Genesis, it merely demonstrates the scientific worthlessness of
the story of which it forms a part.

Indeed, we may go further. It is not even admissible to say that
the water-population, as a whole, appeared before the air and
the land-populations. According to the Authorised Version,
Genesis especially mentions, among the animals created on the
fifth day, "great whales," in place of which the Revised Version
reads "great sea monsters." Far be it from me to give an opinion
which rendering is right, or whether either is right. All I
desire to remark is, that if whales and porpoises, dugongs and
manatees, are to be regarded as members of the water-population
(and if they are not, what animals can claim the designation?),
then that much of the water-population has, as certainly,
originated later than the land-population as bats and birds
have. For I am not aware that any competent judge would hesitate
to admit that the organisation of these animals shows the most
obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial quadrupeds.

A similar criticism applies to Mr. Gladstone's assumption that,
as the fourth act of that "orderly succession of times"
enunciated in Genesis, "the land-population consummated in man."

If this means simply that man is the final term in the
evolutional series of which he forms a part, I do not suppose
that any objection will be raised to that statement on the part
of students of natural science. But if the pentateuchal author
goes further than this, and intends to say that which is
ascribed to him by Mr. Gladstone, I think natural science will
have to enter a caveat. It is not by any means certain