　settled；　on　the　one

hand；　what　Genesis　says；　and；　on　the　other　hand；　what

science　says。



In　the　first　place；　I　cannot　find　any　consensus　among　Biblical

scholars　as　to　the　meaning　of　the　words；　〃In　the　beginning　God

created　the　heaven　and　the　earth。〃　Some　say　that　the　Hebrew　word

bara；　which　is　translated　〃create；〃　means　〃made　out　of

nothing。〃　I　venture　to　object　to　that　rendering；　not　on　the

ground　of　scholarship；　but　of　common　sense。　Omnipotence　itself

can　surely　no　more　make　something　〃out　of〃　nothing　than　it　can

make　a　triangular　circle。　What　is　intended　by　〃made　out　of

nothing〃　appears　to　be　〃caused　to　come　into　existence；〃　with　the

implication　that　nothing　of　the　same　kind　previously　existed。

It　is　further　usually　assumed　that　〃the　heaven　and　the　earth〃

means　the　material　substance　of　the　universe。　Hence　the　〃Mosaic

writer〃　is　taken　to　imply　that　where　nothing　of　a　material

nature　previously　existed；　this　substance　appeared。　That　is

perfectly　conceivable；　and　therefore　no　one　can　deny　that　it　may

have　happened。　But　there　are　other　very　authoritative　critics

who　say　that　the　ancient　Israelite　who　wrote　the　passage　was

not　likely　to　have　been　capable　of　such　abstract　thinking；　and

that；　as　a　matter　of　philology；　bara　is　commonly　used　to

signify　the　〃fashioning；〃　or　〃forming；〃　of　that　which　already

exists。　Now　it　appears　to　me　that　the　scientific　investigator　is

wholly　incompetent　to　say　anything　at　all　about　the　first　origin

of　the　material　universe。　The　whole　power　of　his　organon

vanishes　when　he　has　to　step　beyond　the　chain　of　natural　causes

and　effects。　No　form　of　the　nebular　hypothesis；　that　I　know　of；

is　necessarily　connected　with　any　view　of　the　origination　of　the

nebular　substance。　Kant's　form　of　it　expressly　supposes　that　the

nebular　material　from　which　one　stellar　system　starts　may　be

nothing　but　the　disintegrated　substance　of　a　stellar　and

planetary　system　which　has　just　come　to　an　end。　Therefore；　so

far　as　I　can　see；　one　who　believes　that　matter　has　existed　from

all　eternity　has　just　as　much　right　to　hold　the　nebular

hypothesis　as　one　who　believes　that　matter　came　into　existence

at　a　specified　epoch。　In　other　words；　the　nebular　hypothesis　and

the　creation　hypothesis；　up　to　this　point；　neither　confirm　nor

oppose　one　another。



Next；　we　read　in　the　revisers'　version；　in　which　I　suppose　the

ultimate　results　of　critical　scholarship　to　be　embodied：　〃And

the　earth　was　waste　＇'without　form；'　in　the　Authorised　Version＇

and　void。〃　Most　people　seem　to　think　that　this　phraseology

intends　to　imply　that　the　matter　out　of　which　the　world　was　to

be　formed　was　a　veritable　〃chaos；〃　devoid　of　law　and　order。

If　this　interpretation　is　correct；　the　nebular　hypothesis　can

have　nothing　to　say　to　it。　The　scientific　thinker　cannot　admit

the　absence　of　law　and　order；　anywhere　or　anywhen；　in　nature。

Sometimes　law　and　order　are　patent　and　visible　to　our　limited

vision；　sometimes　they　are　hidden。　But　every　particle　of　the

matter　of　the　most　fantastic…looking　nebula　in　the　heavens　is　a

realm　of　law　and　order　in　itself；　and；　that　it　is　so；　is　the

essential　condition　of　the　possibility　of　solar　and　planetary

evolution　from　the　apparent　chaos。



〃Waste〃　is　too　vague　a　term　to　be　worth　consideration。　〃Without

form；〃　intelligible　enough　as　a　metaphor；　if　taken　literally　is

absurd；　for　a　material　thing　existing　in　space　must　have　a

superficies；　and　if　it　has　a　superficies　it　has　a　form。

The　wildest　streaks　of　marestail　clouds　in　the　sky；　or　the　most

irregular　heavenly　nebulae；　have　surely　just　as　much　form　as　a

geometrical　tetrahedron；　and　as　for　〃void；〃　how　can　that　be　void

which　is　full　of　matter？　As　poetry；　these　lines　are　vivid　and

admirable；　as　a　scientific　statement；　which　they　must　be　taken

to　be　if　any　one　is　justified　in　comparing　them　with　another

scientific　statement；　they　fail　to　convey　any　intelligible

conception　to　my　mind。



The　account　proceeds：　〃And　darkness　was　upon　the　face　of　the

deep。〃　So　be　it；　but　where；　then；　is　the　likeness　to　the

celestial　nebulae；　of　the　existence　of　which　we　should　know

nothing　unless　they　shone　with　a　light　of　their　own？　〃And　the

spirit　of　God　moved　upon　the　face　of　the　waters。〃　I　have　met

with　no　form　of　the　nebular　hypothesis　which　involves　anything

analogous　to　this　process。



I　have　said　enough　to　explain　some　of　the　difficulties　which

arise　in　my　mind；　when　I　try　to　ascertain　whether　there　is　any

foundation　for　the　contention　that　the　statements　contained　in

the　first　two　verses　of　Genesis　are　supported　by　the　nebular

hypothesis。　The　result　does　not　appear　to　me　to　be　exactly

favourable　to　that　contention。　The　nebular　hypothesis　assumes

the　existence　of　matter；　having　definite　properties；　as　its

foundation。　Whether　such　matter　was　created　a　few　thousand　years

ago；　or　whether　it　has　existed　through　an　eternal　series　of

metamorphoses　of　which　our　present　universe　is　only　the　last

stage；　are　alternatives；　neither　of　which　is　scientifically

untenable；　and　neither　scientifically　demonstrable。　But　science

knows　nothing　of　any　stage　in　which　the　universe　could　be　said；

in　other　than　a　metaphorical　and　popular　sense；　to　be　formless

or　empty；　or　in　any　respect　less　the　seat　of　law　and　order　than

it　is　now。　One　might　as　well　talk　of　a　fresh…laid　hen's　egg

being　〃without　form　and　void；〃　because　the　chick　therein　is

potential　and　not　actual；　as　apply　such　terms　to　the　nebulous

mass　which　contains　a　potential　solar　system。



Until　some　further　enlightenment　comes　to　me；　then；　I　confess

myself　wholly　unable　to　understand　the　way　in　which　the　nebular

hypothesis　is　to　be　converted　into　an　ally　of　the

〃Mosaic　writer。〃



But　Mr。　Gladstone　informs　us　that　Professor　Dana　and　Professor

Guyot　are　prepared　to　prove　that　the　〃first　or　cosmogonical

portion　of　the　Proem　not　only　accords　with；　but　teaches；　the

nebular　hypothesis。〃　There　is　no　one　to　whose　authority　on

geological　questions　I　am　more　readily　disposed　to　bow　than　that

of　my　eminent　friend　Professor　Dana。　But　I　am　familiar　with　what

he　has　previously　said　on　this　topic　in　his　well…known　and

standard　work；　into　which；　strangely　enough；　it　does　not　seem　to

have　occurred　to　Mr。　Gladstone　to　look　before　he　set　out　upon

his　present　undertaking；　and　unless　Professor　Dana's　latest

contribution　（which　I　have　not　yet　met　with）　takes　up　altogether

new　ground；　I　am　afraid　I　shall　not　be　able　to　extricate　myself；

by　its　help；　from　my　present　difficulties。



It　is　a　very　long　time　since　I　began　to　think　about　the

relations　between　modern　scientifically　ascertained　truths　and

the　cosmogonical　speculations　of　the　writer　of　Genesis；　and；　as

I　think　that　Mr。　Gladstone　might　have　been　able　to　put　his　case

with　a　good　deal　more　force；　if　he　had　thought　it　worth　while　to

consult　the　last　chapter　of　Professor　Dana's　admirable　〃Manual

of　Geology；〃　so　I　think　he　might　have　been　made　aware　that　he

was　undertaking　an　enterprise　of　which　he　had　not　counted　the

cost；　if　he　had　chanced　upon　a　discussion　of　the　subject　which　I

published　in　1877。



Finally；　I　should　like　to　draw　the　attention　of　those　who　take

interest　in　these　topics　to　the　weighty　words　of　one　of　the　most

learned　and　moderate　of　Biblical　critics：





〃A　propos　de　cette　premiere　page　de　la　Bible；　on　a　coutume　de

nos　jours　de　disserter；　a　perte　de　vue；　sur　l'accord　du　recit

mosaique　avec　les　sciences　naturelles；　et　comme　celles…ci　tout

eloignees　qu'elles　sont　encore　de　la　perfection　absolue；　ont

rendu　populaires　et　en　quelque　sorte　irrefragables　un　certain

nombre　de　faits　generaux　ou　de　theses　fondamentales　de　la

cosmologie　et　de　la　geologie；　c'est　le　texte　sacre　qu'on

s'evertue　a　torturer　pour　le　faire　concorder　avec

ces　donnees。〃





In　my　paper　on　the　〃Interpreters　of　Nature　and　the　Interpreters

of　Genesis；〃　while　freely　availing　myself　of　the　rights　of　a

scientific　critic；　I　endeavoured　to　keep　the　expression　of　my

views　well　within　those　bounds　of　courtesy　which　are　set　by

self…respect　and　consideration　for　others。　I　am　therefore　glad

to　be　favoured　with　Mr。　Gladstone's　acknowledgment　of　the

success　of　my　efforts。　I　only　wish　that　I　could　accept　all　the

products　of　Mr。　Gladstone's　gracious　appreciation