If Prof. Parker's testimony is to be relied on, nine-tenths of them waste their time on useless calculations and data. They have a wonderful faculty of putting the horse before the cart. For example, Prof. Huston of Princeton, says. "Electricity is being constantly produced during the phenomena of every day life. It is produced by chemical action, differences of temperature, the motion of conductors and magnets and the various physical and chemical processes that occur during the life and growth of plants and animals." Now, this is misleading, because it states facts backward. It is not true that electricity is being produced in the sense he uses it by these phenomena. These phenomena are being produced by electricity. They are the manifestations of electricity. Electricity is the cause; they are the sequence or results, and he should say electricity is manifested by these things. The same author says: "The earth is to be considered as one huge magnet." This is very true, and as a great magnet does not need to be hot to generate electric life-giving energy, no astronomer ought to look at an electric light or an electric battery without blushing that he ever called the sun hot. Electricity can be generated without burning coal or wood or the use of a furnace. The turbine wheels that are turned by the waters of Niagara Falls, without heat or furnace, can generate a hundred thousand horse power. The placing of two or three pieces of metal one above another with a moist substance between them will create a voltaic battery. And mines of two or three kinds of metals or ores, when clay or any soft substance between them become moist, will create a battery that will tear up the earth for miles and produce a geyser or an earthquake. Prof. Proctor agrees with Langley in rejecting the nebular hypothesis, when he says: "Under the continual rain of meteoric matter the earth, sun and planets are growing. And the formation of the solar system resulted from the aggregations of vast meteoric and cometic systems rotating through space has greater support from what is now going on, and is far more satisfactory than the nebular hypothesis of La Place. The nebular hypothesis affords no explanation of the strange variety of size in the planetary system, variations of inclination among the planets, or the retrograde and almost perpendicular motion of the satellites of Uranus and Neptune. A general explanation of all these matters is at once suggested by their origin from aggregations of meteoric systems." This agrees with the electric theory of creation.