more auoui butfuos*.Tiie Gksebis.—Professor Agassiz denies i hut he, as has been publicly charged, recently opened a lecture with the statement that lie wanted no one to listen tn his lectures who believed in the first chapter oi “Genesis/* This charg-j bears on its face the evidence of its falsity, yet Professor Agassiz deems it worthy of notice. He says in a letter to a friend :I am little in the habit of noticing things of ibis kind, being convinced that often it is useless, and having become, from long habit, somewhat callous to misrepresentation. Something in the tone of your letter makes me answer, I write to say that the statement you sent me is false. In some opening remarks of a course on geology, which I am now delivering in the I niveinily. I said tlmt the ^'theological interpretation of the Hook of Genesis, giving six thousand years a* the age of the woiid, was a hinir drmce to the understanding of geological evidence, and no one who started with this Idea, and allowed his researches to be influenced by it, could be a geologist,* 1 do not remember my exact words, thelecture being extemporaneous ; but this i» the substance, and I know that I did not say what your newspaper extract re-ptiirtft/*