that which might have remained a common branch? The plant at least
is glorified by the power to give rise to such beauty. And is not
the creation of the seed of a violet or rose something infinitely
grander than the decking of a flowerless plant with newly created
roses? The attainment of the highest and most diversified beauty and
utility with the fewest and simplest means is always the sign of
what we call in man "creative" genius. Is not the same true of God?
I think you all feel the force of the argument here.

There were at one time no flowering plants. The time came at last
for their appearance. Which is the higher, grander mode of producing
them, immediate creation of every flowering species, or development
of the flower out of the green leaves of some old club moss or
similar form? The latter seems to me at least by far the higher
mode. And to have created a ground-pine which could give rise to a
rose seems far more difficult and greater than to have created both
separately. It requires more genius, so to speak. It gives us a far
higher opinion of the ground-pine; does it disgrace the rose? We can
look dispassionately at plants. The rose is still and always a rose,
and the oak an oak, whatever its origin. And I believe that we shall
all readily admit that evolution is here a theory which does the
highest honor to the wisdom and power of the Creator. What if the
animal kingdom is continually blossoming in ever higher forms? Does
not the same reasoning hold true, only with added force? I firmly
believe that we should all unhesitatingly answer, yes, could we but
be assured that all men would everywhere and always believe that we,
men, were the results of an immediate creative act.

But why do we so strenuously object to the application to ourselves
of the theory of evolution? One or two reasons are easily seen. We