fficulty referred to above, which remains, science has
nothing whatever to offer in support of this theory, while, on the
other {50} hand, the tenor of the Genesis narrative implies such close
connection between verse one and verse two that there is no room for
the alleged catastrophe. It is not strange, therefore, that modern
apologists have discarded the restitution hypothesis.

The _vision_ theory has been presented most forcefully by Hugh
Miller.[15] According to this view "the narrative was not meant to
describe the actual succession of events, but was the description of a
series of visions presented prophetically to the narrator's mental eye,
and representing, not the first appearance of each species of life upon
the globe, but its maximum development. The 'drama of creation,' it is
said, is not described as it was enacted historically, but _optically_,
as it would present itself to a spectator in a series of pictures or
tableaux embodying the most characteristic and conspicuous feature of
each period, and, as it were, summarizing in miniature its results."

Though this view was presented with much eloquence and skill, it has
been unable to maintain its position, simply because it is based upon
an unnatural interpretation of the biblical record. No one approaching
Genesis without a theory to defend would think for a moment that he is
reading the description of a vision. The only natural interpretation
is that the author means to record what he considers actual fact.
Moreover, {51} where in Scripture could there be found an analogy to
this mode of procedure? The revelation of an unknown past to a
historian or prophet seems not in accord with the ordinary method of
God's revelations to men. But, admitting the possibility of this
method of divine communication, why should the picture thus presented
to the mind of the author differ so widely from the facts uncovered by
geologists?

Similar attempts to harmonize Genesis with geology have been made by
other geologists, among them Professor Alexander Winchell,[16] Sir J.
W. Dawson,[17] and Professor J. D. Dana.[18] The results are perfectly
satisfactory to these writers, but they fail to see that in order to
accomplish their purpose they must have recourse to unnatural
interpretations of the Genesis account, which in itself is sufficient
evidence to show the hopelessness of the task. A similar judgment must
be passed on the more recent attempt by F. H. Capron[