people still think that the theory of the immediate creation of each species does more honor to the Creator and his creation than the theory of evolution.  Evolution is a process, not a force.  The power of the Creator is equally demanded in both cases; only it is differently distributed.  And evolution is the very highest proof of the wisdom and skill of the Creator.  It elevates our views of the living beings, must it not give a higher conception of Him who formed them?

The plant in its first stages shows no trace of flowers, but of leaves only.  Later a branch or twig, similar in structure to all the rest, shortens.  The cells and tissues which in other twigs turn into green leaves here become the petals and other organs of the rose or violet.  Let us suppose for a moment that every rose and violet required a special act of immediate creation, would the springtime be as wonderful as now?  Would the rose or violet be any more beautiful, or are they any less flowers because developed out of that which might have remained a common branch?  The plant at least is glorified by the power to give rise to such beauty.  And is not the creation of the seed of a violet or rose something infinitely grander than the decking of a flowerless plant with newly created roses?  The attainment of the highest and most diversified beauty and utility with the fewest and simplest means is always the sign of what we call in man “creative” genius.  Is not the same true of God?  I think you all feel the force of the argument here.

There were at one time no flowering plants.  The time came at last for their appearance.  Which is the higher, grander mode of producing them, immediate creation of every flowering species, or development of the flower out of the green leaves of some old club moss or similar form?  The latter seems to me at least by far the higher mode.  And to have created a ground-pine which could give rise to a rose seems far more difficult and greater than to have created both separately.  It requires more genius, so to speak.  It gives us a far higher opinion of the ground-pine; does it disgrace the rose?  We can look dispassionately at plants.  The rose is still and always a rose, and the oak an oak, whatever its origin.  And I believe that we shall all readily admit that evolution is here a theory which does the highest honor to the wisdom and power of the Creator.  What if the animal kingdom is continually blossoming in ever higher forms?  Does not the same reasoning hold true, only with added force?  I firmly believe that we should all unhesitatingly answer, yes, could we but be assured that all men would everywhere and always believe that we, men, were the results of an immediate creative act.