{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13370/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13370","id":"gutenberg_13370","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13370","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Creation","Evolution"],"text":"Q.E.D.\n\nOr\nNew Light on the Doctrine\nof Creation\n\nBy\n\nGEORGE McCREADY PRICE\n\n_Professor of Chemistry and Physics, Lodi Academy, California\n\nAuthor of \"Outlines of Modern Science and Modern\nChristianity,\" \"The Fundamentals of Geology,\"\n\"God's Two Books,\" \"Back to the Bible,\"\n\"A Text-Book of General Science,\" etc._\n\n\n  \"... and set you square with Genesis again.\"\n                 --_Robert Browning_.\n\n\n\n1917\n\n\n\n_To\n\nWILLIAM CLEAVER WILKINSON\nScholar, Critic, Poet and Christian Gentleman\n\nThis book is dedicated by one who\nowes to his advice and kindly sympathy\nmore than can be expressed_\n\n\n\nPreface\n\nThe great world disaster, ushered in with the dawn of that August\nmorning in 1914, has already brought revolutionary changes in many\ndepartments of our thinking. But not the least of the surprises awaiting\nan amazed world, whenever attention can again be directed to such\nsubjects, will be the realization that we have now definitely outgrown\nmany notions in science and philosophy which in the old order of things\nwere supposed to have been eternally settled.\n\nThere are but two theories regarding the origin of our world and of the\nvarious forms of plants and animals upon it, Creation and\nEvolution,--the latter assuming many modifications.\n\nThe essential idea of the Evolution theory is _uniformity_; that is, it\nseeks to show that life in all its various forms and manifestations\nprobably originated by causes similar to or identical with forces and\nprocesses now prevailing. It teaches the absolute supremacy and the past\ncontinuity of natural law as now observed. It says that the changes now\ngoing on in our modern world have always been in action and that these\npresent-day natural changes and processes are as much a part of the\norigin of things as anything that ever took place in the past. In short,\nEvolution as a philosophy of nature is an effort to smooth out all\ndistinction between Creation and the ordinary processes of nature that\nare now under the r\u00e9gime of \"natural law.\"\n\nOn the other hand, the essential idea of the doctrine of Creation is\nthat, back at a period called the \"beginning,\" forces and powers were\nbrought into exercise and results were accomplished that have not since\nbeen exercised or accomplished. That is, the origin of the first organic\nforms, indeed of the whole world as we know it, was essentially and\nradically _different_ from the ways in which these forms are perpetuated\nand the world sustained to-day. _Time_ is in no way the essential idea\nin the problem. The question of _how much time_ was occupied in the work\nof Creation is of no importance, neither is the question of _how long\nago_ it took place. The one essential idea is that in its nature\nCreation is essentially inscrutable; we can never hope to know just how\nit was accomplished; we cannot expect to know the process or the\ndetails, for we have nothing with which to measure it. The one essential\nthing in the doctrine of Creation is that the origin of our world and of\nthe things upon it came about at some period of time in the past by a\ndirect and unusual manifestation of Divine power; and that since this\noriginal Creation other and different forces and powers have prevailed\nto sustain and perpetuate the forms of life and indeed the entire world\nas then called into existence.\n\nAccordingly, we might establish the Evolution doctrine by showing that\nmatter can be made _de novo_, that energy can be created or increased in\namount, that life can be made from the not-living, and that new and\ndistinct forms of life can be produced in modern times,--all by natural\nlaw as now prevailing.\n\nOr we can practically demonstrate the historical reality of a direct\nCreation at some time in the past, if we can show that the net results\nof all modern science tend to prove that the forces and processes now in\noperation can never account for the origin of things; that matter, and\nenergy, and life, and the various forms of life must all have had an\norigin essentially different from anything now going on around us.\n\nThis indicates the line of argument adopted in the following pages.\n\nThe Evolution theory has been widely discussed and accepted in modern\ntimes. Indeed it has had a fair chance and an open field for several\ndecades. What is the present situation of the controversy? The friends\nof the Bible and of old-fashioned Christianity need to know the real\nfacts of the present situation.\n\nEvery now and then the news despatches report that the great Professor\nSo-and-so has at last really produced life from the not-living, or has\nobtained some absolutely new type of life by some wonderful feat of\nbreeding. Or some geologist or arch\u00e6ologist has discovered in the earth\nthe missing link which connects the higher forms of life with the\nlower, or which bridges over the gulf between man and the apes. Thus\nmany people who get their \"science\" through the daily papers really\nbelieve that these long-looked-for proofs of Evolution have at last been\ndemonstrated, and hence they receive without question the confident\nassertions of the camp followers of science published at space rates in\nthe Sunday supplements that all intelligent men of to-day have long ago\naccepted the Evolution doctrine.\n\nBut in spite of the quick dissemination of news and the universal spread\nof education, it seems but a slow process for the really important\ndiscoveries of modern science to filter down through such media as the\ncurrent periodicals to the rank and file of society. The situation seems\nto illustrate the old adage that a lie will travel round the world while\ntruth is getting on her shoes. _Thus it happens that the common people\nare still being taught in this second decade of the twentieth century\nmany things that real scientists outgrew nearly a generation ago, and\nassertions are still being bandied around in the individual sciences\nwhich are wholly unwarranted by a general survey of the whole field of\nmodern natural science_. Indeed, in almost every one of the separate\nsciences the arguments upon which the theory of Evolution gained its\npopularity a generation or so ago are now known by the various\nspecialists to have been blunders, or mistakes, or hasty conclusions of\none kind or another. Thus the market value of all the various subsidiary\nstocks of the Evolution group has been steadily declining in their\nrespective home markets, and now stands away below par; while strange to\nsay the stock of the central holding company itself is still quoted at\nfictitiously high figures.\n\nThis curious--not to say deplorable--situation has developed largely\nbecause of the modern system of strict specialization in the various\ndepartments of science. Each scientist feels compelled by an unwritten\nbut rigid code of professional ethics to confine himself strictly to the\ncultivation of the little plot of ground on which he happens to be\nworking, and is forbidden to express an opinion about what he may know\nhas been discovered on another plot of ground on which his neighbor is\nworking, except by express permission. In other words, science teaching\nhas now become strictly a matter of authority, this authority being\nvested in the various specialists; and nobody is permitted to look at it\nin a broad way, or to frame a general induction from the sum of all the\nfacts of nature now discovered, under penalty of scientific\nexcommunication. The scientific code of ethics forbids any general view\nof the woods: each man must confine himself to the observation of the\nparticular tree in front of his own nose.\n\nBut these pages have been prepared under the idea that it is high time\nto take a more general survey of the geography, time to take our eyes\noff the various individual trees, and to look at the woods. Perhaps in\nsome respects they may be regarded as too technical for ordinary\nreaders. But if this is the case, it is because the writer had to choose\nbetween this somewhat technical treatment of the subject and the\nalternative danger of making loose and inaccurate statements or dealing\nin glittering generalities too vague to carry conviction. As it is, the\nwriter is here trying to give directly to the general public the results\nof years of special research in correlating the data from many scattered\ndepartments of science,--results that most scientists would feel obliged\nto reserve for the select few of some learned society, to be published\nsubsequently in the Reports of its \"Transactions,\" and to find their way\nafter years of delay into the main currents of human thought. But these\ndilatory methods of professional pedantry, miscalled \"ethics,\" shall not\nlonger be allowed to delay the publication of highly important\nprinciples which the public are entitled to know at once, and to know at\nfirst hand. Then, too, it is more than doubtful if any purely academic\nbody could be found willing to become responsible for giving to the\nworld conclusions so contrary to the vogue of the present day.\n\nThat these brief chapters may clear up the doubts of some, and encourage\nthe faith of many, is the object of their publication in this\nnon-professional form.\n\nG. McC. P.\n\n\n\nContents\n\nI. MATTER AND ITS ORIGIN 15\nII. THE ORIGIN OF ENERGY 31\nIII. LIFE ONLY FROM LIFE 43\nIV. THE CELL AND THE LESSONS IT TEACHES 57\nV. WHAT IS A \"SPECIES\"? 68\nVI. MENDELISM AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 78\nVII. GEOLOGY AND ITS LESSONS 99\nVIII. CREATION AND THE CREATOR 125\n\n\n\nI\n\nMATTER AND ITS ORIGIN\n\n\nI\n\nWhen we were told by a prominent scientist just the other day that\n\"electricity is now known to be molecular in structure,\" it almost took\nour breath away. And when we were informed that certain well-known\nchemical elements had been detected in the very act of being changed\nover into other well-known elements, with the prospect of such a\ntransformation of the elements being quite the normal thing throughout\nnature, the very earth seemed to be slipping away from under our feet.\nSome of the closely related discoveries, such as the fact that the\nX-rays show a spectrum susceptible of examination, were not so\ndisconcerting in themselves; but the marvellous pictures of the\nstructure of the atom elicited by these discoveries made many good\npeople almost question whether our venerable experimenters had not been\nindulging in pipe dreams amid their laboratory work.\n\nDo we, then, begin to understand the real composition of matter? Does it\nhave component parts, in the materialistic sense; or is what we call\n_matter_ only a mysterious manifestation of energy? And if the latter\nbe our answer, can we hope to settle the problem objectively and so\nconclusively that it will stay settled? In short, do we, regarding these\nborder-line subjects between metaphysics and natural science, know\nanything more than our fathers and our grandfathers?\n\nIt will be convenient to consider these problems under two heads: the\ncomposition of matter, and the origin of matter.\n\n\nII\n\n1. It was long ago recognized that matter must be composed of particles\nwhich are driven farther apart by heat and are brought closer together\nby cold, thus laying the foundation for the theory of the molecular\ncomposition of matter. But not until the time of Dalton, about a hundred\nyears ago, was it proved that the molecule itself, the unit of physical\nchange, is capable of definite division into atoms, the units of\nchemical change. This conception of the molecules and atoms as the\nultimate units of which matter is composed maintained its place until\nthe discovery of radioactivity and its associated phenomena, about\n1896; since which time we have definitely ascertained that even the\natoms are separable into still smaller units, and that possibly these\nunits are _all alike_. On this last possibility, it would surely be a\nmost amazing fact if such multitudinous \"properties\" of bodies could be\nproduced merely by variations in the arrangements of these ultimate\nunits into atoms, or in some other way which produces vast differences\nin properties by combinations of units that are nevertheless mere\nduplicates of one another.\n\nAs hydrogen is the lightest of the elements, it has been a favorite\ntheory with scientists that the various elements are all composed of\ncombinations of hydrogen atoms. But since many of the elements have\natomic weights which cannot be made exact multiples of that of hydrogen,\nit has been felt that there must be some other smaller unit than the\nhydrogen atom; or else that these hydrogen atoms themselves change in\nweight when they combine to form other atoms. But mass seems to be the\none unchangeable characteristic of matter; hence it was felt that any\nchange of weight is almost unthinkable, and so a solution was sought in\nthe direction of still further dividing the hydrogen atom, the smallest\nunit concerned in chemical change, as then understood. But now the facts\nand principles brought to light in connection with the studies of\nradioactivity have settled it that we actually do have a much smaller\nunit than the hydrogen atom, one of only about 1/1760 its mass, in fact;\nand that this smallest of the small things of nature is none other than\na particle of negative electricity, now called an _electron_.\n\nThat the atoms of all the elements must have a common unit of\ncomposition, that they behave as if composed of ultimate particles that\nmay be regarded as duplicates of one another, has long been regarded as\nan inevitable conclusion from the Periodic Law of Mendeleef. This law\nsays that the physical as well as the chemical properties of the various\nelements depend upon their atomic weights, or as it is stated in the\nlanguage of mathematics, the properties of an element are functions of\nits atomic weight. This fact of the variation in the properties of\nelements in accord with their atomic weights has been even more\nstrikingly illustrated by the behavior of discharges of electricity\nthrough rarified gases, as well as by the facts of radioactivity. To\nquote the words of Sir J.J. Thompson, \"The transparency of bodies to\nRoentgen rays, to cathode rays, to the rays emitted by radioactive\nsubstances, the quality of the secondary radiation emitted by the\ndifferent elements, are all determined by the atomic weight of the\nelement.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, Vol. XVII, 891. Cambridge\nEdition.]\n\nJust recently we have had opened up before us a still more intimate\ninner-circle view of the composition of matter. H.G.J. Moseley, a young\nman only twenty-six years of age, at an English university, devised a\nmethod of examining the spectra of the various elements by means of the\nX-rays. He found in this way that the principal lines of these various\nspectra are connected by a remarkably simple arithmetical relationship;\nfor when the elements are arranged in the order of their atomic weights,\nthey show a graded advance from one to another equal to successive\nadditions of the same electrical unit charge, thus indicating a real\ngamut of the elements that we can run up by adding or run down by\nsubtracting the same unit of electrical charge. It is pitiable to have\nto record that next year this scientific genius was killed in the\nill-fated Gallipoli expedition against Turkey.\n\nThus in many fairly independent ways we are brought around to this same\nidea of a common structure underlying all the many seeming diversities\nmanifested by what we call matter.\n\nThe phenomena of radioactivity were discovered accidentally in 1896 by\nthe French chemist Becquerel. Many investigators immediately began\nworking along this promising line, and two years later Madam Curie, in\nassociation with others, discovered the new element radium. Soon it was\ndiscovered that radium and several other substances are continually\ngiving off radiations at an enormous rate, that no change of chemical\ncombination, no physical change of condition appears to have the\nslightest effect in slowing or increasing this discharge of emanations,\nwhile no scientific apparatus yet devised can detect any change in the\nsubstances left behind either in respect to weight or any other\nproperties as the result of these enormous losses of energy. Accordingly\nsome people not unnaturally were ready to draw the conclusion that those\nmost firmly established laws of physics and chemistry, the laws of the\nconservation of energy and of matter, were overthrown by this\nastonishing behavior of these newly discovered substances. However, only\na few more years of study and investigation were necessary to prove\nthat this last conclusion was wholly unwarranted; and to-day these laws\nof the conservation of energy and of matter are more firmly established\nthan ever.\n\nThe thing that has gone by the board is the old idea of the atoms as the\nindivisible and irreducible minima of the material universe. For not\nonly do all the radioactive substances give off particles of helium gas\npositively electrified, but _all bodies, no matter what their\ncomposition_, can by suitable treatment, such as exposing them to\nultra-violet light, or raising them to incandescence, be made to _give\noff electrons_ or negatively charged particles, and _these electrons are\nalways the same no matter from what kind of substance they come_. In a\nsomewhat similar way, we always get positively electrified particles of\nthe mass of the hydrogen atom, or about 1,760 times the mass of the\nelectron, whenever we send an electric charge through a gas at very low\npressure, _no matter what the kind of gas_. Whether or not these\npositive units will yet prove susceptible of being split up into smaller\nparticles comparable to the electrons, is merely a subject for\nconjecture. We have no proof that they will. At the present time what we\ncall matter seems to be composed of these positive units and of the\nelectrons which are about 1/1760 as great; and in the present state of\nour knowledge these facts suffice to explain all the properties of\nmatter. Thus we can either say that electricity is composed of matter,\nor say that matter is composed of electricity; and human language at\nbest is such a clumsy vehicle of thought that scientifically and\nphilosophically the one statement is as correct and as reasonable as the\nother.\n\nAnd probably we shall never be able to learn any more than this. We have\narrived at a sort of box-within-a-box theory of the make-up of matter.\nBy a very elaborate system of unpacking, or by some violent external\nforce that makes the inside burst open, as it were, we seem to be able\nto make pieces fly off from the atoms, these pieces being then projected\ninto space with enormous force and velocity. There are theories galore\nof the structure of the atom; but as Prof. E.P. Lewis has said, most of\nthese theories are so impossible as to be absurd, or so speculative that\n\"they suggest no experimental tests for their validity.\"[2] Just at\npresent Rutherford's theory of the structure of the atom is quite\npopular. This postulates a nucleus composed of a group of positive units\nand electrons, with an excess of the positive charges equal to half the\natomic weight, with an equal number of electrons circulating about this\nnucleus in rings. Bohr's theory, which is not very different from this,\nhas perhaps even more friends, and it is supported by the remarkable\ndiscoveries of the lamented Moseley. But we must not take such theories\ntoo seriously. As Kayser has said, any true theory of the make-up of the\natoms must assume an absolutely full and perfect knowledge of all\nelectrical and optical processes, and is therefore beyond our dreams. Or\nas Professor Planck said in his Columbia lectures, we are not entitled\nto hope that we shall ever be able to represent truly through any\nphysical formul\u00e6 the internal structure of the atom.\n\n[Footnote 2: _Nature_, April 5, 1917.]\n\n\nIII\n\n2. We must now take up the second phase of our subject, the problem of\nthe origin of matter.\n\nBefore we knew anything of radioactivity we could have dismissed such a\nsubject briefly by quoting the law of the conservation of matter, which\nsays that matter can neither be created nor destroyed by any means known\nto science. By our knowledge of radioactivity we can make our answer a\nlittle more learned, a little less abrupt, but none the less\ndiscouraging to the advocate of the development hypothesis. We can tell\nhow the elements of high atomic weight, such as uranium and thorium, are\nconstantly giving off particles and are thus by loss or decomposition\nbeing changed over into other elements, such as radium, niton, polonium\nand lead. But our new knowledge compels us ultimately to give the same\nanswer as before, namely, that _we still do not know how matter ever\ncould have originated_, except that \"in the beginning\" it was called\ninto existence by the fiat of Him whom we Christians worship as our God,\nthe Creator. Thus we reach the conception of the universe as that of a\ngreat clock gradually running down, which is certainly the antithesis of\nthat picture so long held before us by the advocates of the development\ntheory.\n\nUranium is a rather rare element, though known for over a hundred years,\nand has an atomic weight of 238.5. In decomposing it gives off first a\nhelium atom, weight 4; and after this action has been repeated three\ntimes the substance left is radium, atomic weight about 226.4. Thus\nradium is simply uranium after it has lost three helium atoms. Radium in\nits disintegration gives off three kinds of particles, namely, helium\natoms (positively electrified), [Greek: b]-rays or electrons, and\n[Greek: g]-rays, the latter being identical with the X-rays, and having\npenetrating power sufficient to carry them through six inches of lead or\na foot of solid iron. The final stage in this process of disintegration\nis the ordinary element lead, in which condition the atoms seem to have\nreached relative stability. Whether or not our stock of lead, with our\nother common elements that are not radioactive, was originally produced\nby the disintegration of these other elements, is merely a matter of\nconjecture. We know nothing at all about it.\n\nThe length of time it takes for half the atoms of an element to change\nis called its \"life\" or period. The periods of most of the radioactive\nsubstances have been calculated, that of uranium being very long. The\ncalculated period of radium is 2,500 years, while that of polonium is\nonly 202 days, and that of niton 5.6 days. These unquestioned facts,\ntogether with the enormous amount of heat evolved by the disintegration\nof these substances (that from radium being about 250,000 times the heat\nevolved by the combustion of carbon), have thrown a great deal of doubt\nupon the older estimates of the age of the earth.\n\nThe discussion of the details of these theories would be unprofitable.\nBut through the mists of all these conflicting theories and\nprobabilities two facts of tremendous importance for our modern world\nemerge in clear relief, namely, that the grand law of the conservation\nof matter still holds true, and hence that _the matter of our world must\nhave had an origin at some time in the past wholly different in degree\nand different in kind from any process going on around us that we call a\nnatural process_. These elements of high atomic weight that break down\ninto others of lower atomic weight may be so rare because they have been\nabout all used up in this process. At any rate, so far from revealing\nthe origin of matter as a process now going on, these phenomena are an\nobjective demonstration that all matter is more or less unstable and\nliable under some unknown but ever-acting force to lose some portion of\nthat fund of energy with which it seems to have been primarily endowed.\n_Not the evolution of matter but the degeneration of matter_ is the\nplain and unescapable lesson to be drawn from these facts. The varieties\nof matter may change greatly, and one variety or one chemical element\nmay be transformed into another. But this transformation _is by loss and\nnot by gain_. It is degeneration and not upward evolution that is now\nopened up before our astonished eyes by this peep into the ultimate\nlaboratories of nature; and he is surely a blind observer who cannot\nread in these facts the grand truth that all this substance called\nmatter with which science deals in her manifold studies must at some\ntime in the past, I care not when, have been _called into existence in\nsome manner no longer operative_. The past eternity of matter, as well\nas its progressive development from the simple to the complex, seems\nmanifestly out of consideration in view of the facts as we now know\nthem. There is no ambiguity in the evidence. So far as modern science\ncan throw light on the question, there must have been a real Creation of\nthe materials of which our world is composed, a Creation wholly\ndifferent both in kind and in degree from any process now going on.\n\n\nIV\n\nA supposed objection has been raised to this view, based on the vastness\nof the universe as we now know it. Whether or not the universe is really\ninfinite in extent, it is certainly of an extent that is practically\ninfinite, so far as our powers of observation or of reasoning are\nconcerned. But this practically infinite universe is not a bit harder to\naccount for than would be a definitely limited universe, say of the size\nof our solar system. If the spectroscope shows that the far distant\nparts of the universe contain many of the same elements as are found in\nour solar system, we need not be surprised, since all are alike the\nwork of the same Creator. Nor would this fact that the universe seems to\nbe composed of similar materials throughout tend in any way to prove\nthat all these parts of the universe were brought into existence at the\nsame time, nor yet that our solar system was refashioned out of some of\nthe common stock of the universe already on hand, as the nebular\nhypothesis supposes. For all that we can tell to the contrary, it would\nseem probable that the materials of our solar system were called into\nexistence expressly for the position they are now occupying; and this\nseems to be the plain import of the record in Genesis. Of one thing,\nhowever, we can be certain,--these materials must at some time have been\ncalled into existence by methods or ways that are no longer in operation\naround us. \"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\"\n\n\nV\n\nSome remarks are necessary here regarding the homogeneousness of matter,\nor the idea that the various elements are composed of primordial units\nwhich are themselves alike, mere duplicates of each other. If this\nshould prove to be really the case, as seems to be quite likely in the\nlight of the facts given above, would it not be a veritable triumph for\nmaterialism? By no means. On the contrary, I think I can show in a very\nfew words not only that this homogeneousness of matter is the only\nrational view of the composition of the material universe, but also\nthat it is the only view consistent with Christian Theism and with the\ndoctrine of Creation.\n\nThe theory of the atoms with their inherent and unchangeable properties,\nwhich prevailed during the greater part of the nineteenth century,\nnaturally led us to look upon these properties as inherent in the things\nthemselves. This was indeed materialism. This view, however, constantly\nimpelled us to find out the essential differences between the various\nkinds of atoms, so as to \"account for\" their varying behaviors. And no\nmatter how far we push such inquiries, this materialistic attitude of\nmind will control us so long as we think we are dealing with substances\nwhich are intrinsically different. If the differences are innate or\ninherent in the things themselves, we must naturally endeavor to find\nout why and how they are different; and no matter how far we go along\nthis road we are always headed in the direction of stark materialism. On\nthe other hand, to say that the \"properties\" of the atoms are not\ninherent in themselves, but are imposed on them by an external\nceaselessly acting power, the will of the Creator, would be in full\naccord with Biblical theism; and then we might naturally say that the\nultimate particles of which matter is composed may well be regarded as\nalike and mere duplicates of one another. And this, as we have seen, is\njust what modern discoveries in radioactivity are teaching us regarding\nthe make-up of the substances that we call matter.\n\nBut an objection at once arises. How can these primordial units of which\nmatter is composed behave so differently, if they are really alike, mere\nduplicates of one another?\n\nWe may not as yet be able to tell just why and how; but we have in the\ncells of which all plants and animals are composed an analogy which is\nalmost perfect, if not quite.\n\nThese component units of organic matter, the individual cells, as will\nbe explained later, seem physically and even chemically mere duplicates\nof one another. They may not all be of the same size; but they are all\ncomposed of protoplasm, and the protoplasm of plants cannot be\ndistinguished from that of animals by any physical or chemical tests\nknown to modern science. The protoplasm in the brain of a bird is the\nsame as that in its toes; and no metaphysical subtilties about heredity\nhave ever explained why the one does a different work from the other.\nThe plain fact is that different cells, composed of identical protoplasm\nand structurally alike, _act very differently_; and there is no\nscientific reason based on innate properties that gives us even a\nglimmer of a reason why. We have searched a long time along this road;\nbut there is no prospect of finding an explanation; we are merely\nrunning up a _cul-de-sac_ with no view beyond. From the materialistic\npoint of view, nobody knows why protoplasm acts as it does, _least_ _of\nall, why some masses of protoplasm act one way, and exact duplicates act\ndifferently_. But if, on the other hand, we look beyond the facts and\nmethods of physics and chemistry, and even beyond the most plausible\ntheories of genetics, we can readily explain this remarkable action of\nthe cells as the result of the will of an ever acting, omniscient,\nalmighty God. Certainly nothing else is adequate to explain the behavior\nof living cells.\n\nIn a very similar way we must reason regarding the ultimate units of\nmatter, call them what we will, electrons, corpuscles, or units of\nelectricity. If these are mere duplicates of each other, as science now\nteaches, they not only indicate by this identity that they are\n\"manufactured articles,\" as was long ago pointed out of the atoms and\nmolecules, but they also indicate with all the force of a demonstration\nthat nothing but an ever present omniscient Intelligence _could keep\nthese duplicates from always acting the same_ under similar external\nforces. If gold and carbon, iron and oxygen are at bottom composed of\nparticles that are mere duplicates of each other, as seems to be the\ncase, how can these elements and the six dozen or more others maintain\ntheir individuality throughout nature as we know they do, even in the\nfar distant stars, except by the sleepless care of an Intelligence whose\nWord is as effective in one part of the universe as in another, and to\nwhose Word these particles of matter can show no inertia and no\ndisobedience, because they have no powers or properties except what He\nhas imparted? This doctrine of the homogeneousness of matter is the\nantithesis of materialism. It is consistent only with the doctrine of an\nalmighty and ever present God, and like many other facts which have been\ndeveloped by modern scientific discoveries, it confirms the other primal\ndoctrine of a literal Creation \"_in the beginning_.\"\n\n\nVI\n\nThe conclusion which our minds are forced to draw from the facts\npresented in this chapter is not doubtful, nor is it difficult to state.\nMatter is not now being brought into existence by any means that we call\n\"natural.\" _And yet the facts of radioactivity very positively forbid\nthe past eternity of matter_. Hence, the conclusion is syllogistic:\nmatter must have originated at some time in the past by methods or means\nwhich are equivalent to a real Creation.\n\nThus far, at least, the record of Genesis is confirmed: \"In the\nbeginning God created.\"\n\n\n\nII\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF ENERGY\n\n\nI\n\nWhat has been regarded by many as the greatest scientific triumph of\nmodern times was worked out about the middle of the last century by\nJames Prescott Joule and others, in determining that a certain amount of\nmechanical energy is exactly equivalent to a definite amount of heat.\nWith this mechanical equivalent of heat all the various other forms of\nenergy have also been correlated; until now we have the general law of\nthe Conservation of Energy, which says that energy can be neither\nmanufactured nor destroyed, but merely transformed and directed. And\nthis magnificent law, like that of the conservation of matter, is strong\nevidence that there must have been a real Creation at some time in the\nlong ago, different not merely in degree but in kind from anything known\nto modern science.\n\nJoule worked out the mechanical equivalent of heat by means of his now\nfamous experiment of churning water. He reasoned that if the heat\nproduced by friction, etc., is really energy in another form, then the\nsame amount of heat must always be generated by the expenditure of a\ngiven amount of motion or mechanical work. And this must be true, no\nmatter whether this work is expended in overcoming the friction between\nwood on wood, iron on iron, or in any other conceivable way.\nAccordingly, he devised an experiment in which paddle wheels were made\nto rotate in a vessel of water by means of falling weights somewhat like\nthe weights of a clock. The amount of work represented by the falling of\nthe weights was easily calculated, and so was the amount of rise in\ntemperature of the water caused by the friction of the water with the\nrotating paddle wheels. In various other ways he measured the amount of\nheat generated by a measured amount of work; and as the result of all\nhis experiments (with very slight corrections made since by means of\nmore exact apparatus), we now know that 778 foot pounds of work produce\nheat enough to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit; or stated\nin the metric system, 427 kilogram meters of work will produce a calorie\nof heat.\n\nSince these record-making experiments by Joule, the matter has been\nverified over and over again in all sorts of ways; and almost every kind\nof display of energy has been measured with more or less exactness. Even\nthe amount of food oxidized in the human body is now known to be capable\nof correlation with the other forms of energy, though necessarily very\nminute exactness of measurement is scarcely attainable in this case. But\nno scientist of to-day doubts that all the physiological processes of\nanimals or of plants conform exactly to the law of the conservation of\nenergy that energy is neither created nor destroyed by any means known\nto science. In other words, the amount of energy in our world, if\nscience can at all determine such a matter, seems to be _a fixed\nquantity_, gradually being dissipated into space, it is true, but\nmomently replenished from the sun at exactly the same rate now as\nhundreds or thousands of years ago. And while this energy is in our\nworld it is always capable of exact correlation in all of its\nmultitudinous forms, and is transformable back and forth without\nincrease and without loss.\n\nOn the discovery of the radioactive substances in 1896, some persons\nhastily concluded that the law of the conservation of energy was\ncontradicted by the astonishing way in which these substances acted. But\nfurther and more accurate experiments have set this matter at rest, as\nindeed might have been expected; for the law of gravitation itself is\nnot more immovably established in the make-up of the universe than this\nmagnificent law that energy cannot be created by any means which we call\nnatural.\n\nIn all ages there have been men who have spent their lives in the vain\neffort to invent a machine out of which work could constantly be\nobtained without the expenditure upon it of an equal amount of work. But\nthe United States patent office has got so tired of receiving\napplications for patents based on this idea of perpetual motion that\nthey have long since refused to issue any such patent where this\nprinciple is the manifest object; and I suppose the governments of other\ncountries have taken a similar stand. And why? Because they know that\nenergy cannot now be created by any device, no matter how ingenious; and\nthey refuse to become a party to any scheme that seems to imply that\nthis modern creation of energy is within the bounds of possibility.\n\nYet what is all this but a confirmation of the declaration long ago made\nthat \"the works were finished from the foundation of the world\" (Heb.\n4:3)? True, the energy we are constantly employing seems to come to us\nfrom the sun; but we must remember that the sun and its family of the\nsolar system, including the earth, were all made at the same time, that\nthey are bound together as parts of an indissoluble whole. Accordingly,\nno one can say that the total amount of energy called into existence at\nthe creation of our solar system is being added to at the present time.\nAt any rate, so far as modern science can judge of the matter, the total\namount of energy available for our world _is a fixed quantity_; and its\namount and the terms on which it was to be available for our use were\nfixed or finished \"from the foundation of the world.\" While it is a very\nsignificant fact in this connection that with all the multiform\nspeculations which have been made as to the physical source of the sun's\nheat, no explanation wholly satisfactory has yet been made as to how\nthis energy coming to us from the sun is constantly replenished or\nmaintained.\n\n\nII\n\nThe desire to find a material cause for all phenomena is instinctive in\nthe human mind, and has proved the chief impetus in a thousand\ndiscoveries. And yet, unless we are on our guard, it is liable to be a\nsource of real error whenever we are dealing with the deeper problems of\nthought. For when we have pushed our way into the inner sanctuary of any\ndepartment of nature, we almost invariably come upon a deep chasm that\nwe can pass over only by building a bridge of words. Some of these\nverbal bridges have been decorated with very dignified names, such as\n\"the luminiferous ether,\" \"gravity,\" \"chemical affinity\"; and when we\nhave shifted from the one side of the chasm to the other we impose upon\nthe credulity of the public (and even ourselves) by giving out the\nimpression that these words represent the real objective bridge on which\nwe crossed.\n\nIn how many ways do we by our theories dodge the crucial problem of how\nenergy is really transmitted, that is, how matter can act on distant\nmatter across seemingly vacant space. Gravity, and indeed all the forms\nof the attractive forces, come under this head. True, we observe certain\nregularities in the way in which these phenomena occur, and the\nphenomenon at one place seems to be somehow dependent on some exercise\nof force at another place. And so we invent an ingenious theory, and\nfortify it all around with ponderous algebraic artillery for defense\nagainst all attack. And by persistent use of such theories we hypnotize\nourselves into the belief that we are truly scientific in method, and\nare dealing with objective realities, and that these learned theories\nare something more than pretentious masks to hide our ignorance of real\nnature; when in reality these theories seem to be only a material screen\nto shield us from an embarrassing near view of the immediate action of\nGod in all the various phenomena of the world; for not many find it a\ncomfortable thought thus to live continuously beneath the great\nTaskmaster's eye.\n\nThe theory of the luminiferous ether as the medium of the transmission\nof light is one of these pretentious bridges of words. Our advancing\nknowledge of electro-magnetic phenomena may some day drive us back to a\nmodified form of the corpuscular theory of light, and then we can throw\nthis of the ether to the winds. In that case we would at least have a\nreal material cause for the phenomena with which we deal. While the\ncurrent theory of the ether has so many inconsistencies, and attempts to\nbridge over so many real chasms in our thinking that it seems truly\nastonishing to see it taught so long. By the theory of the ether the\nproblems are not solved, they are merely postponed or evaded; for while\nsolving one difficulty it creates a multitude of its own. How then are\nwe better off than before without any such theory?\n\nBeing at liberty to invent any sort of qualities for their ether,\nscientists have tried to imagine such a substance as they think they\nneed. The ether must be a kind of matter; but unlike any matter that we\nknow of it cannot have weight, or else it would gravitate together here\nand there, thus becoming more abundant in some places than in others;\nwhereas the _need_ is for a material absolutely uniform throughout\nspace, even throughout the interiors of solid bodies, such as the earth\nand the bodies upon the earth.\n\nAnother reason for supposing the ether to be a _plenum_, filling\nabsolutely all space, is that it must be perfectly frictionless; and for\nthis reason it cannot be composed of particles with spaces between them.\nIt must be frictionless, for otherwise the planets would be retarded in\ntheir motions through space. The earth, for instance, is moving along\nits orbit at the rate of eighteen miles a second; and yet the ether does\nnot pile up in front of it, nor is it made rarer in the wake of the\nearth. Moreover, during the thousands of years during which astronomers\nhave been making observations absolutely no retardation has been\ndetected in the motions of the earth or of any of the heavenly bodies,\neven to the smallest fraction of a second.\n\nIt is necessary to make the ether absolutely elastic and absolutely\nrigid. We are acquainted with many materials that are elastic, and with\nsome that are comparatively rigid. But the elastic substances that we\nare acquainted with are not rigid, and the rigid substances are not\nelastic; and to assume such contradictory qualities in the ether\ntransports us far beyond the bounds of experimental science.\n\nThese are but a few of the difficulties raised by the assumption of the\nether as a real entity; but as there is no means of demonstrating its\nexistence, except by arguing the _necessity_ of having such a medium to\ntransmit radiant energy, it follows that no multiplication of objections\nto the theory is likely to refute it in the minds of those who feel this\nnecessity. Those who refuse to admit the possibility of \"action at a\ndistance,\" who insist on inventing a connecting material medium between\nevery observed effect and some material object with which it seems to be\nin causal connection, will, I suppose, have to be allowed to exercise\ntheir ingenuity in any way to satisfy their minds, even though they may\nhave to revise their theory with every fresh discovery in optics or\nradioactivity.\n\nThere are many other ingenious mental devices, like this of the ether,\nwhich seem to me only materialistic efforts to postpone or to dodge the\nreal vital lessons to be read from natural phenomena,--efforts to push\nthe real Cause back one step farther into the shadow,--a last desperate\neffort, in the face of the constantly accumulating evidence of modern\nknowledge that the great First Cause is far more intimately connected\nwith life and motion than many are willing to believe. We have already\nmentioned gravity and the other attractive forces, such as cohesion and\nadhesion; but seemingly very few people have ever paused to consider how\nutterly inexplicable they still remain in any physical or materialistic\nsense.\n\nIt is easy to explain any form of a _push_ in a physical way; but\ngravity is _not a push but a pull_. And how are we to explain the method\nby which a body can act where it is not, how explain in detail the way\nby which it can reach out and pull in toward itself another separated\nbody, and exert this pull across the immeasurably wide fields of space?\nThe law of inverse squares may tell us very accurately the manner in\nwhich the results are accomplished, for our Creator is a God of order.\nBut there is no materialistic theory of the _why_ of gravitation that is\nworth employing the time of sensible, truth-loving people. And we can\nrest assured that there never will be any such real \"explanation,\" save\nthat this is the way which the great Jehovah has ordained. Since such\ntheories only explain the known in terms of the unknown, they can serve\nonly as a sort of mental buffer or shield between us and the conception\nof the direct working of a personal God, whose word must always be as\neffective throughout the remotest corners of His universe as near at\nhand, for the very simple reason that matter has no \"properties\" which\nHe has not imparted to it, and accordingly it can have no innate inertia\nor reluctance to act which God's word would need to overcome in order to\ninduce it to act, even when this word operates across the wide fields\nof space. On this explanation these phenomena of \"action at a distance\"\nare at least intelligible; while to me, and I speak now as a scientist,\nthey are intelligible in no other way.\n\n\nIII\n\nThere is another line of thought which has to do with living organisms,\nbut which I shall beg leave to anticipate and bring in here at the close\nof this chapter, since it follows as a direct corollary from the law of\nthe Conservation of Energy. Indeed, we might even term it the biological\naspect of that law.\n\nAs we have seen, we can neither create energy nor destroy it; though we\ncan _lose it_,--so far as this earth is concerned. The vast fund of\nenergy that daily comes streaming to us from the sun is transmuted back\nand forth in a thousand ways, though little by little it is dissipated\noff into space, and we are dependent upon a fresh supply from the ever\nreplenished fountain.\n\nJust so, though in a somewhat idealistic sense, is it with what we may\nterm vital energy. Cells, organisms, even whole races, are subject to\ndegeneration and decay. They cannot acquire higher powers, though they\nmay gradually lose what they already have; as Bateson has recently told\nus that whatever evolution there is must be by loss and not by gain.\nWater very easily runs down hill; but cannot go up hill in and of\nitself. Just so with the types of organic life. It was not merely an\nidle sneer of the witty Frenchman, that science has not yet explained\nhow an ancestor can transmit what he has not got himself. He cannot\nalways transmit all that he himself actually possesses of nature's\ngifts. Vitality becomes lowered, and the type degenerates. Weismann has\nemphasized this idea in his doctrine of \"panmixia,\" or the withdrawal of\nselection, which always results in degeneration. Selection, artificial\nor natural, may serve to counteract this universal tendency of organic\nlife, but only approximately. As Sir William Dawson says, \"All things\nleft to themselves tend to degenerate.\" Little by little the endowment\nof vitality bestowed upon our world at the beginning has, like radiant\nenergy, been returned to God who gave it; but, unlike the case of\nradiant energy, the Creator has not established any regular source of\nvital supply from without, no elixir of life for organic nature in\ngeneral. There is no longer within easy reach a tree of life from which\nwe may pluck and eat and live forever. And as the individual grows old\nand dies, so do species and even whole tribes degenerate and become\nextinct.\n\n    \"From scarp\u00e9d cliff and quarried stone\n     She cries, 'A thousand types are gone.'\"\n\nThe glorious flood of vitality, so prodigally lavished upon our world in\nthe beginning, has been ebbing lower and lower; and the theory of\norganic nature steadily advancing from the lower to the higher is\nmanifestly just as puerile as the old hope of creating energy by a\nperpetual-motion machine,--and a mistake of precisely the same nature.\nBoth are contradicted by the magnificent law of the Conservation of\nEnergy, which, as we have said, is only the scientific expression of the\nScriptural statement that Creation is completed, so far as our world is\nconcerned; though, as the \"wages of sin,\" death has been decreed upon\nthe individual, and degeneration more or less marked upon every organic\ntype. The fossils of the past, as well as our own experience within the\nhistoric period, confirm the view already arrived at on other grounds\nthat _Creation is a completed work and is not now going on_; and the\nuniversal testimony from organic nature is that degeneration and decay\nhave marked the history of every living form. Just as the individual\ngrows old and dies, so do species degenerate and become extinct.\n\n\n\nIII\n\nLIFE ONLY FROM LIFE\n\n\"No biological generalization rests on a wider series of observations,\nor has been subjected to a more critical scrutiny, than that every\nliving organism has come into existence from a living portion or\nportions of a pre-existing organism.\"[3]\n\n\"Was there anything so absurd as to believe that a number of atoms, by\nfalling together of their own accord, could make a sprig of moss, a\nmicrobe, a living animal? ... It is utterly absurd.... Here scientific\nthought is compelled to accept the idea of creative power. Forty years\nago I asked Liebig ... if he believed that the grass and flowers, which\nwe saw around us, grew by mere mechanical force. He answered, 'No more\nthan I could believe that a book of botany describing them could grow by\nmere chemical force.'\"[4]\n\n\"Let them not imagine that any hocus-pocus of electricity or viscous\nfluids would make a living cell.... Nothing approaching to a cell of\nliving creature has ever yet been made.... No artificial process\nwhatever could make living matter out of dead.\"[5]\n\n[Footnote 3: P.C. Mitchell, in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, Vol. III, p.\n952.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Lord Kelvin in the London _Times_, May 4, 1903.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Lord Kelvin, to a class of Medical Students, October 28,\n1904.]\n\n\nI\n\nEver since Ren\u00e9 Descartes, in his Holland laboratory, dissected the\nheads of great numbers of animals in order to discover the processes of\nimagination and memory, men have been seeking a physical or\nmaterialistic answer to such questions as, What is life? What is it to\nbe alive? How shall we distinguish the living from the not-living?\n\nNo one of to-day, in the light of the correlation of vital processes\nwith the general law of the conservation of energy, believes that life\nin plants and animals is a separate entity which may exist outside of\nand apart from matter. In a scientific sense, we only know life by its\nassociation with living matter, which in its simplest form is known as\n_protoplasm_. The latter has been termed the physical basis of life, and\nso far as we know every material living thing is composed wholly of\nprotoplasm and of the structures which it has built up.\n\nThis grayish, viscid, slimy, semi-transparent, semi-fluid substance,\nsimilar to the white of an egg, is the most puzzling, the most wonderful\nmaterial with which science has to deal. Chemically it is composed of\nvarious proteids, fats, carbohydrates, etc., and these in turn of but\nvery few elements, all of which are common, and none of which are\npeculiar to protoplasm itself. And yet its essential properties, its\nmechanical as well as its chemical make-up, have baffled the resources\nof our wisest men with all their retorts and microscopes and other\ninstruments of precision.\n\nProtoplasm is essentially uniform and similar in appearance and\nproperties wherever found, whether in the tissues of the human body, in\na blade of grass, or in the green slime of a stagnant pool. And yet\nprobably no two samples of protoplasm are ever exactly similar in all\nrespects, though we may never be able to detect their precise\ndifferences. These differences are due to the fact that the stuff is\n_alive_, and within it are constantly going on those changes\naccompanying metabolism, or the building up and tearing down processes\nthat always accompany life. All separate masses of protoplasm, such as\nthe one-celled amoeba or the individual cells of our own bodies, are\nconstantly taking in food and as constantly throwing off wastes. Hence,\nin the very nature of things, it is impossible to find any mass of\nprotoplasm absolutely pure. And a further and impassable barrier to\nchemical analysis, or indeed to any adequate scientific examination,\nlies in the fact that we can never deal with protoplasm exactly as it\nis, since no analysis can be performed upon it without destroying its\nlife. And yet even dead protoplasm, and especially its most\ncharacteristic constituent, _proteid_, has been found the most difficult\nmaterial in the world to analyze, and nobody as yet pretends to know its\nexact chemical make-up.\n\nThe constant effort of natural science to press back the boundaries of\nthe unknown is very liable to obscure some of the things most essential\nto any system of clear thinking regarding these matters. We are so prone\nto think that if only our microscopes were a little stronger, if only we\ncould devise more effective methods of staining or of chemical analysis\nor chemical synthesis, we might really find out what life is, or what\nmatter itself is; in short, that we might be able to solve in a\nscientific way the old, old riddle of existence. But already we have\nabout reached the limits of the powers of the microscope; and even if we\ncould devise a way of seeing the ultimate structures of which protoplasm\nis composed, how would we be any better off? Would we not have to\nattribute to each constituent of this living substance the properties\nwhich we now attribute to the whole?--that is, the properties which we\nattribute to masses of protoplasmic units, such as plants, or birds, or\nhuman beings?\n\nWe look at ourselves and we feel sure that we have a separate and real\nexistence, that we are rationally conscious and are endowed with choice\nand free will. We can say almost as much for an intelligent bird or dog.\nBut we hesitate to say how many of these powers or characteristics of\nfree and independent personality can be assigned to the unicellular\norganisms, such as the amoeba or the corpuscles of our blood. These\none-celled creatures are also alive, are just as truly alive as are\nthose composed of many cells. Even the corpuscles of which our bodies\nare composed move, and eat, and grow, and seem really endowed with\nintelligence like the higher forms of life. Suppose we could go further\nthan is now possible and could lay bare the ultimate make-up of the\n_chromatin_ of these one-celled creatures, would we even then be able to\nprove that life with all its properties is inherent in these material\ncomponents of the cells? In other words, would we really solve anything\nafter all? Or would we not rather be compelled to acknowledge that the\nsimplest, the most truly rational view of the question is that in living\nmatter we have merely a special manifestation of the presence and the\ndirect action of the God of nature which we cannot so readily recognize\nin not-living matter? This, it seems to me, is all that we really know,\nand all that we are likely ever to know.\n\nWhen we examine carefully the differences between the living and the\nnot-living, we see that the chief difference between them is in _their\norigin_. The matter of growth is not a real distinction; for crystals\ngrow on the outside, while inorganic liquids grow by intussusception, as\nwhen a soluble substance is added to them, in very much the same way as\nan animal grows by the ingestion of food. Even movement is hardly an\nabsolute distinction between the living and the not-living; for no\nmovement can be detected in quiescent seeds, which may lie dormant for\nthousands of years; and on the other hand inorganic foams when brought\ninto contact with liquids of different composition display movements\nthat very closely simulate those of the living matter. Lastly,\nirritability, though so notably characteristic of living matter, is\nscarcely peculiar to it, for many inorganic substances seem almost as\ndefinitely responsive to external stimulation. But in the matter of\n_their origin_ there is a real and a most fundamental difference. All\nliving substance arises only from other substance already living. It\ncannot arise from the not-living; or at least it never has done so since\nthe beginning of scientific observation, though on this point have been\nconcentrated the learning and the laboratory technique of thousands of\nchemists and microscopists.\n\nIt may not be out of place to quote here from one of the classics\ndealing with this subject,--words that are just as true to-day as when\nfirst written nearly half a century ago:\n\n\"Let us place vividly in our imagination the picture of the two great\nkingdoms of nature,--the inorganic and the organic,--as these now stand\nin the light of the Law of Biogenesis. What essentially is involved in\nsaying that there is no spontaneous generation of life? It is meant that\nthe passage from the mineral world to the plant or animal world is\nhermetically sealed on the mineral side. This inorganic world is staked\noff from the living world by barriers that have never yet been crossed\nfrom within. No change of substance, no modification of environment, no\nchemistry, no electricity, nor any form of energy, nor any evolution,\ncan endow a single atom of the mineral world with the attribute of\nlife. Only by the bending down into this dead world of some living form\ncan these dead atoms be gifted with the properties of vitality; without\nthis preliminary contact with life they remain fixed in the inorganic\nsphere forever.\n\n\"It is a very mysterious law which guards in this way the portals of the\nliving world. And if there is one thing in nature more worth pondering\nfor its strangeness, it is the spectacle of this vast helpless world of\nthe dead cut off from the living by the Law of Biogenesis, and denied\nforever the possibility of resurrection within itself. The physical laws\nmay explain the inorganic world; the biological laws may account for the\ndevelopment of the organic. But of the point where they meet,--of that\nstrange border-land between the dead and the living,--science is silent.\nIt is as if God had placed everything in earth and heaven in the hands\nof nature, but had reserved a point at the genesis of life for His\ndirect appearing.\"[6]\n\n[Footnote 6: Henry Drummond, \"Natural Law in the Spiritual World,\"\nChapter I.]\n\nIt would be superfluous to emphasize further this great outstanding fact\nthat the not-living cannot become the living by any of the processes\nwhich we call natural; and it would be presumptuous to attempt to\nemulate these eloquent words by seeking to emphasize the completeness\nwith which this great Law of Biogenesis confirms the truth of a real\nCreation; for the supreme grandeur and importance of this law could be\nonly obscured by so doing.\n\n\nII\n\nPerhaps some of the most impressive lessons on this subject will be\nfound in connection with the history of the discovery of this great Law\nof Biogenesis, which says that life can come only from life. For by\nstudying the history of the way in which this great Law has been\nestablished, we cannot fail to be impressed with the thought that back\nof all the complex array of living forms in our modern world which go on\nperpetuating themselves in orderly ways according to natural law, they\ncould have originated only by a direct and real Creation, essentially\nand radically different from any processes now going on.\n\nThe wisest of the ancients in Greece and Rome knew nothing of this great\nlaw as we now know it. Aristotle, the embodiment of all that the ancient\nworld knew of natural science, expressly taught that the lower forms of\nanimals, such as fleas and worms, even mice and frogs, sprang up\nspontaneously from the moist earth. \"All dry bodies,\" he declared,\n\"which become damp, and all damp bodies which are dried, engender animal\nlife.\" According to Vergil, bees are produced from the putrifying\nentrails of a young bull. Such were the teachings of all the Greeks and\nRomans, even of the scientists of the post-Reformation period, some of\nwhom had accumulated a very considerable stock of knowledge concerning\nplants and animals.\n\nAnd similar absurdities continued to be taught until comparatively\nmodern times. Van Helmont, a celebrated alchemist physician who\nflourished during the brilliant reign of Louis XIV, wrote: \"The smells\nwhich arise from the bottom of morasses produce frogs, slugs, leeches,\ngrasses, and other things.\" As a recipe for producing a pot of mice\noffhand, he says that the only thing necessary is partly to fill a\nvessel with corn and plug up the mouth of the vessel with an old dirty\nshirt. In about twenty-one days, the ferment arising from the dirty\nshirt reacting with the odor from the corn will effect the transmutation\nof the wheat into mice. The doctor solemnly assures us that he himself\nhad witnessed this wonderful fact, and continues, \"The mice are born\nfull-grown; there are both males and females. To reproduce the species\nit suffices to pair them.\"\n\n\"Scoop out a hole in a brick,\" he says further, \"put into it some sweet\nbasil, crushed, lay a second brick upon the first so that the hole may\nbe completely covered. Expose the two bricks to the sun, and at the end\nof a few days the smell of the sweet basil, acting as a ferment, will\nchange the herb into real scorpions.\"[7]\n\n[Footnote 7: \"Louis Pasteur, His Life and Labors,\" p. 89.]\n\nSir Thomas Browne, the famous author of \"Religio Medici,\" had expressed\na doubt as to whether mice may be bred by putrifaction; but another\nscientist, Alexander Ross, disposed of this suggestion by the following\nline of argument which was supposed to be conclusive as a _reductio ad\nabsurdum_:\n\n\"So may he (Sir Thomas Browne) doubt whether in cheese and timber worms\nare generated; or if beetles and wasps in cows' dung; or if butterflies,\nlocusts, grasshoppers, shell-fish, snails, eels, and such like, be\nprocreated of putrid matter, which is apt to receive the form of that\ncreature to which it is by formative power disposed. To question this is\nto question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts this let him go\nto Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of\nthe mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the in-habitants.\"[8]\n\n[Footnote 8: Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, Vol. I, p. 64.]\n\nWhen we remember that such nonsense constituted the wisdom of the\nscientific world only about two centuries ago, we begin to realize the\nfact that the doctrine of Biogenesis is indeed a very modern doctrine.\nBut it may be well to ask in passing, How could the people of former\nages understand or appreciate the great truth of Creation as we moderns\nare able to do?\n\nThe first important step toward the refutation of this old pagan\ndoctrine of spontaneous generation was made by the Italian, Redi, in\n1668. He noticed that flies are always present around decomposing meat\nbefore the appearance of maggots, and he devised an experiment to keep\nthe flies away from actual contact with the meat. The meat putrified as\nusual, but did not breed maggots; while the same kind of meat exposed\nin open jars swarmed with them. He next placed some meat in a jar with\nsome wire gauze over the top. The flies were attracted by the smell of\nthe meat as usual, but could not reach the meat. Instead they laid their\neggs upon the gauze, where they hatched in due time, while no maggots\nwere generated in the meat. Thus from this time onward it became\ngradually understood that, at least in the case of all the larger and\nhigher forms of life, Harvey's dictum, as announced some years\npreviously, was true, and that life comes only from life.\n\nBut the invention of the microscope opened the way for a renewal of the\ncontroversy regarding the origin of life. Bacteria were discovered in\n1683; and it was soon observed that no precautions with screens or other\nstoppers could prevent bacteria and other low organisms from breeding in\nmyriads in every kind of organic matter. Here apparently was an entirely\nnew foundation for the doctrine of spontaneous generation. It was freely\nadmitted that all the higher forms of life arise only by process of\nnatural generation from others of their own kind; but did not these\nmicroscopic organisms prove that there was \"a perpetual abiogenetic\nfount by which the first steps in the evolution of living organisms\ncontinued to arise, under suitable conditions, from inorganic\nmatter\"?[9]\n\n[Footnote 9: Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, Vol. I, p. 64.]\n\nThe famous \"barnacle-geese\" ought not to be omitted from any sketch of\nthe vicissitudes of this doctrine of Biogenesis. An elaborate\nillustrated account covering their alleged natural history was printed\nin one of the early volumes of the Royal Society of London. Buds of a\nparticular tree growing near the sea were described as producing\nbarnacles, and these falling into the water were alleged to be\ntransmuted into geese. Nor should we omit mention of Huxley's _Bathybius\nHaeckelii_, a slimy substance supposed to exist in great masses in the\ndepths of the ocean and to consist of undifferentiated protoplasm, the\nexhaustless fountain from which all other forms of life had been\nderived. Not long after Huxley had given it a formal scientific name in\n1868, it was discovered to be merely a precipitate of gypsum thrown down\nfrom sea water by alcohol, and thus a product of clumsy manipulation in\nthe laboratory, instead of a natural product of the deep sea. The\ndisappointment of those opposing biogenesis was severe; but the lesson\nis still of value to the world to-day.\n\nThe masterly work of Tyndall and Louis Pasteur in doing for the bacteria\nand protozoa what Redi had done for the larger organisms, is too much a\nmatter of modern contemporary history to need recital here. Upon this\ngreat truth of life only from life is based all the recent advances in\nthe treatment and prevention of germ diseases and all the triumphs of\nmodern surgery. The housewife puts up canned fruit with the utmost\nconfidence because she believes in this great Law of Biogenesis. It is\nbecause we all believe in it that we use antiseptics and fumigators and\nfly screens.\n\n\nIII\n\nBut what are the lessons to be learned from this great fact, and what\nbearing has this fact on the old Bible doctrine of a literal Creation?\n\nLife comes now only from pre\u00ebxisting life. But at some time there was no\nlife on the globe. It does not take any great exercise of \"philosophic\nfaith,\" as Huxley suggested, \"to look beyond the abyss of geologically\nrecorded time\" and recognize that at this beginning of things there must\nhave taken place a most wonderful event, essentially and radically\ndifferent from anything now going on, namely, the beginning of organic\nlife. But would not this be a real Creation in the old-fashioned sense\nof this term? We cannot avoid this conclusion; nor is there anything in\neither science or philosophy to indicate that this creation of the\nliving from the not-living was confined to _one mere speck_ of\nprotoplasm. It is absolutely certain that it required a real Creation to\nproduce life from the not-living at all; and it is just as reasonable\nthat this exercise of creative power may have taken place _in all parts\nof the earth at the same general time_, as the Bible teaches. For if a\nBeing saw fit to create life at all, why should He stop with one or two\nbits of protoplasmic units? An architect who can make his own bricks and\nother building material, can surely build what he desires out of these\nmaterials. Common sense tells us that, if the Creator really created\nlife in the beginning, He did not stop with a few specks of protoplasm\nhere and there over the earth. The ability to create life from the\nnot-living implies the ability to make full-grown trees or birds or\nbeasts in twenty-four hours, instead of waiting for months or years, as\nis usual at the present time.\n\nAs we have already found regarding matter and energy, so of life. The\nrecord in Genesis is confirmed, for modern science compels us to believe\nin Creation as the only possible origin of life,--a Creation entirely\ndifferent from anything now going on, and one that can never be made to\nfit into any scheme of uniformitarian evolution.\n\n\n\nIV\n\nTHE CELL AND THE LESSONS IT TEACHES\n\n\nI\n\nWith his usual vigor and expressiveness Henry Drummond has given us a\npicture of the remarkable fact that the cells of all plants and animals\nare strikingly alike, especially the single cells from which all\noriginate. It is easy for any one to distinguish between an oak, a palm\ntree, and a lichen, while a botanist will have elaborate scientific\ndistinctions which he can discern between them. \"But if the first young\ngerms of these three plants are placed before him,\" says Drummond, and\nthe botanist is called upon to define the difference, \"he finds it\nimpossible. He cannot even say which is which. Examined under the\nhighest powers of the microscope, they yield no clue. Analyzed by the\nchemist, with all the appliances of his laboratory, they keep their\nsecret.\n\n\"The same experiment can be tried with the embryos of animals. Take the\novule of the worm, the eagle, the elephant, and of man himself. Let the\nmost skilled observer apply the most searching tests to distinguish the\none from the other, and he will fail.\n\n\"But there is something more surprising still. Compare next the two\nsets of germs, the vegetable and the animal, and there is no shade of\ndifference. Oak and palm, worm and man, all start in life together. No\nmatter into what strangely different forms they may afterwards develop,\nno matter whether they are to live on sea or land, creep or fly, swim or\nwalk, think or vegetate,--in the embryo, as it first meets the eye of\nscience, they are indistinguishable. The apple which fell in Newton's\ngarden, Newton's dog Diamond, and Newton himself, began life at the same\npoint.\"[10]\n\nIn these remarks, of course, Drummond is dealing with the unicellular\nprimal form, \"as it first meets the eye of science\"; and while certain\nslight peculiarities (such as the constant number of chromosomes) have\nbeen detected as characteristic of the cells of certain forms, yet for\nall practical purposes these words of Drummond are just as true to-day\nas when first written. Possibly it is because of a failure in our\ntechnique or from a lack of power in our microscopes that these\nwonderful protoplasmic units from which all living things originate seem\nidentical. But it is equally possible that they _are really identical_\nin structure and in chemical composition, and that only the ever present\nwatchcare of the great Author of nature directs the one to develop in a\ncertain manner, \"after its kind,\" and another in still another manner,\n\"after its kind.\" At any rate, the _protoplasm_ of which they are all\nalike composed _is_ identical wherever found, so far as any scientific\ntests have yet been able to determine.\n\n[Footnote 10: \"Natural Law,\" Chapter X.]\n\n\nII\n\nThere are many varieties of single cells known to science which maintain\nan independent individual existence. Among the unicellular plants are\nthe bacteria, while the unicellular animals are known as the protozoa.\nAnd although perhaps I ought to apologize to the reader for seeming to\nanticipate here a part of the discussion of the problem of \"species,\"\nyet it seems necessary to say a few words here regarding the\n\"persistence\" of these unicellular forms.\n\nAmong the diseases which have been proved to be due to protozoa are\nmalaria, amoebic dysentery, and syphilis; while among the much larger\nnumber which are due to bacteria, bacilli, or other vegetable parasites,\nare cholera, typhoid fever, the plague, pneumonia, diphtheria,\ntuberculosis, and leprosy.\n\nOne of the difficulties attending the study of \"species\" among the\nhigher forms of plants and animals has always been the length of time\nrequired to obtain any large number of generations on which to make\nobservations. In the case of such plants as peas, wheat, corn, or indeed\nalmost any form of plant life, it is only with difficulty that more than\none generation a year can be obtained; and when two or more generations\na year are produced, they are produced under more or less unnatural\nconditions. So that it takes almost a lifetime carefully to test and\nrecord in a thoroughly scientific way the results of any extensive\nexperiments regarding variation and heredity.\n\nIn the case of mice or rats or rabbits or guinea pigs, many more\ngenerations can be obtained in a few years; but in the case of the\nlarger kinds of animals the time taken for development to maturity and\nfor gestation is often much prolonged; and scientific observation of an\nexact character has been in vogue for so short a time that there has\nalways been the chance for advocates of evolution to take refuge under\nthe plea that, if we only had longer and more carefully conducted\nobservations, we could really see species in the making, one form\nbecoming transformed into a distinct form, or perhaps giving rise to\nanother and distinct form as an offshoot.\n\nBut in the case of the bacteria and protozoa, we can have a new\ngeneration every hour or so, sometimes every half hour. True, these\nforms of minute life have been under observation for only a few years;\nbut their _effects_ have in many cases been observed for almost the\nentire length of human history. No physician would tolerate the\nsuggestion that the bacillus of cholera can produce the symptoms of\ndiphtheria, or the tubercle bacillus produce the symptoms of leprosy.\nNor will any scientist deny that such diseases as the plague,\ntuberculosis, or diphtheria are identical with diseases which ravaged\nRome or Greece or Egypt thousands of years ago. And as the symptoms of\nthese modern diseases are similar to those recorded by acute observers\nin Greece or Egypt two thousand years or more ago, we must conclude that\nthe organisms causing these symptoms are doubtless identical. Similar\nremarks might be made regarding fermentation and other forms of decay.\n\nIn the case of a form of bacteria which reaches maturity and redivides\nin half an hour, the number of individual forms existing at the end of\ntwo days would need about twenty-eight figures to represent it.\nDoubtless these forms never multiply at this rate uninterruptedly for\nany great length of time, or else they would occupy the whole world to\nthe exclusion of every other form of life. And doubtless instances arise\nwhere the period of growth to maturity and division is prolonged to\nseveral times the half-hour period mentioned above. But in any case, as\nwe contemplate the length of time during which such well marked diseases\nas diphtheria, leprosy, or the plague have been known, we must\nacknowledge that these unicellular forms seem to _breed true_ during a\nmost astonishingly long period. How can we deny that this \"persistence\"\nof these unicellular forms constitutes a very strong argument in favor\nof the \"fixity\" of these forms?\n\n\nIII\n\nBut we must proceed to examine the behavior of the various kinds of\ncells of which the various multicellular organisms are composed.\n\nPlants were known to be composed of cells, and their cells were studied\nand described some years before it was understood that animals also are\ncomposed of cells as units. Even then, however, the first propounders of\nthe cell theory (Schleiden and Schwann) had no clear or accurate idea of\nthe origin of cells, or of their essential characters and structure. As\nto origin, they supposed that cells arose by a sort of crystallization\nfrom a mother liquor; and as to structure, they looked upon the\ncell-wall as the really important part, the fluid contents being quite\nsubordinate. Hugo von Mohl (1846) applied to the fluid contents of the\ncell the term \"protoplasm,\" and Max Schultze (1861) showed that this\nprotoplasm is really identical in all organisms, plants and animals,\nalso that the cell-wall is frequently absent in many animal tissues and\nin many unicellular forms, indicating that the protoplasm is the really\nimportant substance. By this time also it had become known that cells\nnever arise _de novo_, as had been supposed by the earlier\ninvestigators, but that cells arise only by division of preexisting\ncells; or as Rudolf Virchow (1858) expressed it, \"_omnis cellula e\ncellul[=a]._\"\n\nIt was, however, many years before the details of the growth and\nreproduction of the cells (cell-division) became well understood. Not\nuntil the last quarter of the nineteenth century was it settled that the\nnucleus of the cell is also a supremely important part; but finally in\n1882 Flemming was able to extend Virchow's aphorism to the nucleus also:\n_omnis nucleus e nucleo_.\n\nSince these discoveries our knowledge of the methods of cell-division\nhas much increased; and in the light of our modern knowledge of these\nmatters there is nothing in all nature more marvellous than the regular\norderly way in which cells reproduce themselves according to fixed laws.\nCertain cells in the developing embryo, for example, are early set apart\nfor a particular function or for building certain structures, and\nthereafter are never diverted from this duty so as to do a different\nwork or produce a different kind of structure. In the young embryo\ncertain structures arise at certain predestined times in particular\nplaces, and only there and out of these cells alone. As to _why_ it\nshould be so, we cannot tell, save as the result of deliberate design\nand as an expression of the order-loving mind of the God of nature. In\nthe words of one of the greatest of modern authorities, \"We still do not\nknow why a certain cell becomes a gland-cell, another a gangleon-cell;\nwhy one cell gives rise to smooth muscle-fiber, while a neighbor forms\nvoluntary muscle.... It is daily becoming more apparent that epigenesis\nwith the three layers of the germ furnishes no explanation of\ndevelopmental phenomena.\"[11]\n\n[Footnote 11: _Nature,_ May 23, 1901.]\n\nIn accordance with the general principle of a division of labor, certain\ncells become early set apart to particular functions, and in accordance\nwith the varying demands of these functions the developing cells may\nbecome greatly changed in form and in vital characteristics. That is,\none cell specializes, let us say, in secretion, another in\ncontractility, another in receiving and carrying stimuli, etc. In this\nway we will have the gland-cell, the muscle-cell, and the nerve-cell,\neach cell destined to produce one of these organs developing others\n\"after its kind,\" the result being that it is soon surrounded with\nnumerous companions doing a similar work, making up in this way a\nparticular tissue or organ--gland, muscle, or nerve--which in the\naggregate has for its function the work of the particular cells\ncomposing it.\n\nBut the important thing for us to remember in this connection is that\nwhen cells once become thus differentiated off and dedicated to any\nparticular function, _they can never grow or develop into any distinctly\ndifferent type of cell with other and different functions_. It is true\nthat through pathologic degeneration the form and even the function of\ncells may become greatly changed; but never does it amount to a complete\nmetamorphosis or complete transformation into another distinctly\ndifferent type.\n\nThis is a very important principle, and it contains so many lessons for\nus bearing on the philosophy of life in general that it may be allowable\nto establish this fact by several somewhat lengthy quotations from\nstandard authorities.\n\nThe first will be from one of the highest authorities on embryology,\nCharles Sedgwick Minot, of Harvard:\n\n\"In accordance with this law [of differentiation] we encounter no\ninstances, _either in normal or pathological development_, of the\ntransformation of a cell of one kind of tissue into a cell of another\nkind of tissue; and further we encounter no instances of a\ndifferentiated cell being transformed back into an undifferentiated cell\nof the embryonic type with varied potentialities.\"[12]\n\nAgain, we have the following from one of the foremost pathologists, as\nto the strict and rather narrow limits of even pathologic change:\n\n\"Epithelium and gland cells ... never become converted into bone or\ncartilage, or vice versa; while, again, it may be laid down that among\nepiblastic and hypoblastic tissues, on the one hand, and mesoblastic\ntissues on the other, there is no new development or _metaplasia_ of the\nmost highly specialized tissues from less specialized tissues; a simple\nepithelium cannot in the vertebrate give rise to more complex glandular\ntissue, or to nerve cells; in regeneration of epithelium there is no new\nformation of hair roots or cutaneous glands. The cells of white fibrous\nconnective tissue have not been seen to form striated or even\nnon-striated muscle.\"[13]\n\n[Footnote 12: _Science_, March 29, 1901, p. 490.]\n\n[Footnote 13: J.G. Adami, \"Principles of Pathology,\" pp. 641-642.]\n\nAs implied by these quotations, a constant and progressive\ndifferentiation of cells prevails in the developing embryo; and when\ncomplete, certain groups of cells act as specialists in doing only\ncertain kinds of work for the body. These cells maintain their specific\ncharacters in a very remarkable degree under normal conditions. Under\nvarious abnormal conditions, however, these cells may become modified as\nto functions, so that cells or tissues of one type may assume more or\nless completely the characters of another type. \"But,\" as a very high\nauthority declares, \"the limitations in this change in type are strictly\ndrawn, so that one type can assume only the characters of another which\nis closely related to it. This change of one form of closely related\ntissue into another is called _metaplasia_....\n\n\"When differentiation has advanced so that such distinct types of tissue\nhave been formed as connective tissue, epithelium, muscle, nerve, _these\ndo not again merge through metaplasia. There is no evidence that\nmesoblastic tissues can be converted into those of the epiblastic or\nhypoblastic type, or vice versa_.\"[14]\n\n[Footnote 14: Delafield and Prudden, \"Text-Book of Pathology,\" pp. 62,\n63.]\n\nThis modification of function among the cells which sometimes goes on in\nthe developing embryo, or under pathologic conditions, is very closely\nanalogous to the variation which goes on among species of animals and\nplants. But, as we shall see later, there is a well marked limit to this\nvariation among species, just as we see there is in the variations among\nthe cells. Practically the same general laws hold good in each case.\n\nIf cells did not maintain their ancestral characters in a very\nremarkable way, what would be the use of grafting a good kind of fruit\nonto a stock of poorer quality? The very permanency of the grafts thus\nproduced is proof of the persistency with which cells reproduce only\n\"after their kind.\"\n\n\nIV\n\nHow can we fail to see the bearings of these facts on the doctrine of\nthe transformation of species among ordinary plants and animals, which\nare merely isolated and self-contained groups of cells? Do not these\nfacts constitute strong presumptive evidence that among animals and\nplants, though there may be variation in plenty within certain limits,\nperhaps within even much wider limits than used to be thought possible,\nyet among these distinct organisms, little and big, new forms develop\nonly after their ancestral type, in full accord with the record given in\nthe first chapter of the Bible?\n\nBut we are now prepared to examine in more detail the facts as now known\nto modern science regarding \"species\" of plants and animals.\n\n\n\nV\n\nWHAT IS A \"SPECIES\"?\n\n\nI\n\nWe have seen that there is no way to account for the origin of matter,\nof energy, or of life, except by postulating a real Creation.\n\nWe have seen that cells continue to maintain their identity, and\nreproduce only \"after their kind.\"\n\nWe must now deal with the higher forms of cell aggregates, which we call\nplants and animals. It has long been held that these at least are\nmutable, that one kind of plant or of animal may in the course of ages\nbe transformed into a distinctly different type; and of late years there\nhas accumulated a very voluminous literature dealing with the various\nintricacies of this problem of the origin of species. How can we deal\nwith such a large subject in a brief way? It seems best to confine our\nattention in this chapter to an attempt to answer the question, What is\na species? and are \"species\" natural groups clearly delimited by nature?\n\n\nII\n\nThe term \"species\" was at first used very loosely by scientific writers.\nIt meant very little more than our vague word _kind_ does at the\npresent time. Not until the time of Linn\u00e6us (1707-1778) did the term\nacquire a definite and precise meaning. The aphorism of the great\nbotanist, \"_species tot sunt divers\u00e6 quot divers\u00e6 form\u00e6 ab initio sunt\ncreat\u00e6_\"--\"just so many species are to be reckoned as there were forms\ncreated in the beginning,\"--was at least an attempt to use the term in a\nwell-defined sense. Of course, this definition assumed the \"fixity\" of\nspecies; but with the wide prevalence of the views of Darwin and his\nfollowers the term \"species\" has fallen into disrepute, and is now\nregarded by many as only an artificial rank in classification\ncorresponding to no objective reality in the natural world. Some\nwriters, as Lankester, have found so much fault with the term as to urge\nits complete abandonment in scientific literature. This is logical\nenough from the standpoint of Darwinism; for if the latter be true there\nought indeed to be such a swamping of every incipient \"species\" as to\nmake one kind blend with others all around it in the classification\nseries.\n\nBut since the term has by no means been discarded, we must endeavor to\ndetermine the sense in which it continues to be used in good scientific\nliterature.\n\n\"A species,\" says Huxley, \"is the smallest group to which distinct and\ninvariable characters can be assigned.\" The Standard Dictionary says\nthat the term is used for \"a classificatory group of animals or plants\nsubordinate to a genus, and having members that differ among themselves\nonly in minor details of proportion and color, and are capable of\nfertile interbreeding indefinitely.\"\n\nThe latter authority also adds:\n\n\"In the kingdoms of organic nature species is founded on identity of\nform and structure, and specifically characterized by the power of the\nindividuals to produce beings like themselves, who are in turn\nproductive.\"\n\nTo put the matter still more definitely before the reader, we quote the\nfollowing from a well-known scientist whose writings on the subject of\nevolution have had a wide circulation:\n\n\"There are two bases on which species may be founded. Species may be\nbased on _form_, morphological species; or they may be based on\n_reproductive functions_, physiological species. By the one method a\ncertain amount of difference of form, structure, and habit, constitutes\nspecies; according to the other, if the two kinds breed freely with each\nother and the offspring is indefinitely fertile, the kinds are called\nvarieties, but if they do not they are called species.\"[15]\n\nThis author adds that this physiological test, as to whether or not the\nkinds are cross fertile, \"is regarded as a most important test of true\nspecies, as contrasted with varieties or races.\"\n\n[Footnote 15: Joseph Le Conte, \"Evolution and Religious Thought,\" p.\n233.]\n\n\nIII\n\nWhen we look at the matter in this light, it is very evident that there\nare multitudes of long recognized specific distinctions that ought to\nbe discarded. For instance, there are some twenty odd \"species\" of wild\npigs scattered over the Old World, which Flower and Lydekker assure us\nwould probably \"breed freely together.\"[16] The yak and the zebu of\nIndia, and the bison of America, would on this basis have to be\nsurrendered, for it is well known that they will all breed freely with\nthe common domestic cattle, as well as with one another. Perhaps all or\nnearly all of the dozen or more \"species\" of the genus _Bos_ would thus\nbe included together. All of the dogs, wolves, and others of the\n_Canid\u00e6_ might thus be considered as fundamentally a unit. The cats\n(_Felid\u00e6_) are well known to breed freely together, Karl Hag\u00ebnbeck of\nHamburg having crossed lions and tigers as well as others of the family.\nPractically all of the bears have been crossed repeatedly, and the\nprogeny of these and other crosses are quite familiar sights at the\nLondon Zo\u00f6logical Gardens. Among the lower forms of life even more\nsurprising results have been attained by Thomas Hunt Morgan and others.\n\n[Footnote 16: \"Mammals Living and Extinct,\" pp. 284-285.]\n\nIt would, however, be a very hasty conclusion to say on the basis of\nthese facts that there are no natural limitations to groups of animals\nand plants. But we are entirely warranted in concluding from these facts\nthat in very many cases, perhaps in most, our system of taxonomic\nclassification of animals and plants has gone altogether too far, and\nthat scientists have erected specific distinctions which are wholly\nuncalled for and which confuse and obscure the main issues of the\nspecies problem. Among the workers in botany and in every department of\nzo\u00f6logy there have always been the \"splitters\" and the \"lumpers,\" as\nthey are familiarly called; the former insisting on the most minute\ndistinctions between their \"species,\" thus multiplying them; the latter\nbeing more liberal and tending to diminish the number of species in any\ngiven group. For a generation or more in the recent past the \"splitters\"\nhad things pretty much their own way; but of late there is a growing\ntendency to frown down the mania for creating new names. Even yet it is\nwith the utmost reluctance that long established specific distinctions\nare surrendered, as is illustrated in the case of the mammoth, which is\nacknowledged by some of the very best authorities to be really\nindistinguishable from the modern Asiatic elephant. Several fossil bears\nwere long listed in scientific books; but they are all acknowledged now\nto be identical with the modern grizzly, and as we have already\nintimated all the modern ones ought to be put together. These modern\nrationalizing methods have made but a slight impression on the vast\ncomplex of the fossil plants and animals, affecting the names of only a\nfew of the larger and better known forms. In the realm of invertebrate\npal\u00e6ontology, however, the \"splitters\" are still holding high carnival,\nin spite of the efforts of some very prominent scientists in the\nopposite direction. For pal\u00e6ontologists still follow the irrational\ncourse of inventing a new name, specific or even generic, for a form\nthat happens to be found in a kind of rock widely separated as to \"age\"\nfrom the other beds where similar forms are accustomed to be found. As\nAngelo Heilprin expresses it, \"It is practically certain that numerous\nforms of life, exhibiting no distinctive characters of their own, are\nconstituted into distinct species _for no other reason than that they\noccur in formations widely separated from those holding their nearest\nkin_.\"[17]\n\nAs a result of these methods this same author declares: \"It is by no\nmeans improbable that many of the older _genera_, now recognized as\ndistinct by reason of our imperfect knowledge concerning their true\nrelationships, have in reality representatives living in the modern\nseas.\"[18]\n\n[Footnote 17: \"Geographical and Geological Distribution of Animals,\" pp.\n183, 184.]\n\n[Footnote 18: _Id_., pp. 207, 208.]\n\nBut the situation is very little better when we come to deal with plants\nand animals of our modern world. Because, with the many thousands of\nstudents of natural science all over the world, each anxious to get into\nprint as the discoverer of some new form, the systematists have a dead\nweight of names on their hands that by a rational and enlightened\nrevision could doubtless be reduced to but a fraction of their present\ndisheartening array. For as the result of the extensive breeding\nexperiments now being carried on under the study of what is called\nMendelism (a term that will be explained in the next chapter), it has\nbeen found that great numbers of the \"species\" of the systematists or\nclassificationists will not stand the physiological test of breeding,\nthat is, they are found to breed freely together according to the\nMendelian Law. As William Bateson remarks:\n\n\"We may even be certain that numbers of excellent species recognized by\nentomologists or ornithologists, for example, would, if subjected to\nbreeding tests, be immediately proved to be _analytical varieties_,\ndiffering from each other merely in the presence or absence of definite\nfactors.\"[19]\n\nThe following from David Starr Jordan, the leading American authority on\nfishes, will serve to show how numerous have been the new names invented\nin recent years, all tending further to confuse and complicate the\nproblem of what is a species:\n\n\"In our fresh-water fishes, each species on an average has been\ndescribed as _new_ from three to four times, on account of minor\nvariations, real or supposed. In Europe, where the fishes have been\nstudied longer and by more different men, upwards of six or eight\nnominal species have been described for each one that is now considered\ndistinct.\"[20]\n\n[Footnote 19: \"Mendel's Principles of Heredity,\" p. 284, 1909.]\n\n[Footnote 20: \"Science Sketches,\" p. 99.]\n\nAnd again:\n\n\"Thus the common Channel Catfish of our rivers has been described as a\nnew species not less than _twenty-five times_, on account of\ndifferences real or imaginary, but comparatively trifling in value.\"[21]\n\n[Footnote 21: \"Science Sketches,\" p. 96.]\n\nPerhaps the reader will tolerate another somewhat long quotation because\nof the light which it sheds on this whole problem.\n\n\"Some years ago we had a parasite of a very destructive aphid down in\nour books as _Lysiphlebus tritici_. In carrying out our investigations\nit became necessary to find out whether this parasite had more than a\nsingle host insect, and whether it could develop in more than one\nspecies of aphid. To this end, recently emerged males and females were\nallowed to pair, after which the female oviposited in several species of\naphids. Both parents were then killed and preserved and all of their\nprogeny not used in further experiments were also preserved, and thus\nentire broods or families were kept together. In this way females were\nreared out of one host species and allowed to oviposit in others, until,\noften after several hosts had been employed, it would be bred back into\nthe species whence it first originated. In all cases the host was reared\nfrom the moment of birth, while with the parasite both parents and\noffspring were kept together.\n\n\"The result of this little fragment of work _was to send two genera and\nfourteen species to the cemetery_--you may call it Mt. Synonym Cemetery,\nif you choose--while the insect involved is now _Aphidius testaceipes_.\nThe systematist who studies only dried corpses will soon be out of\ndate.\"[22]\n\n[Footnote 22: F.M. Webster, of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, in\n_Science_, April 12, 1912, p. 565.]\n\n\nIV\n\nNow all this is not given to intimate that there is no scientific\njustification for the term \"species,\" but to make plain to my\nnon-professional readers what every well-informed biologist already\nknows, namely, that at the present time the \"species question\" is still\nin a very unsatisfactory state. The facts given above would strongly\nsuggest that there probably is indeed such a thing as a species, in the\nsense assigned by Linn\u00e6us, who as we have seen wished to make it a\ndesignation covering all the descendants of each distinct kind\noriginally created. But this original aim of Linn\u00e6us is to-day not\nmerely ignored but treated with lofty contempt; for according to the\nprevailing theories of evolution, all the manifold diversities of life\nin our modern world have come about gradually as the result of a slow\ndevelopment by natural process, and hence it would be vain beyond\nmeasure to attempt to determine the limits of a \"species\" in the sense\nunderstood by Linn\u00e6us.\n\nBut we may conclude, from the facts presented above, that if there is\nsuch a naturally delimited group as a \"species\" in the Linn\u00e6an sense of\nthe word, it by no means coincides with what now passes under this name,\nbut might include many so-called species, often a whole genus, or even\nseveral.\n\nWith this in mind, we must pass on to consider the next step in our\nstudy, as to whether new \"species\" are now coming into being in our\nmodern world under scientific observation, either natural or\nartificial.\n\n\n\nVI\n\nMENDELISM AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES\n\n\n\"Had Mendel's work come into the hands of Darwin, it is not too much to\nsay that the history of the development of evolutionary philosophy would\nhave been very different from that which we have witnessed.\"[23]\n\n[Footnote 23: William Bateson, \"Mendel's Principles of Heredity,\" p.\n316.]\n\n\nI\n\nFrom the latter part of the eighteenth century, attempts were\ncontinually being made to explain the origin of all organic forms by\nsome system of development or evolution. Buffon had dwelt on the\nmodifications directly induced by the environment. Lamarck had made much\nuse of this idea, claiming that such modifications were transmitted to\nposterity, and claiming the same for the structural changes produced by\nuse and disuse. Lamarck's work did not become at all popular while he\nlived, chiefly through the overpowering influence of Baron Cuvier, who\nhad an equally fantastic scheme of his own, which may well be termed a\nburlesque on Creation and in which an extreme fixity of \"species\" was a\ncardinal doctrine. Erasmus Darwin and Robert Chambers in England also\ntried to make a theory of evolution believable; though their efforts\nwere but little more successful in gaining the ear of the world.\n\nBut to all that had gone before Charles Darwin and A.R. Wallace (1858)\nadded the idea of \"natural selection,\" or \"the struggle for existence,\"\nto use the respective terms coined by each of these authors, as the\nchief means by which the effects of variation are accumulated and\nperpetuated so as to build up the modern complexities of the plant and\nanimal kingdoms. Partly because it was a psychological moment, from the\nfact that the uniformitarian geology of Lyell with its graded advance of\nexistences from age to age seemed absolutely to demand some evolutionary\nexplanation; partly because artificial selection was a familiar idea of\nproved value in selective breeding, and \"natural selection\" seemed an\nexact parallel carried on by nature in the direction of continual\nimprovement; but perhaps more largely because the abstract idea of\n\"natural selection\" involved so many intricate separate concepts that\nfor nearly a generation scarcely two naturalists in the world could\nstate the whole problem of the theory exactly alike;--on all these\naccounts the theory of natural selection, or of the \"survival of the\nfittest,\" to use the phrase of Herbert Spencer, became in the latter\ndecades of the nineteenth century well-nigh universal.\n\nBut about 1887 a faction or school arose who criticized the main idea of\nDarwin and Wallace and fell back on the Lamarckian factor of the\ntransmission of acquired characters as really the essential cause of\nthe process of evolution. Herbert Spencer, E.D. Cope and others did much\nto criticize natural selection as inadequate to do what was attributed\nto it, dwelling on the importance of the transmission of acquired\ncharacters. Spencer even went so far as to declare, \"either there has\nbeen inheritance of acquired characters, or there has been no\nevolution.\" These Neo-Lamarckians argued that natural selection alone\ncan neither explain the origin of varieties, nor the first steps in the\nslow advance toward \"usefulness.\" An organ must be already useful before\nnatural selection can take hold of it to improve it. Selection cannot\nmake a thing useful to start with, but only (possibly) make more useful\nwhat already exists. Until the newly formed buds of developing limbs or\norgans became decidedly \"useful\" to the individual or the species, would\nthey not be in the way, merely so many hindrances, to be removed by\nnatural selection instead of being preserved and improved? But, in this\nview of the matter, they argued, what single organ of any species would\nthere be that must not thus have appeared long before it was wanted?\n\nOr to use the pungent words quoted with approval by Hugo de Vries at the\nend of his \"Species and Varieties\" (pp. 825, 826), \"Natural selection\nmay explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the\narrival of the fittest.\"\n\nThis side of the argument is dwelt upon at some length by Alex. Graham\nBell, as reported in a recent interview. He says:\n\n\"Natural selection does not and cannot produce new species or varieties\nor cause modifications of living organisms to come into existence. On\nthe contrary, its sole function is to prevent evolution. In its action\nit is destructive merely,--not constructive,--causing death and\nextinction, not life and progression. Death cannot produce life; and\nthough natural selection may produce the death of the unfit, it cannot\nproduce the fit, far less evolve the fittest. It may permit the fit to\nsurvive by not killing them off, if they are already in existence; but\nit does not bring them into being, or produce improvement in them after\nthey have once appeared.\"[24]\n\n[Footnote 24: _World's Work_, December, 1913, p. 177.]\n\nOpposing these Neo-Lamarckians were such prominent scientists as August\nWeismann, A.R. Wallace, E. Ray Lankester, who strenuously opposed the\nidea that \"acquired characters,\" or more precisely _parental\nexperience_, are ever transmissible. In the subsequent years the\ngreatest variety of experimental tests have been applied to secure the\nhereditary transmission of any sort of such acquired characters, with\nuniformly negative results. One of the most elaborate of these\nexperiments was conducted by a German botanist, who transplanted 2,500\ndifferent kinds of mountain plants to the lowlands, where he studied\nthem for several years alongside their relatives, natives of these\nlowlands. He found that their mountain environment had made absolutely\nno permanent change in their structures or habits, which soon conformed\nexactly with those of their relatives which had lived in the lowland\nenvironment for centuries. Many similar efforts have been made to\nconfirm this doctrine of the transmission of acquired characters; but\ntheir universal failure is like that of mechanics in trying to invent\nperpetual motion.\n\nThomas Hunt Morgan sums up the present situation in the following words:\n\"To-day the theory has few followers among trained investigators, but it\nstill has a popular vogue that is wide-spread and vociferous.\" And we\nmay add that the extent of its spread is directly proportioned to the\nneed felt for this doctrine as a support of the theory of evolution,\nwhile the vociferance of its advocates is inversely proportioned to the\nevidence in its support.\n\nAs a result of extensive modern experiments and discussion, biologists\nhave grown very cautious, and are by no means so positive as they were\ntwenty years ago in affirming just _how_ species have come into\nexistence. Echoes of this old controversy between the two leading\nschools of biologists are occasionally heard; but the enthusiasm with\nwhich they set out a half century ago to solve the riddle of plant and\nanimal life has largely given way to a purpose to discard speculation\nand patiently to observe and record actual facts. For with natural\nselection discredited in the house of its friends, and Lamarckianism\nunder grave suspicion from want of a single well authenticated example,\nit is hard to see what there is left of the biological doctrine that\nhas so dominated scientific thought for a half century. If each of these\nopposed schools of scientists are right in _what they deny_, the whole\ntheoretical foundation for the origin of new kinds of animals and plants\nis swept away,--absolutely gone. For if an individual really cannot\ntransmit what he has acquired in his lifetime, how can he transmit what\nhe has not got himself, and what none of his ancestors ever had? And if\nnatural selection cannot start a single organ of a single type, what is\nthe use of discussing its supposed ability to improve them after the\nmachinery is all built?\n\n\nII\n\nSuch was the general condition of theoretical biology about the\nbeginning of the present century. In the meantime those who were dealing\nwith the empyrical or experimental side of these problems were seeking\nfor the causes of and the rules for variation. All living things vary\nfrom one generation to another; the question was, Why do they vary? and\ndo these variations really represent new characters comparable to new\nspecies in the making? or are they, so to speak, but an elastic reaction\nof the internal vital elasticity of the organism, all the while latent\nand only seeking a favorable expression, to return again under other\nconditions to the former type?\n\nThe effort to reduce these variations to law and system was pursued by\nthousands of investigators, with varying but at all times perplexing\nand disappointing results. But in the year 1900 the scientific world\nawoke to the surprising fact that a patient obscure investigator had\nalready solved most of the puzzles of variation and heredity some\nthirty-five years before. Gregor Mendel, born a peasant boy, trained as\na monk, and afterwards appointed Abbot of Br\u00fcnn, had in the year 1865\npublished the results of his experiments in breeding, which had been\nignored or forgotten until rediscovered in 1900 by de Vries and two\nothers simultaneously. From this point Mendelism, as it is now called,\nhas steadily gained ground, until at the present time it can be said to\nbe the dominating conception among biologists the world over regarding\nthe problems of heredity.\n\nMendel worked chiefly with peas, crossing different varieties. In his\nmethods of investigation he differed from all previous investigators in\nconcentrating his attention upon a single pair of alternative or\ncontrasted characters at a time, and observing how these alternative\ncharacters are transmitted.\n\nThus when he crossed a tall with a dwarf, giving attention to this pair\nof contrasted characters alone, he found that all the first hybrid\ngeneration were talls, with no dwarfs and no intermediates. Accordingly\nhe called the tall character _dominant_, and the dwarf character\n_recessive_, and a pair of contrasted characters which act in this way\nare now called _factors_ or sometimes called _unit characters_. But on\nallowing these hybrids to cross-fertilize one another in the usual way,\nMendel found that in the second generation of hybrids there were\n_always_ _three talls to one dwarf_ out of every four. Further\nexperiments proved that these dwarfs of the second hybrid generation\n_always bred true_, that is, one out of four; and that one out of the\nremaining talls always bred true, making another quarter of the total;\nwhile the remaining fifty per cent. proved to be mixed tails, always\nacting as did the original hybrids, splitting up in the next generation\nin the same arithmetical proportion as before.\n\nAccordingly, if we confine our study to the two contrasted characters,\ntallness and dwarfness, we see that just three kinds of peas exist,\nnamely, dwarfs which breed true, talls which breed true, and talls which\nalways give the same definite proportion of talls and dwarfs among their\ndescendants. Innumerable experiments which have since been made with\nother pairs of characters have demonstrated that this same mathematical\nproportion holds good throughout the whole world of plants and\nanimals;[25] and hence this astonishing result is now called Mendel's\nLaw, and is regarded as the most important discovery in biology in\nseveral generations.\n\n[Footnote 25: When dealing with only a few individual cases, we do not\nalways find them to come out in such exact proportion; but when the\nnumber of examples is large, the proportion is so close to these figures\nthat the exceptions can be entirely neglected as probably due to error\nof some kind.]\n\nThere are two distinct kinds of Andalusian fowls, one pure bred black,\nthe other pure bred white with slight dashes of black here and there.\nWhen these are mated, no matter which color is the father or the mother,\nthe next or hybrid generation are always a queer mixture of black and\nwhite called by fanciers blue. When these blues are interbred,\none-quarter of their offspring will be white, which will prove to breed\ntrue ever afterwards, one-quarter will be black that will breed true,\nand fifty per cent. will be blue which will break up in the next\ngeneration in the very same way as before. In this case neither white\nnor black character is dominant, and accordingly we have a blending of\nboth in the first hybrid generation.\n\nIn guinea pigs, black color has been found to be dominant over white,\nrough coat over smooth coat, and short hair over long hair. These\nremarkable results following from an experimental trial of Mendelism\nhave stimulated hosts of investigators in all parts of the world, until\nnow many varieties of plants and animals have been studied for many\nsuccessive generations, already, building up a considerable literature\ndealing with the subject.\n\nPerhaps the most extensive and exact series of experiments along this\nline have been carried on by Thomas Hunt Morgan and his assistants, of\nColumbia University. For over five years they have been breeding the\nwild fruit fly (_Drosophila ampelophila_), during which time they have\noriginated and observed over a hundred and twenty-five new types that\nbreed true according to Mendel's laws. Every part of the body has been\naffected by one or another of these mutations. The wings have been\nshortened, or changed in shape, or made to disappear entirely. The eyes\nhave been changed in color or entirely eliminated. And each of these\nwonderful variations was brought about not gradually, but at _a single\nstep_.\n\nProfessor Morgan grows justifiably sarcastic in contrasting these\ndemonstrated laboratory facts with the armchair theories that have so\nlong and so harmfully dominated biological studies. A quotation from him\nwill not be out of place at this point.\n\n\"I may recall in this connection that wingless flies also arose in our\ncultures by a single mutation. We used to be told that wingless insects\noccurred on desert islands because those insects that had the best\ndeveloped wings had been blown out to sea. Whether this is true or not,\nI will not pretend to say; but at any rate wingless insects may also\narise, not through a slow process of elimination, but at a single\nstep.... Formerly we were taught that eyeless animals arose in caves.\nThis case shows that they may also arise suddenly in glass milk bottles,\nby a change in a single factor.\"[26]\n\n[Footnote 26: \"A Critique of the Theory of Evolution,\" p. 67.]\n\nWe need not be particularly concerned here with the theoretical\nexplanations of these facts offered in terms of the microscopic or even\nthe infra-microscopic components of the germ cells. Morgan seems to\nmake out a strong case for the theory that the chromosomes found in the\nnucleus are the real ultimate units that carry the hereditary factors.\nBut he is quite decided in the opinion that these hereditary factors are\nfixed, and are not changed from generation to generation either by\nenvironment or by selection.[27] The important thing for us in this\nconnection is to get a clear idea of the results following from an\napplication of Mendel's laws to the old, old problem of the origin of\nspecies, incidentally noticing how the theory associated with Darwin's\nname now looks in the light of these new facts.\n\n[Footnote 27: In human beings it has been found that the effects of\nalcoholism and of syphilis are indeed transmitted according to Mendelian\nlaw, being the two solitary examples of diseased conditions that are\nthus transmitted. But they are so plainly pathologic phenomena that\nthere is little temptation for the advocates of Lamarckianism to use\nthem as proofs of their theory.]\n\nWe have hitherto been considering the results worked out by Mendel with\nbut one pair of contrasted characters or factors. But Mendel studied the\nrelation of other characters of the pea, and found among other results\nthat smooth seeds are dominant to wrinkled seeds, colored seeds dominant\nto white, yellow color dominant to green, etc. But when a combination of\n_two_ factors in each parent are put into contrast by cross breeding,\ntwo wholly original forms (as they seemed) were sometimes produced, and\nit looked as if these new kinds were really analogous to new species.\n\nFor example, he crossed tall yellow peas with dwarf green peas, with\nthe result that the first hybrid generation turned out to be all tall\nyellows. However, in the second hybrid generation they split up\naccording to the law as already stated, modified by the additional\ncomplication brought into the problem by the additional pair of factors.\nFor out of every sixteen plants there were nine tall yellows, three\n_dwarf yellows_, three _tall greens_, and one dwarf green. It is evident\nthat these tall greens and dwarf yellows are really new forms; and\nfurther experiments proved that they can be separated out or segregated\nand grown as pure forms which thereafter breed true. Thus we have a very\nimportant result for the breeder, for it enables him to work to a\ndefinite aim and combine certain desirable characters into a single\nform.\n\nThe term _mutation_, as already intimated, has been given to this\nprocess of producing new varieties in this way. The kinds so produced\nare termed _mutants_, and at first they were hailed by enthusiastic\nscientists as \"elementary species.\" De Vries in particular gave much\npublicity to this idea; for he thought he had really produced a new kind\ncomparable in every respect to a true species as produced by nature\namong wild plants. But the enthusiasm with which this applied result of\nMendel's Law was at first hailed by biologists has gradually subsided;\nfor it has been found that though these new forms will breed true under\ncertain conditions, they are nevertheless _cross-fertile with the\noriginal forms_, and thus the circle can be _completed back again_ by a\nreturn to the parent form, from which the new \"species\" can again be\nproduced at will with the same mathematical exactness as before.\n\n\nIII\n\nWhere then are we?\n\nClearly we have not really produced any new species in any correct sense\nof the word. If we have produced new forms that breed true and that are\nseemingly just as deserving of the rank of distinct species as many now\nlisted in scientific books, it only shows that our lists are sadly at\nfault, and that they are not all species that are called species. These\nexperiments merely indicate that _the parent form possesses more\npotential characters than it can give expression to in a single\nindividual form_, some of them being necessarily latent or hidden, and\nthat when these latent ones show themselves they must do so at the\nexpense of others which become latent or hidden in their turn. This\n_vital elasticity_, as it may be termed, or the vital rebound under\ndefinite conditions, is indeed a prime characteristic of the species\njust as it is of the individual; but like that of the individual the\nvital elasticity of the species is strictly bounded by comparatively\nnarrow limits beyond which we have never seen a single type pass under\neither natural or artificial conditions. Mutations can be made according\nto Mendel's Law; but when we have made them once _we can always be sure\nof producing the_ _very same mutants again in the very same way_, as\nsurely as we produce a definite chemical compound; and when we have made\nit _we can always resolve it at will back into its original form_, just\nas we can a chemical compound. And so, where is the evolution? or how do\nthese facts throw any light on the problem of the origin of species, any\nmore than chemical compounds throw light on the origin of the elements?\nObviously in biology as in chemistry we are only working in a circle,\nmerely marking time.\n\nAnd the bearing of these facts on the other problem of the transmission\nof acquired characters is quite obvious. Mendelism provides no place for\nany such transmission. Mendel's Law is sometimes called the law of\n_alternative inheritance_, thus embodying in its name the thought that\noffspring may show the characters possessed by one parent or by the\nother, but that it cannot develop any characters whatever which were not\nmanifest or latent in the ancestry. Changes in the environment during\nthe embryonic stage, it is true, seem sometimes to be registered in the\ngrowing form; but it has never yet been proved that these induced\nchanges can ever amount to a unit character or genetic factor that will\nmaintain itself and segregate as a distinct factor after hybridization.\nAncestry alone furnishes the material for the factor, and no amount of\ninduced change can get itself registered in the organism so as to come\ninto this charmed circle of ancestral characters which alone seem to be\npassed on to posterity.\n\nA quotation from Bateson ought to set this point at rest:\n\n\"The essence of the Mendelian principle is very easily expressed. It is,\nfirst, that in great measure the properties of organisms are due to the\npresence of distinct, detachable elements [factors], separately\ntransmitted in heredity; and secondly, that _the parent cannot pass on\nto offspring an element, and consequently the corresponding property,\nwhich it does not itself possess_.\"[28]\n\n[Footnote 28: _Scientific American_ Sup., January 3, 1914.]\n\nHeredity we now see is a method of analysis, and the facts brought to\nlight by Mendelism help us very much toward an understanding of living\nmatter. Especially does it help us to understand the complexity\nunderlying the facts of heredity, which until now have seemed so strange\nand capricious. As Professor Punnett of Cambridge remarks:\n\n\"Constitutional differences of a radical nature may be concealed beneath\nan apparent identity of external form. Purple sweet peas from the same\npod, indistinguishable in appearance and of identical ancestry, may yet\nbe fundamentally different in their constitution. From one may come\npurples, reds, and whites; from another only purples and reds; from\nanother purples and whites alone; whilst a fourth will breed true to\npurple. Any method of investigation which fails to take account of the\nradical differences of constitution which may underlie external\nsimilarity, must necessarily be doomed to failure. Conversely, we\nrealize to-day that individuals identical in constitution may yet have\nan entirely different ancestral history. From the cross between two\nfowls with rose and pea combs, each of irreproachable pedigree for\ngenerations, come single combs in the second generation, _and these\nsingles are precisely similar in their behavior to singles bred from\nstrains of unblemished ancestry_. In the ancestry of the one is to be\nfound no single over a long series of years; in the ancestry of the\nother nothing but singles occurred. The creature of given constitution\nmay often be built up in many ways, but once formed it will behave like\nothers of the same constitution.\"[29]\n\n[Footnote 29: Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, Vol. XVIII, p. 119.]\n\n\nIV\n\nVanished at last are the old theories of gradual changes in species\nperpetuated and accumulated by natural selection until at last wholly\nnew forms have in this way been produced. True variations are now seen\nto be confined within well-marked and rather narrow limits, within which\nordinary variations may occur, perhaps induced by environment. These\nfluctuating variations grade off into one another on all sides, and\ntheir differences _can_ be plotted on a frequency curve; but the very\nimportant thing for us to remember is that these fluctuating variations\n_cannot be transmitted._ Beyond these fluctuating variations come the\nunit characters or factors, which are distinct from each other, or\n\"discontinuous,\" to use the technical term, and which therefore _cannot\nbe plotted on a frequency curve_. These factors are not modified in the\nleast by the environment, and their peculiarities are faithfully\ntransmitted in heredity with all the precision of chemical law. But even\nthese factors are all within the bounds of the species. There is not a\nshred of scientific evidence that either natural or artificial devices\nhave originated a single genetic factor that was not all the time\npotentially latent in the ancestry, capable of being produced at will by\nthe proper combination.\n\nIt is a universal law of living things that all forms left to themselves\ntend to degenerate. The necessity for continuous artificial selection in\nthe sugar beet, in Sea Island cotton, in corn, in Jersey and Holstein\ncattle, in trotting horses, proves this universal tendency to\ndegenerate.[30] Natural selection in a somewhat similar way tends to\npostpone this degeneracy by killing off the \"unfit,\" but selection\neither artificial or natural cannot originate anything new, and its\nresults are here displayed merely among the small fluctuating variations\nmentioned above. Even among the real genetic factors it may show itself\nby allowing some to survive alone; but as no combination of diverse\nfactors can originate anything really new, its field for operation among\nthese factors is extremely limited. Among species also it is operative,\nkilling off some and allowing others to survive. But neither among\nfluctuations, among factors, nor yet among species can selection\noriginate anything new.\n\n[Footnote 30: The following represents the consensus of scientific\nopinion regarding the lessons to be drawn from the phenomena of our\nimproved races of domesticated plants and animals:\n\n\"One need not be a pessimist to assert the actual evidence thus far\nobtained indicates that the supposed progress made in the improvement of\ndomesticated animals and plants is nothing more than the sorting out of\npure lines, and thus represents no advancement.\"--Prof. L.B. Walton,\n_Science_, April 3, 1914.]\n\nNor is there any other method known to modern science by means of which\nnew factors can be originated which were not potentially latent in the\nancestry. The much heralded new \"species\" of de Vries and others are now\nknown to be merely new factors cropping out;[31] for though they remain\nconstant and breed true, they obey Mendel's Law when crossed with their\nparental forms, and hence are merely the result of some new combination\nof factors which can be reproduced at will by using the same method of\ncombination and segregation. The real scientific test for any form\nsupposed to be a new \"species\" would be twofold: (1) to show that some\nnew character had been added which no ancestor ever possessed; and (2)\nto show that this new character will breed true under all circumstances\nof hybridization and not merely segregate as a unit character or mere\nanalytic variety after hybridization. It is almost superfluous to say\nthat no \"new species\" originating in modern times has ever justified\nitself under these tests.\n\n[Footnote 31: Some of our leading biologists are now disposed to grow\nsomewhat humorous when speaking of this mutation theory of de Vries, as\nmay be illustrated by the following:\n\n\"The mutation theory of de Vries appears accordingly to lag useless on\nthe biological stage, and may apparently be now relegated to the limbo\nof discarded hypotheses.... The present refutation has been undertaken\nin the interest of biological progress in this country. It is now high\ntime, so far as the so-called mutation hypothesis, based on the conduct\nof the evening primrose in cultures, is concerned, that the younger\ngeneration of biologists should take heed lest the primrose path of\ndalliance lead them imperceptibly into the primrose path to the\neverlasting bonfire.\"--Prof. Edw. C. Jeffrey (Harvard), in _Science_,\nApril 3, 1914.]\n\nIn conclusion it may be remarked that biologists do not claim to have\nsolved all the problems connected with heredity and variation. But the\ngeneral results taught us by Mendelism are now established beyond\ncontroversy. Led by the German biologists, the leading scientists of the\nworld had already acknowledged that \"pure\" Darwinism or natural\nselection cannot explain the origin of new organs or new forms. And now\nMendelism destroys the other supposed foundation for biological\nevolution, by showing that small variations cannot be accumulated into\nlarge differences equal in value to a unit character or a new species.\nThus the whole foundation of biological evolution has been completely\nundermined by these new discoveries; and were it not for the wide-spread\ncredence the evolutionary theory has already received, and the\nintellectual momentum it has acquired tending to carry it on by its\ninertia into the future, it could be only a very short time now before\nthe elaborate treatises attempting to orientate with it all the facts of\nreligion and history would have to be consigned to the shelves labeled,\n\"Of Historic Interest.\" For as Bateson remarked in his recent address as\nPresident before the British Association at Melbourne, Australia, the\nnew knowledge of heredity shows that whatever evolution there is occurs\nby loss of factors and not by gain, and that in this way the progress of\nscience is \"destroying much that till lately passed for gospel.\"[32]\n\n[Footnote 32: In commenting on these views of Bateson, Prof. S.C. Holmes,\nof the University of California, well speaks of them as \"an illustration\nof _the bankruptcy of present evolutionary theory.\"--Science_, September\n3, 1915.]\n\n\nV\n\nLet us sum up the situation. We began this chapter with the question,\nHave new kinds of plants and animals originated in modern times\ncomparable in all essential respects with the idea of true species?\n\nThe answer of modern science is reluctantly obtained, but it is a\nnegative. De Vries and others have indeed originated new kinds that were\nloudly hailed as new species, and are doubtless as deserving of specific\nrank as many already listed for years in the treatises of specialists.\nIndeed there is every reason to believe that almost countless numbers of\nour taxonomic species have originated from common ancestral originals.\nBut as these so-called species are now known to be freely or moderately\ncross fertile with other related species, their hybrids following the\nordinary laws of Mendelian inheritance, we see that they are not true\nspecies but mere analytic varieties.\n\nIn short, we now know that our taxonomic classifications have been\nmarked off on altogether too narrow lines. This has tended greatly to\nconfuse the question at issue. But from our enlarged views of the laws\nand nature of heredity and variation, as well as from the original\nintent of the term _species_ as defined by the great scientist who\noriginated it, the verdict of an impartial investigator must be that we\nhave never seen a new species originate by any natural or artificial\nmethod since the dawn of scientific observation.\n\nHere again we find the record of Creation confirmed; for the failure of\nthe thousands of modern investigators to originate genuine new species\nproves that in this respect also Creation is not now going on. And all\nthe analogies from the origin of matter, of energy, of life, and from\nthe laws of the reproduction of cells, indicate that we have at last\nfound rock bottom truth regarding the vexed question of the origin of\nspecies. So far as science can observe and record, each living thing on\nearth, in air, in water, reproduces \"after its kind.\"\n\n\n\nVII\n\nGEOLOGY AND ITS LESSONS\n\n\nI\n\nIn all the previous chapters I have not been giving any very new facts\nor any discoveries of my own. True, my conclusions from the facts may\nseem novel; but in general I have been giving merely facts which are\nalmost universally acknowledged by educated men. The conservation laws\nof matter and of energy, the impassable gulf between the living and the\nnot-living, the laws governing cell multiplication, are matters of\ncommon knowledge and will be found in the appropriate college text-books\nthroughout the civilized world. Even the facts which I have presented\nregarding variation and heredity are admitted in one way or another by\npractically all biologists. But in following our general subject into\nthe field of geology, I shall be obliged to present some comprehensive\ntruths and general conclusions which are not so widely acknowledged,\nbecause only recently brought to light. However, as these facts and\nconclusions may seem very new and strange to many, I shall endeavor to\nbuild up my argument wholly on the recorded observations of the very\nhighest authorities rather than on my own unsupported testimony; though\nfor the sake of brevity I shall be obliged to refer the reader to my\n\"Fundamentals of Geology\" (1913) for some of the details.\n\nOne of the great outstanding ideas of geology as usually taught is that\nlife has been on the globe for many millions of years, that in fact\nthere has been a graded succession of different types of life in a well\ndefined invariable order, from the lower and more generalized to the\nhigher and more specialized. Quite obviously this succession of life was\nantagonistic to the former views of a literal Creation; and only on this\nsupposed fact as an outline has the modern theory of biological\nevolution been built up. For if geology cannot furnish the most\nunquestionable proof that life has occurred in a very definite and\ninvariable order, what is the use of talking about the development of\none form of life into another by a gradual process of evolution?\n\nOne of the highest scientific authorities in America, Prof. Thomas Hunt\nMorgan, of Columbia University, has recently said, \"The direct evidence\nfurnished by fossil remains is by all odds the strongest evidence that\nwe have in favor of organic evolution.\"[33] Accordingly we purpose to\nexamine carefully what this by all odds \"strongest evidence\" is like.\n\n[Footnote 33: \"A Critique of the Theory of Evolution,\" p. 24.]\n\n\nII\n\nAs with some of the other facts with which we have had to deal in\nprevious chapters, a correct understanding of the questions involved\ncan best be obtained by examining the history of the development of the\nscience.\n\nThe first man with whom we need to concern ourselves is A.G. Werner, a\nteacher of mineralogy in the University of Freiberg, Germany. For three\nhundred years his ancestors had been connected with mining work, and he,\nthough possessing little general education, knew about all that was then\nknown regarding mineralogy and petrology. He wrote no books; but by his\nenthusiastic teaching he gathered as students and sent out as\nevangelists hundreds of devoted young scientists who rapidly spread his\ntheories through all the countries of Europe.\n\n\"Unfortunately,\" says Zittel, \"Werner's field observations were limited\nto a small district, the Erz Mountains and the neighboring parts of\nSaxony and Bohemia. And his chronological scheme of formations was\nfounded on the mode of occurrence of the rocks within these narrow\nconfines.\"[34]\n\n[Footnote 34: \"History of Geology,\" p. 59.]\n\nWerner had found the granites, limestones, sandstones, schists, etc.,\noccurring in a certain relative order in his native country; and he drew\nthe very remarkable conclusion that this was the _normal_ order in which\nthese various rocks would invariably be found in all parts of the world,\non the theory that this was the order in which these different rocks had\nbeen formed in the beginning, great layers of these different rocks\nhaving originally been spread completely around the globe one outside\nanother like the coats of an onion. With this as a major premise, it is\nnot surprising that he and his enthusiastic disciples \"were as certain\nof the origin and sequence of the rocks as if they had been present at\nthe formation of the earth's crust.\"[35]\n\n[Footnote 35: A. Geikie, \"Founders of Geology,\" p. 112.]\n\nThe amusement with which this onion-coat theory is now regarded is\nhardly appropriate in view of its universal vogue among geologists about\nthe beginning of the nineteenth century, and in view of the further fact\nthat a very similar and only slightly modified substitute theory has\nbeen universally taught for three-quarters of a century _and still\nprevails_. The modern form of the theory substitutes onion-coats of\nfossiliferous rocks for onion-coats of mineral and lithological\ncharacters; and a brief consideration of this theory is now in order.\n\nAbout the time that various geologists here and there were finding rocks\nin positions that could not be explained in terms of Werner's theory,\nWilliam Smith (1769-1839) in England and the great Baron Cuvier\n(1769-1832) in France found characteristic fossils occurring in various\nstrata; and under their teachings it was not long before the fossils\nwere considered the best guide in determining the relative sequence of\nthe rocks. The familiar idea of world-enveloping strata as representing\nsuccessive ages was not discarded; but instead of Werner's successive\nages of limestone making, sandstone making, etc., these new\ninvestigators taught that there were successive ages of invertebrates,\nfishes, reptiles, and mammals, these creatures having registered their\nexistence in rocky strata which thus by hypothesis completely encircled\nthe globe one outside another.\n\nIt is true that early in the nineteenth century Sir Charles Lyell and\nothers tried to disclaim this absurd and unscientific inheritance from\nWerner's onion-coats; but modern geology has never yet got rid of its\nessential and its chief characteristic idea, for all our text-books\nstill speak of various successive ages _when only certain types of life\nprevailed all over the globe_. Hence it is that Herbert Spencer\ncaustically remarks: \"Though the onion-coat hypothesis is dead, its\nspirit is traceable, under a transcendental form, even in the\nconclusions of its antagonists.\"[36] Hence it is that Whewell, in his\n\"History of the Inductive Sciences,\" refuses to acknowledge that in\ngeology any real advance has yet been made toward a stable science like\nthose of astronomy, physics, and chemistry. \"We hardly know,\" he says,\n\"whether the progress is begun. The history of physical astronomy almost\ncommences with Newton, and few persons will venture to assert that the\nNewton of geology has yet appeared.\"[37] Hence it is that T.H. Huxley\ndeclares, \"In the present condition of our knowledge and of _our\nmethods_, one verdict,--'_not proven and not provable'--must be recorded\nagainst all grand hypotheses of the pal\u00e6ontologist respecting the\ngeneral succession of life on the globe.\"[38] And hence it is that Sir\nHenry H. Howorth, a member of the British House of Commons and the\nauthor of three exhaustive works on the Glacial theory, declares, \"It is\na singular and notable fact, that while most other branches of science\nhave emancipated themselves from the trammels of metaphysical reasoning,\n_the science of geology still remains imprisoned in a priori_\ntheories.\"[39]\n\n[Footnote 36: \"Illustr. of Univ. Prog.,\" p. 343.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Vol. II, p.580.]\n\n[Footnote 38: \"Discourses,\" pp. 279-288.]\n\n[Footnote 39: \"The Glacial Nightmare,\" Preface, vii.]\n\nAnd thus the matter remains even to-day, in this second decade of the\ntwentieth century. _Geology has never yet been regenerated_, as have all\nthe other sciences, by being delivered from the caprice of subjective\nspeculations and _a priori_ theories and being placed on the secure\nbasis of objective and demonstrable fact, in accordance with the\nprinciples of that inductive method of investigation which was\ninstituted by Bacon and which has become so far universal in the other\nsciences that it is everywhere known as the scientific method. In\naccordance with this method, theories in all the other sciences are\nalways kept well subordinated to facts; and whenever unequivocal facts\nare found manifestly contradicting a theory no matter how venerable, the\ntheory must go to make way for the facts. In other words, the\ntheoretical parts of the various other sciences are always kept revised\nfrom time to time, to keep them in line with the new discoveries that\nhave been made. There has been no lack of astonishing discoveries of new\nfacts in geology during the past half century or so, while all the other\nsciences have been making such astonishing progress. _But for over\nseventy five years geology has not made a single advance movement in its\ntheoretical aspects_; indeed, in all its important general principles it\nhas scarcely changed in a hundred years. I shall leave it to the reader\nto judge whether this is a case of almost miraculous perfection from the\nbeginning, or of arrested development.\n\n\nIII\n\nOf the _three_ general postulates or _a priori_ assumptions of this\ncuriously out-of-date medi\u00e6val science, namely, (1) Uniformity, (2) the\nCooling globe theory, and (3) the theory of the Successive Ages, the\nfirst two have already been examined and found wanting by other\ninvestigators, and have been allowed to lapse into a sort of honored\ndisuse, though their memory is still reverently cherished in all the\ntext-books of the science. The \"Challenger\" Expedition dissipated most\nof the myths that had long been taught regarding the deep waters of the\nocean; and Professor Suess has disposed of the closely related myth\nabout the coasts of the continents being constantly on the seesaw up and\ndown. These two discoveries, with others that might be mentioned,\ndispose of Lyell's theory of uniformity. Lord Kelvin and the other\nphysicists dissipated the idea of a molten interior of the earth. Hence,\nbecause these other false hypotheses have already in a measure been\ndisposed of, as well as for the sake of brevity, I shall here discuss\nonly the _third_ of the prime postulates of the current system of\ngeology, namely the theory of Successive Ages. And when we have adjusted\nthis aspect of the science of geology to the facts of the rocks as made\nknown to us by modern discoveries, we shall find little in this science\nout of harmony with the older view of a literal Creation as taught in\nthe Bible and as already confirmed by the other branches of science\nwhich we have been examining.\n\nThere are _five_ leading arguments against the reality of these\nsuccessive ages. Four of them must be dismissed here by a brief summary\nof the facts as we know them to-day, referring the reader to the\nauthor's larger work, where detailed evidence is given for each. The\n_fifth_ series of facts I shall give here in more detail, though of\ncourse even this must be but an outline of what is given elsewhere.\n\n1. In the earlier days of the theory of successive ages it was taught\nthat only certain kinds of fossils were to be found _at the bottom_ of\nthe series, or next to the Primitive or Arch\u00e6an. This feature of the\ntheory was demanded by the supposed universal spread of one type of life\nall around the globe in the earliest age. But it is now known that the\nso-called \"oldest\" fossiliferous rocks occur only in detached patches\nover the globe, while other or \"younger\" kinds are just as likely to be\nfound on the Primitive or next to the Arch\u00e6an. Not only may any kind of\nfossiliferous rocks occur next to the Arch\u00e6an, but even the \"youngest\"\nmay be so metamorphosed and crystalline as to resemble exactly in this\nrespect the so-called \"oldest\" rocks. On the other hand some of the very\n\"oldest\" rocks may, like the Cambrian strata around the Baltic and in\nsome parts of the United States, consist of \"muds scarcely indurated and\nsands still incoherent.\"[40]\n\n[Footnote 40: J.A. Howe; Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, Vol. II, p. 86.\nCambridge Edition.]\n\nAll this means that many facts regarding the _position_ of the strata as\nwell as regarding their _consolidation_ contradict the theory of\nsuccessive ages.\n\n2. Many of the rivers of the world completely ignore the alleged varying\nages of the rocks in the different parts of their course, and treat them\nall as if of the same age or as if they began sawing at them all at the\nsame time. This is true of the Rhine, the Meuse, and the Danube in\nEurope, the Sutlej of India, and the upper part of the Colorado in\nAmerica, not to mention others. The old strand lines around all the\ncontinents act in the very same way, ignoring the varying ages of the\nrocks they happen to meet; as is also true of nearly all the great\nfaults or fissures which are of more than local extent. The ore veins of\nthe various minerals are about as likely to be found in Tertiary or\nMesozoic as in the Pal\u00e6ozoic. A very similar lesson is to be learned\nfrom the fossils found lying exposed on the deep ocean bottom; for they\nare about as likely to be Pal\u00e6ozoic or Mesozoic as Tertiary.\n\nFrom these facts we conclude that practically all the great natural\nchronometers of the earth seem to treat the fossiliferous rocks as if\nthey are _all of about the same age_, completely disregarding the\ndistinctions in age founded on the fossils.\n\n3. According to the present chronological arrangement of the rocks, very\nmany genera, often whole tribes of animals, are found as fossils only in\nthe oldest rocks, and _have skipped all the others_, though found in\ncomparative abundance in our modern world. Very many others have skipped\nfrom the Mesozoic down, while still others skip large _parts_ of the\nseries of successive ages.\n\nThese absurdities would all be avoided by acknowledging that the current\ndistinctions as to the ages of the fossils are purely artificial, and\nthat one fossil is intrinsically just as old or as young as another.\n\n4. It is now known that any kind of \"young\" beds whatsoever, Mesozoic,\nTertiary, or even Pleistocene, may be found in such _perfect\nconformability_ on some of the very oldest beds over wide stretches of\ncountry that \"the vast interval of time intervening is unrepresented\neither by deposition or erosion\"; while in some instances these\nage-separated formations so closely resemble one another in structure\nand in mineralogical make-up that, \"were it not for fossil evidence, one\nwould naturally suppose that a single formation was being dealt with\"\n(McConnell); and these conditions are \"not merely local, but persistent\nover wide areas\" (A. Geikie), so that the \"numerous examples\" (Suess) of\nthese conditions \"may well be cause for astonishment\" (Suess).\n\nA still more astonishing thing from the standpoint of the current\ntheories is that these conformable relations of incongruous strata are\noften _repeated over and over again in the same vertical section_, the\nsame kind of bed reappearing alternately with others of an entirely\ndifferent \"age,\" that is, appearing \"as if _regularly interbedded\"_ (A.\nGeikie) with them, in a manifestly undisturbed series of strata.\n\nHere again we have a very formidable series of facts whose gravamen is\ndirected wholly against the artificial distinctions in age between the\ndifferent groups of fossils; and their argument is an eloquent plea that\nthe fossils are neither older nor younger but all of a similar age.\n\n5. Our last fact demands a somewhat more extended consideration; but it\nmay be stated in advance briefly as follows:\n\nIn very numerous cases and over hundreds and even thousands of square\nmiles, the conformable conditions specified in the previous fact are\nexactly reproduced _upside down_; that is, very \"old\" rocks occur with\njust as much appearance of natural conformability on top of very \"young\"\nrocks, the area in some instances covering many hundreds of square\nmiles, and in one particular instance in Montana and Alberta covering\nabout five or six thousand square miles of area.\n\nThe first notable example of this phenomenon was discovered at Glarus,\nSwitzerland, a good many years ago; since which time this locality has\nbecome a classic in geological literature, and has called out many\nponderous monographs in German and French by such men as Heim, Schardt,\nLugeon, Rothpletz, and Bertrand. This example, which was first (1870)\ncalled the Glarner Double Fold by Escher and Heim, is now universally\ncalled a nearly flat-lying \"thrust fault,\" in accordance with the\nexplanations since adopted of similar phenomena elsewhere. Without\nobtruding unnecessary technicalities upon my non-professional readers, I\nmay quote the words of Albert Heim as to the conditions as now\nrecognized in these parts:\n\n\"These flat-lying faults, of which those at Glarus were the first to be\ndiscovered, _are a universal_ _phenomenon_ in the Northern and Central\nAlps.\"[41]\n\n[Footnote 41: \"Der Bau der Schweizeralpen,\" p. 17.]\n\nThe favorite method of explaining these conditions has slightly changed\nwithin recent years, as already remarked. For whereas the classic\nexample at Glarus was at first spoken of as a double fold-in from both\nsides toward the Sernf Valley, this is now universally spoken of as a\n\"thrust fault,\" with the rocks all pushed one way. Incidentally it may\nbe noted that this very fact that what was long regarded as two\ncompletely overturned folds is now spoken of as one flat-lying thrust\nfault, is _prima facie_ evidence that there is here _no physical proof_\nof any real overturning of the strata, such as we do find on a very\nsmall scale in true folded rocks. The latter can usually be measured in\nyards, feet, or inches; while in this example at Glarus the area\ninvolved would be measured in many miles, and in some very similar\nexamples to be presently mentioned from America the measurement could\nbest be made in degrees of latitude and longitude or in arcs of the\nearth's circumference. In these larger examples it is manifestly\nimpossible that there should be any physical evidence sufficient to\nindicate a huge earth movement of this character, especially when, as is\nusually the case, both the upper and the lower strata are _quite\nuninjured in appearance_. No; the fossils are here in the wrong order,\nthat is all. And so, to save the long established doctrines of a very\ndefinite order of successive life-forms, this theory of a \"thrust fault\"\nis offered as the best available explanation. As Dr. Albert Heim himself\nonce expressed it very naively in a letter to the present writer, that\nthe strata over these large areas are in a position manifestly at direct\ndisagreement with the received order of the fossils, \"is a fact which\ncan be clearly seen,--only we know not yet how to explain it in a\nmechanical way.\"\n\nAn example in the Highlands of Scotland was about the next to be\ndiscovered. Here, as Dana says, \"a mass of the oldest crystalline rocks,\nmany miles in length from north to south, was thrust at least ten miles\nwestward over younger rocks, part of the latter fossiliferous;\" and he\nfurther declares, \"the thrust planes _look like planes of bedding, and\nwere long so considered._\"[42]\n\nSir Archibald Geikie and others had at first described these beds as\nnaturally conformable; and when at length they were convinced that the\nfossils would not permit this explanation, Geikie gives us some very\npicturesque details as to how natural they look.\n\nThe thrust planes, he says, are with much difficulty distinguished \"from\nordinary stratification planes, like which they have been plicated,\nfaulted, and denuded. Here and there, as a result of denudation, a\nportion of one of them appears capping a hilltop. One almost refuses to\nbelieve that the little outlier on the summit does not lie normally on\nthe rocks below it, but on a nearly horizontal fault by which it has\nbeen moved into its place.\"\n\nOf a similar example in Ross Shire he declares:\n\n\"Had these sections been planned for the purpose of deception, they\ncould not have been more skilfully devised, ... and no one coming first\nto the ground would suspect that what appears to be a normal\nstratigraphical sequence is not really so.\"[43]\n\n[Footnote 42: \"Manual,\" pp. 111, 534.]\n\n[Footnote 43: _Nature_, November 13, 1884, pp. 29-35.]\n\nHere again we have unequivocal testimony from the most competent of\nobservers that there is _no physical evidence whatever_ to lead any one\nto say that a ponderous scale of the earth's crust was really pushed up\non top of other portions, as this makeshift theory of \"thrust faults\"\ninvolves. The _fossils are here in the wrong order_, just as in the case\nat Glarus; that is all. The facts seem to be a flat contradiction to the\ntheory of definite successive ages, and to save the theory this\nexplanation of a \"thrust fault\" is invented, though there is absolutely\nno physical evidence of any disturbance of the strata.\n\nOur next stopping place is in the Southern Appalachian Mountains of\neastern Tennessee and northern Georgia. Here we have the Carboniferous\nstrata dipping gently to the southeast, like an ordinary low monocline,\n_under_ Cambrian or Lower Silurian, one of these so-called faults having\na reported length of 375 miles,[44] while in another instance the upper\nstrata are said to have been pushed about eleven miles in the direction\nof the \"thrust.\"[45] These conditions, we are told, \"have provoked the\nwonder of the most experienced geologists,\"[46] because of the perfectly\nnatural appearance of the surfaces of the strata affected; or as this\nsame writer puts it, \"The mechanical effort is great beyond\ncomprehension, but the effect upon the rocks is inappreciable,\" and \"the\nfault dip is often parallel to the bedding of the one or the other\nseries of strata.\"[47] Which means, in other words, that these \"thrust\nplanes\" _look just like ordinary planes of bedding between conformable\nstrata_.\n\n[Footnote 44: Bailey Willis, Geol. Survey, Report, Vol. 13, p. 228.]\n\n[Footnote 45: C.W. Hayes, _Bull. Geol. Soc_., Vol. 2, pp. 141-154.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Willis, _op. cit_., p. 228.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Willis, _op. cit_., p. 227.]\n\nThe Rocky Mountains furnish examples of many kinds of natural phenomena\non the very largest scale, and those of the sort here under\nconsideration are no exception to this rule. For here we have an immense\narea east of the main divide, extending from the middle of Montana up to\nthe Yellowhead Pass in Alberta, or over 350 miles long, where the tops\nof the mountains consist of jointed limestones or argillites of\nAlgonkian or pre-Cambrian \"age,\" resting on soft Cretaceous shales.\nOften the greater part of the mass of a range will consist of these\n\"older\" and harder rocks, which by the erosion of the soft underlying\nshales are left standing in picturesque, rectangular, cathedral-like\nmasses, easily recognizable as far off as they can be seen. And the\nalmost entire absence of trees or other vegetation helps one to trace\nout the relationship of these formations over immense areas with little\nor no difficulty.\n\nIn the latitude of the Bow River, near the Canadian Pacific main line,\nthere is a long narrow valley of these Cretaceous beds some sixty-five\nmiles long, called the Cascade Trough, with of course pre-Cambrian\nmountains on each side. Somewhat further south there are two of these\nCretaceous valleys parallel to one another, and in some places _three_;\nwhile just south of the fiftieth parallel of latitude, at Gould's Dome,\nthere are actually _five parallel ranges_ of these Pal\u00e6ozoic mountains,\n_with four Cretaceous valleys in between_, one of these valleys, the\nCrow's Nest Trough, being ninety-five miles long.\n\nBut we ought to take a nearer view of these wonderful conditions. A\nconvenient point of approach will be just east of Banff, Alberta, near\nKananaskis Station, where the Fairholme Mountain has been described by\nR.G. McConnell of the Canadian Survey. The latter remarks with amazement\non the perfectly natural appearance of these Algonkian limestones\nresting in seeming conformability on Cretaceous shales, and says that\nthe line of separation between them, called in the theory the \"thrust\nplane,\" resembles in all respects an ordinary stratification plane. I\nquote his language:\n\n\"The angle of inclination of its plane to the horizon is _very low_, and\nin consequence of this its outcrop follows a very sinuous line along the\nbase of the mountains, and _acts exactly like the line of contact of two\nnearly horizontal formations_.\n\n\"The best places for examining this fault are at the gaps of the Bow and\nof the south fork of Ghost River.... The fault plane here is nearly\nhorizontal, and the two formations, viewed from the valley, _appear to\nsucceed one another conformably.\"[48]\n\n[Footnote 48: Annual Report, 1886, Part D, pp. 33, 34.]\n\nThis author adds the further interesting detail that the underlying\nCretaceous shales are \"very soft,\" and \"have suffered very little by the\nsliding of the limestone over them.\"[49]\n\nAbout a hundred miles further south, but still in Alberta, we have the\nwell-known Crow's Nest Mountain, a lone peak, which consists of these\nsame Algonkian limestones resting on a Cretaceous valley \"in a nearly\nhorizontal attitude,\" as G.M. Dawson says, which \"in its structure and\ngeneral appearance much resembles Chief Mountain,\"[50] another detached\npeak some fifty miles further south, just across the boundary line in\nMontana.\n\nChief Mountain has been well described by Bailey Willis,[51] who\nestimates that the Cretaceous beds underneath this mountain must be\n3,500 feet thick; while the so-called \"thrust plane is essentially\n_parallel to the bedding_\" of the upper series.[52]\n\n\"This apparently is true not only of the segments of thrust surface\nbeneath eastern Flattop, Yellow, and Chief Mountain, but also of the\nmore deeply buried portions which appear to dip with the Algonkian\nstrata into the syncline. While observation is not complete, it may be\nassumed on a basis of fact that thrust surfaces and bedding are nearly\nparallel over extensive areas.\"[53]\n\n[Footnote 49: Report, 1886, Part D, p. 84.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Report, 1885, Part B, p. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 51: _Bull. Geol. Soc._, Vol. 13, pp. 305-352.]\n\n[Footnote 52: _Id_., p. 336.]\n\n[Footnote 53: _Id_., p. 336.]\n\nQuite recently this region has been studied by Marius R. Campbell of the\nWashington Survey Staff (Bulletin 600), while the part in Alberta has\nbeen studied by Rollin T. Chamberlin of Chicago. Much of the vast area\ninvolved is not yet well explored; but over it all, so far as it has\nbeen fully examined, the same lithological and stratigraphical\nstructures reappear with the persistence of a repeating decimal. And\nwere it not for the exigencies of the theory of Successive Ages, this\nwhole region of some five or six thousand square miles would be\nconsidered as only an ordinary example, on a rather large scale, of\nundisturbed horizontal stratification cut up by erosion into mountains\nof denudation, with of course occasional instances of minor local\ndisturbances here and there, as would be expected over an area of this\nextent.\n\nRichards and Mansfield in a recent paper describe the \"Bannock\nOverthrust,\" some 270 miles long, in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. The\nCarnegie Research recently reported a similar phenomenon about 500 miles\nlong in northern China.\n\nBut it would be tiresome to follow these conditions around the world. We\nhave plenty of examples, and we have them described by the foremost of\nliving geologists. What we need to do now is to adopt a true scientific\nattitude of mind, a mind freed from the hypnotizing influence of the\ncurrent theories, in order correctly to interpret the facts as we\nalready have them.\n\n_How much of the earth's crust would we have to find_ in this upside\ndown order of the fossils, before we would be convinced that there must\nbe something hopelessly wrong with this theory of Successive Ages which\ndrives otherwise competent observers to throw away their common sense\nand cling desperately to a fantastic theory in the very teeth of such\nfacts?\n\nThe science of geology as commonly taught is truly in a most astonishing\ncondition, and doubtless presents the most peculiar mixture of fact and\nnonsense to be found in the whole range of our modern knowledge. In any\nminute study of a particular set of rocks in a definite locality,\ngeology always follows facts and common sense; while in any general view\nof the world as a whole, or in any correlation of the rocks of one\nregion with those of another region, it follows its absurd, unscientific\ntheories. But wherever it agrees with facts and common sense, it\ncontradicts these absurd theories; and wherever it agrees with these\ntheories, it contradicts facts and common sense. That most educated\npeople still believe its main thesis of _a definite age for each\nparticular kind of fossil_ is a sad but instructive example of the\neffects of mental inertia.\n\n\nIV\n\nThe reader will find this matter discussed at length in the author's\n\"Fundamentals of Geology\"; but here it will be necessary only to draw\nsome very obvious conclusions from the _five facts_ which we have set in\nopposition to the theory of Successive Ages.\n\n1. The first and absolutely incontrovertible conclusion is that this\ntheory of successive ages must be a gross blunder, in its baleful\neffects on every branch of modern thought deplorable beyond computation.\nBut it is now perfectly obvious that the geological distinctions as to\nage between the fossils are fantastic and unjustifiable. No one kind of\ntrue fossil can be proved to be older or younger than another\nintrinsically and necessarily, and the methods of reasoning by which\nthis idea has been supported in the past are little else than a\nburlesque on modern scientific methods, and are a belated survival from\nthe methods of the scholastics of the Middle Ages.\n\nNot by any means that all rock deposits are of the same age. The lower\nones in any particular locality are of course \"older\" than the upper\nones, that is, they were deposited first. _But from this it by no means\nfollows that the fossils contained in these lower rocks came into being\nand lived and died before the fossils in the upper ones_. The latter\nconclusion involves several additional assumptions which are wholly\nunscientific in spirit and incredible as matters of fact, one of which\nassumptions is the _biological form of the onion-coat theory_. But since\nthousands of modern living kinds of plants and animals are found in the\nfossil state, _man included_, and no one of them can be proved to have\nlived for a period of time alone and before others, we must by other\nmethods, more scientific and accurate than the slipshod methods hitherto\nin vogue, attempt to decide as best we can how these various forms of\nlife were buried, and how the past and the present are connected\ntogether. But the theory of definite successive ages, with the forms of\nlife appearing on earth in a precise and invariable order, is dead for\nall coming time for every man who has had a chance to examine the\nevidence and has enough training in logic and scientific methods to know\nwhen a thing is really proved.\n\nAnd how utterly absurd for the friends of the Bible to spend their time\nbandying arguments with the evolutionist over such minor details as the\nquestion of just what geological \"age\" should be assigned for the first\nappearance of man on the earth, when the evolutionist's major premise is\nitself directly antagonistic to the most fundamental facts regarding the\nfirst chapters of the Bible, and above all, when this major premise is\nreally the weakest spot in the whole theory, the one sore spot that\nevolutionists never want to have touched at all.\n\nI fancy I hear some one object, and ask what we are to do with the\nsystematic arrangement of the fossils, the so-called \"geological\nsuccession,\" that monument to the painstaking labors of thousands of\nscientists all over the world. This geological series is still on our\nhands; what are we to do with it?\n\nIt is scarcely necessary for me to say that this arrangement of the\nfossils is not at all affected by my criticism of the cause of the\ngeological changes. _The geological series is merely an old-time\ntaxonomic series, a classification of the forms of life that used_ _to\nlive on the earth_, and is of course just as artificial as any similar\narrangement of the modern forms of life would be.\n\nWe may illustrate the matter by comparing this series with a card index.\nThe earlier students of geology arranged the outline of the order of the\nfossils by a rather general comparison with the series of modern life\nforms, which happened to agree fairly well with the order in which they\nhad found the fossils occurring in England and France. But only a block\nout of the middle of the complete card index could be made up from the\nrocks of England and France; the rest has had to be made up from the\nrocks found elsewhere. Louis Agassiz did herculean work in rearranging\nand trimming this fossil card index so as to make it conform better, not\nonly to the companion card index of the modern forms of life, but also\nto that of the embryonic series. From time to time even now\nreadjustments are made in the details of all three indexes, the fossil,\nthe modern, and the embryonic, the method of rearrangement being\ncharmingly simple: _just taking a card out of one place and putting it\ninto another place_ where we may think it more properly belongs. And\nthen if we can convince our fellow scientists over the world that our\nrearrangement is justified, our adjustment will stand,--until some one\nelse arises to do a better job. When a new set of rocks is found in any\npart of the world it is simplicity itself for any one acquainted with\nthe fossil index system to assign these new beds to their proper place,\nthough of course the one doing this must be prepared to defend his\nassignment with pertinent and sufficient taxonomic reasons.\n\nIn view of these facts, we need not be concerned as to the fate of the\ngeological classification of the fossils. It is a purely artificial\nsystem, just as is the modern classification; but both are useful, and\nso far as they represent true relationships they will both stand\nunaffected by any change we may make in our opinions as to how the\nfossils were buried. But in view of this purely artificial character of\nthe geological series, what a strange sight is presented by the usual\nmethods employed to \"prove\" the exact order in which evolution has taken\nplace, such for instance as the use made of the graded series of fossil\n\"horses,\" to illustrate some particular theory of _just how_ organic\ndevelopment has occurred. One might just as well arrange the modern dogs\nfrom the little spaniel to the St. Bernard, for the geological series is\njust as artificial as would be this of the dogs.\n\n2. Another conclusion from the facts enumerated above is that there has\nobviously been a great world catastrophe, and that this must be assigned\nas the cause of a large part,--_just how large a part_ it is at present\ndifficult to say,--of the changes recorded in the fossiliferous rocks.\nThis sounds very much like a modern confirmation of the ancient record\nof a universal Deluge; and I say confidently that no one who will\ncandidly examine the evidence now available on this point can fail to\nbe impressed with the force of the argument for a world catastrophe as\nthe general conclusion to be drawn from the fossiliferous rocks all over\nthe globe.\n\n3. Finally, there is the further conclusion, the only conclusion now\npossible, if there is no definite order in which the fossils occur,\nnamely, that life in all its varied forms _must have originated on the\nglobe by causes not now operative_, and this Creation of all the types\nof life may just as reasonably have taken place all at once, as in some\norder prolonged over a long period.\n\nAs I have pointed out in my \"Fundamentals,\" a strict scientific method\nmay destroy the theory of Successive Ages, and it may show that there\nhas been a great world catastrophe. But here the work of strict\ninductive science ends. It cannot show just how or when life or the\nvarious kinds of life did originate, it can only show _how it did not_.\nIt destroys forever the fantastic scheme of a definite and precise order\nin which the various types of life occurred on the globe, and thus it\n_leaves the way open_ to say that life must have originated by just such\na literal Creation as is recorded in the first chapters of the Bible.\nBut this is as far as it can be expected to go. It is strong evidence in\nfavor of a direct and literal Creation; but it furnishes this evidence\nby indirection, that is, by demolishing the only alternative or rival of\nCreation that can command a moment's attention from a rational mind.\n\n_But if life is not now being created from the not-living, if new kinds\nof life are not now appearing by natural process, if above all we cannot\nprove in any way worthy of being called scientific that certain types of\nlife lived before others, if in fine man himself is found fossil and no\none fossil can be proved older than another or than that of man himself,\nwhy is not a literal Creation demonstrated as a scientific certainty for\nevery mind capable of appreciating the force of logical reasoning?_\n\n\n\nVIII\n\nCREATION AND THE CREATOR\n\n\nI\n\nWe need not here attempt to discuss the existence or even the nature of\nGod. The Infinite One in all His attributes is above and beyond\ndiscussion. But there are some things that we can very profitably gather\ntogether as the net results of modern scientific investigation regarding\nthe origin of things; and to this task we must now address ourselves in\na very brief way.\n\nWe shall not attempt to deal with the astronomical aspects of the\nquestion, or the origin of our world as a planet or the origin of the\nsolar system. This would lead us too far afield. We shall make more\nprogress in dealing with the questions nearest at hand, namely, the\norigin of the present order of things on our globe.\n\nFirst we must summarize the facts as we now know them in the five\ndepartments of knowledge with which we have had to deal.\n\n1. Both matter and energy seem now to be at a standstill, so far as\ncreation is concerned; no means being known to science whereby the fixed\nquantity of both with which we have to deal in this world can be\nincreased (or diminished) in the slightest degree.\n\n2. The origin of life is veiled in a mist that science has not dispelled\nand does not hope to dispel. By none of the processes that we call\nnatural can life now be produced from the not-living.\n\n3. Unicellular forms can come only from preexisting cells of the same\nkind; and even the individual cells of a multicellular organism, when\nonce differentiated, reproduce only other cells after their own kind.\n\n4. Species of plants and animals have wonderful powers of variation; but\nthese variations seem to be regulated and predestined in accordance with\ndefinite laws, and in no instance known to science has this variation\nresulted in producing what could properly be called a distinct new kind\nof plant or animal.\n\n5. Geology has been supposed to prove that there has been a long\nsuccession of distinct types of life on the globe in a very definite\norder extending through vast ages of time. This is now known to be a\nmistake. Most living forms of plants and animals are also found as\nfossils; but there is no possible way of telling that one kind of life\nlived and occupied the world before others, or that one kind of life is\nintrinsically older than any other or than the human race.\n\n\nII\n\nIn view of such facts as these, what possible chance is there for a\nscheme of organic evolution?\n\nMust we not say that every possible form of the development theory is\nhereby ruled out of court? There can be no thought of the gradual\ndevelopment of organic nature by every-day processes in a world where\nsuch facts prevail. Rather must we say, with the force of the\naccumulated momentum of all that has been won by modern science, that,\ninstead of the animals and plants on our world having arisen by a\nlong-drawn-out process of change and development of one kind into\nanother, there must have been just such a literal Creation at the\nbeginning as the Bible describes. As we stand with uncovered head and\nbowed form in the presence of this great truth, it would seem almost\nlike sacrilege to attempt by rhetoric to adorn it. Its inevitableness,\nits majesty, its transcendent importance for our generation, would only\nbe obscured by so doing.\n\nThe essential idea of the Evolution theory is _uniformity_. It seeks to\nshow that the present orders of plant and animal life originated by\ncauses or processes identical with those now said to be operating in our\nmodern world. It denies that at any particular time in the past causes\nand processes were in operation to originate the present order of nature\nwhich were essentially different from the processes now operating in our\nworld under what we call natural law. Evolution seeks to smooth out all\ndistinction between Creation and the modern r\u00e9gime of \"natural law.\"\n\nOn the other hand, the essential idea of the Christian doctrine of\nCreation is that, back at a period called \"the beginning,\" forces and\npowers were brought into exercise and results were accomplished which\nhave not since been exercised or accomplished. In other words, the\norigin of the world and the things upon it was essentially and radically\n_different_ from the manner in which the present order of nature is now\nbeing sustained and perpetuated. The mere matter of _time_ is in no way\nthe essential idea in the problem. The question of _how much time_ was\noccupied in the work of Creation is of no importance, neither is the\nquestion of _how long ago_ it took place. The one essential idea is that\nthe processes and methods of Creation are beyond us, for we have nothing\nwith which to measure it; Creation and the reign of \"natural law\" are\nessentially incommensurable. The one thing that the doctrine of Creation\ninsists upon is that the origin of our world and of the things upon it\nmust have been brought about by some direct and unusual manifestation of\nthe power of the Being whom we call the Creator; and that since this\noriginal Creation the things of nature have been perpetuated and\nsustained by processes and methods which (though still essentially\ninscrutable by us) we call the order of nature and the reign of natural\nlaw.\n\nBut in view of the series of facts enumerated in the previous pages, the\ndoctrine of Creation is established by modern scientific discoveries\nalmost like the conclusion of a mathematical problem.\n\n\nIII\n\nHow are modern intelligent men and women to avoid any longer this\ninevitable conclusion of a literal Creation as the method of origin for\nour world and the things upon it?\n\nThe facts enumerated in the previous pages are not new; it is only the\npresent grouping and arrangement of them, and the conclusions drawn from\nthem, that are new. Of all the leading facts enumerated above, only the\nlast one, the one regarding geology, is any longer a subject of serious\ndiscussion by educated people. And the general facts as stated above\nregarding geology have been proved (by the present writer) with such a\nwealth of facts and arguments that they also must speedily be\nacknowledged by scientists, when the latter take the trouble to study\nthese facts and arguments. And with geology once adjusted to a system of\nreal inductive science, instead of being as hitherto under the hypnotic\ncontrol of speculative fancies and subjective methods, there is no\nlonger any room for speculations regarding the origin of our world by\nevolutionary processes. It becomes almost a mathematical Q.E.D. _that\nthings were made in the beginning by methods and processes that are no\nlonger operative_, so far as science can observe. This means a real\nCreation, in the Bible sense of the term, something distinct from the\nmeans by which nature is now being sustained and carried on. Any attempt\nto describe the _why_ or the _how_ of this Creation would be useless\nspeculation; but _this much is science_, and science that is to-day all\nthe more impressive and conclusive because it has been won by centuries\nof conflict with every conceivable opposing prejudice.\n\n\nIV\n\nIn conclusion we may attempt to speak in a brief way of the present\nrelationship between the Creator and the things which He has made, and\nif possible to dispel the sad confusion prevailing in many minds between\nGod's continued immediate action in certain departments of nature and\nHis action in other departments through the intermediate use of second\ncauses.\n\nOn every hand we hear proclaimed a form of the doctrine of God's\nomnipresence (usually called the divine \"immanence\") which not only\ndenies all distinction between the original Creation and the present\nperpetuation of the world, but a form which practically denies all\nsecond causes, and which cannot well be distinguished from pantheism,\nthough it would be a spiritualistic or \"idealistic\" form of pantheism,\nor \"monism,\" to use the favorite modern term. These extreme advocates of\nwhat they term the divine \"immanence\" go so far as to deny all second\ncauses. And while they are fond of proclaiming this idea as an entirely\nnew discovery, and proclaiming it with all the enthusiasm of proselytes\nto a new religion, they are also prone to state the (seemingly) opposed\ndoctrine of second causes in such a way that it amounts to a mere\ncaricature, a burlesque, picturing a sort of \"absentee\" God, who started\nthe universe running and now merely stands by and watches it go. Thus\npantheism and deism are often spoken of as the only alternatives for the\nchoice of the modern man; for the real teachings of the Bible and of\nChristian philosophy are as completely ignored as if they had never been\nformulated or taught by intelligent people.\n\nLet us first consider the scientific aspects of the doctrine of second\ncauses, and the doctrine of God's immediate acting in various\ndepartments (or all departments) of nature.\n\n1. We cannot deny that the will of man is a real cause, producing\ncontinual changes in the world about us. More than this, if there are\nnot also second causes outside of the will of free intelligent\npersonalities, the whole universe must be a gigantic deception; for it\nseems to be full of second causes. Long chains of what seem like second\ncauses exist, made up of infinite numbers of links, as when the sun\ncarries an amount of water up into the air, the latter dropping the\nwater upon a mountain in the form of rain, gravity rolling it down the\nslope in vast force, sweeping away villages and towns, changing the\nfates of individuals and of nations. To quote two familiar examples from\nStewart and Tait: \"In a steam engine the amount of work produced depends\nupon the amount of heat carried from the boiler into the condenser; and\nthis amount depends in its turn upon the amount of coal which is burned\nin the furnace of the engine. In like manner the velocity of the bullet\nwhich issues from the rifle depends upon the transformation of the\nenergy of the powder; this in turn depends upon the explosion of the\npercussion cap; this again upon the fall of the trigger; and lastly this\nupon the finger of the man who fires the rifle.\"[54] Thus even the very\nstrongest opponents of the idea of second causes never deny that the\nlatter seem to surround us on every side, and that it would be possible\nto trace a continuous line of apparent effects and causes back to the\nvery beginning.\n\n[Footnote 54: \"The Unseen Universe,\" p. 184.]\n\nThis view of the matter, it is evident, readily leads to a deistic view\nof the universe,--or to that burlesque of the Christian view spoken of\nas the doctrine of an \"absentee God,\" watching His universe run from the\noutside, slightly concerned with what it does.\n\n2. On the other hand, a careful study of the correlation of forces shows\nus that the great First Cause is still very closely related to the\noperation of His universe. We may start, for instance, with the old\nargument from the evidences of _design_ in nature, which, though often\nsneered at of late, cannot be cavalierly dismissed in this way; for, as\nDugald Stewart has well said, \"every combination of means to an end\nimplies intelligence.\" But the direct or immediate action of the great\nIntelligence behind nature is manifest in the marvellous behavior of\nthe cells; which, instead of behaving in a way to indicate that their\nlife processes are due to properties inherent in the atoms and molecules\ncomposing them, show every appearance of being _mere automata_ under the\ndirect control of an intelligent, purpose-filled Mind,--a Mind external\nto themselves, it is true, and gloriously transcending them, but\nconstantly, ceaselessly exercised by an immediate action which we may\nwell call \"immanent,\" in the original and proper sense of this term. Yet\nvital action is capable of exact correlation with the other forces of\nnature; and thus the modern law of the correlation of forces teaches us\nthat the energy behind life must be the same as the energy pervading all\nnature, the various manifestations of which we know as light, heat,\ngravity, electricity, etc. Thus while the study of the behavior of life\nor the doctrine of \"vitalism\" might encourage us to think that in the\ncells and in the behavior of protoplasm we are witnessing the direct\naction of an intelligent Creator; yet we find that by the correlation of\nforces we must _say the same about all the physical and chemical\nphenomena of nature_. In other words, while the study of mere physical\nand chemical action might easily lead us to a strong belief in second\ncauses, or to the belief that in this department of nature at least\ncertain \"properties\" had been imparted to matter and it had then been\nleft to act largely by itself; yet, since the vital processes of living\norganisms are capable of exact correlation with all other forces, such\nas light, heat, and electricity, the direct action of this universal\nall-controlling Mind in all the phenomena of nature seems demonstrated\nbeyond a doubt, leaving apparently little or no room for any action of\nsecond causes.\n\nBut this view of the matter, as is very evident, is liable to lead to a\npantheistic view of the universe, than which nothing could be more\nhorrible.\n\nHow then shall we reconcile these conflicting views?\n\nIn this case, as in so many others, the Bible comes in to show us the\nrational _via media_, the straight path of reason and sound philosophy\nwhich avoids the absurdities of both extremes.\n\nThe plain and unambiguous teaching of the Bible is that God, the\nCreator, is a being, a person, infinite in all His powers and\nperfections, omnipresent throughout the universe; yet that there is a\nplace in which He is to be found, or where He abides, in a sense in\nwhich He is not to be found in any other place. This paradox is easily\nunderstood when we realize that God is present everywhere throughout His\nuniverse _by His word and by His Spirit,_--His word being as effective\nthroughout the remotest corners of His universe as near at hand, for the\nvery simple reason that matter has no \"properties\" which He has not\nimparted to it, and therefore it can have no innate inertia or\nreluctance to act which God's word would need to overcome in order to\ninduce it to act, even when this word operates across the boundless\nfields of space. He has created free personalities, and He leaves the\nmind of each of His creatures free to serve Him or not to serve Him,\nthese free intelligent beings becoming thus true second causes. More\nthan this, provision for almost innumerable second causes seems to have\nbeen made even among other departments of nature, without however\ninterfering with the direct action of the word of the Infinite One in\nguiding and controlling them all.\n\nChrist Jesus, our Lord and Savior, was associated with the Father in all\nthe primary work of Creation; and He came to earth to show us what God\nthe Father is like, that mortals might behold their Creator without\nbeing consumed. In Him we are to behold as much of the Deity as it is\nfor our good to know; beyond that we must trust the hand that never\nwearies, the mind that never blunders, the heart that never grows cold.\n\nIn reality the seeming conflict between the doctrine of second causes\nand that of God's omnipresence is closely analogous to the old\n(imaginary) conflict between the Law and the Gospel, read from the book\nof nature instead of from the Bible. The reign of second causes is the\nreign of law; but God's immediate action brings in the supernatural, the\nmiraculous, or the Gospel. Each has its proper place; and neither must\nbe dwelt on to the exclusion of the other. We are all under the hard\nexactitude of the law, with its irrevocable condemnation, until the\nGospel intervenes, and not only pardons the past, but enables us to\nfulfil the law's requirements for the future. The reign of second causes\nalone would take away man's moral responsibility, making us all mere\ncreatures of our environment, the victims of a merciless determinism,\nand death would be the inevitable result of the violation of the\nslightest physical or physiological law. But we are all given power to\nlive above environment, and a beneficent healing power is constantly\nintervening to save us from the consequences of our errors, healing our\nwounds and curing our diseases, in this giving us an object lesson of\nthe forgiveness of sin and a promise of our ultimate conquest over all\nits power. We are all ineluctably bound about by countless chains of\nsecond causes, \"awful with inevitable fates,\" until we see through them\nall the close providential working of our Creator, who is also our\nSaviour, and who is in no way shackled by His own laws, but conducts all\nthings according to the counsel of His own will.\n\nThe Bible teaches us of a Creation as a definite act, completed at a\ndefinite period in the past, and it gives us the Sabbath as the divine\nmemorial of this _completed_ Creation. We have seen how science also\npoints backward along the various diverging lines of the great\nperspective of the ages to the vanishing point whence they all begin,\nthe birth-day of the world; and we say that thus science confirms the\nBible record of Creation. But we also know that when Christ was being\nexamined by the Sanhedrin for healing on the Sabbath, He defended\nHimself by saying, \"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.\" That is,\nalthough \"the works were finished from the foundation of the world,\" and\nsecond causes are now largely operative in nature all around us, still\nthere is everywhere manifest an active energy, a presence, an\nIntelligence, \"in Whom we live, and move, and have our being.\"\n\nThat we cannot comprehend all this, that we cannot set definite\nboundaries to these seemingly conflicting views, is not at all\nsurprising; for we are but finite.[55] Even His universe partakes so much\nof His prerogative of infinity that it is utterly beyond the compass of\nour finite minds. Indeed, if either the Bible or the book of nature\ncontained nothing beyond what we could easily comprehend, would it not\ndiminish our reverence and awe for the One behind them, Whom we now\nregard as infinite in power and in wisdom?\n\nTrue, the natural human heart cannot bear this thought of the direct\nacting throughout nature of the infinite Creator. It brings us too close\nbeneath His gaze in our sinful shortcoming and nakedness.\n\n[Footnote 55: A recent clever writer likens some of these metaphysical\nspeculations to the act of a baby sucking at a nursing bottle. So long\nas there is any milk in the bottle, the baby sucks with pleasure and\nprofit. Unfortunately the little fellow does not always stop sucking\nwhen the supply of milk gives out, but still keeps on sucking empty air,\nwith resulting discomfort and colic. We all need to recognize the limits\nof the intellectual milk supply, and not keep on trying to solve\nproblems that are in their very nature beyond the limits of the human\nmind.]\n\nAnd so men draw the veil of their pantheistic or monistic philosophy\nover their hearts, to hide them from His all-searching gaze. In ancient\ntimes they seem to have done the same, as the monuments of Egypt and\nBabylonia declare; and the intimate knowledge of Nature and its Creator\nwhich they had in the morning of our world, degenerated into the nature\nworship and polytheism which we find so nearly universal at the first\ndawn of secular history. It is only the child of God, the redeemed man,\nwho can view without flinching the sublime fact of a direct Creation, or\nface the other great fact that what we call second causes are not the\nreal causes of natural action, that the ordinary phenomena of light,\nheat, gravity, vital action, etc., do not occur because certain\n\"properties\" have been once imparted to matter and it then left to act\nof itself, any more than the child of God is left to struggle along with\nthe supply of divine grace which was imparted to him at his conversion.\nThe Christian feels his constant dependence upon his Creator for\novercoming power day by day, and he sees the whole universe just as\nmomently dependent upon the tireless watchcare of the great Sustainer of\nall. The Christian alone delights to look upon the ceaseless service of\nhis Father's love, perpetually ministering to the needs and even to the\nwhims of His creatures. But if this tireless ministry reminds man of his\nown spiritual nakedness and insular selfishness, it serves also to\nremind him that it is only the free gift of a righteousness not his own\nthat can clothe the ashamed soul cowering beneath the eye of infinite\nPurity and unselfish Love.\n\nIn our natural state we are like the dead, inorganic matter. Only by a\nnew life that must be imparted to us from above, a real, individual, new\ncreation, can we become alive spiritually. And then only by constant\ndependence for spiritual life and growth upon the word of the One who\nfirst created us can we hope to develop into His true sons and\ndaughters, whose continuous care is momently exercised in controlling\nevery particle of our bodily frame, and by whose continuous guidance in\nthe development of character we hope to become worthy of a place in His\npresence forevermore.\n\n\nV\n\nOur Lord Jesus once said to the leaders of the Jews, \"If ye believed\nMoses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not\nhis writings, how shall ye believe my words?\" (John 5: 46-47). In our\ndays is certainly consistent and appropriate that those who have had\ntheir faith revived in the first chapters of the Bible should also have\nrenewed confidence in the last part of the Bible. A belief in a real\nCreation of the world, as recorded in the book of Genesis, naturally\nimplies a belief in the end of the world as predicted in the book of\nRevelation. A belief in the former destruction of the world by water is\nin accord with a belief in its coming destruction by fire, each of these\ndestructions being not absolute but regenerative.\n\nThis is in fact the line of argument used in that remarkable prophecy of\n2 Peter 3: 3-7:\n\n\"In the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their\nown lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For, from the\ndays that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from\nthe beginning of the creation. For this they wilfully forget, that there\nwere heavens of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst\nwater, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being\noverflowed with water, perished; but the heavens that are now, and the\nearth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved\nagainst the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.\"\n\nTwo points in this remarkable prophecy deserve special attention:\n\n1. It is a description of the religio-scientific problems of the \"last\ndays\"; and the class of people referred to are represented as \"mocking\"\nat the second coming of Christ, because they have grown accustomed to\ndenying, or \"wilfully forgetting,\" the former destruction of the world\nby the waters of the Flood. This prediction, as we have seen, is in\ncomplete and accurate accord with the present situation; for the\ndoctrine of Evolution is chiefly supported by the accepted theories of\ngeology that there never was a universal Flood. Belief in the current\ntheories of geology and in a universal Deluge cannot be held by the same\nmind, for they are mutually exclusive: either one makes the other\nmeaningless. And as the popular geology is the foundation of the\nEvolution theory, so does the latter render useless and incredible what\nthe Bible calls \"that blessed hope,\" the second coming of Christ and the\npurification of the earth by fire.\n\n2. The mockers here described certainly talk exactly like our modern\n_uniformitarians_; for they argue that \"from the days that the fathers\nfell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the\ncreation.\" They imply that in the days of \"the fathers\" some people were\nfoolish enough to believe differently; but since they \"fell asleep\" we\nhave learned better. It should also be carefully noted that their theory\nof uniformity stretches back, not to the _close_ of Creation, but to\n\"the _beginning_ of the Creation.\" Plainly, then, _Creation itself is\nembraced in their scheme of absolute uniformity_; and according to their\nview all distinction is smoothed out between Creation and the present\nperpetuation of the world by second causes. How could we ask for a more\naccurate word picture of the modern popular doctrines of the\nevolutionists and their characteristic methods of reasoning than is here\ngiven us by an inspired prophecy nearly two thousand years ago?\n\n\nVI\n\nThe call of the hour to the Church of Christ is for a renewed confidence\nin that Guide Book which she has brought with her down the centuries. As\nher Divine Lord went away, He commissioned her to carry His good\ntidings to all peoples; and so long as she remained true to this\ncommission and to her instruction book, the world's cunning sophistries\ncould not deceive her, nor could the cruel power of a world empire\nstifle her voice. And now when her absent Lord is about to return again,\nit surely behooves her to set her house in order, and to return with\ncandor and fidelity to that written code of instruction left with her by\nher departing Master.\n\nFor the old-time friends of the Bible, the night of darkness and doubt\nis rapidly passing; the morning of a fuller knowledge and a fuller\nconfidence is at hand. Gone are those agonies of doubt regarding the\ntruthfulness of the Bible's history and the adequacy of its ethics for\nthe needs of our modern world. Abandoned forever are all those futile\nattempts at compromise, in a vain and painful endeavor to translate the\nrecord of Creation into the language of a pseudo-science now rapidly\nbeing outgrown, and to adapt the plan of salvation to the false\nstandards of an artificial age that seems to be rapidly disintegrating\nbefore the Church's very eyes. She now realizes that her Bible is more\naccurate than the world's science, her simple gospel wiser than its\nphilosophy.\n\nThe hour has struck; a sublime opportunity is before her; for the God of\nnature has Himself opened up before His Church the long-sealed chapters\nin His larger book, and is now pointing out the marvellous agreement\nbetween His book of nature and His written record. The strongest\nmessage of the Church has often been heard amid the darkest ages of\napostasy. And the prophecies of the Bible have repeatedly pointed out a\nspecial message that the Church is to bear to the world in that darkest\nhour just before the breaking of eternal day,--a message that we now see\nis wonderfully adapted to this age of evolutionism in science and\npantheism in philosophy. Looking down along the darkening vistas of the\ncoming years, the great Jehovah saw how a vastly increased knowledge of\nHis created works would be perverted into a burlesque of Creation, and\nhow this would result in a wide-spread apostasy in which His written\nWord would be derided and scorned. Thus He timed a special reform for\nHis faithful people to give to the world just before the end, calling\nupon the disbelievers in Creation then living to \"worship him that made\nheaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters\" (Rev. 14:\n7). And so now, when the darkness of evolutionism and pantheism is most\ndense, a light from above has illuminated the record in the book of\nnature, the language of which is already more familiar to our modern\nworld than the language of the book so long distrusted and almost\nderided. This message itself from the book of nature is full of the\nessential ideas of the Gospel, faith in a Creator, who by His tireless\ncare for the particles composing our bodies keeps them in order, and by\nhealing our injuries and curing our diseases inspires us with faith in\nHim as our Saviour and Redeemer. And in such an hour, in such a world\ncrisis, He has placed within the power of His Church these modern means\nof travel and quick communication, in order to speed on this last work\nof His Church so as to complete it in \"this generation.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR_\n\n_The Fundamentals of Geology_\n\nCloth, 270 pages, Illustrated with engravings,\ncharts, and maps     $1.25\n\n\"I have been intensely interested, ... and I think you prove your points\nconclusively.\"--REV. S. BARING-GOULD,\n_Lew Trenchard, England._\n\n\"It is a very clever book.\"--DAVID STARR JORDAN,\n_Leland Stanford University._\n\n\"I have found your book extremely interesting, putting old facts in a\nnew light, and full of acute remarks. Current theories needed\ncriticism.\"--A.H. SAYCE,\n_Oxford University, England._\n\n\"You have brought out with great clearness the difficulties of\nsupporting the evolution theory from the geological side.\"--GEORGE\nHOWARD PARKER,\n_Professor of Zoology, Harvard University._\n\n\"It is a remarkable piece of logical reasoning.\"\n--FRANKLIN JOHNSON,\n_The University of Chicago._\n\n\"It was needed. I think you have peeled the onion-coat theory\ncompletely. To and your book is like finding a spring after toiling\nthrough the dry-as-dust desert. It is refreshing and\nenjoyable.\"--GILBERT E. BAILEY,\n_Professor of Geology, University of Southern California._\n\n\n_God's Two Books_, Or Plain Facts\nabout Evolution, Geology, and the Bible\n\nCloth, 184 pages, Illustrated     75C.\n\n\"Naturally I have read it with great interest....\nI have never seen any answer to Sir Henry Howorth's\n'Mammouth,' nor do I see what answer is possible, and\nthe same seems to me to be the case as regards Professor\nPrice's argument.\"--A.H. SAYCE,\n_Oxford University, England._\n\n\"It will be a perfect armory for use in meeting attacks\non Holy Scripture by false science and false\nCriticism.\"--SIR ROBERT ANDERSON,\n_London, England._\n\n\n_Back to the Bible_\nPaper, 215 pages     50c.\n\n\"It is most excellent.\"--A.C. GAEBELEIN,\n_New York City._\n\n\"I know of no book in theological literature that surpasses\nthis, or indeed equals it in accurate, effective\nadaptedness to the need of the hour.\"\n\n--WILLIAM CLEAVER WILKINSON,\n_The University of Chicago._","title":"Q. E. D., or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":33059}