« AnteriorContinuar »
not identical with that of either of these works. Both of these are in their nature constructive; their aim is to build a faith on the acceptance of the modern doctrine of Evolution. Our purpose, on the other hand, is purely analytic. We have nowhere desired to express any opinion as to the scientific evidence for that doctrine; our sole design has been to inquire if the doctrine be true, What then? With this view we have placed it side by side with those doctrines of revelation which seem to come into contact with it, and have sought impartially to consider the question, How the adoption of the former would affect our acceptance of the latter.
In considering the scientific relations of the different religious doctrines, we have confined ourselves rigidly to those points in which revelation appears to come into contact with Evolution. There are many questions between science and revelation which are not questions between Evolution and revelation. The relation, for example, of the six days of Genesis to the progressive periods of geology may be a question between science and revelation, but it is not a question of Evolution: it would still remain to be solved even though the modern doctrine of Evolution were disproved; it exists for the creationist as much as for the Darwinian. Evolution relates to the particular mode in which things became what they are, and it is in this light purely that we have viewed the subject. We have only to add that, as we have mentioned few names, we have made use of few references, our object having been not to seek recondite facts, but to avail ourselves only of those which have obtained universal currency.