people refuse to draw the plainest consequences from the
propositions they profess to accept, renders it advisable to
remark that the doctrine of Evolution is neither Anti-theistic
nor Theistic. It simply has no more to do with Theism than the
first book of Euclid has. It is quite certain that a normal
fresh-laid egg contains neither cock nor hen; and it is also as
certain as any proposition in physics or morals, that if such an
egg is kept under proper conditions for three weeks, a cock or
hen chicken will be found in it. It is also quite certain that
if the shell were transparent we should be able to watch the
formation of the young fowl, day by day, by a process of
evolution, from a microscopic cellular germ to its full size and
complication of structure. Therefore Evolution, in the strictest
sense, is actually going on in this and analogous millions and
millions of instances, wherever living creatures exist.
Therefore, to borrow an argument from Butler, as that which now
happens must be consistent with the attributes of the Deity, if
such a Being exists, Evolution must be consistent with those
attributes. And, if so, the evolution of the universe, which is
neither more nor less explicable than that of a chicken, must
also be consistent with them. The doctrine of Evolution,
therefore, does not even come into contact with Theism,
considered as a philosophical doctrine. That with which it does
collide, and with which it is absolutely inconsistent, is the
conception of creation, which theological speculators have based
upon the history narrated in the opening of the book of Genesis.

There is a great deal of talk and not a little lamentation about
the so-called religious difficulties which physical science has
created. In theological science, as a matter of fact, it has