Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page


[No title]

[No title]

[No title]


[No title]


[No title]




"THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN." To the Editor of THE JOURNAL. Siu.-illy attention has been drawn to an article in your JOURNAL, of A"gust 9.h, in reply to a recent article of mine on the Antiquity of Man," which you quoted from the Edinburgh Weefdy Scotsman, It would be superfluous, to enter into argument with a critic who, I presume, has chosen his hypothesis independent of the legitimate demaiid-i of scientific accuracy. It is to be greatly regretted that many would-be scientists now-a-days adopt what is called Anticipating Science" out of which they manu- facture weapons with which to assail reli-I )n. These methods have never yet been embraced by scientists of cultured ability, hence the labours of these scientific agnostics do not deepen men's reverence, and feed and (picken what is noblest in man'a nature. Yea, I rather take leave to think that the cultivators of this f"lie science are doing not a little to llloen the authority of what is already authenticated, and eipt»cially to impart if not destroy the educational value of genuine science, and philosophy. It does not belong to my purpose to analyze the arguments (or rather the contentions i of the article under discussion. I prefer to abide by the authenticated popular theories of the "Antiquity of Man." it is his duty to disprove the present chronology of the Christian world. This can never be accomplished by the kind of logic and philosophy presented to our view by amateurs in philosophy at the pre- sent time. As I have already shown, the origin of man is of recent date. This is amply brought out in that no human petrifactions have been dis- covered, no remains of man have been found even in the tertiary and alluvial deposits. Adam's ashes lie in the upper soil, and the world shows that at each stage of its history it was fitted to the creatures who claimed it as their home. Geology has got nothing to do with an antiquity posterior to man. From that moment the world is reconcileable to the sacred chronology. All that geology requires for the utmost scope of the great investigations is comprised in the time which is included in the first and second verses of the history. Much nonsense might have been spared if some theorists would bear in mind the obvious ttuth that free thought and science are mutually incon- sistent. The one supposes the absence of the other. I again say that the argument from tools and instruments of labour is nihil ad rem. Yours very truly, JOHN SUTHERLAND. Latheron, Caithness.



Family Notices