e great
reptiles of the "water-creation" (fifth day).

The fact is that a glance at the subjoined Tables (which are only
generally and approximately correct) will suffice to show how the main
features of the progress of life-forms differ from what is required by
the older methods of reading Genesis. To reduce the table within limits,
I have grouped together all the lower forms of life in the animal table,
viz., the sponges, corals, encrinites, and molluscs. It is sufficient to
say that these appear in all the rocks except the very oldest--the
Caelenterata beginning, and the Molluscoids exhibiting an early order in
_brachiopoda_, which seems to be dying out. Crustaceans and insects
appeared as early as Silurian times.

The idea of successive "kingdoms" or "periods," each of which was
_complete_ in its actual fauna upon earth before the next was fully
ushered in, can no longer be defended.

It is in the _completion_ of one class of life before the other, that
the fallacy of the period theory lies--for completion is essential to
that theory which supposes "the Mosaic author" to have intended to
describe the _process of production on earth_.

But it is quite impossible to deny that there _is_ a certain observable
movement and gradual procession in the history of life which is exactly
consistent with what is most likely to have happened, supposing the
Divine designs of life-forms were first declared in successive order at
short intervals of time, and then that the processes of nature worked
out the designs in the fulness of time and gradually in order, each one
_beginning_ before the next, but only beginning.

I do not deny that it is perfectly _conceivable_ that the Creator might
have designed the forms in one order, and that the actual production or
evolution of the corresponding living creatures might not have been (for
reasons not understood) exactly, or even at all, coincident with the
order.

But it is impossible to deny the strong feeling of probability that the
commands would _begin_ to be worked out, in the order in which they were
uttered.

And here it is that the correspondence which undoubtedly exists, gives
rise to controversy.

From one point of view it is just enough to encourage the "period"
holders to try and arrange a scheme; but it is just hot enough to
prevent their opponents (justly) taxing them with straining or
"torturing" the text and failing fairly to make out their case after
all. From an