just such a failure as must await mediation, when the mediator
is unable properly to appreciate the weight of the evidence for
the case of one of the two parties. The question of
"Inspiration" really possesses no interest for those who have
cast ecclesiasticism and all its works aside, and have no faith
in any source of truth save that which is reached by the patient
application of scientific methods. Theories of inspiration are
speculations as to the means by which the authors of statements,
in the Bible or elsewhere, have been led to say what they have
said--and it assumes that natural agencies are insufficient for
the purpose. I prefer to stop short of this problem, finding it
more profitable to undertake the inquiry which naturally
precedes it--namely, Are these statements true or false? If they
are true, it may be worth while to go into the question of their
supernatural generation; if they are false, it certainly is not
worth mine.

Now, not only do I hold it to be proven that the story of the
Deluge is a pure fiction; but I have no hesitation in affirming
the same thing of the story of the Creation.<12> Between these
two lies the story of the creation of man and woman and their
fall from primitive innocence, which is even more monstrously
improbable than either of the other two, though, from the nature
of the case, it is not so easily capable of direct refutation.
It can be demonstrated that the earth took longer than six days
in the making, and that the Deluge, as described, is a physical
impossibility; but there is no proving, especially to those who
are perfect in the art of closing their ears to that which they
do not wish to hear, that a snake did not speak, or that Eve was
not made out of one of Adam's ribs.