THE STORY OF THE EARTH.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1755, 1 February 1888, Page 2

THE STORY OF THE EARTH.

THE NEBULAR THEORY.

(By A. Ireland ) * The u'oy of the Creation as contained m the Soriptares, agrees remarkably well with the eoientifio account, as dedaoad from geology, provided the days spoken of In the former, as the divisions into which the progress of creation w\e divided, art understood to be periods of indefinite l«Bg»h, instead of d-ya o f 24 hours duration. Wo are quite juatifiad m regar ling the days m thin i case, not m the oommonly accepted meaning of the term, viz., 24 hours, bat as periods haviog no definite limit fixed (or the reatons following :— ln •iifferont parts of Scripture the word "day" is used for period* of time of various lengths, sometimes meaning years, sometime ■ months, and sometimes a term of years, or as m the case m quos'lou meaning parfoda of Indefinite length. New leaing that the term " d»y " ia nsad Indifferently to mean a period of time of any leng!h,acoordiogtotbe bo v j ot treited of, and seeing that geo'ogy shews distinctly that long periods of time have elapsed during eaoh of these divisions, we caturally conclude that the days are meant to represent an indfialte priori. If this be admitted, then it is a comparalively easy matter to briog the two reoordi into harmony ; but If it be denied that the days are other than the oommon term, the tilentifio record completely deitioys, t»nd is quite opposed to the story an contained m "Genesis." Aod soienoe Is bouod t<> oteithrow the other, ss it b»B evidence whioh cannot be disputed, while the Scripture stcry can bring no evidence wlutever. Oooseqaently those narrowminded and blind followers of »he traditions of men, men who blindly fallow the old orthodox doctrine about the six days of Creation, do more harm and Injury to religion than i»a most bitter enemies. The clergy of the Christian Ohurches of evety di nomination were bitter anemias to the advaood of science and assumed a hostile attitude. Thus they have themselves to blame for the antagonism that has been brought about between religion ana ■oieoo*. It is sad to think that a grett portion of that antagonism, on the put of eolantiats, would never have bean witnessed, had it not been brought about by the fierce opposition of the clergy, and their utter inability to support their own arguments, or to rofute those of their opponents, thus causing a great many learned awn to lose faith m religion. The argument! and logic of the clergy at the time of their opposition to the than young solenoe ot geology— about 60 yeaira a»o— was the most imbecile and weak that could be imagined. Anyone who may have a desire to know sometbiog of how the controversy was carried on, ooald not do better than road Hugi Millet's "Geobgy of the Antf-Geologlsts." The Scripture *ocount of tho Creation, is written m the manner that a person would describe it, if seen as a vision, or by an eye witness. As the latter waß impossible, it may be euppoed that it was revealed to the writer by \iion. At any rate it miift have been impressed on hi« brain m foido manner, and that it waß by means of a vision is the most na'ur*l conclusion to come to hie wou d thon give an account of the Creation as an eye witness would do, and would describe tho scene m the order and m inner of its appearing to him. He would soe the prooess divided into six periods, which he would naturally call aaye, as a person m a ■leep or while seeing a vision has no account of time. While time is ever ( fleeting onwar'i it is absolutely as a void to us, as it leaves no impression on us m its passage; we oan only judge oC the passage of lime by events which aro constantly occu: ring during our waking hours. Thus a workman judges time, not by any impression which time has mhde on bim, bat by the nmoant of work ho has don*. He has acquired a knowledge from experience of how nouch work he oan do m a given time, and can toll approximately by the work done what time has paseed. But if a nun awako from asleep be has no notion of what time he has been asleep his impression is that he has only been bo for a short time, when it may have been for a very long one. Now, suppose a men to see ti;e Creation m a vision, auoh an one would see m its course, that it was divided into six parts or periods, and not having any idea as to the time that haJ elapsed, or was supposed to elapse during these periods, and seeing that the word day way used m a general way for any period, .--hat more natural thnn tbat the term day should have boon used ? In the first verse m the first chipter of "Ueneeis," before going into the duscrip. tion of what bapppened during the six days, the writer says,— " In the be/nnning God created the heavens and tbe earth. ' Thia information seems distinct and b pirat from thut which follows Thert i« no idea given as to when thia beginni g was. It may have been uncountable millions of years ago. The nebular theory of the development of the planets seema to me as if it would fit very well m here between tho first and second verses ml| Genesis." "And ih.3 earth was without form and void ; and darkness was upon the face of th *de p ; and tho Spnit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Hero m the second verse, or tho beginning of the description of the Creation as it is now called, we find an apparently solid material world m exist* ne, before any of tho work of the Bix days was commenced. So that the Creation properly so called waa not any of the acts described subsequent to the firet veree, but before it. Jn the beginning God created the heavens -of course the earth ia part of the heavens, therefore we will only spoak of tho heavens. Then m the beginning of the second verso we fiad tbe earth m existence as a material body of considerable density— moving through space — thick darkness ooverin^ it, and a wmd moving upon tho faoe of it. Tho work of the six days was only preparing the then world for its organic life. Wo will now consider the nebular theory of development based upon these two vorsfs Evolutionists mu«t of necessity work out their theory to a first cause, substance, or element, beyond which they cannot go. They cannot go beyond and show how something was evolved from nothing. Nothing never can become something. If thore was a time when there was nothiag m the whole universe, thou thero must bavo remained nothng for over. Thore must have beau come cause to produce tho first something or elements ont of which all thioga were evolved. If you believe m a Creator, it matters not by what name distinguished ; it is not the nar^e, it jta the substance | your belief must rest m. The first cause then being arrived at, there is no nned'to pursue further; you have found the fountain which explains o very thing. But if you deny the existence of tho Creator, you may search for ever, and never can by any chance arrive at a solution of the problem, for you are searching for tiuth m a boundleßs eternity of faluehoo 1, and such a search must forever ba fruitless Hence, then, the existence of a First Cause or « Creator must of necessity be admitted. (To be continued.)