Why I don't believe in evolution...

[Sam Saved by Grace]

I think the best solution of all, is to believe what the Bible says, and rely not on your own understanding. There are things that just aren't any of our business. If God wanted us to know the mystery of iniquity, it wouldn't be a mystery. God can do whatever He wishes - it is not our prerogative to judge our Creator. God is the one who defines what is good, evil, just, and unjust. It is our duty to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. And to trust Him no matter what. Hopefully, you will come to understand how wonderful it is to rest in Him. Be still and know that He is God. Do not let Satan deceive you - he likes to play with people's heads. The Word of God is the only way to defend against the lies from hell.

You seem to be a lot like I used to be. You are a thinker, and you like to understand how things work. But I promise you, there is a reason we have to become as little children to enter in to the Kingdom of Heaven. There is such a peace in letting go and trusting God completely. Never has a man been so free as the man who is a slave to Christ. Never is a man more alive than he who has died to self. And there is no wiser man than he who trusts in the Lord.

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems odd that some would go to all sorts of elaborate reasoning to get to a theological position, and then when someone points out some logical flaws therein, would say "don't rely on your reasoning; just accept that part is a mystery."

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

But the problem of evil is a mystery. No matter which position you take, you still have to contend with it.

There is nothing wrong with having a theological position. But at the same time we have to realize that some things really are beyond our ability to understand. And we do not have the right as fallen creatures to judge God. When it reaches a point where one is ready to claim that humans "messed up" the Bible, simply because one finds the moral implications and philosophical underpinnings to be lacking, that is when I feel I am more than justified in telling that person to rely not on their own understanding, to know their place as a human being susceptible to deception, and to trust God. We can debate theological matters and try and work through some of the problems that have baffled men for centuries, but we must do so from the settled position of having our faith placed firmly in the inerrancy of God's Word, and with the understanding that our trust in God is in no way contingent upon finding satisfactory resolution. The just shall live by faith.

I hope I successfully articulated my point. Whether or not you agree with my position is another matter. My guess is that you would make a distinction between faith and blind faith. But I would answer that true faith is always blind.

 

[Job 33:6]

But the problem of evil is a mystery. No matter which position you take, you still have to contend with it.

There is nothing wrong with having a theological position. But at the same time we have to realize that some things really are beyond our ability to understand. And we do not have the right as fallen creatures to judge God. When it reaches a point where one is ready to claim that humans "messed up" the Bible, simply because one finds the moral implications and philosophical underpinnings to be lacking, that is when I feel I am more than justified in telling that person to rely not on their own understanding, to know their place as a human being susceptible to deception, and to trust God. We can debate theological matters and try and work through some of the problems that have baffled men for centuries, but we must do so from the settled position of having our faith placed firmly in the inerrancy of God's Word, and with the understanding that our trust in God is in no way contingent upon finding satisfactory resolution. The just shall live by faith.

I hope I successfully articulated my point. Whether or not you agree with my position is another matter. My guess is that you would make a distinction between faith and blind faith. But I would answer that true faith is always blind.

But if scripture were written by imperfect people, why must we believe it to be literal inerrant perfection?

I don't think that recognition of man's errors in any way takes away from our ability to trust in God. When people re-translate scripture, some imperfection is oftentimes introduced, but this doesn't remove my ability to trust in God while still acknowledging the shortcomings of man.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think that recognition of man's errors in any way takes away from our ability to trust in God. When people re-translate scripture, some imperfection is oftentimes introduced, but this doesn't remove my ability to trust in God while still acknowledging the shortcomings of man.

Of course. Even if pi isn't equal to 3 or mustard seeds aren't the smallest seeds, it doesn't matter. That's not what the Bible is about.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

But if scripture were written by imperfect people, why must we believe it to be literal inerrant perfection?

I don't think that recognition of man's errors in any way takes away from our ability to trust in God. When people re-translate scripture, some imperfection is oftentimes introduced, but this doesn't remove my ability to trust in God while still acknowledging the shortcomings of man.

We must believe it to be inerrant in the sense that everything in the Bible is exactly what God wanted us to have, it is exactly as God wanted it to be; and with every bit of it God-breathed, it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training.

The proven accuracy of the Bible has baffled many. People have been trying for a millennia to disprove it, or find some fatal flaw, and they cannot do it. And in the end, it has always proven itself correct. Eventually, they stoop to petty insults, while those in power try and ban it. Sometimes the opposition can even come from so-called Holy places, such as the Papacy, which violently forbade it's publication for countless centuries, murdering those who dared try and spread it, but I digress.

Ultimately, the main problem with rejecting the inerrancy of scripture is that it comes with obvious implications. Namely, if some of it is bad, who is to say what is bad and what is not? Who is to say that the virgin birth or original sin wasn't a product of human error? How do we know that we are saved by faith? Maybe we can just go with whatever feels right to us, with each of us creating a god for ourselves that suit us. I hope by now you see the problem. And even if you could keep from abusing such an approach, that wouldn't hold true for countless others, many of which would no doubt be chomping at the bit for any justification whatsoever to do so.

Jesus Christ held a very high view of scripture, as did the Apostles, and the church fathers. All the way down through Augustine and up through the reformation, all the way to the present day, Christians have held God's Word to be perfect, and not only perfect, but a source in which to utterly delight themselves. That said, I strongly urge you to abandon your present course, as you are most certainly headed for no-man's land.

 

[Job 33:6]

We must believe it to be inerrant in the sense that everything in the Bible is exactly what God wanted us to have, it is exactly as God wanted it to be; and with every bit of it God-breathed, it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training.

The proven accuracy of the Bible has baffled many. People have been trying for a millennia to disprove it, or find some fatal flaw, and they cannot do it. And in the end, it has always proven itself correct. Eventually, they stoop to petty insults, while those in power try and ban it. Sometimes the opposition can even come from so-called Holy places, such as the Papacy, which violently forbade it's publication for countless centuries, murdering those who dared try and spread it, but I digress.

Ultimately, the main problem with rejecting the inerrancy of scripture is that it comes with obvious implications. Namely, if some of it is bad, who is to say what is bad and what is not? Who is to say that the virgin birth or original sin wasn't a product of human error? How do we know that we are saved by faith? Maybe we can just go with whatever feels right to us, with each of us creating a god for ourselves that suit us. I hope by now you see the problem. And even if you could keep from abusing such an approach, that wouldn't hold true for countless others, many of which would no doubt be chomping at the bit for any justification whatsoever to do so.

Jesus Christ held a very high view of scripture, as did the Apostles, and the church fathers. All the way down through Augustine and up through the reformation, all the way to the present day, Christians have held God's Word to be perfect, and not only perfect, but a source in which to utterly delight themselves. That said, I strongly urge you to abandon your present course, as you are most certainly headed for no-man's land.

Just because mankind is imperfect, this too wouldn't mean that it's not what God intended for us to receive either. Just as if I pick up a different translation of scripture that may be less accurate than the original. Imperfect, yet still what God intended.

I'd consider the possibility that the reason Protestants and Catholics have been at odds for so long, perhaps is because people have too much pride in their positions on inerrancy. No one is ever wrong if their beliefs mandate that they must be 100% right. Just like Christians who swear by one translation and outright reject all others.

Anyway.

"Maybe we can just go with whatever feels right to us, with each of us creating a god for ourselves that suit us."

What's interesting about this response of yours, is that the church is already doing this. Hence our divisions.

But I would say that some topics, such as 100% free will vs 100% predestination, seem to be a pretty rigid theological conflicts, which in a sense, may indicate a shortcoming in the apostles understanding of God. But these conflicting ideas, I'd say are few and far between In scripture. For example, we never find Catholics and Protestants disputing whether Christ died on the Cross, or whether Mathew was a tax collector, or whether Jesus died for our sins.

Most topics we all agree on. And for those that might be disputed, why must it be a bad thing to simply conclude that some things just aren't known? As noted above, a bad translation of scripture never bothered our faith before. Why would a lack of clarity over predestination vs free will be any different?

Personally, I think that Christians that believe in biblical inerrant literalism, with no flexibility at all, are more prone to head toward "no man's land" as you put it. Of course the apostles were human beings, just like us. They weren't God themselves. So why should we expect their writings to be beyond human? All men are broken, and yet when it comes to writing scripture, now they are perfect?

I just don't think the apostles need to be utterly perfect for us to still receive the message that God intended us to receive. Same with reading translations over the ages that have gradually obscured the original source. God has provided us what we need to find Him, but I don't see any reason we should view every Bible translation as inerrant. Nor would mankind's shortcomings be any reason to not trust in the Lord.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Well, if I am in no-man's land, I am there with Jesus, and all the church fathers.

Yes, there are different theological and doctrinal positions, but this is not the result of people creating a god for themselves. There are of course heretics, but among those who hold to the fundamental truths, there is fellowship. Never would we say that our distinctives are due to people making their own god - people simply follow their own conscience in the secondary matters. But we all draw a deep line in the sand when it comes to the core elements of our shared faith. And never would we say that our distinctives are caused by scriptural inconsistencies. Quite frankly, I find it blasphemous to even suggest something like that.

Again I say, if the Bible is subject to error, than I see no reason to have confidence in any of it's assertions. I see no reason why God would protect certain parts but allow the contamination of other parts. Unless you heretically believe that God had no part of it. And I really do not see why the imperfection of men would have anything to do with the Bible, or at least anymore than the imperfection of a pen would affect a written story. The Bible clearly says that "all" scripture is God breathed and profitable. It doesn't say some of it, or even most of it, but all of it. All scripture is God-breathed. Now you can "yeah, but" and "well, whatabout" all you want - be my guest. But you cannot change the fact that the Word of God is true.

When a lack of truth is found in a man, it casts a shadow over all he says. The Bible is no different, and I believe it when it says that all scripture is God-breathed. You should, too.

 

[The Barbarian]

When a lack of truth is found in a man, it casts a shadow over all he says. The Bible is no different, and I believe it when it says that all scripture is God-breathed. You should, too.

You actually think that a mustard seed is the smallest seed? You think pi is equal to 3?

So no, the Bible isn't inerrant for things like that.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, if I am in no-man's land, I am there with Jesus, and all the church fathers.

Yes, there are different theological and doctrinal positions, but this is not the result of people creating a god for themselves. There are of course heretics, but among those who hold to the fundamental truths, there is fellowship. Never would we say that our distinctives are due to people making their own god - people simply follow their own conscience in the secondary matters. But we all draw a deep line in the sand when it comes to the core elements of our shared faith. And never would we say that our distinctives are caused by scriptural inconsistencies. Quite frankly, I find it blasphemous to even suggest something like that.

Again I say, if the Bible is subject to error, than I see no reason to have confidence in any of it's assertions. I see no reason why God would protect certain parts but allow the contamination of other parts. Unless you heretically believe that God had no part of it. And I really do not see why the imperfection of men would have anything to do with the Bible, or at least anymore than the imperfection of a pen would affect a written story. The Bible clearly says that "all" scripture is God breathed and profitable. It doesn't say some of it, or even most of it, but all of it. All scripture is God-breathed. Now you can "yeah, but" and "well, whatabout" all you want - be my guest. But you cannot change the fact that the Word of God is true.

When a lack of truth is found in a man, it casts a shadow over all he says. The Bible is no different, and I believe it when it says that all scripture is God-breathed. You should, too.

I don't think this response really addresses the elephant in the room.

If the apostles wrote a passage, and someone down the line came and re-translated the verse and perhaps even added or removed words, thereby changing the meaning (as described between you and barbarian a few days ago), you don't think this would be "contamination"? How about when the translation has a different meaning than the original?

Or when original Hebrew OT describes Birds flying across the face of the firmament, and modern translations remove and words and re-write it to state that birds are flying through the expanse.

We can still trust in God and still receive the message, but how could anyone look at numerous translations, some contradicting one another, and not view this diaspora or separation simply as a product of the faults of man? Man simply isn't a perfect reflection of God, and so our translations and our writings also cannot be a perfect reflection of the original Word.

"Again I say, if the Bible is subject to error, than I see no reason to have confidence in any of it's assertions."

Maybe because you love God and wouldn't let man's brokenness stand between you and Him? As Christians, we can't stand on such a flimsy house of cards.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think this response really addresses the elephant in the room.

If the apostles wrote a passage, and someone down the line came and re-translated the verse and perhaps even added or removed words, thereby changing the meaning (as described between you and barbarian a few days ago), you don't think this would be "contamination"? How about when the translation has a different meaning than the original?

Or when original Hebrew OT describes Birds flying across the face of the firmament, and modern translations remove and words and re-write it to state that birds are flying through the expanse.

We can still trust in God and still receive the message, but how could anyone look at numerous translations, some contradicting one another, and not view this diaspora or separation simply as a product of the faults of man? Man simply isn't a perfect reflection of God, and so our translations and our writings also cannot be a perfect reflection of the original Word.

"Again I say, if the Bible is subject to error, than I see no reason to have confidence in any of it's assertions."

Maybe because you love God and wouldn't let man's brokenness stand between you and Him? As Christians, we can't stand on such a flimsy house of cards.

I think we are just rehashing the problem of evil and predestination all over again. There is brokenness in the world. I think it's mankind's doing. We make imperfect decisions, we write imperfect scripture. God created us imperfect and so all of these things follow. And when they go wrong, it's our fault, not God's. We've contaminated scripture.

Whereas in your position, scripture is perfect. It's inerrant and true, even if two different translations imply two different concepts.

I'd rather just blame the sins of man for these issues than suggest that God is responsible for every seeming contradiction and that somehow it's all good and justified despite appearing to be blatantly fractured.

 

[The Barbarian]

We can still trust in God and still receive the message, but how could anyone look at numerous translations, some contradicting one another, and not view this diaspora or separation simply as a product of the faults of man? Man simply isn't a perfect reflection of God, and so our translations and our writings also cannot be a perfect reflection of the original Word.

The canon of the Bible was established by men, who relied on prayer and scholarship to determine which books were inspired by God. It is axiomatic that nothing can be more reliable than it's source. And yes, God is the source of the Bible, but since the Source has been interpreted by fallible men, and since there is no general agreement among Christians as to exactly which version is the God-approved one, it's necessary to realize that there must be some human flaws therein for every version but one at best.

I'm thinking it's not meant to be like a legal code but rather a source of understanding about what it is God expects of us.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

You actually think that a mustard seed is the smallest seed? You think pi is equal to 3?

So no, the Bible isn't inerrant for things like that.

A mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds for the purposes of illustration. That is, a seed that would be sown in a 1st century, local field. Jesus used words and illustrations that His disciples understood. I guess He could have mentioned an orchid seed. But that would have been utterly absurd.

The Bible never says that Pi is equal to 3. It talks about the creation of a bowl, and atheists have charged that the math is wrong. But the accusation falls apart once you introduce a number of probable variables. The refutation can be found online. Go fish.

It is a shame that a professing Christian would be regurgitating atheist hate speech.

 

[The Barbarian]

A mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds for the purposes of illustration.

Yep. Figurative. Not literally true. That's the point.

The Bible never says that Pi is equal to 3. It talks about the creation of a bowl, and atheists have charged that the math is wrong.

Technically, it's not wrong; it's imprecise. There was just no way to properly write a more accurate value in Hebrew at the time. Yes, I know, the maker could have messed up and made it out of round or even done so intentionally. There's a million excuses. Supposedly, there are some prehistoric henges (stone circles used for astronomical sightings) in prehistoric Europe, in which they are distorted so pi would be equal to 3.0 The designers were apparently as distressed by irrational numbers as the Pythagoreans were.

Bottom line, you'd be making a huge mistake to use scripture for botany or math. It's about God and man and our relationship. And that's good enough.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

I don't think this response really addresses the elephant in the room.

If the apostles wrote a passage, and someone down the line came and re-translated the verse and perhaps even added or removed words, thereby changing the meaning (as described between you and barbarian a few days ago), you don't think this would be "contamination"? How about when the translation has a different meaning than the original?

Or when original Hebrew OT describes Birds flying across the face of the firmament, and modern translations remove and words and re-write it to state that birds are flying through the expanse.

We can still trust in God and still receive the message, but how could anyone look at numerous translations, some contradicting one another, and not view this diaspora or separation simply as a product of the faults of man? Man simply isn't a perfect reflection of God, and so our translations and our writings also cannot be a perfect reflection of the original Word.

"Again I say, if the Bible is subject to error, than I see no reason to have confidence in any of it's assertions."

Maybe because you love God and wouldn't let man's brokenness stand between you and Him? As Christians, we can't stand on such a flimsy house of cards.

I do not believe there is a perfect translation. But I do believe that the original autographs were inspired and absolutely perfect. It sounded to me as though you do not, based on your continual emphasis of the Apostles' humanity and fallibility. But it would be great if I am mistaken, and you do believe in the inerrancy of the autographs.

I wish we still had access to the originals, but God chose another way to preserve His Word. Copies of copies, from which we can come very, very close. The Alexandrian texts are, in my opinion, extremely accurate. But even when comparing to the Textus Receptus, we do not see discrepancies of a serious nature. Certainly nothing that would threaten doctrine.

I don't believe the Bible has been purposely corrupted, or deliberately mistranslated. I don't know who you have been talking to. The verse you cited, Genesis 1:20, has indeed been translated a number of different ways - including both expanse and firmament. And while I couldn't tell you the first thing about ancient Hebrew, from what I have been able to gather, "open expanse" is a perfectly reasonable rendering, even for a literal translation of the Bible.

God is sovereign. I believe He protected His Word and saw to it that it was brought down. I see no evidence for deliberate sabotage, nor do I have reason to suspect serious mistakes have been made in bringing it down to our time.

Scholars will not consider the possibility of divine involvement. The limitations of naturalism is automatically assumed. That is why their dating, implied authorship, and speculations involving source material are all completely worthless.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Yep. Figurative. Not literally true. That's the point.
...

It's about God and man and our relationship. And that's good enough.

It is true in the sense that it was intended to be true. You cannot take obvious hyperbole and use it as an argument against biblical inerrancy. That is absolute dung.

And I will let the Bible determine it's own application. It says it is useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. I honestly do not know of any Christian who suggests using the Bible for any other purpose.

 

[JayH1119]

I didn't read through this whole thread, especially once it started diving off topic, but there are two problems with evolution that make me see it as a theory which addresses many of the observable facts but not all of them: The first is the life cycle of salmon. How did that become favorable through mutation? and the second is what Chesterton called the "signature of man."

 

[Job 33:6]

I do not believe there is a perfect translation. But I do believe that the original autographs were inspired and absolutely perfect. It sounded to me as though you do not, based on your continual emphasis of the Apostles' humanity and fallibility. But it would be great if I am mistaken, and you do believe in the inerrancy of the autographs.

I wish we still had access to the originals, but God chose another way to preserve His Word. Copies of copies, from which we can come very, very close. The Alexandrian texts are, in my opinion, extremely accurate. But even when comparing to the Textus Receptus, we do not see discrepancies of a serious nature. Certainly nothing that would threaten doctrine.

I don't believe the Bible has been purposely corrupted, or deliberately mistranslated. I don't know who you have been talking to. The verse you cited, Genesis 1:20, has indeed been translated a number of different ways - including both expanse and firmament. And while I couldn't tell you the first thing about ancient Hebrew, from what I have been able to gather, "open expanse" is a perfectly reasonable rendering, even for a literal translation of the Bible.

God is sovereign. I believe He protected His Word and saw to it that it was brought down. I see no evidence for deliberate sabotage, nor do I have reason to suspect serious mistakes have been made in bringing it down to our time.

Scholars will not consider the possibility of divine involvement. The limitations of naturalism is automatically assumed. That is why their dating, implied authorship, and speculations involving source material are all completely worthless.

Regarding Gen 1:20, an open expanse is significantly different than a solid dome.

What we have are two translations representing two very different ideas. It's a product of human error. Just one of many discrepancies that come about through translation.

If you're at least willing to acknowledge that modern translations themselves are prone to error, that's fine with me.

 

[The Barbarian]

I didn't read through this whole thread, especially once it started diving off topic, but there are two problems with evolution that make me see it as a theory which addresses many of the observable facts but not all of them: The first is the life cycle of salmon. How did that become favorable through mutation?

What about it, is a problem for you? BTW, if the migration issue bothers you, consider Atlantic eels. Let me know. There's a lot of good research on these issues.

and the second is what Chesterton called the "signature of man."

Of the thousands of brilliant and elegant persons like ourselves who believe roughly in the Darwinian doctrine, how many are there who know which fossil or skeleton, which parrot’s tail or which cuttle-fish’s stomach, is really believed to be the conclusive example and absolute datum of natural selection? . . . What we know, to use a higher language, are the fruits of the spirit. We know that with this idea once inside our heads a million things become transparent as if a lamp were lit behind them: we see the thing in the dog in the street, in the pear on the wall, in the book of history we are reading, in the baby in the perambulator and in the last news from Borneo. And the fulfilments pour in upon us in so natural and continual a cataract that at last is reached that paradox of the condition which is called belief.
G.K. Chesterton, The Return of The Angels 1903

Later, Chesterton was persuaded (falsely) that Darwinian theory was about eugenics. Truth is, Darwin called eugenic practices "an overwhelming evil", and Darwinians like Reginald Punnett decisively demonstrated that eugenic methods were scientifically insupportable. And he did so before Hitler's racial ideas were developed and about the same time as American creationists like William Tinkle were advocating eugenics as an important way of improving society.

Chesterton's idea was that the mind of man was entirely unique and different in every way from the minds (if any) of other animals. He conceded that there was: "... a broken trail of stones and bones faintly suggesting the development of the human body." but firmly maintained that there was nothing in animals that suggested ethics or reasoning or other marks of the human mind. It's worth noting that he agreed with Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, on this point.

It goes without saying that the "broken trail" is much, much more in evidence and supported by evidence today, and yes, that we can show that ideas like fairness, reciprocity, self-concept, and even theory of mind are present in other animals. (Evidence on request)

I admire Chesterton for his clarity of thought. But clarity of thought is not a replacement for knowledge. Once, asked to write an essay on "What is Wrong With the World", he wrote simply, "I am."

And unfortunately, being knowledgeable about the world is a prerequisite for understanding it.

Let me know about the salmon. It sounds interesting.

 

[JayH1119]

What about it, is a problem for you? BTW, if the migration issue bothers you, consider Atlantic eels. Let me know. There's a lot of good research on these issues.

Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, O. keta, etc.) are born, sexually mature, spawn only once and then immediately die. The rest of the monophyletic group that salmon belong to, including anadromous trout (e.g. Oncorhynchus mykiss) which compete for the same resources, all spawn multiple times during their lifespan. My research indicates that all species of the genus (really all three sub-families) emerged roughly seven million years ago, albeit after a 33 million year gap in the fossil record. Why then the huge disparity in their numbers? The salmon, for the most part, far outnumber their multiple-spawning cousins. If I understand natural selection correctly I would expect the numbers to be reversed, or that the salmon wouldn't have made it very far in the first place.

If you point to an assumedly linked trait of greater egg production caused by the same mutation that causes their post-spawn death, I would point out that the king salmon lays, on average, 2-10x more eggs than any of the other species under consideration yet seems (yes, the population numbers that I use are anecdotal but I bet we could find real numbers that back it up) to be the least represented of all of them. This is the case not only in general (where commercial and sport fishing certainly take their toll) but also in isaolated ecosystems (e.g. Lake Chelan, WA) that see minimal pressure.

I admire Chesterton for his clarity of thought. But clarity of thought is not a replacement for knowledge. Once, asked to write an essay on "What is Wrong With the World", he wrote simply, "I am."

And unfortunately, being knowledgeable about the world is a prerequisite for understanding it.

Before dismissing Chesterton entirely because his thought was not ... scientific (?):
"But suppose the boy had not been taught by a priest but by a professor, by one of the professors who simplify the relation of men and beasts to a mere evolutionary variation. Suppose the boy saw himself, with the same simplicity and sincerity, as a mere Mowgli running with the pack of nature and roughly indistinguishable from the rest save by a relative and recent variation. What would be for him the simplest lesson of that strange stone picture-book? After all, it would come back to this; that he had dug very deep and found the place where a man had drawn the picture of a reindeer. But he would dig a good deal deeper before he found a place where a reindeer had drawn a picture of a man. That sounds like a truism, but in this connection it is really a very tremendous truth. He might descend to depths unthinkable, he might sink into sunken continents as strange as remote stars, he might find himself in the inside of the world as far from men as the other side of the moon; he might see in those cold chasms or colossal terraces of stone, traced in the faint hieroglyphic of the fossil, the ruins of lost dynasties of biological life, rather like the ruins of successive creations and separate universes than the stages in the story of one. He would find the trail of monsters blindly developing in directions outside all our common imagery of fish and bird; groping and grasping and touching life with every extravagant elongation of horn and tongue and tentacle; growing a forest of fantastic caricatures of the claw and the fin and the finger. But nowhere would he find one finger that had traced one significant line upon the sand; nowhere one claw that had even begun to scratch the faint suggestion of a form. To all appearance, the thing would be as unthinkable in all those countless cosmic variations of forgotten aeons as it would be in the beasts and birds before our eyes. The child would no more expect to see it than to see the cat scratch on the wall a vindictive caricature of the dog. The childish common sense would keep the most evolutionary child from expecting to see anything like that; yet in the traces of the rude and recently evolved ancestors of humanity he would have seen exactly that. It must surely strike him as strange that men so remote from him should be so near, and that beasts so near to him should be so remote. To his simplicity it must seem at least odd that he could not find any trace of the beginning of any arts among any animals. That is the simplest lesson to learn in the cavern of the coloured pictures; only it is too simple to be learnt. It is the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man. Something of division and disproportion has appeared; and it is unique. Art is the signature of man."