Gladstone. It is that, rather more than a quarter of a century
ago (namely, in February 1859), when it was my duty, as
President of the Geological Society, to deliver the Anniversary
Address,<5> I chose a topic which involved a very careful study
of the remarkable cosmogonical speculation, originally
promulgated by Immanuel Kant and, subsequently, by Laplace,
which is now known as the nebular hypothesis. With the help of
such little acquaintance with the principles of physics and
astronomy as I had gained, I endeavoured to obtain a clear
understanding of this speculation in all its bearings. I am not
sure that I succeeded; but of this I am certain, that the
problems involved are very difficult, even for those who possess
the intellectual discipline requisite for dealing with them.
And it was this conviction that led me to express my desire to
leave the discussion of the question of the asserted harmony
between Genesis and the nebular hypothesis to experts in the
appropriate branches of knowledge. And I think my course was a
wise one; but as Mr. Gladstone evidently does not understand how
there can be any hesitation on my part, unless it arises from a
conviction that he is in the right, I may go so far as to set
out my difficulties.

They are of two kinds--exegetical and scientific. It appears to
me that it is vain to discuss a supposed coincidence between
Genesis and science unless we have first settled, on the one
hand, what Genesis says, and, on the other hand, what
science says.

In the first place, I cannot find any consensus among Biblical
scholars as to the meaning of the words, "In the beginning God