{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19321/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19321","id":"gutenberg_19321","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19321","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution","Religion and science"],"text":"E-text prepared by Kurt A. T. Bodling, formerly Director of Library\nServices at Concordia College, Bronxville, New York, USA\n\n\n\nEVOLUTION.\n\nAn Investigation and a Criticism\n\nby\n\nTH. GRAEBNER,\nConcordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMilwaukee, Wis.\nNorthwestern Publishing House,\n1921.\n\n\n\n_Species tot sunt, quot diversas formas ab initio produxit Infinitum\nEns. Linne._\n\n\n\nTo the Memory of my teacher (New Ulm, 1892) John Schaller Educator,\nTheologian, Student of Science these chapters are dedicated by The\nAuthor\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\nChapter 1. An Outline of the Theory...11\nDefinition--Historical Review--The Darwinian Hypothesis--Lines of\nEvidence--The Descent of Man--The Nebular Hypothesis--The Origin of\nLife--The Bearing of Evolution on Christianity.\n\nChapter 2. Unexplained Origins...29\nThe Origin of the Universe--The Origin of Life--Biological Barriers--\nMan.\n\nChapter 3. The Testimony of the Rocks...47\n\nChapter 4. The Fixity of Species...62\n\nChapter 5. Rudimentary Organs...70\n\nChapter 6. Instinct...74\n\nChapter 7. Heredity...80\n\nChapter 8. A Scientific Creed Outworn...87\n\nChapter 9. Man...94\n\nChapter 10. The Verdict of History...113\n\nChapter 11. Evidences of Design...124\n\nChapter 12. The Fatal Bias...141\n\n\n\nPREFATORY.\n\nI first read Charles Darwin's \"Origin of Species\" in the library of my\nsainted uncle, John Schaller, at New Ulm, Minnesota, in 1892. I did not\ncomprehend all of it then, a cause, to me, of considerable chagrin, for\nwhich I later found some consolation in the opinion of Dr. Frederick\nLynch, who pronounces Darwin's epochal work \"one of the two most\ndifficult books in the English language.\" But like many others, I\nunderstood enough of Darwin's book to catch glimpses of the grandeur of\nthe conception which underlies its argumentation. It was then that my\nbeloved uncle, out of that wide and accurate reading which so\nfrequently astonished his friends, and with that penetrating dialectic\nof his, opened my eyes to certain fallacies in Darwin's argument,\nespecially to the fatal weakness of the chapter on Instinct. The\nreading of St. George Mivart's book \"The Genesis of Species\" later\nconvinced me of the accuracy of my uncle's judgment. But the fascination\nof the subject persisted, and for a time Herbert Spencer's \"Synthetic\nPhilosophy,\" by the comprehensiveness of its induction and its vast\narray of data, exercised its thrall. Alfred Russel Wallace's\n\"Darwinism,\" Huxley's \"Lectures on Evolution,\" Tyndall's \"The Beginning\nof Things,\" Grant Allen's \"The Evolutionist at Large,\" Eimer's\n\"Orthogenesis,\" Clodd's \"Story of Creation,\" occupied me in turn, until\nthe apodictic presentation of John Fiske's Essays on Darwinism, no less\nthan the open and haggard opposition to Christianity which prevails in\nHuxley's \"Science and Hebrew Tradition\" and in Spencer's chapters on\n\"The Unknowable\" (so the Synthetic Philosophy denominates God), caused\na revulsion of sentiment,--the anti-religious bias of evolution\nstanding forth the clearer to my mind, the longer I occupied myself with\nthe subject.\n\nI determined to investigate for myself the data on which the\nspeculations whose mazes I had trod these years were built up. The\nleisure hours of three years were devoted to the study of first-hand\nsources of Comparative Religion. The result of this research was\ndeposited in two articles contributed to the _Theological Quarterly_ in\n1906 and 1907. I fear that the forbidding character of the foot-notes\nserved as an effective deterrent to the reading of these articles. I\nhave now given, in several chapters of this little volume, in popular\nlanguage the argument against evolution to be derived from the study of\nReligion. The reading of Le Conte's and Dana's text-books of geology\nand various other treatises supplied the data on palaeontology embodied\nin the first chapters of the book. The notable circulus in concludendo\n(\"begging the question\") of which evolutionists here are guilty was\nfirst pointed out to me by Prof. Tingelstad of Decorah, Iowa, who was\nin 1908 taking a course in Evolution at Chicago University, and who\ncalled on me for discussion of the doctrine as he received it from\n\"head-quarters.\"\n\nAn an excursus in the subject of Pedagogy, I have treated in my\nSeminary lectures the past years, under the head of natural sciences,\nthe argument against evolution, and the outlines of these lectures have\nfurnished the framework for the present volume. It is hoped that\nespecially our young men and women who take courses at our universities\nwill examine the case against the fascinating and in some respects\nmagnificent conception of evolution as this case is presented in the\nfollowing chapters. I realize that they, as well as intelligent readers\ngenerally, may not meet with confidence the statements of a theologian\non a scientific question, least of all when he essays to treat such a\nquestion from the standpoint of science. He is presumed to be at home\nin theology, but a stranger in the domain of geology, astronomy, and\nbiology. It is for the purpose of obtaining a hearing at all that these\nintroductory remarks are written. But the argument must stand on its own\nmerits. The writer will now retire to the background. The facts shall\nspeak.\n\nTH. G.\n\n\n\nEVOLUTION.\n\nCHAPTER ONE.\nAn Outline of the Theory.\nDefinition.\n\nEvolution is a name comprehending certain theories which seek to account\nfor all operations of nature as carried on according to fixed laws by\nmeans of forces resident in nature. Prof. J. LeConte of the University\nof California defines evolution as: \"Continuous progressive change\naccording to certain laws and by means of resident forces.\" Evolution is\na theory, a philosophy, it is not a science. The theory is called\n_organic_ evolution in its relation to living forms (plant and animal\nlife), _cosmic_ evolution, inasmuch as attempts have been made to\naccount by certain laws and the working of resident forces for the\ndevelopment of the universe,--the earth, the sun, and the starry\nheavens. Also the development of society, of religion, morals, politics,\nart, and mechanical inventions is accounted for on the theory that there\nare forces which, acting according to certain laws, have through many\nchanges made human life and institutions as we see them today.\n\nThe doctrine of Evolution briefly stated, is as follows: That in some\ninfinitely remote period in the past, how or from whence science does\nnot affirm, there appeared matter and force; that within matter and in\nassociation with force there also appeared a primordial cell, how or\nfrom whence no man knoweth, in which there was a spark of life; and that\nfrom this cell all things animate have emerged, being controlled by\ncertain laws variously stated by various evolutionists; that these laws\nin connection with the modifying influences of environment\n(surroundings,--soil, climate, etc.) account for and explain the various\nspecies that have existed in the past and now exist upon earth, man\nincluded. That there are no gaps in the process but that there is\ndemonstrable a steady ascent from lower to higher (simple to more\ncomplex) forms of life, until man is reached, the acknowledged highest\nproduct of evolution.\n\nThe extreme evolutionists hold that all the power and potency of the\nuniverse was stored up in that primordial cell, and that all things have\nbeen worked out without any superintending agency other than the forces\nresident in matter. Every operation of God is ruled out, or deemed\nunnecessary. This is sometimes called atheistic evolution.\n\nThe theistic evolutionist (\"theistic\" from \"theism,\" the belief in a\npersonal God) makes place for God in the beginning and all along the\nline of development, as overlooking the process, perhaps reinforcing and\nto a certain extent directing the energy, but not interfering with the\nfixed law or rule of evolution. According to theistic evolution, God did\nnot create plants and animals as separate species (as related in Genesis\n1) but created matter as a crude form and placed it under certain laws,\nby which this matter was, during untold ages, gradually evolved into\nworlds. That out of this matter, called inorganic, plants came into\nexistence, from some germ or property existing in matter. The origin of\nanimal life is explained in various ways by the so-called theistic\nevolutionists. Some hold that the primordial plant life contained\npotentially the lowest and simplest principles of animal life, and from\nit the simplest animal forms were evolved; that from these latter were\nevolved forms a little higher, until, after long ages, all the\ngradations were passed through until man, the highest form, was the\nresult. Others believe that there is such an essential difference\nbetween plants and animals that the latter could not have come from the\nformer, that there must be a new start on the animal side of life.\nTherefore they claim that when the evolutionary development of matter\nreached a certain stage, God appeared on the scene and endowed certain\nforms with the principle of animal life, in its lowest elements. These\nlowest forms of animal life then entered upon a series of evolutionary\ngrowth, each lower form evolving one a little more complex, each series\ngaining the use of and developing organs which existed essentially in\nthe lower form but were small, imperfect, and useless, because not\nneeded. Thus the hand and arm in man are structurally or essentially the\nsame as the leg of the brute, the wing of the bird, the flipper of the\nwhale, and the fin of the fish; and the endeavor to adapt itself to the\nwater caused the bird to develop a fin, as by a similar process the\nfore-leg of brutes developed into the human arm and hand.\n\nFor our present consideration, we need not distinguish between atheistic\nand theistic evolution, as the latter is subject to the fundamental\nobjections urged against evolution in general, and is, like atheistic\nevolution, without a single fact to support it and in direct\ncontradiction of all that is known of the laws in operation now, and as\nfar back as knowledge penetrates. Moreover, so-called \"theistic\"\nevolution is universally approved by infidels and skeptics and is used\nby them as a favorite means of assault on revealed Truth.\n\nHistorical Review.\n\nWhile in our own day the names of certain English and German scientists\n(Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Tyndall, Romanes, Buechner, Vogt, Haeckel) are\ninseparably connected with a history of this hypothesis, its roots are\nfound far back in the early ages of Greek philosophy. A theory of\nevolutionary development was first propounded by Greek thinkers living\nabout 600 years B. C. The human mind is ever on the search for unifying\nprinciples, principles which account for entire groups of natural\nphenomena, and not for isolated phenomena only. The Greek mind sought a\nprinciple by which to account for the manifold and diverse forms of life\nin nature. Whence do all things come? How have they come to be what they\nare? Questions about the nature of the universe in which we live have\nbeen asked from the very beginning. The moment the human mind began to\nreflect the notion that the vegetation which covers the earth, the\nanimals which inhabit it, the rocks and hills, the mountains and valleys\nwhich constitute its physical features, may have undergone changes in\npast time, and that all the phenomena which constitute the animal,\nvegetable and mineral worlds as they now exist, are but modifications of\nother forms which have had their day and their philosophy, the idea of\ndevelopment became prominent. The early Greek philosophers were the first\nto attempt answers to these problems. Many of them held that all things\nnatural sprang from what they called the original elements--fire, air,\nearth, water. Anaximander held that animals were begotten from the earth\nby means of heat and moisture; and that man was developed from other\nbeings different in form. Empedocles had a fantastic theory, viz., that\nthe various parts of man and animals at first existed independently, and\nthat these--for instance, arms, legs, feet, eyes, etc., gradually\ncombined--perhaps after the manner in which automobiles are assembled;\nand that these combinations became capable of existing and even of\npropagating and reproducing themselves. Anaxagoras was of opinion that\nanimals and plants sprang from the earth by means of germs carried in\nthe atmosphere which gave fecundity to the earth. Aristotle held opinions\nnot very unlike those of our own day. All of which goes to show that\nspeculation about the origin of the universe and the why and wherefore of\nliving things did not come into existence with the Darwinian hypothesis\nand that the doctrine of descent with modification as an explanation of\nall biological phenomena antedates by over two thousand years the\npublication of the \"Origin of Species.\"\n\nIn modern times a theory of development was first suggested by Goethe in\nhis _\"Italienische Reise.\"_ Acting under the same mental urge for seeing\ndiverse forms under a unifying principle, Goethe looked for the original\nform of plant life, the _Urpflanze_, the plant which would be at once\nsimple enough to stand for a type of all plants and yet susceptible to\nvariation in so many directions that all plants might derive from it\ntheir origin. Goethe has also clothed this conception in poetic form.\n\nThe first philosophic statement of the hypothesis is found in Immanuel\nKant's _\"Kritik der Urteilskraft,\"_ 1790. In paragraph 80 we find a\ndiscussion of the similarity between so many species of animals, not\nonly in their bony structure, but also in the arrangement of their other\nparts, a similarity which, says Kant, \"casts a ray of hope,\" that all\nforms may be traced back to original simple forms, to \"a generation from\na common ancestor,\" rising from the lowest forms to man, \"according to\nmechanical laws.\" Kant assumes that, for instance, certain aquatic\nanimals by and by formed into amphibia, and from these after some\ngenerations were produced land animals. A treatise of the same\nphilosopher entitled _\"Presumable Origin of Humanity\"_ suggests that man\nin the early age of the world was developed from \"mere animal creatures.\"\nEven a universal law of world-formation (cosmic evolution) was set forth\nby Kant in a work which he published anonymously in 1775.\n\nIn its relations to animal life a development theory was first\nclearly set forth by Karl Ernst von Baer (died 1876). In his\n_\"Entwickelungsgeschichte der Tiere\"_ (1828), the author explains\n\"Entwickelung\" as a progress from simple to complex forms. He believes\nthat in evolution there is a fundamental idea that \"goes through all the\nforms of cosmic and animal development.\" A predecessor of von Baer had\nbeen the Frenchman, Lamarck. From von Baer, Herbert Spencer, about 1850,\nadopted the definition of evolution.\n\nThe hypothesis entered a new phase through Charles Darwin's epochmaking\nwork: _\"The Origin of Species.\"_ The keynote of Darwin's theory is\nNatural Selection, by which term the development of all living forms is\nreferred to the working of certain laws which in the reproduction of\nplants and animals preserved those individuals which were best fitted to\nsurvive the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory may be\nsummarized thus:\n\nThe Darwinian Hypothesis.\n\n1. Every kind of animal and plant tends to increase in numbers in a\ngeometrical progression.\n\n2. Every kind of animal and plant transmits a general likeness, with\nindividual differences, to its offspring.\n\n3. Past time has been practically infinite.\n\n4. Every individual has to endure a very severe struggle for existence,\nowing to the tendency to geometrical increase of all kinds of animals\nand plants, while the total animal and vegetable population (man and his\nagency excepted) remains almost stationary.\n\n5. Thus, every variation of a kind tending to save the life of the\nindividual possessing it, or to enable it more surely to propagate its\nkind, will in the long run be preserved and will transmit its favorable\npeculiarity to some of its offspring, which peculiarity will thus become\nintensified till it reaches the maximum degree of utility. On the other\nhand, individuals presenting unfavorable peculiarities will be\nruthlessly destroyed (_Survival of the Fittest_), [tr. note: sic\npunctuation]\n\nThe basis of the theory then is that animals and plants multiply very\nrapidly and, second, that the offspring always vary slightly from the\nparents, though generally very closely resembling them. Mr. Alfred\nRussel Wallace says: \"From the first fact or law there follows,\nnecessarily, a constant struggle for existence; because while the\noffspring always exceeds the parents in number, generally to an\nenormous extent, yet the total number of living organisms in the world\ndocs not, and can not, increase year by year. Consequently every year,\non the average, as many die as are born, plants as well as animals;\nand the majority die premature deaths. They kill each other in a\nthousand different ways; they starve each other by some consuming the\nfood that others want; they are destroyed largely by the powers of\nNature--by cold and heat, by rain and storm, by flood and fire. There is\nthus a perpetual struggle among them which shall live and which shall\ndie; and this struggle is tremendously severe, because so few can\npossibly remain alive--one in five, one in ten, often only one in a\nhundred or even in a thousand.\n\n\"Then comes the question, Why do some live rather than others? If all\nthe individuals of each species were exactly alike in every respect, we\ncould only say it is a matter of chance. But they are not alike. We find\nthat they vary in many different ways. Some are stronger, some swifter,\nsome hardier in constitution, some more cunning. An obscure color may\nrender concealment more easy for some, keener sight may enable others to\ndiscover prey or escape from an enemy better than their fellows. Among\nplants the smallest differences may be useful or the reverse. The\nearliest and strongest shoots may escape the slug; their greater vigor\nmay enable them to flower and seed earlier in a wet autumn; plants best\narmed with spines or hairs may escape being devoured; those whose\nflowers are most conspicuous may be soonest fertilized by insects. We\ncan not doubt that, on the whole, any beneficial variations will give\nthe possessors of it a greater probability of living through the\ntremendous ordeal they have to undergo. There may be something left to\nchance, but on the whole _the fittest will survive.\" (_\"Darwinism\"_\np. 7)_.\n\nThe same writer gives a probable instance of the working of _Natural\nSelection_ in the origin of certain aquatic birds called dippers. He\nsays: \"An excellent example of how a limited group of species has been\nable to maintain itself by adaptation to one of these 'vacant places' in\nNature, is afforded by the curious little birds called dippers or\nwater-ouzels, forming the genus _Cinclus_ and the family _Cindidae_ of\nnaturalists. These birds are something like small thrushes, with very\nshort wings and tail, and very dense plumage. They frequent, exclusively,\nmountain torrents in the northern hemisphere, and obtain their food\nentirely in the water, consisting, as it does, of water-beetles,\ncaddis-worms, and other insect-larvae, as well as numerous small\nfresh-water shells. These birds, although not far removed in structure\nfrom thrushes and wrens, have the extraordinary power of flying under\nwater; for such, according to the best observers, is their process of\ndiving in search of their prey; their dense and somewhat fibrous\nplumage retaining so much air that the water is prevented from touching\ntheir bodies or even from wetting their feathers to any great extent.\nTheir powerful feet and long curved claws enable them to hold on to\nstones at the bottom, and thus to retain their position while picking\nup insects, shells, etc. As they frequent chiefly the most rapid and\nboisterous torrents, among rocks, waterfalls, and huge boulders, the\nwater is never frozen over, and they are thus able to live during the\nseverest winters. Only a very few species of dipper are known, all those\nof the old world being so closely allied to our British bird that some\nornithologists consider them to be merely local races of one species;\nwhile in North America and the northern Andes there are two other\nspecies.\n\n\"Here, then, we have a bird, which, in its whole structure, shows a\nclose affinity to the smaller typical perching birds, but which has\ndeparted from all its allies in its habits and mode of life, and has\nsecured for itself a place in Nature where it has few competitors and\nfew enemies. We may well suppose,* [[*Note characteristic phrase \"We may\nsuppose that,--.\" G.]] that, at some remote period, a bird which was\nperhaps the common and more generalized ancestor of our thrushes,\nwarblers, wrens, etc., had spread widely over the great northern\ncontinent, and had given rise to numerous varieties adapted to special\nconditions of life. Among these some took to feeding on the borders of\nclear streams, picking out such larvae and mollusks as they could reach\nin shallow water. When food becomes scarce they would attempt to pick\nthem out of deeper and deeper water, and while doing this in cold\nweather many would become frozen and starved. But any which possessed\ndenser and more hairy plumage than usual, which was able to keep out the\nwater, would survive; and thus a race would be formed which would depend\nmore and more on this kind of food. Then, following up the frozen\nstreams into the mountains, they would be able to live there during the\nwinter; and as such places afforded them much protection from enemies\nand ample shelter for their nests and young, further adaptations would\noccur, till the wonderful power of diving and flying under water was\nacquired by a true land-bird.\" (_\"Darwinism,\"_ p. 81-82.)\n\nLines of Evidence.\n\nThe evolutionary hypothesis (both in its atheistic and theistic or\n\"Christian\" form) is understood to rest on the following lines of proof:\n\ni. _Primary:_ The evidence of palaeontology (the study of fossil remains\nin the rocks). The surface of the earth underneath the top soil consists\nof layers of rock. Some of them are made up of lime deposits, others of\nthe shells of shell-fish, others of sand-stone, others of dead trees of\nthe forest (coal), all of them turned hard by the pressure of the weight\nlying on top of them. Besides these sedimentary rock there are\nformations like granite, showing the influence of heat. Digging among\nthe sedimentary rock (limestone, sand-stone, principally) we come across\npreserved remains of all sorts of animals; some just like those which\nlive to-day, some similar but somewhat different, others quite\ndissimilar from living animals of our day. These are the fossils. Now,\nevolutionists assert that the oldest and simplest animal and plant\nremains are found in the oldest layers of rock. This is said to prove\nthat in the history of plants and animals on earth, the simplest forms\nare the oldest and that later the more complex forms were developed\nfrom these. LeConte states the matter thus: \"The farther back in time\nwe go, the simpler the forms of animal and plant life become, and these\nforms occur in the order of their origination, just as if they were\ndeveloped one from another.\"\n\n2. _Corroborative:_ a) The Argument from Morphology (Structure). The\nresemblance of the structure of various animal types is asserted to\nimply a community of descent. \"Large groups of species, whose habits are\nwidely different, present certain fundamental likenesses of structure.\nThe arms of men and apes, the fore-legs of quadrupeds, the paddles of\nwhales, the wings of birds, the breast-fins of fishes, are constructed\non the same pattern, but altered to suit their several functions. Nearly\nall mammals, from the long-necked giraffe to the short-necked elephant,\nhave seven neck-bones; the eyes of the lamprey are moved by six muscles\nwhich correspond exactly to the six which work the human eye; all\ninsects and Crustacea--moth and lobster, bettle [tr. note: sic] and\ncray-fish---are alike composed of twenty segments; the sepals, petals,\nstamens, and pistils of a flower are all modified leaves arranged in a\nspire.\" (Clodd, _\"The Story of Creation,\"_ p. 102.) These _resemblances_\nare looked upon as evidence of a common origin.\n\nb) The Argument from Embryology. The individual animal in embryonic\ndevelopment passes through temporary stages which are similar to\npermanent conditions in some of the lower forms in the same group.\nEvolutionists believe that these forms were actually possessed by the\nancestors of these animals in the course of their evolution. They hold\nthat the changes which take place in the embryos epitomize the series of\nchanges through which the ancestral forms passed. Because the embryos of\nsome four-footed animals have gill-slits, this is pointed out as\nevidence that land animals are evolved from fishes.\n\nc) Geographical Distribution. In geological time, natural barriers have\nsprung up which separated the species which have since developed. In\nthis way the existence of marsupials (pouched animals--kangaroo,\noppossum) [tr. note: sic] on certain limited areas, the limitation of\ncertain plants to certain islands, etc., are explained.\n\nd) Classification. The so-called Tree of Life. All living forms can be\narranged in a diagram called the Tree of Life. The Tree has a short\ntrunk, indicating common origin of the living from the non-living, and\nis divided into two large trunks representing plants and animals\nrespectively. \"From each of these start large branches representing\nclasses, the larger branches giving off smaller branches representing\nfamilies, and so on with smaller and smaller branches representing\norders and genera, until we come to leaves as representing species, the\nheight of the branch from which they are hanging indicating their place\nin the growth of the great life-tree.\" (Clodd, _\"Story of Creation,\"_\np. 103.) There is an exact gradation from the lowest life forms to the\nhighest. First such simple forms as the sponges and corals, then,\nthrough the worms, crabs, oysters, and snail to the fish, and thence\nthrough amphibia, reptiles, beasts of prey, ungulates (hoofed animals)\nand apes to man. Evolutionists say that in this gradation of life we\nsee illustrated the evolution of complex from simple forms.\n\nThe Descent of Man.\n\nAccording to the evolutionary hypothesis man is related to the animal\nkingdom by descent from a brute ancestor, who, apelike in appearance,\nis the common ancestor of ape and man. The evidence of such derivation\nis believed to be:\n\ni. Rudiments of structure which were useful in some brute ancestor.\nThere remain in man a few elementary muscles for twitching the skin, as\nin the forehead; and it is pointed out that many animals have such\nmuscles at the present time, and it is argued that the ability of some\nmen to move the whole scalp points to the existence of muscles with such\nfunction in our brute ancestors. The vermiform appendix in man is\ntermed rudimentary, being but a remnant of the much longer and more\ncomplex appendix of the same nature in living animals today.\n\n2. Embryonic Development. Because the young of all animals resemble one\nanother while in the embryo stage, and since such resemblances are\nfound in man, it is concluded that the evolution of man from some\nrelated animal form must be accepted as the most reasonable explanation.\n\n3. Some diseases are common to animals and man (tuberculosis, cholera,\nhydrophobia, etc.).\n\n4. The similarity in structure of man and the apes.\n\n5. The fossil remains of man. Certain skulls and leg bones have been\nfound which are said to represent forms higher than the ape and lower\nthan man. On the strength of such finds it is said that the \"missing\nlink\" has now been supplied.\n\nThe Nebular Hypothesis.\n\nThe Frenchman de La Place (1827) first promulgated in modern terminology\nthe theory once held by Greek philosophers, that the earth and the\nsystem in which it is a member originated from a primitive cosmic-vapor\nor universal fire-mist filling all space with infinitely small atoms.\nIn this homogeneous mass _motion_ originated, resulting in a\nconcentration at one point. This condensation resulted in heat and\nlight. The planetary system at first consisted of a huge gas-ball which\ngradually cooled, contracting into a molten mass which under the\ninfluence of centrifugal force began to rotate. This rotation became\nmore rapid as the mass condensed, throwing off the planets, in which\nthe process was repeated (the moons being cast off), until the earth\nbecame sufficiently cool to sustain life.\n\nThe Origin of Life.\n\nWhen asked about the origin of life on earth, the evolutionists\ngenerally reply that this is not a question for science but for\nphilosophy to answer. However, the question comes with such insistent\nforce that the biologist finds himself constrained to offer some\nexplanation of the origin of the simplest plant and animal life after\nthe globe had, according to the hypothesis, sufficiently cooled to\npresent areas in which life might arise. Necessarily, the assumption\nmust be that life was generated out of lifeless matter. Huxley says:\n\"If the hypothesis of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen\nfrom not-living matter, for by the hypothesis, the condition of the\nglobe was at one time such that living matter could not have existed on\nit, life being entirely incompatible with a gaseous state.\" (The earth\nhaving been a ball of gases at the time.) Tyndall is a little more\nspecific; he says that the combination of electrical and chemical\nforces acting on the primal ooze caused germs of life to originate in\nsmall bubble-like forms, (vesicles). His words are: \"The first step in\nthe creation of life upon this planet was a chemico-electric operation\nby which simple germinal vesicles were produced.\" The vesicles\nconsisted of protoplasm, the simple substance (white-of-egg) which\nexists in the cells of animal and vegetable tissues, and which is\ncomposed of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and traces of other\nelements. From this original protoplasm the great variety of living\nthings has been developed.\n\nThe Bearing of Evolution on Christianity.\n\nIt is evident that the evolutionary theory not only contradicts the\nBible story of creation but, if true, deprives Christianity of every\nclaim of being the true religion. If all things have come into being\nthrough the action of forces residing in matter then the world did not\ncome into being through a divine fiat or command. As Haeckel says:\n_\"Every supernatural creation is completely excluded.\"_ (Quoted by John\nFiske in _\"A Century of Science,\"_ 1899, p. 51.) Thomas Huxley is quite\nas definite: \"Not only do I hold it to be proven that the story of the\nDeluge is a pure fiction; but I have no hesitation in affirming the same\nthing of the story of the Creation.\" (_\"Science and Hebrew Tradition,\"_\n1896, p. 230.) Furthermore, the theory, by its implications, disposes\nsummarily of the _immortality of the soul_. The belief in an immortal\nsoul is termed by Haeckel as \"quite excluded\" by the bearing of\nevolution on the origin of man. The _fall of man_ becomes a myth, since\nman has not fallen from a high estate but has through many ages of slow\ndevelopment arrived at the use of reason and the dominion over nature;\nnot a perfect man, made in the image of God, but a cousin to the\ntail-less apes, newly accustomed to walking on two feet, is the ancestor\nof our race. Without a fall of man there is no possibility nor even a\nnecessity of _redemption;_ our entire Christian theology would be\ndealing with shadowy abstractions, unreasonable fears and hopes, and\npurposeless strivings. The belief of the Christian is to the\nevolutionist of some value as a phenomenon in the history of the mind,\nbut not the slightest intrinsic value is recognized in any of the\ndoctrines of Christian faith, not even in the belief in a _personal\nGod_. God is, according to Spencer, _the Unknowable_. Naturally, there\ncan not be _miracles,_ since all processes in nature are conceived as\ngoverned by laws not directed by a Divine Intelligence but by forces\nresident in nature. Hence, too, there can be no inspired _revelation_ of\nGod, since that would presume not only the existence of a personal God\nbut an intervention in natural processes of thought (miracle). John\nFiske wrote: The hypothesis of inspiration \"conveys most certainly a\nconception of Divine action as local, special, and transitory; and in\nso far as it does this, it bears the marks of that heathen mode of\nphilosophy which was current when Christian monotheism arose.\"\n(_\"Darwinism and Other Essays,\"_ 1895.) Evolution says: If there is a\nGod we have no means of knowing Him; and what we know of nature\ncertainly precludes the idea that God, if He exists, will concern\nHimself about man or break down the laws of nature even for an instant\nin his behalf. The conclusion is, that there is no inspired Bible. Nor\nindeed an absolute religion. All religious truths are considered\nrelative, with no such distinction as true religion and false religion,\nsince there is no criterion revealed (according to the theory) by\nwhich we can test a religion whether it be true or false. Finally,\nthere is no absolute _standard of morals_. Moral truths, like the\nreligious, are relative only. In other words, the teaching that \"Christ\nhas atoned for sin,\" is as little to be accepted as an absolute truth,\nas the command: \"Thou shalt not steal\" must be accepted as embodying an\nabsolute rule of conduct. Clodd says in _\"The Story of Creation\"_: \"Man\nby himself is not only unprogressive, he is also not so much immoral as\nunmoral. For where there is no society there is no sin! Therefore the\nbases of right and wrong lie in conduct towards one's fellow; the moral\nsense or conscience is the outcome of social relations, themselves the\noutcome of the need of living..... While the lower instincts, as hunger,\npassion, and thirst for vengeance, are strong, they are not so enduring\nor satisfying as the higher feelings which crave for society and\nsympathy. And the yielding to the lower, however gratifying for the\nmoment, would be followed by the feeling of regret that he had thus\ngiven way, and by resolve to act differently for the future. Thus at\nlast man comes to feel, through acquired and perhaps inherited habit,\nthat it is best for him to obey his more persistent impulses..... Morals\nare relative, not absolute; _there is no fixed standard of right and\nwrong_ by which the actions of all men throughout all time are\nmeasured..... That which man calls sin is shown to be more often due to\nhis imperfect sense of the true proportion of things, and to his lack\nof imagination, than to his willfulness.\" Clodd adds that if conduct has\nbeen made to rest on _\"supposed divine commands_ (!) as to what man\nshall and shall not do,\" that is an assumption which at best serves to\nrestrain the \"brutal and ignorant.\"\n\nJ. B. Warren, of the University of California, has well stated the\neffects of the evolutionary theory on religion and morals:\n\n\"Its legitimate tendency is to degrade mankind from that mental and\nmoral dignity that is always recognized as belonging to them, and to\nplace them on an essential level with the brute creation--even with the\nlowest forms of vegetable and animal existence. According to that\ntheory, man differs from the lower organisms not in kind so much as in\nthe degree of development. Mr. Darwin himself was troubled about the\nvalue of his own convictions, on the ground that his mind was evolved\nfrom that of lower animals. That is to say, he reckoned his own mental\nactions as valueless and untrustworthy, because of the essential\nidentity between his mind and that of the lowest creatures that live in\nthe mud of our swamps. Thus we see the legitimate tendency of this\ntheory to degrade the mental dignity of man. And it also degrades the\nmoral nature and faculties of man, and undermines the very foundations\nof moral and religious principle, in that it teaches that man is only a\nbetter developed brute--the natural result being that man is no more\nunder moral obligation than the brute, or has no different basis of\nmoral obligation from the brute, but only a better idea of right and\nwrong, because on a higher plane in the process of evolution. It\nstrikes at the root of the doctrine that men are, by their origin and\nnature, under peculiar and special obligations to God. In the words of\nthe late Dr. Robert Patterson, such a theory tends to 'obliterate a\nbelief in the divine origin and sanction of morality, and in the\nexistence of a future life of rewards and punishments, and to promote\nthe disorganization of society, and the degradation of man to the level\nof the brutes, living only under the laws of their brutal instincts.'\nSuch a theory is dishonoring to man and offensive to God.\"\n\nWhen these discrepancies between a world-view governed by the\nChristian's faith in Revelation and one governed by the theory of\nevolution are once clearly understood, there will be no need to inquire,\nwhy, on the one hand, enemies of the Bible in all ranks of life greeted\nwith such joyous acclaim the principle announced by Darwin and, why, on\nthe other hand, a chief purpose of Christian apologetics has become the\ndemonstration that Christianity _is justified even by reason_ in the\nworld-view which it inculcates, and that, on the other hand, _the\nevolutionary hypothesis is contradicted by the facts of religion, of\nhistory, and of natural science_.\n\n\nCHAPTER TWO.\nUnexplained Origins.\n\nThe evolutionary scheme of development is, by its originators and\ndefenders, accepted as a working hypothesis by which it is believed that\nthe origin of all forms which matter has taken, and of the activities of\nliving things, including man and human society, can be accounted for. It\nis an attempt to answer the old question, suggested to the thinking mind\nby a contemplation of nature: _Whence_ these things? It it a theory of\norigins.\n\nNow, a hypothesis, being \"a theory, or supposition, provisionally\nemployed as an explanation of phenomena,\" must be verified before it can\nbe accepted as truth. Moreover, it can stand _even as a hypothesis_ only\nif it meets the test of observation and experiment. It it can\ndemonstrate its adaption to explain all the facts, it may, until another\nand better theory is propounded, be accepted as a theory. When it does\nnot explain the facts, it must be modified or abandoned.\n\nSince the evolutionary hypothesis is employed as an explanation of\ncertain origins, a legitimate test of the theory is its adaptation to\nexplain these origins. This test we now shall apply. We shall try to\nanswer the question: Is the evolutionary theory entitled to the name of\na working hypothesis? Is it able to account for those things which it is\nset forth by its spokesmen to account for? Does it account for the\norigin of the universe, of life, and of the various forms of life?\n\nScientists as a rule disclaim any intention to account, on the basis of\ntheir hypothesis, for the origin of matter. When it is suggested to them\nthat any theory of origins should also account for the FIRST ORIGIN, the\nbeginning of things, they direct us to philosophy: \"Evolution is not\nconcerned with the origin of matter; it takes matter for granted; the\norigin of matter is properly a philosophical and not a scientific\nproblem.\"\n\nLet us note the fallacies of this position. In the first place it is not\nproper to introduce the word \"science\" into this plea. Science is,\nindeed, only concerned with things that can be demonstrated by\nobservation and from experience; and since no one has seen the beginning\nof matter, science is very properly not concerned with it. But evolution\nis not a science. It is a hypothesis, a theory. It is an explanation\nproposed for certain phenomena. 'And we have a right to demand that, if\nit wants recognition even as a theory, it must explain those phenomena.\nNow the principle of evolution is: All things have developed through\ncertain forces which inhere in matter. In other words, without being\nacted upon from the outside, (without a creative word of God, for\ninstance,) the unvierse [tr. note: sic] has come to be what it is\nto-day. In matter there are from the beginning certain forces\ninseparable from matter. These acted in such a way that very simple\nplants and animals became very complex; and this without any directing\nIntelligence. This is the evolutionary theory. Now, we hold that a\ntheory which claims to account for the beginning of all animal life\n(and every species of animal life), for the beginning of plant life\n(and of every species of plant life), for the beginning of life germs,\nof the globe, of the sun and stars, cannot stop short when we press\nour questions still farther and ask: Whence is matter? Whence is force?\n\nNor, indeed, do evolutionists hesitate to express an opinion concerning\nthe origin of matter and force. The universe, as it exists to-day, is\nmade up of matter disposed in various forms,--stars, rock, plants,\nanimals,--and endowed with energy in various forms; and from the\nearliest age of speculation, as we have seen, the human mind conceived\nof a time in which there was _unorganized_ matter, substance without\nform. Like the ancient Greek philosophers, evolutionists to-day try to\nformulate a working hypothesis to account for the origin of the\nuniverse. It is believed that, in a broad way, the _Nebular Hypothesis_\nput forth by La Place indicated the manner in which the earth and the\nsystem to which it belongs have been evolved. We have outlined, briefly,\nin our first chapter, the main features of this theory. We shall now\nindicate the difficulties which stand in the way of its acceptance even\nas a working hypothesis.\n\n1. The Nebular Hypothesis assumes that during a past endless time there\nhas existed an incalculable number of original atoms. Let us understand\nthat according to the so-called atomic theory, matter is composed of\nindivisible particles, called _atoms_. Since the discovery of radium\nthis theory has been considerably modified, each atom now being\nunderstood to consist of many thousands of smaller particles, called\nelectrons. However, whether we call them atoms or electrons, the\nsmallest, indivisible particles of matter are assumed to have existed\nduring infinite past time. Now, the origin of these simplest component\nparts of matter _remains an unsolved mystery_. The mind is unable even\nto formulate a guess with reference to their organization.\n\n2. A second postulate of the Nebular Hypothesis is the _origin of force\nand motion_ in the huge gas ball which existed in the beginning. La\nPlace says that \"at some point concentration took place in the\nhomogeneous mass, this contraction produced radiation of heat and light,\nand through the differences in temperature, _motion_ and dynamic\nreaction were produced.\" The difficulty which inheres in this postulate\nis the unquestioned fact that all motion in nature follows certain\nimmutable _laws_*, [*These laws, so far as known, form the basis of what\nwe call physics and chemistry.] and _the origin of these laws_ is not\naccounted for by the theory. Laws never make themselves, and their\ncomplexity,--immeasurably beyond our power of exploration--yet\neverywhere adjusted to a definite end, is so intricate that their origin\ncan by no means be accounted for by chance.\n\n3. According to the theory matter was first in _\"nebular\" (gas) form,_\nand that the gases existing diffused through space were, through the\nmotion which originated, changed from a huge ball of fire-mist to a\nsemi-solid sphere, which threw off smaller spheres (the planets) that\ngradually became solid. Now, this is contrary to our knowledge of gases.\nGases may be produced from solids, but an incandescent gas will not,\nthrough simple motion, become a solid substance. Gases may be solidified,\nbut only in two ways, by pressure or when greatly cooled,--when they\nbecome ice. But they do not retain this form when the pressure or the\ncooling agency is removed. Gases, as we know them, all have a tendency\nto expand indefinitely. They have no tendency to solidify, as the\nhypothesis presumes.\n\n4. La Place assumed that the solar system when still in gaseous state,\nbegan to revolve upon its axis, and that, as the gas ball continued to\nrevolve, it condensed. As condensation went on, the rotation became\nfaster, and a ring of matter was thrown off from the hardening core.\nThis ring again resolved itself into a rotating globe which, still in a\nfluid state, threw off other balls, which revolved around their mother,\nthe first planet, even as the latter continued to follow an orbit around\nthe central body, the sun. In this way the planets of the solar system,\nincluding the earth, (according to the theory), were evolved together\nwith their satellites or moons. The difficulty attending this view of\nplanetary evolution is found in the difference _between the movements of\na number of satellites_ around the planets. While the satellites of the\nearth, of Jupiter and of Saturn revolve _from west to east,_ the moons\nof Uranus and Neptune have an orbital movement _from east to west_. This\nis regarded also by the friends of the Nebular Hypothesis as one of the\ngravest difficulties, since no mechanical law will explain the reverse\nmovement of the satellites of the remotest planets when they, as well as\nJupiter, Saturn, and the rest are supposed to have been cast off by the\nsame central body.\n\n5. According to the theory, the original atoms during the process of\nworld-making united into _molecules_. The laws according to which atoms\nunite,--so that, for instance, the hydrogen atom each unites with two\natoms of oxygen, and so down the list of all known existences,--these\nlaws are among the assured results of scientific study. Now, the entire\nscience of chemistry in all its branches is built upon the axiom that\nmolecules are _absolutely unalterable_ and that molecules of the same\nkind are always absolutely identical. A molecule of water is always and\ninvariably composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. A\nmolecule of sulphuric acid invariably contains two atoms of hydrogen,\none of sulphur, and four of oxygen. A molecule of potassium chlorate is\nalways composed of just one atom of potassium chloride and three atoms\nof oxygen. Never is there any variation of these proportions in the same\nelement, and a chemist will, without handling the elements, merely by\nmathematical calculation, unerringly produce new combinations, relying\non the absolute constancy of the relations of atoms and molecules. Now,\nthe theory that in the beginning of things, out of a mass of atoms\ndiffused without form through space, molecules came into being, each\nkind or type composed of atoms according to a proportion peculiarly its\nown, cannot be accepted unless it is shown in what manner the laws came\ninto existence according to which these combinations take place. Clerk\nMaxwell concludes a masterly statement of this aspect of the hypothesis\nby asking: \"Who can restrain the ulterior question, Whence then these\nmyriad types of the same letter imprinted on the earth, the sun, the\nstars, as if the very mould used here had been lent to Sirius, and\npassed on through the constellations? No theory of evolution can be\nformed to account for the similarity of the molecules throughout all\ntime, and throughout the whole region of the stellar universe; for\nevolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule (as\nknown to science) is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or\ndestruction.\"\n\nThe Origin of Life.\n\nThe origin of life on our globe is not accounted for on the basis of the\nevolutionary hypothesis. At some time in the remote past, there must,\naccording to the theory, have been a development of living substance\nfrom a mineral base. But if scientific experiment has shown anything it\nhas shown the unreality of what was called \"spontaneous generation.\"\nThis term was very popular with the scientists of a century or two ago.\nIt was believed that certain animal and vegetable forms gave birth, in\nthe process of decay, to insect life. Putrefying meat gives rise to\nmaggots. The origin of these grubs was referred to the power of\n\"spontaneous generation.\" When the Italian naturalist Redi discovered\nthat an exclusion of flies from meat was all that was necessary to\nprevent the production of grubs, the doctrine of spontaneous generation\nwas thoroughly upset, for his time at least. But the microscope revealed\nin \"pure\" water the presence of thousands of small creatures, the\ninfusoria. Again spontaneous generation was appealed to in order to\nexplain their presence. But the famous experiments of Pasteur (related\nby Huxley in his lectures on The Origin of Species, Lecture III), proved\nconclusively that sterilized water will not produce living forms when\nthe germs floating everywhere about in the air are excluded. Since that\ntime all men of science agree that there is no such thing demonstrable\nas spontaneous generation. It has become an axiom that \"Life only comes\nfrom life.\" But how the first germs of life originated, is a question\nfor which there is no answer. Huxley admits: \"Of the causes which led to\nthe origination of living matter it may be said that we know absolutely\nnothing.\" \"The present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link\nbetween the living and the not living.\"\n\nHowever, while spontaneous generation is \"absolutely inconceivable\"\n(Darwin), and while no experiments made on dead matter have ever\nproduced living (plant and animal) matter, life must have originated at\nsome time from non-life according to the evolutionary hypothesis. The\ntheory assumes that at some time the globe was in an incandescent stage.\nAt that time there could not have been any life on our earth. But as the\nearth cooled, it is held that by some chemico-electric action (electric\nforce acting upon elements in favorable combinations), inert, lifeless\nmatter became endowed with the property which we call life, and this\noriginal living substance is called protoplasm. From it, by successive\nmodifications, slow in their operation, the teeming variety of living\nthings is believed to have developed. Now it is a notable fact, that\nmany evolutionists (among them Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-discoverer\nof the theory which goes under Darwin's name) frankly admit the\ninability to account for the origin of protoplasm. From mineral\nsubstances, protoplasm differs in that it possesses the power of growth,\ndevelopment, and reproduction. The very first vegetable cell \"must have\npossessed altogether new powers,\" says Mr. Wallace, \"that of extracting\ncarbon from the air and that of indefinite reproduction. Here,\"--note\nthis admission,--\"we have indications of _a new power_ at work.\" In\nother words, forces resident in matter no longer suffice. The\nevolutionistic principle breaks down.\n\nSome fifty years ago it was thought that experimental proof had been\nfound for the presence on earth of the original, simple, unorganized\nprotoplasm; that the basis of all life on earth had been discovered,--in\nthe depths of the ocean. The story of this \"discovery\" is entertainingly\ntold by the Duke of Argyle in the _\"Nineteenth Century\"_ magazine. We\nquote from his article.\n\n\"Along with the earlier specimens of deep sea deposits sent home by\nnaturalists during the first soundings in connection with the Atlantic\ntelegraph cable, there was very often a sort of enveloping slimy mucus\nin the containing bottles which arrested the attention and excited the\ncuriosity of the specialists to whom they were consigned. It was\nstructureless to all miscroscopic examination. But so is all the\nprotoplasmic matter of which the lowest animals are found. Could it be a\nwidely diffused medium of this protoplasmic material, not yet\nspecialized or individualized into organic forms, nor itself yet in a\ncondition to build up inorganic skeletons for a habitation? Here was a\ngrand idea. It would be well to find missing links; but it would be\nbetter to find the primordial substance out of which all living things\nhad come. The ultra-Darwinian enthusiasts were enchanted. Haeckel\nclapped his hands and shouted _Eureka!_ loudly. Even the cautious and\ndiscriminating mind of Professor Huxley was caught by this new and grand\ngeneralization of the 'physical basis of life;' It was announced by him\nto the British Association in 1868. Dr. Will Carpenter took up the\nchorus. He spoke of 'a living expanse of protoplasmic substance,'\npenetrating with its living substance the 'whole mass' of the oceanic\nmud. A fine new Greek name was devised for this mother slime, and it was\nchristened 'Bathybius,'\" (from two Greek words meaning \"depth\" and\n\"life,\"), \"from the consecrated deeps in which it lay. The conception\nran like wildfire through the popular literature of science. Expectant\nimagination soon played its part. Wonderful movements were soon seen in\nthis mysterious slime. It became an 'irregular network,' and it could be\nseen gradually 'altering its form,' so that 'entangled granules changed\ntheir relative positions.\"\n\nSuch was Bathybius, which once raised such a commotion in the world of\nscience, but which is never heard of or even alluded to in scientific\ncircles today. And now for the issue of this discovery of such mighty\npromise. In the year 1872, the \"Challenger,\" commanded by John Murray,\nset out on a voyage of deep-sea exploration. \"The naturalists of the\n'Challenger' began their voyage in full Bathybian faith. But the sturdy\nmind of Mr. John Murray kept its balance--all the more easily since he\nnever could himself find or see any trace of this protoplasm _when the\ndredges of the 'Challenger' came fresh from the ocean bottom_. Again and\nagain he looked for it, but never could he discover it. It always hailed\nfrom England. The bottles sent there were reported to yield it in\nabundance, but somehow it seemed to be hatched in them. The laboratory\nin London was its unfailing source. The ocean never yielded it until it\nhad been bottled. At last, one day on board the 'Challenger,' an\naccident revealed the mystery. One of Mr. Murray's assistants poured a\nlarge quantity of spirits of wine into a bottle containing some pure\nsea-water, when lo! the wonderful protoplasm Bathybius appeared! It was\n_the chemical precipitate of sulphate of lime_ produced by the mixture\nof alcohol and sea-water! Thereafter 'Bathybius' disappeared from\nscience.\"\n\nThe term \"protoplasm\" has, indeed, been retained by writers on biology.\nThe whole body of an animal, and the structure of plants, are understood\nto consist of cells. The cells consist of a colorless substance, and\nthis is called \"protoplasm.\" It is a substance of very complex chemical\nand physical make-up, in fact, no chemist has yet been able to analyze\nit and a famous biologist says that very probably it may never be\nanalyzed (David Starr Jordan.) Protoplasm, like the white of egg, is the\nbasic substance of life, yet in the variety of forms which it takes it\nis of _\"almost unlimited complexity\"_ (Jordan). Now, a new difficulty\ndevelops when this complex character of protoplasm as it is now found in\nanimals and plants is considered. Clear (unmodified) protoplasm, as\nfound in white of egg and in the white cells of the blood, is the\nstructureless substance called albumen. However, protoplasm varies\nalmost infinitely in consistency, in shape, in structure, and in\nfunction. It is sometimes so fluid as to be capable of forming in drops,\nsometimes semifluid, sometimes almost solid. In shape the cells may be\nclub shaped, globe shaped, threaded, flat, conical. Some protoplasm\nproduces fat, others produce nerve substances, others brain substances,\nbone, muscle, etc., each producing only its own kind, uninterchangeable\nwith the rest. Lastly, there is the overwhelming fact that there is an\ninfinite difference of protoplasm in the infinitely different plants and\nanimals, in each of which _its own protoplasm but produces its own kind_.\n\"Here are several thousand pieces of protoplasm; analysis can detect no\ndifference in them. They are to us, let us say, as they are to Mr.\nHuxley, identical in power, in form, and in substance; and yet on all\nthese several thousand little bits of apparently indistinguishable matter\nan element of difference so pervading and so persistent has been\nimpressed, that of them all, not one is interchangeable with another!\nEach seed feeds its own kind. The protoplasm of the gnat will no more\ngrow into the fly than it will grow into an elephant. Protoplasm is\nprotoplasm; yes, but man's protoplasm is man's protoplasm, and the\nmushroom's the mushroom's.\" (Dr. Sterling, _\"As Regards Protoplasm.\"_)\nHence we are compelled to acknowledge not an identity of protoplasm in\nall substances, but an infinite diversity. It follows that the\nderivation of all plant and animal forms from an original speck or germ\nof living matter is not only un-proven, but is contradicted by\nbiological science.\n\nDarwin himself, like his co-laborer Wallace, was constrained to admit\nthat the origin of life constitutes an unsolved problem. Matter and\nforce do not account for it. Darwin accepted a divine fiat somewhere in\nthe beginning. He says. \"There is grandeur in this view of life, with\nits several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into\nthe first forms or into one.\" In other words, the creation of the first\nliving being was an exceptional kind of power. But if, as Mr. Darwin\nsays, life was breathed by the Creator into the first forms, this\nconstitutes a break in the sufficiency of natural causes alone to\nproduce life. If a special fiat was necessary at this point, why may it\nnot have been at others? If by divine omnipotence, life is believed to\nhave been originated, why shall we not believe that by divine\nomnipotence the various species of plants and animals were brought forth\nas related in the first chapter of the Bible? \"If the Creator could\nbreathe life into a few forms or into one, as Darwin thinks he did,\nwithout violating the law of his own being, and in accordance with the\nlaws which he has established, it seems evident that he might at other\ntimes breathe life into other forms in accordance with his laws. I see\nno necessity for a logic that would compel the Creator to confine the\nnumber of his creative fiats to a few, or to one, nor which would limit\nthe fiats to one time.\" (Fairhurst, _\"Organic Evolution Considered.\"_)\n\nBiological Barriers.\n\nThe atom, the molecule, the life-germ,--these are the barriers which\nstand against the evolutionistic conception of origins on the physical\nside. We proceed to investigate the points at which _biology_ touches\nour problem, and again three barriers call for notice and investigation:\nThe difference between plants and animals; the difference between\nvertebrates and invertebrates; and the difference between mammals and\nall other vertebrates.\n\n1. _Whence the animal kingdom?_ This stage in the scale of life, the\nadvance from vegetable to the animal kingdom, is, to quote Mr. Wallace,\nagain \"completely beyond all possibility of explanation by _matter,_ its\nlaws and forces. It is the introduction of _sensation or consciousness,_\nconstituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and\nvegetable kingdoms.\" Plants live, animals live _and feel;_ and they have\nconsciousness. At this point again, only a thorough-going materialist\nwill deny the working of an outside power, a power not resident in\nmatter, but altering and molding matter from without and endowing it\nwith new abilities. Only an act of this Power Without could endow living\nsubstance with feeling and consciousness. No one can here any longer\nappeal to that undefined chemico-electric action by which some attempt\nto account for protoplasm. Mr. Wallace says: \"Here all idea of mere\ncomplication of structure producing the result is out of the question.\nWe feel it to be altogether preposterous to assume that at a certain\nstage of complexity of atomic constitution, and as a necessary result of\nthat complexity alone, an _ego_ should start into existence,--a thing\nthat _feels,_ that is _conscious_ of its own existence. Here we have the\ncertainty that something new has arisen,--a being whose nascent\nconsciousness has gone on increasing in power and definiteness till it\nhas culminated in the higher animals. No verbal explanation or attempt\nat explanation--such as the statement that life is 'the result of the\nmolecular forces of the protoplasm,' or that the whole existing organic\nuniverse from the amoeba up to man was latent in the fire-mist from\nwhich the solar system was developed--can afford any mental satisfaction,\nor help us in any way to a solution of the mystery.\"\n\n2. _Whence the backbone?_ All animals are divided into vertebrates and\ninvertebrates, the animals with a backbone and animals without. Between\nthese two groups the barrier of backbone stands impassable till it is\nexplained how a butterfly could become a bird, or a snail a serpent, or\na star fish acquire the skeleton of the shark. These two groups, the\nvertebrate animals and the invertebrate, must be regarded as\nfundamentally distinct.\n\n3. _Whence the breast?_ Vertebrates are either mammals or submammals.\nThe breastless tribes are brids, [tr. note: sic] reptiles, and fishes.\nThese are far beneath in the scale, while the mammal, by its peculiar\nendowment in that it gives suck to its young, stands elect, aloft, and\napart. Till it is shown how an animal that never got milk from its\nmother stumbled on the capacity of giving what was never given it, _the\nbreast_ will stand, against all dreams of development, companion-barrier\nto the backbone. Nor is there an animal that can be regarded as a\nconnecting link between these two master groups.\n\nThe \"theistic\" evolutionist, who believes that God at various times\n\"helped out\" the forces residing in matter, by creating something new,\nis inclined to say that at each of these points,--the origin of the\nfirst sentient animal, the origin of the first vertebrate, and of the\nfirst mammal,--God by his omnipotence caused a new type to originate.\nAside from the fact that \"forces resident in matter,\" the basic idea of\nthe evolutionistic theory, here begins to become somewhat faint as a\nbackground even for a \"theistic\" conception of development, it is\nevident that we have already reached a point far down the scale of\norganic evolution in which the admission must be made that no possible\nworking of forces within matter can account for the change. Again we\nsay, if we already admit that the various great types of animal life\ncould not originate without a special creative act of God, then why\nshould we not accept the record of Genesis which says that the various\nspecies of plants and the various species of animals were created, each\na separate species, in the beginning? Once admit special creative acts,\nand there is no longer any need for a hypothesis of evolution.\n\nMan.\n\nThe difficulty which stands in the way of accepting, on purely\nscientific grounds, the descent of man from a brute ancestor, is, first\nof all a biological (physiological) difficulty. Among all the mammalia\n(to accept the classification of man with that group), man alone has a\nperfect brain. By this we mean the physiologically and structurally\nperfect brain. It is present even in the lowest man--present in the\nnegro or the Australian Bushman as in the civilized American; and absent\nin all living beings below man--absent in the ape or the elephant as\ntruly as in the lowest mammals, the kangaroo or the duckbill. Its sign\nis _language,_ capacity of _progress, culture_. All healthy human\nbrains are structurally perfect; the highest brute brains are\nstructurally imperfect. The least cultivated human being is susceptible\nof culture; a savage not only possesses the endowment of language but\nmay be educated to appreciate the art of a Raphael or a Shakespeare. The\nbrains of all other living beings are circumscribed by instinct, which\nnever progresses. The perfect brain thus introduces another impassable\nbiological barrier dividing the world of life.\n\nHowever, the derivation of man from brute ancestry is attended by\nanother and even greater difficulty. The brain, after all, is but an\norgan, it is the organ of _Mind_. Man possesses faculties of intellect\n(reason, imagination, the artistic faculties, etc.) and, above all, a\nmoral nature, which raises him far above the brute. These faculties\ncould not possibly have been developed by means of forces resident in\nmatter or by means of the laws which are made to account for the\nphysical universe.\n\nThe very term \"evolution\" implies the development of something that was\nat first involved, or essentially infolded, in that in which evolution\nbegan. In man there are attributes and faculties not shown by lower\norders. Evolution, seeking to be consistent, answers: \"It is true that\nfaculties cannot be evolved out of a thing unless they exist in a crude\nand undeveloped state in that thing, but these higher faculties _do\nexist_ in the lower orders, potentially, or in a germ form and are\ndeveloped and become operative only in the higher forms of life.\"\n\nEvolutionists do not shrink from this application of their theory to the\nhuman mind. The attributes of a Shakespeare and the moral nature of a\nPaul were, essentially or potentially (capable of development), in the\nstar fish and the jelly fish. The difference is not one of kind but of\ndevelopment and degree. Man has these faculties developed, the animals\nhave them undeveloped. In the _\"Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,\"_\npublished by his son, is a letter from Mr. Darwin to W. Graham, written\nin 1881, from which I quote the following: \"I have no practice in\nabstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless, you have\nexpressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly\nthan I could have done. But then, with me, the horrid doubt always\narises _whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed\nfrom the lower animals, are of any value, or are at all trustworthy.\"_\nAgain he says (p. 528), in another letter written to Sir C. Lyell:\n\"Grant a simple archetypal creature, like the mud-fish or lepidosiren\n(mud eel) with five senses and some vestige of mind, and I believe\nnatural selection will account for the production of every vertebrate\nanimal, including, of course, man.\"\n\nObserve that this language is very definite. It says that the mind of\nman, with all its wonderful attributes and faculties, was evolved from\nthe mind of the lower animals--and he goes as low as the mud-fish and\nthe eel that live in the slime of the swamps. Now, whoever wishes to\nbelieve such a preposterous assumption can do so. He is able to believe\nalmost anything, and to disbelieve everything. Mr. Darwin himself says\nhe looks upon man's convictions as of no value, because they are the\nconvictions of a mind derived from the mind of lower animals; nor can\none blame him for being skeptical. Our point, however, is that there is\nsuch a tremendous difference between the intellectual and moral\nfaculties of man and the barely instinctive impulses of the lower\ncreatures, that no one can see any connection between the two, unless\nthere is some serious defect in his own mental or moral perceptions.\nEvery instinct and conviction of the human mind rises in indignant\nrepudiation of the theory of man's descent.\n\nThere are even among thoroughgoing Darwinians some who draw the line at\nthis (necessary) application of the development idea. Wallace says, at\nthe conclusion of his defense of Darwinism: \"The faculties of man could\nnot possibly have been developed by means of the same laws which have\ndetermined the progressive development of the world in general, and\nalso of man's physical organism\"--the human body. He finds in the origin\nof Mind clear indications of \"an unseen universe--a world of spirit, to\nwhich the world of matter is altogether subordinate.\" (_\"Darwinism,\"_ p.\n320.) Yet the development of mind through merely physical forces is\nupheld to the present day by the majority of evolutionists. The doctrine\nis even found in public school texts. In Davis' _\"Physical Geography,\"_\na high-school text, we read page 341:\n\n\"The greater intelligence of many land animals than of sea animals\nshould also be regarded as a result of the development of land animals\namid a greater variety of geographical conditions than is found in the\nseas. . . . The wonderful intelligence of man has been developed on the\nlands, because only on the lands is to be found the great variety of\nform, climate and products which can stimulate the development of high\nintelligence. It would have been as impossible for man to develop as an\ninhabitant of the dark and monotonous ocean floor as it has been for\ncivilization to arise out of the frozen and lonesome lands of the\nAntarctic regions.\"\n\nThus even the children of our generation are taught a doctrine which is\nnot only unproven but so far falls short of explaining that which it was\ninvented to explain that it cannot, by any correct definition, even be\ndignified with the name of a \"working hypothesis.\" It is a theory of\norigins which fails to account for one thing precisely--Origins.\n\n\nCHAPTER THREE.\nThe Testimony of the Rocks.\n\nWe have seen that the principal argument for a development of the higher\ntypes of life from lower organisms is based upon a study of fossil\nremains (paleontology). The older the strata in the earth's surface, the\nsimpler the animal forms imbedded therein; the more recent the strata,\nthe more complex and highly developed the fossil remains. Popular\nscientific works, and books of refence [tr. note: sic] generally, quote\nit as an axiom: In the oldest rocks the simplest fossils are found,\nhence the higher animals are developed from the lower. Davis \"Physical\nGeograhy\" [tr. note: sic] says (page 17):\n\n\"Age of the Earth.--It is impossible to say what the age of the earth\nand the solar system is, but it certainly should be reckoned in millions\nand millions of years. There is every reason to believe that the sun and\nthe planets existed for an indefinitely long period before the condition\nof the earth's surface was such as to allow the habitation of the planet\nby plants and animals. It is well proved by the prints or fossils of\nvarious plants and animals in ancient rock layers that these lower forms\nof life existed upon the earth for a vast length of time, millions and\nmillions of years before man appeared.\"\n\nHere, then, we are squarely confronted by the issue. Either the rocks\ntestify to a slow evolution of plant and animal life, or they supply no\nsuch testimony. Professor Downing of Chicago University, says that this\nis indeed, the one primary argument for evolution, the rest being simply\ncorroborative. On this _rock_ evolutionists build their scientific\nFaith. Let us investigate.\n\nWe shall note, to begin with, that there are, indeed, a larger number of\nspecies, both of animals and plants, preserved in the rocks,--thousands,\nin fact. There are lowly organisms, of the crab and cuttle fish variety,\nand more highly organized forms, fishes and birds, and there are the\nprints and fossilized bones of great monsters, huge lizards and sloths\nand other mammalia. It is possible to establish a gradation in this great\ncatalog of fossils, beginning with the largest or most perfectly\ndeveloped, and ending with the animals lower in the scale of life; or\nvice versa. The evolutionists say, _vice versa,_ the simplest first, the\nmost complex last, and then they add: _So_ they have developed.\n\nAt this point we shall first quote one of the earliest palaeontologists,\nand one of the most famous, Hugh Miller, whose _\"Old Red Sandstone,\"_\nfirst published in 1841, has now been republished in the _\"Everyman\nLibrary.\"_ In this brilliant work, Miller pays his respects to the\nevolutionists of his age. He refers to Lamarck and says: \"The ingenious\nforeigner, on the strength of a few striking facts which prove that to a\ncertain extent the instincts of species may be improved and heightened,\nand their forms changed from a lower to a higher degree of adaptation to\ntheir circumstances, has concluded that there is a natural progress from\nthe inferior order of being towards the superior, and that the off-spring\nof creatures low in the scale in the present time may hold a much higher\nplace in it, and belong to different and nobler species, a few thousand\nyears hence. . . . He has argued on this principle of improvement and\nadaptation,--which, carry it as far as we rationally may, still leaves\nthe vegetable a vegetable, and the dog a dog,--that in the vast course\nof ages, inferior have risen into superior natures, and lower into higher\nraces; that molluscs and zoophytes have passed into fish and reptiles,\nand fish and reptiles into birds and quadrupeds; that unformed gelatinous\nbodies, with an organisation scarcely traceable, have been metamorphosed\ninto oaks and cedars; and that monkeys and apes have been transformed\ninto human creatures, capable of understanding and admiring the theories\nof Lamarck.\n\n\"It is a law of nature,\" continues Mr. Miller, \"that the chain of being,\nfrom the lowest to the highest form of life, should be, in some degree,\na continuous chain; that the various classes of existence should shade\ninto one another, so that it often proves a matter of no little\ndifficulty to point out the exact line of demarcation where one class or\nfamily ends and another class or family begins. The naturalist passes\nfrom the vegetable to the animal tribes, scarcely aware, amid the\nperplexing forms of intermediate existence, at what point he quits the\nprecincts of the one, to enter on those of the other. All the animal\nfamilies have, in like manner, their connecting links; and it is chiefly\nout of these that writers such as Lamarck and Maillet construct their\nsystem. _They confound gradation with progress_. Geoffrey Hudson was a\nvery short man, and Goliath of Gath a very tall one; and the gradations\nof the human stature lie between. But gradation is not progress; and\nthough we find full-grown men of five feet, five feet six inches, and\nsix feet and a half, the fact gives us no earnest whatever that the race\nis rising in stature, and that at some future period the average height\nof the human family will be somewhat between ten and eleven feet. And\nequally unsolid is the argument that from a principle of gradation in\nraces would reduce a principle of progress in races. The tall man of six\nfeet need entertain quite as little hope of rising into eleven feet as\nthe short man of five; nor has the fish that occasionally flies any\nbetter chance of passing into a bird than the fish that only swims.\nGeology abounds with creatures of the intermediate class. _But it\nfurnishes no genealogical link to show that the existences of one race\nderive their lineage from the existences of another_. The scene shifts\nas we pass from formation to formation; we are introduced in each to a\nnew dramatis personae. Of all the vertebrata, fishes rank lowest, and in\ngeological history appear first. Now, fishes differ very much among\nthemselves: some rank nearly as low as worms,--some nearly as high as\nreptiles; and if fish could have risen into reptiles, and reptiles into\nmammalia, we would necessarily expect to find lower orders of fish\npassing into higher, and taking precedence of the higher in their\nappearance in point of time. If such be not the case,--if fish made\ntheir first appearance, not in their least perfect, but in their most\nperfect state,--not in their nearest approximation to the worm, but in\ntheir nearest approximation to the reptile,--there is no room for\nprogression, and the argument falls. Now, it is a geological fact, that\n_it is fish of the higher orders that appear first on the stage,_ and\nthat they are found to occupy exactly the same level during the vast\nperiod represented by five succeeding formations. There is no\nprogression. If fish rose into reptiles, it must have been by sudden\ntransformation. There is no getting rid of miracle in the case,--there\nis no alternative between creation and metamorphosis. The infidel\nsubstitutes progression for Deiety;--Geology robs him of his God.\"\n\nMr. Miller then relates his discovery of the winged fish (Pterichtys):\n\"Of all the organisms of the Old Red Sandstone, one of the most\nextraordinary, and the one in which Lamarck would have most delighted,\nis the Pterichtys, or winged fish. Had Lamarck been the discoverer, he\nwould unquestionably have held that he had caught a fish almost in the\nact of wishing itself into a bird. Here are wings which lack only\nfeathers, a body which seems to have been as well adapted for passing\nthrough the air as the water and a tail by which to steer. I fain wish\nI could communicate to the reader the feeling with which I contemplated\nmy first-found specimen. It opened with a single blow of the hammer;\nand there on a ground of light-colored limestone, lay the effigy of a\ncreature fashioned apparently out of jet, with a body covered with\nplates, two powerful-looking arms articulated at the shoulders, a head\nas entirely lost in the trunk as that of the ray or the sun-fish, and\nlong angular tail.\" Miller says that he at first thought he had\ndiscovered a kind of turtle that partook of the characteristics of a\nfish. But he continues: \"I had inferred somewhat too hurriedly, though\nperhaps naturally enough, that these wings or arms, with their strong\nsharp points and oar-like blades, had been at once paddles and spears,\n--instrument of motion and weapons of defence; and hence the mistake of\nconnecting the creature with the Chelonia (turtles). I am informed by\nAgassiz, however, that they were weapons of defence only, which, like\nthe spines of the river bull-head, were erected in moments of danger or\nalarm, and at other times lay close by the creature's side; and that\nthe sole instrument of motion was in the tail. The river bull-head, when\nattacked by an enemy, or immediately as it feels the hook in its jaws,\nerects its two spines at nearly right angles with the plates of the head,\nas if to render itself as difficult of being swallowed as possible. The\nattitude is one of danger and alarm; and it is a curious fact, that in\nthis attitude nine-tenth of the Pterichthyes of the Lower Old Red\nSandstone are to be found.\"\n\nA century has passed since Miller thought he had discovered a turtle\nwhich was so modified in structure as to be a link between the turtles\nand the fish. But to the present day geology has failed to furnish\nevidence that such a link at one time existed.\n\nThis _absence, in the geological record, of transitional forms,_ is one\nof the greatest difficulties of the evolutionistic theory. According to\nthe theory, the fossils found in the various layers of rock ought to\nshow gradual modifications, linking the various species of animals and\nplants in a finely graduated system, with thousands of forms showing in\nrudimentary structure those organs which in the more advanced forms\nhave become fully developed. However, no such progress from more to\nless generalized types has been demonstrated, although many trained\ninvestigators have searched the fossiliferous rocks for such evidence\nof evolution. Professor Huxley in his _\"Lay Sermons\"_ admits that an\nimpartial survey of the positively ascertained truths of paleontology\n\"Either shows us no evidence of such modification, or demonstrates\nsuch modification as has occurred to have been very slight; and as to\nthe nature of that modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that\nthe earlier members of any long-continued group were more generalized in\nstructure than the later ones.\" LeConte says: \"Although the species\nchange greatly, and perhaps many times, in passing from the lowest to\nthe highest strata, we do not usually, it must be acknowledged, find the\ngradual transitions we would naturally expect, if the change were\neffected by gradual transitions.\" He further speaks of the absence of\nconnecting links as \"the greatest of all objections\" against the theory\nof evolution. (_\"Evolution,\"_ p. 234.) This absence of transitional\nforms between different species has always been recognized as a serious\ndifficulty; and Mr. Darwin, in the attempt to obviate it, succeeds only\nin showing how very serious it is. These are his words: \"Geology\nassuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and\nthis, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be\nurged against my theory.\"\n\nAlfred Fairhurst says, in his _\"Organic Evolution Considered\"_ (p. 93):\n\n\"According to the theory of evolution, and especially of natural\nselection, if we start with any organism and trace its history backward,\nwe would find that through an endless number of generations it had been\nvery slightly changing, so that any individual is always a transitional\nform between its immediate ancestors and its own offspring. This being\ntrue, one would expect, if the theory of evolution is true, to find vast\nnumbers of transitional forms connecting earlier and later species in\nthe various periods where fossils are well preserved. This, however, is\nnot true. Species, when they first appear, stand sharply defined. Darwin\nexpresses his disappointment at the absence of transitional forms as\nfollows: 'But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how\npoor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not\nthe absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which\nlived at the commencement and close of each formation pressed so hardly\non my theory.'\"\n\nEven a cursory study of such texts as Dana's _\"Manual of Geology\"_ will\nreveal that the development of the plants and animals through the \"ages\"\nof speculative geology does not move forward like a steadily rising\nflood. There is rather a series of great waves, each rising abruptly,\nnew forms often appearing suddenly and together. The very simplest known\nfossils, the trilobites, of which nearly a hundred species are known in\nAmerica alone, and certain cephalopods (sea snails) are animals highly\ncomplex in structure and regarded by Le Conte as \"hardly lower than the\nmiddle of the animal scale.\" The trilobites possess well developed\ncompound eyes and the cephalopods have simple eyes, almost as complex as\nthe eyes of man, possess a well defined stomach, a systemic heart, a\nliver, and a highly developed nervous system [tr. note: no period in\noriginal] Observe, that these two highly organized forms of animals,\n\"hardly to be regarded as lower than the middle of the animal scale,\"\nare the very \"oldest\" animals found in fossil form! In other words, of\nat least one half of the total progress of the animal kingdom every\nvestige is lost. If we turn a few pages in Dana's _\"Manual\"_ we find in\nthe sandstone of the \"Devonian Era\" gigantic species of fish. The entire\nrecord of evolution from the mollusk to the fish is lost! There is not a\nsingle transitional form. These fishes have organs as complex and\nperfect as the fishes of to-day. Suddenly, in the \"carbonic age\"\namphibia and reptiles appear, and then come, in the \"Triassic\" the huge\nreptiles known as dinosaurs. Insects and scorpions have been found in\nthe \"Silurian.\" [tr. note: sic on punctuation] They stand among the\nhighest of even _living_ articulates, and they are the \"oldest\" known\nairbreathing animals. \"We seek in vain for the progenitors of these\nhighly organized articulates or for some conceivable method by which\ntheir wings and special breathing apparatus could have evolved. We do\nnot know that these first insects and scorpions have made any material\nprogress through all the ages.\" (Fairhurst.)\n\nProfessor Huxley in delivering the anniversary address to the Geological\nSociety for 1870, quotes the following from an address before the same\nsociety in 1862: \"If we confine ourselves to positively ascertained\nfacts, the total amount of change in the forms of animal and vegetable\nlife since the existence of such forms is recorded, is small. When\ncompared with the lapse of time since the first appearance of these\nforms, the amount of change is wonderfully small. Moreover, in each great\ngroup of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, there are certain forms which\nI termed Persistent Types, which have remained, with but very little\napparent change, from their first appearance to the present time. In\nanswer to the question, 'What then does an impartial survey of the\npositively ascertained truths of paleontology testify in relation to the\ncommon doctrines of progressive modification, which suppose that\nmodification to have taken place by necessary progress from more to less\nembryonic forms, from more to less generalized types within the limits of\nthe period represented by the fossiliferous rocks?' I reply, It negatives\nthese doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of such\nmodifications, or demonstrates such modification as has occurred to have\nbeen very slight. The significance of persistent types and of the small\namount of change which has taken place even in those forms which can be\nshown to have been modified, becomes greater and greater in my eyes, the\nlonger I occupy myself with the Biology of the past.\"\n\nFrom the fact that the trilobites, so highly organized, appeared in the\n\"primordial,\" or \"oldest\" strata, it would seem that they were specially\nadapted to make progress. They lived through \"Paleozoic\" time, which,\naccording to Dana, represents twelve of the sixteen parts of all\ngeological time, beginning with the Primordial; or, calling the whole\ngeological time 48 millions of years, the trilobites lived 36 million of\nyears, or three-fourths of all geological time. From their great\npersistence in time (accepting, for the sake of argument, the \"ages\" of\nspeculative geology) it would seem that they had a remarkably good\nopportunity to make wonderful progress in structure. During that time\nthere were thousands of species, yet they made no progress. We do not\nknow that in all those \"millions of years\" a single higher form was\nevolved from any one of the great multitude of species of trilobites. As\nDarwin says of the goose, so one may say of the trilobite; it \"had a\nsingularly inflexible organization.\" The remarkable thing about this,\nhowever, is that previous to the \"Primordial,\" while it was becoming a\ntrilobite, it must have had a singularly flexible organization, otherwise\nit could not have obtained its complex structure; but when it reached the\n\"Primordial\" it became very conservative.\n\nFairhurst says, in the work already quoted:\n\n\"It is a most remarkable fact that in the first geological period in\nwhich undoubted fossils occur, all the sub-kingdoms except that of the\nvertebrates are well represented, and that there is no evidence from\nfossils that one sub-kingdom, or even that different classes of the same\nsub-kingdom were evolved from each other. The great gulfs that separate\nthe animal kingdom into sub-kingdoms and classes existed then, and have\ncontinued till the present time.... If we rely on known fossils as\nevidence, we would be obliged to conclude that highly organized fishes\nwere suddenly introduced. The break in the supposed chain of evolution\nbetween the invertebrates and the highly organized vertebrates of the\nLower Silurian is one of the greatest in the whole geological record. The\nvast gulf between these structures must, I think, remain unbridged except\nby the imagination.\"\n\nThe late Prof. Joseph LeConte, of the University of California, writes\nin his book, \"Religion and Science:\" \"The evidence of geology to-day is\nthat species seem to come in suddenly and in full perfection, remain\nsubstantially unchanged during the term of their existence, and pass\naway in full perfection. Other species take their places apparently by\nsubstitution, not by transmutation.\"\n\nDr. Robert Watts uses these emphatic words: \"The record of the rocks\nknow nothing of the evolution of a higher form from a lower form.\nNeither the paleozoic age nor the living organisms of our world reveal\nan authentic instance of such evolution. Both nature and revelation\nproclaim it as an inviolable law that like produces like.\"\n\nAnd Hugh Miller went one step further when he testified: \"I would ask\nsuch of the gentlemen whom I now address as have studied the subject\nmost thoroughly, whether, at those grand lines of division between the\nPalaeozoic and Secondary, and again between the Secondary and Tertiary\nperiods, at which the entire type of organic being alters, so that all\non the one side of the gap belongs to one fashion, and all on the other\nto another and wholly different fashion,--whether they have not been as\nthoroughly impressed with the conviction that there existed a Creative\nAgent, to whom the sudden change was owing, as if they themselves had\nwitnessed the miracle of creation?\" (Presidential address before the\nRoyal Physical Society of Edinburgh, 1852.)\n\nBut we have not yet done with this part of our investigation. The\nargument from geology is based on the assumption that the chronological\norder of the earth's layers _has been determined_ at least with great\napproximation to certainty, so that we may say with some assurance that\nthis layer of limestone or sandstone is of earlier, that, of later\norigin. As a matter of fact, the textbooks do treat the various \"ages\"\nof geology as if they corresponded to certain strata of the earth's\ncrust. _But by what method is the age of the various layers determined?_\nJames D. Dana in his \"Manual of Geology\" (Fourth edition, p. 398 f.)\nsays that there are four methods by which we may decide the relation of\none layer to another. The first is, naturally, the order in which the\nlayers rest upon one another; the lower strata, are, of course, older\nthan the upper. However, he points out in four \"precautions\" the\ninability of the investigator to depend on this method, since \"for the\ncomparing of rocks of disconnected regions, this criterion must fail.\"\nAlso the color and mineral composition can be used only \"with distrust\"\nand must be \"usually disregarded.\" Then the _Manual_ proceeds: \"4\n _Fossils_.--The criterion for determining the chronological order of\nstrata dependent on kinds of fossils takes direct hold upon time, and\ntherefore, _is the best;_ and, moreover, it serves for the correlation\nof rocks all over the world.\" Now observe how, in the following, the\ngeologist leans upon the evolutionist: _\"The life of the globe has\nchanged with the progress of time. Each epoch has had its peculiar\nspecies, or peculiar groups of species._ Moreover, the succession of\nlife has followed a grand law of progress, involving under a single\nsystem a closer and closer approximation in the species, as time moved\non, to those which now exist. It follows, therefore, that _identity of\nspecies of fossils proves approximate identity of age.\"_ Let us bear\nthis in mind. Dana _takes for granted_ the evolutionary process. The\nsimpler forms of animal life indicate the older strata, the complex\nforms, the more recent. We do not misunderstand Mr. Dana. Such\nexpressions as the following abound: \"Where direct paleontological\nobservation has ascertained in particular cases the steps of progress in\nthe development of organs, as, for example, those of the teeth in\nMammals, the facts become a basis for further use in the same\ndirection.\" (p. 402.) \"The grander divisions of geological time should\nbe based, in a comprehensive way, on organic progress\" (from simple to\nmore complex structures) (p. 404.) \"When the relations of the beds to\nthose recognized in other regions have been ascertained through\nfossils...\" (p. 405.)\n\nThe principle announced by Dana is accepted by geologists generally.\nAngelo Heilprin in _\"The Earth and its Story,\"_ p. 153 ff. has the\nfollowing: \"There has been a steady and progressive advance in the\ngeneral type of organization from the oldest to the newest periods; more\nhighly developed or more complicated forms have successively replaced\nforms of simpler construction; and this advance is still continuing\nto-day. Once more, the correctness of the evolutionary hypothesis is\ntaken for granted. In the oldest rocks, for example, no trace of\nbackboned animals has yet been detected; when such do appear for the\nfirst time, they show themselves in their lowest types, the fishes;\nthese are succeeded later by the amphibians (frogs, newts, salamanders),\nand these again by reptiles. And if we take the fishes by themselves, we\nfind that they, too, begin with their lower, if not absolutely the\nlowest types, and progressively develop their higher ones. This history\nis repeated in the cases of the reptiles and quadrupeds--in fact, with\nevery class of animals that is known to us. _Naturalists_ (evolutionists)\nare to-day well agreed among themselves that all animal and vegetable\nforms are derivatives from forms that preceded them..... Hence it is,\nthat, in following the geological record, we speak of progressive\nevolution, the evolving of higher or more complicated types of organisms\nfrom those simpler and more general in structure.\" Now read carefully\nthe following: _\"This fact_ has permitted geologists to mark off\ndistinct eras or periods in the life-history of the planet, each of them\ndetermined by certain characteristic animal or vegetable forms, which\neither do not appear before or after such period, or else are by numbers\nso distinctive of it as to typify it clearly.\" Evidently, the\nPhiladelphia professor, too, _assumes_ \"progressive evolution\" _as an\nascertained fact_ and in accordance therewith classifies the layers of\nthe earth's surface. \"Almost every species of fossil has a definite\nposition in the geological scale, and would by itself serve to locate a\nformation; but oftentimes the determination of species, owing to\ninsufficiency of knowledge of the obliteration of characters, is a most\ndifficult task, and then recourse is had to the aspect of the entire\ngroup 'of fossils which a given rockmass contains. This generally _gives\nthe age_ or position without difficulty.\" Edward Clodd, in _\"The Story\nof Creation, a Plain Account of Evolution,\"_ says, page 18. \"The\nrelative _age and place of each stratum .... are fixed by the fossils.\"_\n\nNow, is not this a most extraordinary situation? The evolutionist says:\nThe science of paleontology furnishes the basic argument for our\nhypothesis,--the older the strata of the earths surface, the simpler the\nfossils found therein. This sounds impressive. But we ask him: How do\nyou know the age of the strata,--and the answer is, that, of course, is\nthe business of the geologist to determine. We now turn to the geologist\nand ask: How do you determine the age of the strata? And the geologist\nanswers: Why, evolutionary science has proven that the simplest animals\nand plants appeared first; hence, where I find simple fossils, I know\nthat I have a more ancient bed of lime-stone or sand-stone than the\nstrata which contain more complex forms,--which appeared later. Note\nwell, the geologists which we have quoted assert that this is the best\nand final proof for the position of a stratum in the scale of geological\nhistory. The geologist depends on the fossils. But he believes these to\nbelong to an earlier or more recent age because he accepts _the\nevolutionist's_ word for it. And the evolutionist says: the _geologist_\nsays these rocks are oldest; but in them I find the simplest forms;\nhence the evolutionary theory is proven.\n\nWe repeat it,--is not this a very, very extraordinary situation? Have we\nnot here a perfect case of what logicians call \"reasoning in a circle,\"\nor \"begging the question?\" How can the evolutionist quote the geologist\nwhen the geologist asserts that he classifies his layers of rock\naccording to the fossils,--and that he accepts what the evolutionists\nasserts [tr. note: sic] regarding these?\n\nWhat, in view of this situation, becomes of the evolutionist's argument\nfrom fossils? And what becomes of the \"ages\" of speculative geology?\n\n\nCHAPTER FOUR.\nThe Fixity of Species.\n\nA writer in the _\"Lutheran Companion\"_ recently said that his seven year\nold boy brought home a text book some months ago, called _\"Home\nGeography for Primary Grades.\"_ On page 143 is found this statement\nabout birds: \"Ever so long ago, their grandfathers were not birds at\nall. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings nor feathers.\nThese grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long tail and jaws with\nteeth. After a time feathers grew upon their bodies and their front legs\nbecome changed for flying. These were strange looking creatures. There\nare none living like them now.\"\n\nOne is tempted to disgress, [tr. note: sic] for a moment, from the\nsubject at hand in order to draw, from this incident, an argument for\nthe Christian Day School; but we shall desist. The quotation is here\nadduced to illustrate the vogue which evolution, specifically Darwinism,\nstill maintains in the literature, even in the school-texts of our day.\nBabes and sucklings are introduced to the theory of evolutionary\ndevelopment, and the theory is presented with an assurance as if it were\nscientific truth. The words of Agassiz, prince of naturalists, apply\nto-day. \"The manner in which the evolution theory in zoology is treated\nwould lead those who are not special zoologists to suppose that\nobservations have been made by which it can be inferred that there is\nin nature such a thing as change among organized beings actually taking\nplace.\" He adds: \"There is no such thing on record. It is shifting the\nground from one field of observation to another to make this statement,\nand when the assertions go so far as to exclude from the domain of\nscience those who will not be dragged into this mire of mere assertion,\nthen it is time to protest.\"\n\nDr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, more recently said:\n\"If the theory of evolution be true, during the many thousands of years\ncovered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there would\ncertainly be known at least a few instances, or at least one instance,\nof the evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known.\nAbstract arguments sound learned and appear imposing, so that many are\ndeceived by them. But in this matter we remove the question from the\nabstract to the concrete. We are told that facts warrant the\nevolutionary theory. But do they? Where is one single fact?\"\n\nThe hypothesis assumes that through environment, certain varieties of\nspecies (both of plants and animals) arose, and that the varieties best\nfitted, through their habits, structure, or color, to maintain\nthemselves in the struggle for existence, survived the species less\nfavorably endowed, and hence persisted. (We have quoted in our initial\nchapter the classical illustration of the dipper-birds from Wallace's\n_\"Darwinism.\"_)\n\nNow, as a matter of fact, we cannot prove that a single species has\nchanged. These are the words of Darwin himself, quoted from _\"Life and\nLetters,\"_ Vol. III, p. 25: \"There are two or three million of species\non earth, sufficient field, one might think, for observation. But it\nmust be said to-day that in spite of all the efforts of trained\nobservers, not one change of a species into another is on record.\" Dr.\nN. S. Shaler, Professor of Geology in Harvard, asserts that \"it has not\nbeen proved that a single species has been established solely or even\nmainly by the operation of Natural Selection.\" Professor Fleischmann, of\nErlangen, has gone so far as to say that \"the Darwinian theory of\ndescent has, in the realms of nature, not a single fact to confirm it.\"\nDr. Ethridge of the British Museum says: \"In all this great museum there\nis not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species. Nine-tenths\nof the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on\nobservation and wholly unsupported by facts.\" Prof. Owen declares that\n\"no instance of change of one species into another has ever been\nrecorded by man.\" Dr. Martin, Sanitaetsrat, of Germany, who has\nconducted some highly technical experiments in the blood reactions of\nvarious animals and man, on which he bases his conclusions, says: \"Since\nDarwin we have been accustomed to consider the concept 'species' as\nsomething insecure and unstable. The whole organic world must be thought\nof as fluid if the evolution theory is to find room for action. It\nrequired, indeed, all the great investigator's keenness to fence his\ntheory against the difficulty which the lack of transitional forms\noccasioned, and against the fact that the rise of a new species has\nnever been observed, much more against the fact that all processes in\nartificial breeding have not sufficed to fix permanently the changes\nwhich have been attained. We admire the clever structure of the theory,\nbut there is no doubt that the obstinacy with which the organism clings\nto its species-characteristics is the point on which it is mortal. One\nis, [tr. note: sic] in fact, as much justified in speaking of a struggle\nto retain these characteristics as to speak of a struggle for existence.\"\n\nMan has been able greatly to modify many vegetable productions. Witness\nthe comparatively recent changes in the potato plant. The small, almost\nworthless tubers of the wild potato have changed, under the force of\nintelligent cultivation, to the large, starchy, nutritious vegetables,\nwhich furnish so many people a large portion of their food. Mind has\nbeen at work; mind and nature have changed the size, the quality, the\nproductiveness of the _solatium tubcrosum;_ but neither mind nor nature,\nnor both combined, have, so far as we know, ever in the slightest degree\nchanged the species. Potatoes are potatoes still, and always will be.\nThe present law of vegetation is that intelligent cultivation of almost\nany plant will either change the original in one way or another, or,\nwhat is more likely, will produce several distinct varieties; but that\nall these changed forms are but mere modifications of the original\nspecies, and that, when deprived of intelligent cultivation, they all\ntend to revert to the original form. It is true that we see many and\nvery diverse varieties of certain species, especially those that have\nreceived the most attention from the hands of man. The dog, for\ninstance, exists as the great, shaggy Newfoundland or St. Bernard, or as\nthe tight girted greyhound, as the petted poodle or the despised \"yellow\ndog;\" but in every case he is a dog, and not a wolf, and his fellow dogs\nrecognize him as such, too. Hens differ amazingly; new breeds\nperiodically come into existence and into fashion; but turn them loose,\nand they will all seek the barnyard, and soon your fancy breeds will\nbecome corrupt. They \"revert to type.\" By the exercise of intelligent\nselection and training, man is able to emphasize certain points and to\nproduce new breeds, but not to change the essential structure nor to\nalter the specific characteristics. The species are _fixed_. Huxley says:\n\n\"If you breed from the male and female of the same race, you of course\nhave offspring of the like kind, and if you make the offspring breed\ntogether, you obtain the same result, and if you breed from these again,\nyou will still have the same kind of offspring; there is no check. But\nif you take members of two distinct species, however similar they may be\nto each other, and make them breed together, _you will find a check_. If\nyou cross two such species with each other, then--although you may get\noffspring in the case of the first cross, yet, if you attempt to breed\nfrom the products of that crossing, which are what are called hybrids--\nthat is, if you couple a male and a female hybrid--then the result is\nthat in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at\nall; there will be no result whatsoever.\n\n\"The reason of this is quite obvious in some cases; the female hybrids,\nalthough possessing all the external appearances and characteristics of\nperfect animals, are physiologically imperfect and deficient in the\nstructural parts of the reproductive elements necessary to generation.\nIt is said to be invariably the case with the male mule, the cross\nbetween the ass and the mare; and hence it is that although crossing\nthe horse with the ass is easy enough, and is constantly done as far as\nI am aware, if you take two mules, a male and a female, and endeavor to\nbreed from them, you get no offspring whatever; no generation will take\nplace. This is what is called the sterility of the hybrids between two\ndistinct species.\" (Huxley, _\"On the Origin of Species.\"_ p. 212.) He\ncontinues:\n\n\"Thus you see that there is a great difference between 'mongrels,' which\nare crosses between distinct races, and 'hybrids,' which are crosses\nbetween distinct species. The mongrels are, so far as we know, fertile\nwith one another. But between species, in many cases, you cannot succeed\nin obtaining even the first cross; at any rate it is quite certain\nthat the hybrids are often absolutely infertile one with another.\n\n\"Here is a feature, then, great or small as it may be, which\ndistinguishes natural species of animals. Can we find any approximation\nto this in the different races known to be produced by selective\nbreeding from a common stock? Up to the present time the answer to that\nquestion is absolutely a negative one. As far as we know at present,\nthere is nothing approximating to this check. In crossing the breeds,\nbetween the fantail and the pouter, the carrier and the tumbler, or any\nother variety or race you may name--so far as we know at present--there\nis no difficulty in breeding together the mongrels.\" However, he\ncontinues, as soon as you remove the conditions which produced the new\nvariety,--as when you permit pigeons to mate promiscuously,--no matter\nhow different the varieties may have been, you will have, in a few\ngenerations of pigeons, the same blue rock pigeon with the black bars\nacross the wings. No new species has originated. All varieties, in a\nfree state, revert to type. \"This,\" says Huxley, \"is certainly a very\nremarkable circumstance.\"\n\nFairhurst points out the difficulties in which the evolutionist becomes\ninvolved through the fixity of species. He writes: \"It is well known\nthat as a rule distinct species will not cross, and that if they do\ncross the offspring are not fertile. On the other hand, it is true that\nall _varieties_ of a species readily cross, producing fertile offspring.\nThis has commonly been regarded as a well-defined distinction between\nvarieties and species. If the varieties of pigeons which are so\ndifferent from each other did not freely cross, and if the mongrel\noffspring were not fertile, Darwin's argument as to the production of\nnew _species_ under domestication would be complete. The fact is, we do\nnot know of the origin of any two species of animals that do not cross\nand whose offspring are not fertile; in other words, we do not know of\nthe origin of _species,_ but only of _varieties_. The origin of species\nthat will not cross and produce fertile offspring is _assumed_ from the\norigin of varieties that do cross and produce fertile offspring. This\nleaves the evolutionists to account for one of the most difficult things\nin connection with this theory, namely, how did varieties of animals of\nthe same species become cross-sterile?* [[*So that they were unable to\ninterbreed. Only if such cross-sterility exists, could they exist\nthereafter as independent new species.--G.]] Several things must occur\nsimultaneously before cross-sterility between parent and offspring\ncould occur and become effective, namely, a number of individuals must\nbe born at the same time possessing the same variation, the variation\nmust be useful, these individuals must be fertile with each other, they\nmust be cross-sterile with the parent form,\" as, otherwise, the\noffspring would revert to type, \"and, finally, the few, if any,\nindividuals thus produced and being widely scattered through the\nspecies, must find each other before they could propagate. I regard it\nimpossible that these things could all occur simultaneously.\" (_\"Organic\nEvolution,\"_ p. 333.)\n\nMr. Huxley is forced to this admission: \"After much consideration, and\nwith assuredly no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear\nconviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven\nthat a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species\nin nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or\nnatural.\" And again. \"Our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be\nprovisional so long as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting; and\nso long as all the animals and plants certainly produced by selective\nbreeding from a common stock are fertile with one another, that link\nwill be wanting.\"\n\nIn a recent book, _\"Creation or Evolution? A Philosophical Inquiry,\"_\nGeorge Ticknor Curtis says: \"The whole doctrine of the development of\ndistinct species out of other species makes demands upon our credulity\nwhich the [tr. note: sic] irreconcilable with the principles of belief\nby which we regulate, or ought to regulate, our acceptance of new\nmatter of belief.\"\n\n\nCHAPTER FIVE.\nRudimentary Organs.\n\nDarwinism does not account for the fact that the various organs of\nanimals while in process of evolution, must have through many\ngenerations, been in a rudimentary, incomplete state. Since it is a\nbasic doctrine of evolution that useful variations were transmitted from\nparent to offspring _because they were useful_; and since furthermore,\nonly the fully developed eye, the hearing ear, the actively functioning\npoison glands of insects and reptiles, etc., as well as the fully\ndeveloped means of defense, were useful, it is not possible to\nunderstand how these organs in their rudimentary state (the half\ndeveloped eye, not yet capable of vision; the rudimentary spinneret of\nthe spider, not yet capable of producing a thread, etc.) could serve\nany purpose which would make their transmission advantageous to the\nspecies.\n\nConversely, the existence of rudimentary organs in living species (the\nrudimentary spurs of female birds, the rudimentary legs of skeleton of\nserpents) proves that organs do not change by use or disuse, otherwise\nthey would long ago have disappeared.\n\nWith regard to this difficulty, Darwin says: \"If it could be\ndemonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly\nhave been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my\ntheory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.\" Let\nus see.\n\nA difficult organ to account for is the electric organ of the skates. In\nthese fishes it has been shown to be a true electric battery, but the\ndischarges from this battery, even in the adults, are so feeble that\nthey are of no practical use so far as has been ascertained. It is well\nknown that the electric eel and the torpedo use their batteries for\nstunning other animals. It is evident that, according to the theory of\nnatural selection, these batteries could not have been preserved through\ntheir long functionless and useless stages, for that theory assumes that\nthey were preserved because they were useful.\n\nIt is asserted by evolutionists that wings as organs of flight have been\nindependently evolved in at least four different lines--namely, in\ninsects, the fossil pterodactyls, birds and bats. That an organ so\nhighly specialized as any one of these wings could be evolved seems\nimprobable; while the evolution of the four different kinds,\nindependently of each other, only increases the improbability. The\ndifficulty, however, is to account for the evolution of any known kind\nof wing. In each case there exists the insuperable difficulty of\npreserving the organ through the rudimentary stages. The wings of an\ninsect in the first generation of its evolution would be almost\nimperceptible and entirely useless for any purpose whatever, and so it\nwould continue to be for a great number of generations. It is evident,\ntherefore, that they could not have been preserved through their long\nrudimentary stage on the ground that they were useful, nor do we know of\nany theory that will account for their evolution. To say that they were\nevolved is easy, but to account for their evolution seems impossible.\nFairhurst refers to the delicate and complex organs of spiders. \"The\norgans which spiders possess for secreting material and for making a web\ncould not have been gradually evolved. The whole apparatus involved in\nmaking the web would be useless until sufficiently developed to make a\nweb. The same is true,\" he continues, \"of the sting of the scorpion, the\nstings of bees, the mandibles of spiders with the gland of poisonous\nfluid at the base, and the poison apparatus of serpents. All of these\nglands for secreting poison would be useless until they could secrete a\nharmful fluid. The spurs of birds present further difficulties to the\ntheory of evolution. Most birds have no spurs. When they possess them,\nas a rule the males alone have them well-developed, while they are\nrudimentary in the females. In some cases, however, both sexes possess\nthem in a well-developed form. But how could a spur be evolved in either\nsex? As a rudiment, it would for many generations be entirely useless\nfor any purpose, and consequently it would not be preserved by natural\nselection, nor in any other possible way, so far as I can see. The spurs\nare in the best possible position on the legs for combat. Why did they\nappear in the best place and nowhere else? As useless rudiments they\nwould be quite as likely to survive in one place as in another. If spurs\ncould not have been preserved by natural selection through their\nrudimentary stage, why assume that they have been evolved according to\nthis law? If they could survive through the critical rudimentary period\ntill they became of use, why not assume that their evolution was\ncontinued according to the same law? The fact is, however, that we know\nof no law according to which they could have been evolved.\" The bat is\nanother highly specialized animal. In many respects it resembles the\nmole, but its hands are, enormously expanded, and the exceedingly long\nfingers are connected by a soft membrane, making a most serviceable wing.\nIt is not extremely likely, assuming the development theory to be true,\nthat both the mole and the bat sprang from a common ancestor? And was\nnot that ancestor probably a wingless, though not a legless mammal? Now,\nhow came the bat to acquire his wings? Did he attempt to spring into the\nair and seize a passing insect, and reach out his paws to catch it? And\ndid those paws gradually become enlarged, till, after some generations,\nthey were real wings? But what happened in the meantime to those\nconnecting links whose wings were but partly developed? A bat with wings\nonly half grown would be a helpless creature, and would surely perish. A\nmole with hands terminating in long, slender fingers, would be helpless,\nand would perish. There is no middle ground. If the ancestor of the bat\nwas a terrestrial creature, with limbs fitted for walking, then it must\nhave given birth to a full-fledged bat, fitted for flying. There could\nhave been no middle stage, for such a creature would have been helpless,\nand must have perished.\n\nAll this applies with equal force to the diversified and often highly\ncomplex structure of plants. As the organs of the various plants are now\nconstituted, they most admirably serve their purpose. Given a slight\nchange, an underdevelopment, and the individual would perish. But such\nunderdeveloped stages must have occurred in the history of every\nlife-form on earth, if a change through slow adaptations is to be\naccepted as a hypothesis to account for their present form. To our mind,\nthis matter of rudimentary structures presents an insuperable obstacle\nto acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis even on scientific grounds.\n\n\nCHAPTER SIX.\nInstinct.\n\nHow the various instincts of animals, the homing instinct of birds and\ninsects, the building instincts, the migrating instinct, etc., could\nhave been developed though forces working by natural selection or any\nother law, is a question which has called forth much discussion. It\ncannot be said that the explanations contained in the pages of Darwin,\nRomanes, and Spencer are satisfying. The difficulty that remains\nunsolved is similar to that (already considered) of rudimentary\nstructures. On instinct depends the existence of most animals.\nAccording to the theory these instincts have been developed by slow\ndegrees. Hence there must have been a time when these instincts,\nbecause not yet completely developed, were useless to the animal. But\nif useless, the animal must have perished. The strength of this\nobjection to the evolutionary hypothesis will become clear from a brief\nstudy of the manner in which animal life is bound up with the proper\nfunctioning of instinct.\n\nConsider, for instance, the dependence of the honey bee and her hive on\nthe functions, every one instinctive, of queen, workers, and drones.\nThere is the queen, whose sole work is to lay eggs; the drones, or\nmales, whose function it is to fertilize the queen; and the workers,\nwhich are females undeveloped sexually. In these three kinds of\nindividuals we see a combination of many most remarkable instincts and\npeculiarities of structure which look to the good of the community. How\ncould they have been produced by evolution? The workers are sterile and\nleave no offspring, consequently their instincts cannot be inherited\nfrom bees of their own class. Each generation of workers is isolated\nfrom all succeeding generations. A colony of bees is not like a\ncommunity of civilized human beings in whom many of the wants are\nartificial, and which may remain unsupplied, with simply a certain\namount of discomfort, but the wants which the instincts of bees supply\nare imperative, and, therefore, the instincts themselves, as a whole,\nare necessary to the existence of the bees. Their instincts are all\nlinked together as a necessary chain, so that if one should fail the\ncommunity would perish. Each kind of work is perfectly done, and yet the\nworkers are totally unconscious as to what will be the result of their\nlabors. For the most part they work for future generations of their\ncolony, and not for themselves, and yet they are as careful and diligent\nas if they were guided by the highest intelligence and the most selfish\nmotives [tr. note: sic no punctuation]. Fairhurst, whom we are quoting,\nadds: \"There is nothing more wonderful and mysterious in nature than the\ninstincts of bees. What can be more remarkable than that instinct of the\nworkers which causes them to prevent the queen from stinging to death\nthe young queens in their cells? Here we see the instinct of the workers\nopposing that of the queen, and thus saving the colony and insuring the\npropagation of the species. And yet at other but proper times the\nworkers permit the old queen to kill the young ones in their cells. How\ncould these instincts in the workers, which act in exactly opposite ways\nby just the right times for the welfare of the community, have ever been\nevolved? Or how could that instinct have arisen which causes two queens\nwhen engaged in combat to refrain from inflicting the mortal sting if\nthey would mutually destroy each other, and thus leave the hive without\na queen?--acting as if they knew that the life of one of them was\nnecessary for the welfare of the community.\"\n\nConcerning the modifications of structure and the instincts necessary to\nproduce the web of the spider, Fairhurst quotes the following from\nOrton's _\"Zoology.\"_ \"Spiders are provided at the posterior end with two\nor three pairs of appendages called spinnerets, which are homologous\n(correspond structually) [tr. note: sic] with legs. The office of the\nspinnerets is to reel out the silk from the silk-glands, the tip being\nperforated by a myriad of little tubes through which the silk escapes in\nexcessively fine threads. An ordinary thread, just visible to the naked\neye, is the union of a thousand or more of these delicate streams of\nsilk. These primary threads are drawn out and united by the hind legs.\"\nFrom this we see that two special glands, capable of secreting a soft\nmaterial that can be readily drawn into the finest threads of the\ngreatest strength, requiring no perceptible time for drying, and two to\nfour spinnerets perforated by more than a thousand of the smallest\napertures, and hind legs modified so that they can be used to draw out\nthe web through the spinnerets, and also the instincts which enable the\nspider to use its web to advantage, must all have been evolved. To\nevolve the silk glands would have required, as for most other organs, a\nlong period of incipiency, during which they would have been useless.\nWe can not assume that a substance so exceptional in its character as\nthe web of the spider could have been suddenly produced by evolution.\nBut the glands would be useless without spinnerets. The hypothesis asks\nus to assume that two or three pairs of legs that were probably at one\ntime useful for locomotion became so modified that they could perform\nthe function of spinnerets. But in what conceivable way could\nlocomotive legs have become so modified and pierced with more than a\nthousand apertures through which the web is drawn? And how could these\norgans serve their purpose while the complex instincts required for\ntheir functioning were only in course of development?\n\nFrom a German monthly devoted to aquaria, we quote the following: \"But\nnow, dear readers, we come to a fish which shows an exceptionally\npeculiar and touching care for its young--the mouth-brooder,\n_Haplochromis Strigigena_ (formerly _Paratilapia Multicolor_). This\nfish is so much concerned about the safety of its young, that it knows\nno better and no more secure place than its own mouth in which to\npreserve them. In no other division of the animal kingdom can we find\nsuch an interesting example of fostering care for the young as we find\nin this species of fish. Immediately after emitting the spawn the female\nagain gathers up the eggs and packs them away in her mouth like herring\nin a barrel. She naturally must employ the organs of the throat and also\nthe organs between the gills and thus the appearance of the animal is\ngreatly changed even to the extent that it looks very much like as if\nshe had a craw. Furthermore, during ths [tr. note: sic] entire period,\nwhich is about fourteen days, the little animal cannot take food and is\nhampered very much in her movements. Therefore in case of imminent\ndanger it becomes necessary for her to cast out the entire brood which\nthen wretchedly perish, and for this reason it is to be recommended to\ndisturb or disquiet these animals during this period as little as\npossible. Even after the young leave the mother of their own accord,\nthey always flee to her protecting mouth, and thus they present an\nexciting aspect, when they are first seen peacefully and contentedly\nplaying about the mother fish, until a shadow or a sudden thrust warns\nthem of danger and quick as lightning they dart into her mouth.\n\n\"If the fostering care of this mouth-brooding fish is regarded as\nwonderful and singular, what should one then say, if another fish is\nspoken of which does not regard this kind of protection as sufficient,\nand which therefore causes its eggs to hatch outside the surface of the\nwater.  The exceedingly adorned and elegant _Phyrrhylima Filamentosa_\nperforms this masterpiece of truest love. With great dexerity [tr. note:\nsic] this fish darts from 5 to 7 cm. above the surface of the water and\nthere fastens its eggs on the walls of the aquarium--usually in one\ncorner. Even though one must and can preserve damp air by covering the\naquarium, the spawn would nevertheless surely dry up, if the fish itself\nwere not constantly concerned to keep the spawn damp by an extended\nbombardment of little drops of water. In the performance of this act the\nfish remains near the surface of the water and then by a quick upward\nmovement of the fins of the tail it throws a drop of water upon the\nspawn in such an expert manner as is truly admirable. One must also\nkeep in mind here that the spawn require from three to five days for\nhatching, and now one can understand what a huge task this little fish\nperforms and what efforts are required. Later on the young hatch and\nthen slide down the slick wall of the aquarium into their native\nelement.\"  (V. Schloemp in _\"Blaetter fuer Aquarien und Terrarienkunde,\"_\nStuttgart, Sept. 1913.)\n\nIn all the domain of natural science there are no wonders more amazing\nthan those of instinct. The subject is simply inexhaustible. Moreover,\nevery animal is absolutely dependent on instinctively performed actions\nand habits. The life-story of many wasps, of the various ants,--someone\nhas called the brain of the ant the most wonderful speck of protoplasm\nin the world,--and of the insects generally, is bound up with instincts\nthat partly interlock marvellously with the life-story of plants, and\nwhich are, even viewed in themselves, the greatest wonders of creation.\nThe questions insistently call for an answer: How could these instincts\npreserve the animal when they were still in an incipient, undeveloped\nstate? How could they arise through natural selection (which is simply\n_accident,_ of course), at all? Darwin says that there are instincts\n\"almost identically the same in animals so remote in the scale of\nNature, that we cannot account for their similarity by inheritance from\na common progenitor, and consequently must believe that they were\nindependently acquired through natural selection.\" Again he says \"Many\ninstincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear\nto the reader a difficulty sufficient to overcome my whole theory.\"\n\nAnd here, in the vernacular of the day, we would depose that Mr. Darwin\n_\"said something.\"_\n\n\nCHAPTER SEVEN.\nHeredity.\n\nThe subject of heredity is intimately bound up with the evolutionary\nhypothesis and, it must be admitted, creates a new difficulty for the\nacceptance of the theory. Indeed, the laws of heredity, so far as\nunderstood, appear to contradict the theory of Lamarck and Darwin at a\nvital point, if not at _the_ vital point of the entire structure raised\nin the _\"Origin of Species.\"_ It is necessary in order to appreciate the\nstrength of this objection, to recall once more the outstanding features\nof the hypothesis by which scientists have attempted to account for the\nvariety of living forms. The various theories of organic evolution,\nwhether Lamarckian, neo-Lamarckian, or Darwinian, are based upon the\nassumption that animals and plants have a tendency to perpetuate by\ntransmission to offspring a variation which has proven useful as an aid\nto the particular species in its struggle for existence. We have just\ndiscussed, in the chapters on the Fixity of Species and on Rudimentary\nOrgans, certain difficulties which loom up when the question is raised,\nHow did varieties become distinct species? However, even if it were to\nbe assumed that some satisfying answer might be found to this question\nso far as the stages of incomplete organs are concerned, there is one\nfact in heredity which, it would seem to me, strikes at the very heart\nof the theory.\n\nIn his _\"Philosophic Zoologique\"_ (1809), Lamarck first explicitly\nformulated his ideas as to the transmutation of species, though he had\noutlined them as early as 1801. The changes in the species have been\nwrought, he said, through the unceasing efforts of each organism to meet\nthe needs imposed upon it by its environment. Constant striving means\nthe constant use of certain organs, and such use leads to the\ndevelopment of those organs. Thus a bird running by the sea-shore is\nconstantly tempted to wade deeper and deeper in pursuit of food; its\nincessant efforts tend to develop its legs, in accordance with the\nobserved principle that the use of any organ tends to strengthen and\ndevelop it. But such slightly increased development of the legs is\n_transmitted to the offspring_ of the bird, which in turn develops its\nalready improved legs by its individual efforts, and transmits the\nimproved tendency. Generation after generation this is repeated, until\nthe sum of the infinitesimal variations, all in the same direction,\nresults in the production of the long-legged wading-bird. In a similar\nway, through individual effort and _transmitted tendency,_ all the\ndiversified organs of all creatures have been developed--the fin of the\nfish, the wings of the bird, the hand of man; nay, more, the fish\nitself, the bird, the man, even.\n\nNote well, the fundamental assumption is that such acquired\ncharacteristics,--greater length of leg, or of neck, a coating of hair,\na protective coloring, etc.,--however acquired, can be transmitted\nfrom the parent animal possessing them, to its offspring. The question\narises: Can such characteristics be transmitted? And the students of\nheredity answer: They _cannot!_\n\nI find in G. Archibald Reid _\"Alcoholism, a Study in Heredity,\"_ a\nlucid exposition of this subject. (Reid is a F. R. S. E. His book was\npublished by T. Fisher Unwin, London, a few yars [tr. note: sic] ago.)\n\n\"All the characters of a living being, every physical structure and\nevery mental trait, may be placed in one of two categories. Either\nthey are inborn or they are acquired. An inborn or innate character is\none which, in common parlance, arises in the individual 'by nature.'\nThus arms, legs, eyes, ears, head, etc., and all inborn characters.\nThe child inherits them from his parent. But, if during its\ndevelopment, or after the completion of the development any one of the\ninborn characters of an individual is modified by some occurrence, the\nchange thus produced is known as an acquired character, or, shortly,\nas an acquirement.\n\n\"Thus all the effects of exercise are acquirements; for example the\nenlargement which exercise causes in muscles. The effects of lack of\nexercise are also acquirements; for example, the wasting of a disused\nmuscle.\n\n\"The effects of injury are acquirements; for example, the changes in a\ndiseased lung or injured arm. Every modification of the mind is also an\nacquirement; for example, everything stored within the memory.\n\n\"If a man be blinded by accident or disease, his blindness is acquired.\nBut if he comes into the world blind, if he be blind by nature, his\nblindness is inborn. If a son be naturally smaller than his father, then\nhis inferiority of size is inborn; but if his growth be stunted by ill\nhealth or lack of nourishment or exercise, his inferiority is acquired.\n\n\"Lamarck held, as people in all ages have held, that characters acquired\nby parents are also transmissible to some extent, and that evolution\nresults from their accentuation during succeeding generations. _Lamarck's\ntheory is rejected totally by the modern followers of Darwin_.\n\n\"Ten thousand men might break their fingers, yet among their offspring\nnot one might have a crooked finger. Consider on the other hand for how\nmany generations women have bored their ears and noses in India. Yet\nwhen is a girl born with ears and nose already pierced? For how many\ngenerations have we amputated the tails of terriers, and yet their\ntails are no shorter. It will then be perceived how overwhelming is the\ncase against the doctrine of the transmission of acquirements.\n\n\"The general question of the transmission of acquirements is too big\nand too abstruse to be treated adequately here. Two arguments more I\nmay use, however, partly because they have not been developed, to my\nknowledge, by other writers, and partly because they seem to me\nwell-nigh decisive. The more than normal development of the\nblacksmith's arm is rightfully called an acquired trait, since it\narises from exercise, from use, not from germinal conditions. But no\ninfant's arm develops into an ordinary adult arm without exercise\nsimilar in kind to that which develops the blacksmith's arm, though\nless in degree.\n\n\"Every single thing contained within the memory of man, every single\nword of a language, for instance, is an acquirement. But when are the\ncontents of a parent's mind transmitted to the child?\n\n\"Again, a man is capable of becoming a parent at any time between\nextreme youth and extreme old age; a woman from the age of thirteen to\nfourteen till nearly fifty. Between the birth of the first child and the\nlast such an individual changes vastly. Under stress and fear of\ncircumstances, under the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, all\nsorts of acquirements are made. The body becomes vigorous and then\nfeeble, the mind grows mature, and then senile. He or she grows\nwrinkled and bowed and perhaps very wise, or perhaps much the reverse.\nYet no one viewing a baby show, a children's party, or an assembly of\nadults, of whom he has no previous knowledge, can say which is the\nchild of the youthful and which of aged parents.\n\n\"Apparently, therefore, the whole of the parent's acquirements have no\neffect on the child. _Surely no evidence could be stronger.\"_* [[* The\nundoubted transmission of siphilis [tr. note: sic] to off-spring might\nbe regarded as a case of transmission of an acquired characteristic. But\nthe case is not in point since congenital siphilis [tr. note: sic] is,\nproperly, due to a prenatal infection, the bacillus entering the very\ngerm-plasm of the human ovum (egg). Medical science, generally, has\nbecome very cautious in the use of the word \"hereditary.\" There is\nalmost unanimity among medical men in the denial of heredity as a factor\nin tuberculosis and cancer. Most physicians are honest enough to say\nthat they know considerably less about these things than was \"known\" ten\nand twenty years ago.]]\n\nHerbert Spencer claims that \"the inheritance of acquired characters\" is\na necessary supplement to natural selection. \"Close contemplation of\nthe facts impresses me more strongly than ever with the two\nalternatives--either there has been inheritance of acquired characters,\nor there has been no evolution.\" Again, \"the inheritance of acquired\ncharacters, which it is now the fashion of the biological world to deny,\nwas by Mr. Darwin fully recognized and often insisted on.\" \"The\nneo-Darwinists, however, do not admit this cause at all.\" He admits that\nknown facts which show that acquired characters are inherited are few,\nbut he thinks that they are \"as large a number as can be expected,\nconsidering the difficulty of observing them and the absence of search.\"\nFrom the above, we see that the biological world is against Mr.\nSpencer's view; that he would abandon the theory of evolution unless\nacquired characters had been inherited, but that facts in support of\nthis theory are meager. \"Biologists in the above instance, as well as in\nothers, differ in theory as to fundamental principles of evolution. He\nwho imagines that the theory of organic evolution has been proved to the\npoint of demonstration, has but to read the contentions of evolutionists\nthemselves with regard to the most important things involved in the\ntheory, in order to satisfy his mind that there is great diversity of\nopinion.\" (Fairhurst.)\n\nThe general abandonment of the Darwinian hypothesis by biologists,\nadverted to in our next chapter, is mainly due to the failure of\nheredity to account for the gradual modification of organs and of\nhabits.\n\nVarious expedients are resorted to by Haeckel and a few others in their\nattempts to bolster up a theory which has broken so signally on the\nrock of heredity. Principal among these is the reference to unlimited\ntime. It is asserted that, after all, such minute differences might, in\nthe course of many ages, result in new and more perfect organs. However,\nhere a new and unexpected difficulty presents itself. The physicist, who\nhas measured the heat of the sun, rises up and says that the age of the\nearth, as estimated by specialists like Lord Kelvin, is not nearly so\ngreat as is demanded by the Darwinian. The period which the physicists,\nin their mercy, appear to be willing to grant the inhabitable globe is\nfrom twenty to forty million years. But the evolutionists maintain with\ngreat fervor that this period is far too short for the production of\nsuch complicated types of organism as now live on the earth; they demand\nfrom two hundred to a thousand million years! And so these two groups of\nscientists, the evolutionistic biologist and the physicists are\nhopelessly at odds.\n\nA new generation of evolutionists has within the past twenty years\narisen which holds that the changes in the organizations of plants and\nanimals do not come by slow growth of favorable characteristics, but\narise suddenly. Such is the \"Mutation\" theory of Hugo de Vries. But\nscience has failed to receive this and similar theories with the same\nacclaim which once greeted Darwin's _\"Origin of Species.\"_ Naturalists\nhave become cautious. They remember the inglorious collapse of the\nDarwinian regime and they are slow to hail another \"Abraham of\nscientific thought.\" They are, in a general way, believers in some kind\nof evolution; but they prefer not to specify exactly the laws which\nhave been operative in past \"geological time.\" It is only in high-school\ntexts in physical geography, zoology, and botany, that the evolutionary\ntheory as propounded by Darwin is still treated as if it enjoyed among\nscientific men the same respect as the multiplication table. Speaking in\nthe Darwinian dialect we should say that the authors of these\nschool-texts constitute a case of \"arrested development.\"\n\n\nCHAPTER EIGHT.\nA Scientific Creed Outworn.\n\nThe preceding chapter concludes our investigation of that stage of\nevolutionistic thought which owes its origin and name to Charles Darwin.\nThe question suggests itself, do scientists to-day believe as Darwin did?\nA great many do. Darwin remains to many scientists what Huxley, I think,\ncalled him, the \"Abraham of scientific thought.\" But if we examine the\nroster of these, we find that they belong, with a single exception\n(Haeckel), to those whose departments of investigation have nothing to do\nwith the study of life forms (biology, zoology, botany), and who\nconsequently do not speak from first hand knowledge of the facts.\nAnthropologists (students of the races of man), sociologists,\npsychologists, and many educated persons generally, accept the Darwinian\nscheme of evolution as a fact and build their theories on it in turn.\nThey accept the theory and ask no question. The vogue which Darwinism\nstill enjoys among writers of school-texts has already been noted.\n\nHowever, the specifically Darwinian phase of evolutionistic thought, as\nlaid down in Spencer's interminable volumes, for instance, is given up\nby reputable biologists the world over. There is pretty much of a Babel\namong them, when it comes to a definition of evolution. There are dozens\nof theories,--mutation, orthogenesis, Weismanism, Mendelianism, etc.,--\nand each has its adherents,--but they agree in one thing, that \"Natural\nSelection\" does not account for the forms of life on earth to-day.\n\nThe revolt against \"Natural Selection\" came some forty years ago. It was\nannounced in two famous declarations by Spencer and Huxley. This\nconstitutes one of the most remarkable and important, as well as one of\nthe most significant episodes, in the history of evolution. In two of\nthe most remarkable essays which ever appeared in the _\"Nineteenth\nCentury\"_ magazine, now over thirty years ago, Herbert Spencer stepped\non to the stool of repentance and read his recantation and renunciation\nof the doctrine of natural selection and the survival of the fittest;\nfirst doing vicarious penance (unauthorized, however) for Darwin, and\nthen, in no uncertain terms, for himself. There was no mistaking\nSpencer's meaning. His language was explicit. \"The phrases (natural\nselection and survival of the fittest) employed in discussing organic\nevolution,\" he told his readers, \"though convenient and needful, are\nliable to mislead by veiling the actual agencies.\" \"The words 'natural\nselection,' do not express a cause in the physical sense.\" \"Kindred\nobjections,\" he continues, \"may be urged against the expression into\nwhich I was led when seeking to present the phenomena in literal terms\nrather than metaphorical terms--'the survival of the fittest.' In the\nworking together of those many actions, internal and external, which\ndetermine the lives and deaths of organisms, we see nothing to which the\nwords 'fitness' and 'unfitness' are applicable in the physical sense.\"\nAnd he continues: \"Evidently, the word 'fittest' as thus used _is a\nfigure of speech.\"_ Had the sun fallen from the heavens the shock to the\nfollowers of Darwin could not have been more stunning than this open\napostasy from the Darwinian faith.\n\nNor was this all. New surprises were still in store for the faithful who\nstill clung to the cherished dogma. Now they find their faith itself\nassailed, and this, too, by these very selfsame leaders, who had been at\nsuch pains to make them proselytes. There can be little doubt that\nmisgivings regarding the truth of their claims began to haunt the\nchampions of the Darwinian hypothesis. They were just then masters of\nthe whole field of scientific thought. They had brought all science to\nthe feet of Darwin. The few benighted dissenters who still held out\nagainst the doctrine were looked upon as not worthy even of contempt.\nThe whole world had adopted the creed of evolution. Was it wantonness\nthen, or was it conscience, that prompted Huxley in what is now a\nhistorically famous speech, delivered at the unveiling of a statue to\nDarwin in the Museum at South Kensington, to openly declare that it\nwould be wrong to suppose \"that an authoritative sanction was given by\nthe ceremony to the current ideas concerning evolution?\" Well might his\nhearers be astonished! But they must have held their breath, when they\nheard him add boldly and bluntly, in no uncertain tones, that \"science\ncommits suicide when it adopts a creed.\" A creed, indeed! What had\nscience been doing in the field of evolution ever since Darwin has given\nhis doctrine to the world, but proclaiming its faith in the Darwinian\ncreed?\n\nThere was no blinking the inevitable conclusions. Both Huxley on the\nplatform and Spencer in the _\"Nineteenth Century\"_ had acknowledged\nbefore the whole world that they had lost faith in the idol which for\nthirty years they had so vociferously worshipped. It is true that both\nSpencer and Huxley might have intended to warn biologists merely against\na too implicit faith in natural selection or the survival of the\nfittest. But even so, the position of their followers was little to be\nenvied. Their leaders had confidently assured them that Darwin had given\nto the world coveted knowledge never known until he had discovered it.\nThis had been loudly and confidently proclaimed from the housetops of\nscience; and now--strange reversal--those same leaders tell them that\ntheir preachments were of a faith without foundation.\n\nThe words of Professor Osborn may be adduced: \"Between the appearance of\n_'The Origin of Species'_ in 1859 and the present time there have been\ngreat waves of faith in one explanation and then in another; each of\nthese waves of confidence has ended in disappointment, until finally we\nhave reached a stage of very general scepticism. Thus the long period of\nobservation, experiment and reasoning which began with the French\nphilosopher Buffon, one hundred and fifty years ago, ends in 1916 with\nthe general feeling that our search for causes, far from being near\ncompletion, has only just begun.\"\n\nSir William Dawson, of Montreal, the eminent geologist, said that the\nevolution doctrine is \"one of the strangest phenomena of humanity, a\nsystem destitute of any shadow of proof,\" (_\"Story of the Earth and\nMan,\"_ p. 317). Even Professor Tyndall in an article in the\n_\"Fortnightly Review\"_ said: \"There ought to be a clear distinction made\nbetween science in the state of hypothesis and science in the state of\nfact. And inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage the ban of\nexclusion ought to fall upon the theory of Evolution. I agree with\nVirchow that the proofs of it are still wanting, that the failures have\nbeen lamentable, that the doctrine is utterly discredited.\"\n\nOne of the ablest evolutionists today is Professor Henslow, formerly\nPresident of the British Association. In his book, _\"Modern Rationalism\nCritically Examined,\"_ he shows that Darwinian natural selection is\nabsolutely inadequate to account for existing facts.\n\nProfessor Bateson, who gave the Presidential Address at the Meeting of\nthe British Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1914, bore\nstriking testimony to the modifications made by recent science in\nconnection with the Darwinian theory. This is what he said among other\nthings: \"The principle of natural selection cannot have been the chief\nfactor in delimiting the species of animals and plants. We go to Darwin\nfor his incomparable collection of facts. We would fain emulate his\nscholarship, his width and his power of exposition, but to us he speaks\nno more with philosophical authority. We have done with the notion that\nDarwin came latterly to favor, that large differences can arise by\naccumulation of small differences.\"\n\nSt. George Mivart as long as thirty years ago wrote an exhaustive\ntreatise entitled, _\"The Genesis of Species,\"_ in which he subjects the\nDarwinian hypothesis to a searching examination, and discards it as\nunproven in every particular and contradicted by the facts of nature in\nmany points. He called it \"a puerile (childish) hypothesis.\"\n\nProfessor H. H. Gran of Christiana University, an expert in biology,\nsays he believes in evolution, but declares Darwin's explanation of it\nto be inadequate. His words are: \"Darwin collected a great mass of stuff\nboth from the animal as well as from the vegetable kingdom, but these\ncollections were not thoroughly sifted and cannot be used as the basis\nof theoretical conclusions as Darwin did.\"\n\nProf. Fleischman, of Erlangen, says: \"There is not a single fact to\nconfirm Darwinism in the realm of Nature.\" Drs. E. Dennert, Hoppe and\nvon Hartmann; Profs. Paulson and Rutemeyer, and the talented scientists\nZoeckler and Max Wundt, have given Darwinism up. Men like our own H. F.\nOsborn may still cling to the beloved theory and furnish imaginary\npictures of ape-men as proof, in recent books; but hear Prof. Ernest\nHaeckel himself: \"Most modern investigators of science have come to the\nconclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism,\nis an error, and cannot be maintained.\" This was said some years before\nthe Great War. Other names (Friedmann, de Cyon) might be added.\n\nThe present attitude of naturalists toward the theory may be learned\nfrom a symposium by a number of eminent writers in a recent number of\nthe \"Biblical World\" (February, 1913), on the theme, \"Has Evolution\nCollapsed?\"\n\nProf. Moulton, of Chicago, says: \"The essence of evolution is that the\norder which exists one day changes into the order which will exist on\nsucceeding days, in a systematic manner, rather than in an irregular\nand chaotic one.\" This states the theory, but adds a mere platitude,\nfor all believe that the universe is orderly and not chaotic. The real\nquestion is, What is the nature and the cause of the prevailing order?\nThis question he does not attempt to answer.\n\nProf. Lillie, of Chicago, tells us that there are \"differences in\nopinion among recent investigators concerning the method of evolution,\"\nand says: \"Opinion in reference to this matter is in a state of flux.\"\n\nProf. Mathews, of Chicago, says: \"While the fact of evolution is\nuniversally admitted, the means by which evolution is brought to pass\nare uncertain.\"\n\nProf. Patten, of Darmouth, says: \"As for biologists, they are now\nfarther from agreement as to what constitutes the processes and\nconditions essential to organic evolution, * * * [tr. note: sic] than\nthey were a generation ago.\"\n\nProf. Mall, of Johns Hopkins, says: \"It is true that gradual evolution,\nas advocated by Darwin, is seriously questioned by those who believe\nthat it takes place by 'rapid jumps.'\"\n\nProf. Williston, of Chicago, says: \"The causes of organic evolution are\nstill an unsolved problem; and he will be a greater man than Darwin, who\nfinally demonstrates them.\"\n\nThus these recognized authorities, while accepting the theory, add many\nlimitations and admit that the \"method,\" the \"manner,\" the \"process,\"\nthe \"conditions\" and the \"causes\" of the movement are still unknown.\nWhat, then, remains of the theory? Not much but the name.\n\n\nCHAPTER NINE.\nMan.\n\n\"There is no longer any doubt among scientists that man descended from\nthe animals.\" This sweeping statement was made in 1920 by Edwin Grant\nConklin professor of biology in Princeton University. And so\nevolutionists generally, while giving up geology as hopeless in regard\nto the evolution of plants and animals, cling to the doctrine that man\nhas ascended, through long ages of development, from the brute. We have\nseen that Wallace and other profound students of the subject recognize\nthe essential difference between the faculties of man and the instincts\nof animals. They admit that forces resident in matter do not account for\nthe origin of Thought. They believe that Spirit,--God,--created\nsomething new when intelligence first entered the brain of man. But even\nWallace holds that the human body is a product of evolution; that there\nwas a common brute ancestor, both for apes and the men. The search for\nthe missing link between man and his animal ancestor is still going on.\nAs soon as any human remains are dug up in the earth, evolutionists\nbegin to measure the skull and bones, and to find how many points of\nresemblance they have to the apes. If the brain-pan is a bit shallow, or\nsmall, or the eyebrows prominent, or the slope of the face acute, or the\nteeth and jaws large, they announce with much confidence that the\n\"missing link\" has been found. But after a while they begin to grow more\nmodest and end in finding other points which show that the specimen was\nan unmistakable ape, or an unmistakable man, and not something between\nthe two. One could fill a museum with discarded missing links; and yet\nmen refuse to learn caution, and repeat their shoutings every time a new\nfind is announced. It will be instructive to pass in review a few of the\nmore famous prehistoric remains of man which have at one time and\nanother been declared undeniable proof of a development, through\nintermediate stages, of the human body from the body of a brute.\n\n_Pithecanthropus Erectus_ is the name invented by Haeckel for the\n\"missing link,\" and given by Dr. Eugene Du Bois, a Dutch physician, to\ncertain remains discovered by him on the island of Java in 1891. The\nremains consist of \"an imperfect cranium, a femur bearing evidence of\nprolonged disease, and a molar tooth.\" (Dana, _\"Manual of Geology,\"_ p.\n1036.) The discoverer of these bones believed that they are the remains\nof a being between the man-apes and man. Prof. Virchow and other\nspecialists in anatomy examined this find. It was established that the\nfemur was found a year after the cranium. Some regard the remains as\nbelonging to a low-grade man or to an idiot. (Dana, _I c_.) The cubic\nmeasurement of the skull is 60 cubic inches, about that of an idiot,\nthat of a normal man being 90 cubic inches and that of an ape 30. These\nspecimens were found in separate places. The skull is too small for the\nthigh-bone. The age of the strata in which they were found is uncertain.\nAn authority of the first rank, Prof. Klaatsch, of Heidelberg University,\nsays that the creature \"does not supply the missing link.\"\n\nDr. Smith Woodward and Dr. Charles Dawson, in reconstructing a man from\nthe _Piltdown skull_, discovered in 1912 on Piltdown Common, near\nUcksfield, Sussex, England, built up something essentially monkey-like,\nwith receding forehead, projecting brows, and a gorilla-like lower jaw.\nProf. Keith, a renowned specialist, checking up on this reconstruction,\ncomes to an entirely different conclusion. He finds that the work of Drs.\nDawson and Woodward was done \"in open defiance of all that scientists\nknow about skulls, whether ancient or modern.\" His words are: \"I soon saw\nthat the parts of the reconstructed Piltdown skull had been apposed in a\nmanner which was in open defiance of all that was known of skulls,\nancient and modern, human and anthropoid. Articulating the bones in a\nmanner which has been accepted by all anatomists in all times, I found\nthat the brain-chamber, instead of measuring 1,070 cubic cm., as in Dr.\nSmith Woodward's reconstruction, measured 1,500 cubic cm.,--a large brain\nchamber for even modern man.\"\n\nThe _Neanderthal skull_ was found in 1856 in the neighborhood of\nDuesseldorf by Dr. Fuhlrott, of Elberfeld. When the skull and other parts\nof the skeleton were exhibited at a scientific meeting held at Bonn the\nsame year, a wide divergence of opinion at once developed among the\nspecialists. By some, doubts were expressed as to the human character of\nthe remains. Others held that the remains indicate a person of much the\nsame stature as a European of the present day, but with such an unusual\nthickness in some of them as betokened a being of very extraordinary\nstrength. Dr. Meyer, of Bonn, regarded the skull as the remains of a\nCossack killed in 1814. Other scientists agreed with him. Modern science\naccepts the antiquity of the Neanderthal man, but the controversy has\nnever ceased. The great Virchow declared the peculiarities of the bones\nto be the result of disease.\n\nNear Liege, in Belgium, not more than seventy miles from the Neanderthal,\nthe _Engis skull_ was found. After careful measurement it was proved not\nto differ materially from the skulls of modern Europeans.\n\nSuch experiences should prevent us from making any assertions respecting\nthe primitive character, in race or physical conformation, of these\ncave-dwellers. Indeed. Prof. Huxley, in a very careful and elaborate\npaper upon the Neanderthal and Engis skulls, places an average skull of\na modern native of Australia about half-way between those of the\nNeanderthal and Engis caves. Yes, he says that, after going through a\nlarge collection of Australian skulls, he \"found it possible to select\nfrom these crania two (connected by all sorts of intermediate\ngradations), the one of which should very nearly resemble the Engis\nskull, while the other would somewhat less closely approximate to the\nNeanderthal skull in size, form, and proportions.\" \"The Engis skull,\nperhaps the oldest known, is,\" according to Prof. Huxley, \"a fair\naverage skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might have\ncontained the thoughtless brain of a savage.\" In this opinion Mr. Huxley\nis supported by one of the greatest anthropologists of his time, Daniel\nG. Brinton, who says concerning the cave-man of France and Belgium:\n\"Neither in stature, cranial capacity, nor in muscular development did\nthese earliest members of the species differ more from those now living\nthan do these among themselves. We have no grounds for assigning to\nthese earliest known men an inferior brain or a lower intelligence than\nis seen among various savage tribes still in existence.\"\n\nEvery new find, upon investigation, proves the truth of Virchow's words:\n\"We must really acknowledge that there is a complete absence of any\nfossil type of a lower stage in the development of man. Nay, if we gather\ntogether all the fossil men hitherto found, and put them parallel with\nthose of the present time, we can decidedly pronounce that there are\namong living men a much greater proportion of individuals which show a\nrelatively inferior type than there are among the fossils known up to\nthis time. . . . Every positive progress which we haw made in the region\nof prehistoric anthropology has removed us farther from the demonstration\nof this theory!\"\n\nQuite recently (in 1913) a remarkable fossil was found in the Oldoway\ngulch in northern German East Africa, by an expedition of the Geological\nInstitute of the University of Berlin. The remains consist of a complete\nskeleton, which was found deeply imbedded in firm soil. Unquestionably\nancient as these remains are,--the bones are completely fossilized,--they\ncontained lamentably few \"primitive characteristics,\" and hence have not\nbeen exploited in the interest of the evolutionary theory. A fragment of\nskull, a tooth, a thigh-bone, offer much more inviting fields to the\nevolutionists, since they permit his imagination to range without the\nrestraint of fact. The Oldoway fossil, which is in every essential\nrespect a normal human skeleton, possesses no special attractions for\nthose who would represent man as a descendant of brutish ancestors.\n\nSays Prof. Virchow: \"We seek in vain for the missing link; there exists\na definite barrier separating man from the animal which has not yet been\neffaced--heredity, which transmits to children the faculties of the\nparents. We have never seen a monkey bring a man into the world, nor a\nman produce a monkey. All men having a Simian (monkey-like) appearance\nare simply pathological variants, (abnormal varieties, due to some\ndiseased condition). It was generally believed a few years ago that\nthere existed a few human races which still remained in the primitive\ninferior condition of their organization. But all these races have been\nobjects of minute investigation, and we know that they have an\norganization like ours, often, indeed, superior to that of the supposed\nhigher races. Thus the Eskimo head and the head of the Terra del\nFuegians belong to the perfected types. All the researches undertaken\nwith the aim of finding continuity in progressive development have been\nwithout result. There exists no proanthrope, no man-monkey, and the\n'connecting link' remains a phantom.\"\n\nDr. Berndt, of Berlin, recently said in the _\"Naturwissenschaftliche\nRundschau der Chemikerseitung\"_ (April, 1914): \"Max Weber, one of the\nbest authorities on mammals, regards the anthropoid apes of to-day as a\nbranch _parallel_ to the human branch. Scholars like Cope, Adloeff,\nKlaatsch, prefer to push the origin of man back to the earliest age of\nterrestrial life, whence he went his way _from the very outset_ separate\nfrom the apes.\" This is a highly significant utterance. It means nothing\nmore than this: there is not one recognizable link which unites man with\nthe animal kingdom. All the intermediate forms between man and the\noriginal jelly-fish, which according to Haeckel and Vogt was his\nancestor, have disappeared. For their existence we have nothing but the\nword of speculative scientists.\n\nConcerning the Neanderthaler, the Cro-Magnon man. etc., Dr. Dawson has\nsaid: \"Geological evidence resolves itself into a calculation of the\nrate of erosion of river valleys, of deposition of gravel and\ncave-earths, and of formation of stalagmite crusts, all of which are so\nvariable and uncertain that, though it may be said that an impression\nof great antiquity beyond the time of received history has been left on\nthe minds of geologists, no absolute antiquity has been proved; and\nwhile some, on such evidence, would stretch the antiquity of man to\neven half a million years, the oldest of these remains may, after all,\nnot exceed our traditional six thousand. These skeletons tell us that\nprimitive man had the same high cerebral organization which he\npossesses now, and we may infer the same high intellectual and moral\nnature, fitting him for communication with God and headship over the\nlower world.\" Similarly Figuier held that \"we know of no archaeological\nfind (stone hatchets, etc.) that could not be pronounced only five\nthousand years old as well as fifty thousand.\"\n\nLionel S. Beale, the famous microscopist, testifies: \"In support of all\nnaturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not at this\ntime the shadow of scientific evidence.\"\n\nWilliam Hanna Thomson, M.D., LL.D., Physician to the Roosevelt Hospital;\nConsulting Physician to New York State Manhattan Hospital for the\nInsane, who has held a professorship in New York University Medical\nCollege; been president of the New York Academy of Medicine, etc, in\nhis recent book. _\"What is Physical Life?\"_ says concerning the doctrine\nof evolution: \"No contradiction could be greater than that between this\ndoctrine and the greatest truth which underlies this human world.\"\n\nThe Russo-French physiologist, M. Elie DeCyon, for many years professor\nin the Faculty of Sciences and in the Academic Medico-chirurgicale at\nthe University of Petrograd, has lately published a book of essays in\nwhich he says that the theory of evolution, especially in its relation\nto the ancestry of man, is a \"pure assumption.\" He quotes Prof. Fraas,\nwho devoted his long life to the study of fossil animals: \"The idea that\nmankind has descended from any Simian (ape) species whatsoever, is\ncertainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the\nhistory of man. It should be handed down to posterity in a new edition\nof the Memorial of Human Follies. No proof of this baroque theory can\never be given from discovered fossils.\" And to quote from another\naddress by Virchow, delivered at Vienna: \"I have never found a single\nape skull which approaches at all the human one. Between men and apes\nthere exists a line of sharp demarcation.\"\n\nOne of the most recent authoritative publications by a German\nanthropologist urges that \"the apes are to be regarded as degenerate\nbranches of the pre-human stock.\" This means, in a word, that man is not\ndescended from the ape, but the ape from man. This is almost what may be\ncalled _reductio ad absurdum,_ and yet it is one of the latest\npronouncements of scientific thought (Editorial in _\"New York Herald,\"_\nDecember 30, 1916). To the same effect are the words of Professor\nWood-Jones, Professor of Anatomy in the University of London, England,\nwho recently pointed out that so far from man having descended from\nanthropoid apes, it would be more accurate to say that these have been\ndescended from man. This was claimed not only by reason of the best\nanatomical research, but to be \"deducible from the whole trend of\ngeological and anthropological discovery.\" On this account Professor\nWood-Jones appealed for \"an entire reconsideration of the post-Darwinian\nconceptions of man's comparatively recent emergence from the brute\nkingdom.\" (Quoted by W. H. Griffith Thomas in _\"What about Evolution?\"_\np. 10.)\n\nIt is refreshing to turn aside from speculation to revelation, from\nconjectures and theories to proven facts, and no one has stated\nascertained facts, touching the origin of man, more succinctly and more\nclearly than Prof. Dr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of Natural Science in\nthe University of Erlangen. He shows conclusively that the age of man is\ncomparatively brief, extending only to a few thousand years; that man\nappeared suddenly; that the most ancient man known to us is not\nessentially different from the now living man, and that transitions\nfrom the ape to the man, or from the man to the ape, are nowhere found.\nThe conclusion he reaches is that the Scriptural account of man, which\nis one and selfconsistent, is true; that God made man in his own image,\nfitted for fellowship with himself and favored with it--a state from\nwhich man has fallen, but to which restoration is possible through Him\nwho is the brightness of his Father's glory, and \"the express image of\nhis Person.\"\n\nWe cannot refrain from reverting, in this connection, to the essential\ndifference between the animal instincts and the intellect of man, and\nwould quote, on this subject, the forceful statement of the case by Paul\nHaffner in his _\"Materialismus\"_ (Mainz, 1865). We translate: \"If the\nhypothesis of materialism were acceptable, if we were to believe that a\nmerely animal form of consciousness might develop into spiritual and\nintellectual perceptions, we ought to be able to observe such capacities\nof change and growth also in the animal world of to-day. Yet this is not\nthe case. For thousands of years we have observed the domestic animals,\nand still we can see no trace of a dawn of intellect. We expend much\ntraining upon them; we make them our confidants and treat them with\ninexhaustible tenderness, and still we never see them rise out of their\nnarrow sphere and out of the bonds of their primitive desires and\ninstincts. We note external imitation of human activities, such as the\nludicrous virtuosity of the apes, and that superficial adaptation which\nwe call 'animal training' and which is nothing but a development of\nsense stimuli; the animal does not know what it is doing, it is duped by\nman who knows how to employ its instincts and make them serviceable to\nhis purposes. We cannot fail to note that never, not even under the most\nfavorable conditions, do the animals step out of their original sphere;\nthat neither by their own efforts nor through the aid of man are they\nable to rise into ideas of a spiritual or suprasensual nature; that\nthey remain forever what they were in the beginning. Hence it cannot be\ndenied that also men would have remained what they once were according\nto the notions of materialists. Only if from the beginning the light of\nspiritual life was enkindled in them, could they become, what they are\nto-day.\" (_\"Materialismus,\"_ p. 59 f.)\n\nIt will be noted that when we hear the specialists in anatomy and\nbiology, their expressions on the subject of man's ancestry are, as a\nrule, characterized by a strong dissent from the development theory,\nwhile the belief in a development of man from an ape-like ancestor,\nuttered with a note of cocksureness, is found mainly among amateurs in\nthese sciences. Moreover, even among the believers in a rise of our race\nfrom brute origins, many, and the most distinguished among them, assert\nthat the faculties of the human mind are indeed to be accounted for only\non the basis of a special creative act of God. They cling, however, to\nthe notion that the body of man is evolved from the lower animals--a\nview which has been very ably met by Prof. Orr of Glasgow, one of the\nforemost Biblical scholars of our time. He writes:\n\n\"It is well known that certain distinguished evolutionists, while\nhanding over man's body to be accounted for by the ordinary processes of\nevolution, yet hold that man's mind cannot be wholly accounted for in a\nsimilar manner. The rational mind of man, they urge--I agree with the\nview, but am not called upon here to discuss it--has qualities and\npowers which separate it, not only in degree, but in kind, from the\nanimal mind, and put an unbridgeable gulf, on the spiritual side,\nbetween man and the highest of the creatures below him. In other words,\nthere is, in man's case, a rise on the spiritual side--the constitution\nof a new order or kingdom of existence--which requires for its\nexplanation a distinct supernatural cause. Now the weakness of this\ntheory, I have always felt, lies in its assumption that, while man's\nmind needs a supernatural cause to account for it, his body may be left\nto the ordinary processes of development. The difficulty of such a view\nis obvious. I have stated the point in this way. 'It is a corollary from\nthe known laws of the connection of mind and body that every mind needs\nan organism fitted to it. If the mind of man is the product of a new\ncause, the brain, which is the instrument of that mind, must share in\nits peculiar origin. You cannot put a human mind into a Simian brain.'\nIn other words, if there is a sudden rise on the spiritual side, there\nmust be a rise on the physical--the organic--side to correspond.\"\n(_\"Virgin Birth of Christ,\"_ p. 199.)\n\nCan anything be more cogent, more conclusive?\n\nThe strongest _direct_ proof against the \"ascent of man,\" however, has\nso far only been touched upon. I refer to the evidences derived from the\nhistory of Religion. To this I now invite the reader's close attention.\n\nIf man was developed from a lower order of creatures, or from any member\nof the animal kingdom, religion must have been a late development. That\nthis \"tailless, catarrhine, anthropoid ape\" should have had anything\nresembling a religion, is, of course, not to be thought of. To imagine\nthat he had a knowledge of the one, true God, his nature and his\nattributes, would be preposterous. How then explain the origin and rise\nof religion? The evolutionists do not agree on this subject. Herbert\nSpencer maintains that _Animism_ was the most primitive form of faith.\nMan reverenced spirits, the ghosts of the departed, then raised them to\nthe eminence of divinities and finally developed the idea of _one_\nabsolute being, God. Others suggest, that primitive man first adored the\nterrible powers and awful phenomena of nature, was thus led to\nPolytheism (a religion of many Gods) and finally evolved Monotheism (a\nbelief in one God). But all agree in this, that Religion in its earliest\nform was of a very crude and elementary character, and only in the\ncourse of many thousands of years, attained to the conception of one\nSupreme Being. There was at first a faith in gods,--Polytheism, and much\nlater a faith in God--Monotheism.\n\nNow, let is [tr. note: sic] be observed that this is the only _possible_\nview from the standpoint of Evolution. Remember that this doctrine is\nnot only conceived as bearing on the development of the animal kingdom.\nThe principle is assumed to operate in the development of the earth, of\nman, of society, of government, of manufactures, of language, of\nliterature, science, art, and religion. According to the theory, there\nmust have been progress from a crude form of spirit-worship to a\nworship of gods, and thence to a worship of one God. But what are the\nfacts? Has religion so developed? It has not.\n\n_Not only has history failed to show a single form of belief which has\nadvanced in the manner demonstrated, but every religion, no matter how\npure and exalted, has gone through a process of degeneration, of\ndevolution_.\n\nThe founders of the comparative study (or Science) of Religion, and the\ngreatest authorities in its various departments, are practically\nunanimous in their opinion, that all pagan systems of mythology and\nreligion contain remnants of a more exalted form of belief, of a higher,\nclearer knowledge of the Divinity, which gradually became dimmed and\ncorrupted.\n\nFrom Max Mueller's Lecture on the _Vedas_ (the ancient hymns of India)\nwe quote the following: As a result \"to which a comparative study of\nreligion is sure to lead, we shall learn that religions in their most\nancient form, or in the minds of their authors, are generally free from\nmany of the blemishes that attach to them in later times.\"\n\nLe Page Renouf expresses his entire agreement with the \"matured\njudgment\" of Emmanuel Rouge: \"The first characteristic of the Egyptian\nreligion is the Unity of God most energetically expressed: God, One,\nSole and Only--no others with Him.... the Only Being .... The belief in\nthe Unity of the Supreme God and in His attributes as Creator and\nLawgiver of man, whom He has endowed with an immortal soul, .... _these\nare the primitive notions,_ enchased in the midst of mythological\nsuperfetations accumulated in the centuries.\" Franz Lenormant reached\nthe same conclusion. Elsewhere, Renouf says: \"It is incontestably true,\nthat the sublimer portions of the Egyptian religions are not the\ncomparatively late result of a process of development. The sublimer\nportions are demonstrably ancient; and the last stage of the Egyptian\nreligion .... was by far the grossest and most corrupt.\" (_\"Religion of\nAncient Egypt,\"_ p. 95.) This opinion is supported by the testimony of\nthe Egyptian inscriptions. In the very oldest inscriptions reference is\nhad to a Supreme God and Lord of all, to whom no shrines were raised,\nwhose abode was unknown, who was not graven in stone, while the Egptian\n[tr. note: sic] of a later day adored the crocodile, the ichneumon,\nserpents, bulls, cats, and ibises.\n\nThe history of Hindu belief presents testimony of a still more startling\nnature. In the Vedas we find statements and prayers which are clear\nproof of an early Monotheism. Thus the IX book of the Rig Veda contains\nthe following prayer. \"Who is the God to whom we shall offer our\nsacrifice? The one-born Lord of all that is; he established the heaven\nand sky; he is the one king of the breathing and awakening world; he\nthrough whom the heaven was established; he who measured out the light\nin the air--he who alone is God above all gods.\" Here the belief in one\nSupreme Being is clearly set forth. And yet this faith in one God in the\ncourse of time degenerated into a worship of 33,000 divinities--until\nGautama the Buddha evolved a system that denied the very existence of\nGod.\n\nTurning to Greece we have the testimony of Prof. Max Mueller to this\neffect: \"When we ascend to the distant heights of Greek history the idea\nof God, as the Supreme Being, stands before us as a simple fact.\"\n(_\"Essays,\"_ II, p. 146.) Carl Boettcher, in his great work on the\nTreeworship of the Greeks, maintains: \"As far as the legends of the\nGreeks can be traced into prehistoric ages, the entire nation worshipped\na single God, nameless, without statues, without a temple, invisible and\nomnipresent.\" This he regards as a tradition of \"irrefutable inner\ntruthfulness.... The beginning of Polytheism therefore represents the\n_second_ phase of Greek religion, which was preceded by a Monotheism.\"\nEvery student of Greek literature knows that this original belief at an\nearly age gave place to a worship of the gods on Olympus, a worship\nwhich in turn gave way to openly avowed atheism. The Greeks were aware\nof this decay. Plato, in his Phaidros (274 B) quotes Socrates as saying:\n\"I know of an old saying, that our ancestors knew what constituted the\ntrue worship of God; if we could but discover what it was, would we then\nhave need of _human_ theories and opinions on the matter?\" Certainly a\nstartling statement from the lips of a pagan. Undoubtedly Welcker was\nright when he asserted, as the ultimate result of his researches: \"This\n(Greek) polytheism has settled before the eyes of men like a high and\ncontinuous mountain range, beyond which it is the privilege only of\ngeneral historical study to recognize, as from a higher point of view,\nthe natural primitive monotheism.\" Concerning the monotheistic ideas of\nlater Greek thought, the same author says that they are to be regarded\nnot as a result of an ascending line of evolution (\"aufsteigende Linie\nder Entwickelung\"), but as \"a _return_ of the profound wisdom of old\nage to the feeling of primitive simplicity.\"\n\nOf the Phoenicians the greatest student of their history and religion,\nF. K. Movers, says: \"Nature worship gradually obscured the purer God-idea\nof a more ancient stage of belief, but has never entirely obliterated\nit.\" He refers to an evident \"adulteration of a purer and more ancient\nGod-idea.\"\n\nRegarding the Zoroastrians of ancient Persia, M. Haug, the famous Zend\nscholar, asserts that \"Monotheism was the leading idea of Zoroaster's\ntheology;\" he called God Ahura-mazda, i. e., \"the Living Creator.\"\nZoroaster did not teach a theological Dualism. He arrived \"at the idea\nof the unity and indivisibility of the Supreme Being,\" and only as \"in\ncourse of time this doctrine was changed and _corrupted_ ... the dualism\nof God and the devil arose.\" \"Monotheism was _superseded_ by Dualism.\"\n\nBoth Dr. F. Hommel and Friedrich Delitzsch agree on the question of an\nearly Arabian and Sumerian monotheism. Dr. Hommel demonstrates from the\npersonal surnames contained in the inscriptions the existence of a \"very\nexalted monotheism\" in the most ancient times of the Arabian nation,\nabout 2500 B. C., and among the Semitic tribes of northern Babylonia.\nThis \"monotheistic religion\" degenerated under the influence of\nBabylonian polytheism. The same opinion was held years ago by Julius\nOppert, the Assyriologist, who was led to a belief in \"a universal\nprimitive monotheism as the basis of all religions.\"\n\nExpressions similar to the above might be adduced from Rawlinson, Legge\n(_\"Religions of China\"_), Doellinger, Victor v. Strauss-Torney (the\nEgyptologist), Jacob Grimm, and others. In short, the majority of\nindependent and unprejudiced students of heathen beliefs, from the days\nof A. W. v. Schlegel to our own, have reached the conclusion, that all\nreligions in their later stages exhibit a much lower conception of the\nDivinity than in their earlier form. It is only the hopelessly\nprejudiced who can say, as does John Fiske, that \"to regard classic\npaganism as one of the degraded remnants of a primeval monotheism, is to\nsin against the canons of a sound inductive philosophy.\" Sinning against\nthe consonant testimony of universal history is a venial offense, it\nwould seem, when the integrity of this \"sound inductive philosophy\"--that\nis, of the Spencerian theory--is at stake. It needs but a glance at the\nwell-known facts of religious history to show the working of this _Law\nof Decay_ as influencing the development of every system of ethnic belief\nwhich has a recorded history or a literature.\n\nThe workings of this law can be traced even in the case of the savage\ntribes of our own day. Of the African negroes, P. Bandin says that \"their\ntraditions and religious doctrines ... show clearly that they are a\npeople in decadence.... They have an obscure and confused idea of the\nonly God, .... who no longer receives worship.\" (_\"Fetichism,\"_ p. 7-10.)\nWinwood Reade testifies: \"The negroes possess the remnants of a noble and\nsublime religion, though they have forgotten its precepts and debased its\nceremonies.\" They still retain a recollection \"of God, the Supreme, the\nCreator.\" Concerning the Zulus, Bastian records that they informed him\nthat \"their ancestors possessed the knowledge of .... that _source of\nbeing_ which is above, which gives life to men.\" (_\"Vorgeschichtliche\nSchoepfungslieder.\"_) A missionary of the Lutheran General Synod, Rev. J.\nC. Pedersen, wrote in _\"Lutheran Observer,\"_ August, 1910, concerning the\nAfrican natives that they still have a considerable display of religion,\nbut \"ask him, who is the God in whom you trust? what do you mean by\ntrusting? how can he help you? and he will answer, 'I don't know, but the\nold people used to say so, and taught us to say so.'\" John Hanning\nSpeke, in his _\"Journal of the Discovery of the Sources of the Nile\"_\nrecords reminiscences among the degraded savages among whom he dwelt, of\na supreme God who dwells in heaven, but who no longer received worship.\nMungo Park, in the diary of his _\"Travels in the Interior of Africa,\"_\nsays that the Mandingoes, a degenerate race of fetish worshippers, still\npossessed the knowledge of one God, but do not offer up prayers and\nsupplications to him.\n\nIn the record of his famous circumnavigation of the globe, Captain Cook\nsays that the cannibals of New Zealand still acknowledged a superior\nbeing, although their religion was a crude system of spiritualistic\npractices.\n\nConcerning the Koreans Mrs. L. H. Underwood, medical missionary, says\nthat a thousand unworthy deities now crowd the temples, although the\ngreat universal Ruler is still worshipped at times, and the \"ancient\npurity of faith and worship has become sadly darkened.\"\n\nThe foremost student of modern missions, Johann Warneck, in _\"The Living\nChrist and Dying Heathenism\"_ (F. H. Revell Co.,) comes to the\nconclusion that the Christian religion and its monotheism are not only\nnot a development from lower origins, but that the heathen religions,\nhistorically considered, are a degeneracy from a higher knowledge of\nGod. In other words, the application of the doctrine of evolution to the\nfield of comparative religion is a mistake. \"Any form of Animism known\nto me has no lines leading to perfection, but only incontestable marks\nof degeneration,\" says the author. \"In heathenism the gold of the divine\nthought becomes dross.\"\n\nSays he, \"I have been counselled to recognize that the idea of evolution\nat present ruling the scientific world must also rule in the\ninvestigation of religion. I am not unacquainted with the literature of\nthe subject, I have described animistic heathenism as concretely as I\ncould; I confined myself strictly to that. I began with the facts of\nexperience; then I drew inferences from them. If these do not agree with\nthe dominant hypothesis of evolution, that is due to the brutal facts,\nand not to the prepossessions of the observer.\n\n\"I do not deny that something can be said for the idea of evolution in\nthe religions of mankind, but the study of Animism, with which I have\nlong been familiar as an eyewitness, did not lead me to that idea.\nRather the conviction which I arrived at is, that animistic heathenism\nis not a transition stage to a higher religion. There are no facts to\nprove that animistic heathenism somewhere and somehow evolved upwards\ntowards a purer knowledge of God. I have worked as a missionary for\nmany years in contact with thousands of the adherents of animistic\nheathenism and I have been convinced that the force of that heathenism\nis hostile to God.\"\n\nIn the same work Dr. Warneck says that among the Battaks of Sumatra\nthere are \"remains of a pure idea of God.\" but there is also a host of\nspirits, born of fear, which thrust themselves between God and man. \"The\nidea of God which is found in the religions of the Indian Archipelago,\nand probably also of Africa, cannot have been distilled from the motley\njumble of gods and of nature, for it exists in direct opposition to the\nlatter. The idea of God is preserved, but His worship is lost.\" In\nreviewing this book the late Dr. Schmauk said in 1910: \"A dispassionate\nstudy of heathen religions confirms the view of Paul that heathenism is\na fall from a better knowledge of God. The idols come between God and\nman.\"\n\nW. St. Clair Tisdale, concludes an exhaustive study of _\"Christianity\nand Other Faiths\"_ with the statement: \"It follows that Monotheism\nhistorically preceded Polytheism, and that the latter is a corruption of\nthe former. It is impossible to explain the facts away. Taken together\nthey show that, as the Bible asserts, man at the very beginning of\nhistory knew the One True God. This implies a Revelation of some sort\nand traces of that Revelation are still found in many ancient faiths.\"\n\nWe conclude that the history of religion does not only fail to support\nthe evolutionistic postulate of a slow upward development of religions\nfrom crude original beliefs, but quite the reverse. It is true that the\npopular handbooks of comparative religion quite generally teach a\ndevelopment of religious belief through animism, fetishism, and\npolytheism to monotheism. But the consonant testimony of specialists in\nthe field of historical study and of those who have had first-hand\nacquaintance with the aborigines of heathen lands, is a strong dissent\nfrom this position. Here again we find confident assertion of an\nevolutionistic process mainly among those who lack the qualifications\nof original research. Even as it is not the specialist in biology that\nstill maintains the Darwinian theory of Natural Selection, but the\nnon-professional and the amateur, even so the specialist acquainted\nwith the original sources, and the explorer, possessing first hand\nknowledge, asserts a decline, through history, from purer to less\nspiritual faiths, while the bias of the evolutionist, who has no first\nhand knowledge of the sources constrains him to begin his scheme of\nreligion with animism and fetish-worship. The theory which holds him in\nthrall demands such a construction. But the theory is contradicted by\nthe facts, which point unmistakably to a degeneration of the race, to a\nFall of Man.\n\n\nCHAPTER TEN.\nThe Verdict of History.\n\nJohn Fiske, who, in the seventies of the last century, popularized\nDarwinism in the United States, asserts that the scope of evolution is\nmuch wider than the organic field. \"There is no subject great or small\"\nhe wrote in _\"A Century of Science,\"_ \"that has not come to be affected\nby this doctrine.\" A development has been recognized in plants,\nmountains, oysters, subjunctive moods, and the confederacies of savage\ntribes (p. 35). Fiske is one of those defenders of the evolutionistic\nphilosophy who irritate by reason of their cocksureness. Hear him, in\n_\"Darwinism and Other Essays_:\" \"One could count on one's fingers the\nnumber of eminent naturalists who still decline to adopt it\"--the\nDarwinian hypothesis. That was in 1876. To-day we know that one cannot\non one finger the eminent naturalists of the present century who still\naccept it--Haeckel. It is possible that Fiske's extension of the\ndevelopment theory, along lines laid down by Herbert Spencer, to all\nhuman history, even to \"tribal confederacies,\" is likewise subject to a\nrevision. Indeed, it would seem that even without special or detailed\nknowledge, the failure of human history to conform with this universal\nlaw would be apparent. Consider once more the basic concepts of\nEvolution. They are two in number, 1. Everything that is, has been\nevolved, having been involved (potentially, as a possibility) in that\nwhich preceded it. Potentially, the feather of the blue-bird was in the\nspeck of original protoplasm, potentially the flights of Dante's and\nGoethe's genius were in the primordial cell. All that has occurred in\nhistory has _developed_ out of antecedents. Furthermore: 2. All that\nexists has developed _according to natural laws_. Scientists have given\nup the law which Darwin called \"Natural Selection,\" and Spencer himself\ncashiered the law which he had called \"Survival of the Fittest.\" But\nevolutionists continue to assert that somehow, by the action of certain\nlaws, that which exists has naturally--there is no need of divine\nProvidence, overruling the affairs of men,--has naturally been developed\nout of its antecedents. And so history is read by the evolutionist. He\nsees in all the institutions of civilization, in every department of\nculture, in the rise and fall of nations, the progress and decay of\nliteratures, a result of natural laws, working out the evolution of\nhuman society as it exists to-day.\n\nWhat, then, is the verdict of history? Does it conform to this scheme?\nIs there a demonstrable development, by inherent forces, of human\nsociety, from lower to higher ranges of culture? Civilization [tr note:\nsic] have risen, civilizations have perished: is there in this traceable\nthe working of natural law?\n\nDr. Emil Reich, in the _\"Contemporary Review,\"_ 1889. p. 45 ff. pointed\nout the failure of the development theory as applied to human culture.\nHebrew religion as well as the Hebrew state were not derived from\nBabylonian, Egyptian, Arabic or Hittite culture; Greek art is not a\nderivative product of Egyptian, Assyrian, or Phoenician art; Greek\nreligion and mythology are not derived from other pagan systems; Roman\nlaw has not been developed out of Greek, Aryan, or Egyptian law; the\nEnglish constitutional form of government has no antecedents in German\nor Norman-French history; German music is not a result of development\nout of Dutch, French, or Italian music. Dr. Reich sums up the matter:\n\"Institutions do not 'evolve,' nor are they 'derived,' they step into\nexistence by fulguration\"--sudden flashes--, \"by a process that is\ntechnically identical with the theological idea of creation. The whole\nconcept of evolution does not at all apply to history.\"\n\nIn this argument there is considerable force. For, indeed, what natural\nlaw can account for the rise of human institutions, so infinitely\ndiversified in their structure? Every age is divided into epochs, and at\nthe center of each epoch there is some personage of force and genius.\nBut how did Cromwell, Lincoln, Bismarck arise? What force produced them?\nWhence did they evolve? Yet without these three names, three great\nperiods in the world's history would be meaningless.\n\nBy what combination of forces shall we say that the various geniuses\nhave developed which, in a manner almost spectacular, rise before us as\nwe study the literatures of the past? The youthful years of Shakespeare\nwere spent under circumstances which might have produced in him one dull\nand unaspiring British country lout, like, as one egg to another, to a\nhundred thousand others who lived in his age. What made this one country\nboy the most astonishing genius in all the history of literature? Study\nthe youth of Robert Burns, of Heinrich Heine, or Coleridge, and then\ntell me why the first two should become the greatest lyric poets of\ntheir time, and the third, one of England's deepest thinkers? Why did\nthey not develop, one into a satisfied Scottish farmer, the other into\na peddler of notions, and the third into a fat and comfortable English\nbanker?\n\nWe quote from an article which appeared in _\"Theological Quarterly\"_\nsome twenty years ago:\n\n\"What process of evolution resulted in the lives and deeds of such men\nas Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, [tr. note: sic] Constantine the\nGreat, Luther, Napoleon I, and Bismarck? All these great makers of\nhistory were what they were far less in consequence and by the\ncontinuation of the course of previous events or developments, than\nlargely in spite of the past and in direct opposition to forces which\nhad worked together in shaping the condition of things with which they\nhad to deal. The Macedonian empire would never have sprung into being\nbut for an Alexander, in whose mind the chief facts for its realization\nwere united. The Rome which Julius Ceasar [tr. note: sic] left behind\nhim was not that which he had found, only carried forward to a new stage\nof development, but the embodiment of ideas conceived in his mind, a\nquantity which under God the greatest Roman had _made_ out of a quantity\nwhich he had found. The distinctive features of the Constantinian empire\nas compared with that of Diocletian, or of the tetrarchy of which he was\nthe head, were not evolved from earlier political principles, but stood\nout in bold contrast and even in direct opposition to the very\nfundamentals of antique statesmanship, and so new in politics that even\nConstantine permitted them to slip away from his grasp long before the\nsunset of his life had come. Luther was not a more fully developed Hus\nor Savonarola, and the Reformation was not the more advanced stage or\ncompletion of a movement inaugurated by the Humanists, but a work of God\nthe actuating spirit of which was as diametrically contrary to the\nrationalistic spirit which animated Erasmus and, in a measure, Zwingli\nand his abettors, as it was to anti-christian Rome,--which was in 1517\nessentially what it had been in 1302, when Boniface VIII issued his bull\n_Unam sanctum_ as a definition of the rights and powers of Popery.\nNapoleon did not carry onward but broke away from the tumult of French\npolitics when he laid the greater part of western Europe at his feet,\nand the battle of Austerlitz and the rule of the Hundred Days were no\nmore evolved from the French Revolution as by intrinsic necessity than\nthe burning of Moscow and the Russian snows which turned to naught the\ncampaign of 1812.\" (A. L. Graebner.)\n\nAccording to the theory we would expect that in the various departments\nof _art,_ perfection would be a late blossom, burgeoning forth only after\nages of feeble experiment and attempt. But what are the facts? As we\nstudy the history of any art,--be it literature or any department of\nliterature; be it architecture, sculpture, the domestic arts, or even\nthe art of war,--we find the highest culmination either at points which\nspecifically exclude the idea of a development or, indeed, perfection\nshines forth in the very beginning, all subsequent art being decay and\napostasy from that primal perfection.\n\nIn epic poetry, the greatest work does not stand at the end of a long\nperiod of development, but the first and oldest is the greatest. Nothing\nhas ever been produced to equal the Iliad and Odyssey, written 900 B. C.\nWe have epics that will always hold a prominent place in literature,\nVirgil's Aeneid, Milton's Paradise Lost, but neither these nor the many\nflights attempted into epic poetry before or since will be seriously\nconsidered as rivalling the rhapsodies of Homer.\n\nThe first novel ever written, Cervantes' Don Quijote, [tr. note: sic]\nremains one of the greatest.\n\nThe oldest dramatists, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, have never been\nsurpassed.\n\nAnd so in every department of art, the earliest stage of development\nseems to be the very most perfect. Pyramid building was a pastime of the\nearliest Pharaos; [tr. note: sic] the later did not attempt to rival\nthese structures with any of their own. No finer jewelry can be produced\nto-day than the gold ornaments found in the oldest tombs of Egypt. The\nfinest examples of East Indian architecture are the oldest. Gothic art\nwas not a slow development but came to utter perfection in its earliest\nexamples,--as in the Cathedral of Amiens.\n\nEvolution represents the history of our race as a constant climb, from\nbrute or near-brute beginnings, to ever higher forms of civilization,\nuntil the heights which our race has reached in the present century were\nattained. In reality, the reverse process, a constant and invariable\nprocess of degeneration characterizes the history of nations and peoples.\nWhere Christianity entered as a factor, as in the history of Western\nEurope and in the results of Christian missions in heathen lands, we can\nindeed observe a rise out of barbaric or savage conditions to refinement\nand culture. But only where the Christian gospel is preached, was the\nnatural process of decay, of degeneration, interfered with. Elsewhere,\nthat is to say, where purely natural forces were given free play,\nmankind has declined physically, mentally, spiritually. All\ncivilizations illustrate this law of decay. Wilhelm F. Griewe, in his\n_\"Primitives Suedamerika\"_ (Cincinnati, 1893), summarizes his\nobservations on the South American continent as follows: \"The Malaysian\naborigines of South America, in a period of 3,000 years, failed to\nadvance in development. The Japanese discoverers of Peru testify that\nthey found the natives in a condition of extreme decay; within a period\nof 1,500 years they had made no progress but had retrogressed. When the\nSpaniards came, they described the natives of Chile and Argentina in\nsuch a manner that it is quite evident how little these tribes had\nprogressed in 3,000 years. The Araucanians of Chile have, even in\nhistoric times, greatly degenerated; they have lost the very meaning of\nmany words; retaining the shell, they have lost the kernel. In Peru,\nthe age of heroic deeds and wonderful architecture was followed by decay,\n--religious, moral, intellectual decay. The population was all but\ndestroyed by vices and cruelty. Their neighbors, the Chibchas, likewise\ndescribed an arc which ended in devil-worship. Similarly, the history of\nthe Botokudes is degeneration, vice, atrocities. The negro tribes in the\nnorth and east of South America record no progress, but, on the other\nhand, sank into abominations, slavery, cannibalism. Where, then, is\nthere support for the evolutionary theory, with its assumption of an\nupward trend from a brute condition to civilized and cultured life?\nEverywhere in primitive South America we see before our very eyes the\nprocess of decline and decay. Also the religious idea became obscured.\nSome of these tribes had an original monotheism. They recognized a\nsupreme creator of all things and gave him various names. But the\nspiritual character of their knowledge of God was gradually obscured,\nGod was dragged into the sphere of sense and lower divinities were\nassociated with Him,--a downward development which absolutely contradicts\nthe Darwinian hypothesis. From an original, pure, spiritual worship to\ngross idolatry,--that is the religious decay which in the world outside\nthe Bible meets us everywhere, also among the original races of South\nAmerica.\"\n\nThus in the history of human society, we observe, unless the divine power\nof the gospel supplies the sole preserving and regenerating element, a\nuniversal law of decay in human affairs. Innumerable times, and at the\nmost crucial moments of human history, not the fittest but the unfittest\nsurvived. Dr. A. L. Graebner said: \"The principle of the 'survival of the\nfittest' is so far from accounting for the phenomena of history, that the\nprinciple itself is flatly contradicted and utterly exploded by a sober\ninvestigation of historical facts. That there are in nature numerous\ninstances of a survival of the _un_fittest, is not only conceded by our\nevolutionists, but has been deliberately forged into an argument against\nteleology (divine purpose) and divine providence! And, we ask, was it by\nthe survival of the fittest that Julius Ceasar, [tr. note: sic] one of the\ngrandest rulers of all ages, should succumb under the daggers of Brutus\nand Cassius: that Paul and Seneca should die by authority of their\ninferior, Nero; that Popery, rotten to the core and represented by men\nwho would have brought on the ignominous [tr. note: sic] collapse or\nextinction of every other dynasty in the days of the Roman pornocracy,\nshould survive, while the illustrious house of Henry I. sank away to\nruin in the third and fourth generation; that John Hus should die at the\nstake and Jean Charlier de Gerson in timid monastic retirement, while\nBalthasar Cossa, by far their inferior in talents and learning, and\nevery inch an infamous scoundrel, having for a time disgraced even the\nRoman see as John XXIII, ended his days as a Cardinal and Bishop of\nTusculum and Dean of the Sacred College; that Girolamo Savonarola, one\nof the most remarkable and pure-minded leaders of his day and of all\ntimes, should be fought down and crushed in a struggle with men not one\nof whom was worthy of unloosing his shoe's latchet, among them Alexander\nVI, one of the most scandalous wretches of all history? Survival of the\nfittest!\"\n\nThe article from which we have quoted points out the relevancy, to the\nquestion at issue, of the principle of degeneration and gradual decay in\nhistorical organisms or institutions. \"Our scientists who bother\nthemselves and others about the descent of man have favored with a keen\ninterest the Bushmen of Australia and other types of savage humanity,\nwith receding skulls, flat noses, thin legs, little or no clothing, and\nnot much of morals or religion. The lower in the scale and the farther\nremote from the civilized Caucasian a newly discovered or investigated\ntribe or specimen, living or dead, would appear to be, the greater was\nthe value set on the discovery, because the nearer science was supposed\nto have come to the missing link, the transition from brute to man. Of\ncourse, the missing link will never be discovered, because it never\nexisted. There is no transition from brute to man, and never was. But if\nthere were a species of beings which might be classed either with man or\nwith brutes, a transitional species, even that would not necessarily\nrepresent a transition in the direction from brute to man. We do not say\nthat a transition from man to brute is possible; for it is not; but we\ndo say that the evolutionist who sees in Bushmen and other savages\nspecimens of humanity representing the earlier stages of development,\nthrough which the more highly developed species had long since passed on\nthe way from the primitive state of man to their present state, makes a\ngreat, fundamental mistake, the same mistake which one would make in\nsupposing that the pale and decrepit inmates of a city hospital or a\ncountry poorhouse represented the lower stage of development from which\nthe strong and healthy men and women in the surrounding country had been\nevolved. Our evolutionists are in very much the same plight with Mark\nTwain and his friend, who, having slept all day, rushed from the hotel\nin scanty clothing, climbed the observatory and to the amusement of the\nguests loudly admired what they took to be the famous Rigi sunrise,\nwhile in fact they were vociferating and gesticulating at the setting\nsun. But while our tourists had soon found out their mistake, our\nevolutionists have not; which does not make it any less a mistake. St.\nPaul has drawn a vivid picture of the degenerating influence of sin upon\nthe nations under the righteous wrath of God,* [[* Rom. 1, 18-32.]] and\nthe course which the Greek nation and the Roman would have run from\ntheir pristine vigor exhibited in the days of Thermopylae and Cannae\ndown to the state of _marasmus senilis_ pictured by Juvenal, a state of\nrottenness which even the transfusion of German blood into the putrid\nveins of that degenerate and decaying race could not remedy, is a\nfearful corroboration of the apostle's testimony.\"\n\nWe cannot leave this subject without briefly adverting to a great\nhistoric fact, indeed, the most massive and significant fact in all\nhistory, which, in its remoter bearings, not only strikes at the very\nheart of the evolutionistic philosophy, but at the same time wounds it\nmortally in all its parts. I refer to the Resurrection of our Lord. The\nresurrection of Jesus Christ is the central fact of our Christian belief\nand it is, rightly understood, the all-sufficient answer to the theory\nof evolution. Christ's resurrection is an historical fact fully as much\nas the defeat of Xerxes at Salamis in 480 B. C., the discovery of\nAmerica by Columbus in 1492, and the peace of Versailles of 1919 are\nhistorical facts, proven by the word and record of contemporary\nwitnesses. But if Christ was raised then we have proof for the following\ntenets, all contradicting evolutionary speculation at so many vital\npoints: 1) The existence of a personal God who is concerned with human\naffairs; 2) The reality of miraculous interference with natural forces;\n3) The truth of atonement and the redemption, and 4) The inspiration of\nthe Old Testament Scriptures (hence also of the creation account in\nGenesis). The details of the argument are beyond the scope of this paper,\nbut a little patient study will bring to light the fact that each of\nthese four basic ideas is dove-tailed, mortised and anchored so firmly\nin the fact of Christ's resurrection, that you can get rid of them all\nonly by denying that fact. Hence it is, aside from any investigation of\nproofs of evolutionism, clear to the Christian student that there must\nbe some fault either in reason or in observation that vitiates the whole\ntheory. The resurrection of Christ is a fact, a fact to which the entire\nhistory of Christianity testifies, the most tremendous fact in the\nhistory of the world. And it stands fore-square against a theory which\nsays that there is no personal God, that there is no sin, no redemption;\nthat there are no miracles, no revelation, no inspiration; that there is\nno absolute religion nor an absolute standard of right and wrong.\n\n\nCHAPTER ELEVEN.\nEvidence of Design.\n\nCompare all that has been said by scientists themselves about the\nevolutionary theory, and what remains? This, only, that some how, we do\nnot know when, life arose, and some how, we do not know by what laws,\none form evolved from another, until we and the world about us have\nbecome what we are now. Now, the fact that no _laws_ have so far been\ndiscovered by scientists to account for this presumed development of all\nthings by inherent forces, is very significant and the conclusions which\nlogically follow from it deserve our attention. Since Darwin's solution,\nNatural Selection, was discarded, twenty or thirty years ago, many other\nsolutions have been propounded, but none has received the assent of even\na respectable group of scientists, let alone by all. These solutions,\n--such as the theories of de Vries and Mendel, are frankly no more than\nguesses based on certain observation in plant life and insect life and\ntheir originators by no means assert that they have found a law by which\nthe universe can be accounted for. But if there is no universal law,\nthere is only _chance_. Hence it is clear that what we are asked to\nbelieve is that ancient Greek speculation was after all not far from the\ntruth, that through a fortuitous (accidental) concourse of atoms the\nworld came into being, and that by chance combinations of elements the\ngreat variety of living things arose.\n\nSuch is the condition of evolutionistic thought to-day. That there is no\n_direct_ evidence for organic evolution is generally admitted. That\ngeology cannot be quoted for it is also quite generally conceded, since\nthe sudden rise of perfect (not half-developed) insects, of perfect\nfish, of perfect mammals, is clear even to the man who merely turns the\nleaves of Geikie's, Le Conte's, and Dana's text books, or visits Field's\nMuseum. Yet _some-how_ things must have gotten to be what they are by\ndevelopment from earlier forms,--this about sums up what is really\ncontained in the concept of evolution as it appears in most recent\nscientific literature, so far as scientists at all touch upon the\nsubject. However, they by no means urge the evolutionary principle as\nthey used to do. Bacteriologists especially, so I am informed by a\nchemist of international repute, Dr. P. A. Kober, of New York, as a\nclass are inclined to give up the theory as a \"bad guess.\" Why, they\nfind in fossil fish diseased portions which bear unmistakable traces of\nthe action of bacteria which live to-day, in other words, which in\n\"countless millions of years\" have not progressed enough to show any\nchange recognizable under the most powerful miscroscope! [tr. note: sic]\nAnthropologists shake their head when they are told by evolutionists\nthat the animal which shows clearest \"resemblance\" in a structural way,\nto certain points in human anatomy, is a small fossil ape, about the\nsize of a house cat, with a skull one inch in diameter! There remains no\nproof, direct or indirect, of any _principle_ working the changes which\nare believed to have occurred. All things have evolved, if they have\nevolved at all, _by chance_.\n\nNow, over against this doctrine of chance there stands the monumental\nfact that throughout nature, living and non-living, there runs a\nprinciple of _design_. The minerals, the plants, the animals, all\nexhibit, as even the superficial observer knows or might know, a plan.\nThere is design in the crystals in which elements exist when they pass\nfrom a liquid into a solid state; there is design in the leaf and flower\nof every plant; there is plan, design, in the structure and physiology\nof animals. We would add, there is an evident plan in the history of the\nChosen Race, the Jews, as we possess it in the Old and New Testaments;\nthere is a plan in the moral sphere, laws producing unvaried results;\nthere is an ordered scheme even in the life of the individual. But let\nus limit our investigation to the domain of nature. Let us note how\nlittle necessity there is for assuming that by mere chance things have\ncome to be what they are.\n\nAs a rule each chemical substance has an individual crystal by which it\ncan be distinguished. It is possible to classify the thousands of\ndifferent crystals, since all belong to one of six classes, according as\ntheir surfaces are grouped symmetrically around the axes of the crystal.\nThe salt crystal has one form, the topaz another, quartz and beryl\nanother, borax another, and these forms are absolutely unvaried wherever\nthese substances are found in nature or in the chemist's retort. It is\nnot here our intention to point out how impossible it is to assume that\nthere has been an evoluton [tr. note: sic] of one of these forms out of\nanother. The point is that there is not chance, but orderly arrangement,\nsymmetrical shape, in a word, most evident design.\n\nTurning to plant life, even the amateur student cannot fail to observe\nthat the entire world of plants is built on a beautiful system which\nargues most powerfully not for accidental arrangement but for plan. The\nplace of every leaf on every plant is fixed beforehand by unerring\nmathematical rule. As the stems grow on, leaf after leaf appears exactly\nin its predestined place, producing a perfect symmetry;--a symnetry [tr.\nnote: sic] which manifests itself not in one single monotonous pattern\nfor all plants, but in a definite number of forms exhibited by different\nspecies, and arithmetically expressed by the series of fractions, 1/2,\n1/3, 2/5, 3/8, 5/13, 8/21, etc., according as the formative energy in\nits spiral course up the developing stem lays down at corresponding\nintervals 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, or 21 ranks of alternative leaves.\n\nThe position of each blossom is determined beforehand by that of the\nleaves; so that the shape of every flower-cluster in a boquet [tr. note:\nsic] is given by the same simple mathematical law which arranges the\nfoliage. Every flower has a \"Numerical Plan.\" Although not easy to make\nout in all cases, yet generally it is plain to see that each blossom is\nbased upon a particular number, which runs through all or most of its\nparts. And a principal thing which a botanist notices when examining a\nflower is its numerical plan. It is upon this that the symmetry of the\nblossom depends. Thus the stonecrop and the flax are based upon the\nnumber five, which is exhibited in all their parts. Some flowers of this\nsame stonecrop have their parts in fours, and then that number runs\nthroughout; namely, there are four sepals, four petals, eight stamens\n(two sets), and four pistils.\n\nNext let us touch upon the plan which connects the plant with the animal\nworld. The wonderful adaptations of many flowers and insects to each\nother, as to the fertilization of the former, and as to the life of the\nindividual insect and the propagation of its kind, are evidence of\ndesign. For example, there are certain species of plants that are\ndependent for their fertilization on certain species of moths which\nlive in the flowers, and the moths, in turn, are dependent on the\nplants. They deposit their eggs in the ovaries of the flowers where the\nyoung are hatched and nourished. The moths in some cases carry the\npollen and place it on the stigmas of the flowers, as if guided by\nintelligence. So marvellous are the provisions which are made to ensure\nthe fertilization of plants that the dean of Amercan [tr. note: sic]\nbotanists, Professor Asa Gray, exclaims: \"If these structures and their\noperations do not argue intention, what stronger evidence of intention\nin nature can there possibly be? If they do, such evidences are\ncountless, and almost every blossom brings distinct testimony to the\nexistence and providence of a Designer and Ordainer, without whom, we\nmay well believe, not merely a sparrow, not even a grain of pollen, may\nfall.\" (On this entire subject read Selina Gaye's _\"The Great World's\nFarm,\"_ published by the MacMillan Co., New York.)\n\nWe can only lightly touch on the wonders of design in the structure and\nfunctions of animals. Here is a feather, any feather, say, the feather\nof an eagle. We quote the following on \"One of Nature's Wonders--the\nFeather'' from an article in a popular magazine:\n\n\"To most people a feather is just a feather, either pretty or plain\naccording to how the coloring strikes their individual fancy. Yet when\na feather is examined critically, it becomes a wonder and yet more\nwonderful--it is amazing when its details are understood. Never was\nthere a thing better planned and builded for the uses intended.\n\n\"Take, for instance, a plain feather--say the tail feather of an eagle.\nThe long quill is made of feather-bone, that wonderfully light, yet\nstrong material that forms the rigid part of all feathers, so tough that\nit is almost impossible to break it, yet so flexible it will bend into a\ncircle and then spring back like a bit of whalebone! Nothing that man\nhas ever been able to make can equal it.\n\n\"There is no blood, no nerves, no circulation and apparently no life in\na full grown feather, yet it does not decompose; indeed, it is one of\nthe hardest things in the world to destroy by any process of\ndecomposition. It retains its resiliency and all its flexibility for\nyears--all that is necessary is to keep it dry. It is finished all along\nthe rib (or quill) with a hard, glossy enamel on the outside and this\nenamel keeps its polish as long as the feather lasts.\n\n\"From [tr. note: sic on punctuation] an engineering standpoint, or the\nstandpoint of the mechanic or artisan, there is absolutely no suggestion\nof betterment to be made, for the feather is an exact, perfectly\nfinished product. Its long central quill tapers from base to point with\ngeometric precision, thereby giving perfect resistance to bending force,\nand this is one of the combination of secrets that enables the bird to\nfly as easily as man can walk. Also this long quill is hollow, thereby\nall extra weight is done away with and added strength gained because of\nthe tube contraction; and to make it perfect from a mechanical\nstandpoint, the under side of the quill is reinforced by a doublerolled\nthickening of the shell of the quill itself so that strains are\nequalized.\n\n\"This long quill is also curved slightly, to meet air resistance again\nand overcome it when the whole tail is spread, fan-like, to suddenly\nalter a direction or check speed in flight.\n\n\"The long, soft side masses are formed of a multitude of tiny feathers,\neach one perfectly equipped, perfectly made, mechanically and\ngeometrically without fault. Each of these tiny side feathers has its\nown midrib that tapers from base to tip, and each of these midribs\ncarries its own equipment of side 'hairs' so beautifully constructed\nthat it locks automatically into the one on each side of it in such a\nway that it makes a solid yet flexible mass of the whole surface,\nagainst which the air flows as the bird flies.\n\n\"If these side feathers be split apart they will come back into place\nso exactly that the split cannot be detected. Nothing else in nature\nrepairs itself with such precision. Many things, for instance the claw\nleg of the crawfish, will replace itself exactly when destroyed, but\nthe feather alone _repairs_ its own breaks precisely and automatically.\n\n\"Taken as a whole, the feather is one of the most perfect products of\nnature because the material used is the one best thing throughout, the\nengineering principles involved are without fault, the mathematical\nplan is precise, the construction is perfect, the coloring and artistry\nare flawless, and there is not one single point about it that can be\nconstructively criticized.\n\n\"This short article can only hint at the wonderful things one may find\nin a single feather, and it is something well worth not an hour, but\nweeks or months of the most painstaking and careful study, for it covers\nan amazing field.\"\n\nThe electric battery in certain fishes is so palpable a case of design\nthat Charles Darwin admitted his inability to account for it by Natural\nSelection. The electric ray, or torpedo, for instance, has been provided\nwith a battery which, while it closely resembles, yet in the beauty and\ncompactness of its structure, it greatly exceeds the batteries by which\nman has now learned to make the laws of electricity subservient to his\nwill. In this battery there are no less than 940 hexagonal columns, like\nthose of a bee's comb, and each of these is subdivided by a series of\nhorizontal plates, which appear to be analogous to the plates of the\nbatteries used in automobiles. The whole is supplied with an enormous\namount of nervous matter, four great branches of which are as large as\nthe animal's spinal cord, and these spread out in a multitude of\nthread-like filaments round the prismatic columns, and finally pass into\nall the cells. \"A complete knowledge of all the mysteries which have\nbeen gradually unfolded from the days of Galvani to those of Faraday,\nand of many others which are still inscrutable to us, is exhibited in\nthis structure.\" Well may Mr. Darwin say, \"It is impossible to conceive\nby what steps these wondrous organs have been produced. We see the\npurpose--that a special apparatus should be prepared; but we have not\nthe remotest notion of the means employed. Yet we can see so much as\nthis, that here again, other laws, belonging altogether to another\ndepartment of nature--laws of organic growth--are made subservient to a\nvery definite and very peculiar purpose.' [tr. note: sic on punctuation]\n\n\"The new-born kangaroo,\" says Professor Owen, \"is an inch in length,\nnaked, blind, with very rudimental limbs and tail; in one which I\nexamined the morning after the birth, I could discern no act of sucking;\nit hung, like a germ, from the end of the long nipple, and seemed unable\nto draw sustenance therefrom by its own efforts. The mother accordingly\nis provided with a peculiar adaptation of a muscle (_cremaster_) to the\nmammary gland, by which she can inject the milk from the nipple into the\nmouth of the pendulous embryo. Were the larynx of the creature like that\nof the parent, the milk might, probably would, enter the windpipe and\ncause suffocation: but the larynx is cone-shaped, with the opening at\nthe apex, which projects, as in the whaletribe, into the back aperture\nof the nostrils, where it is closely embraced by the muscles of the\n'soft palate.' The air-passage is thus completely separated from the\nfauces (mouth), and the injected milk passes in a divided stream, on\neither side the base of the larynx, into the oesophagus. These\ncorrelated modifications of maternal and foetal structures, _designed_\nwith especial reference to the peculiar conditions of both mother and\noff-spring, afford, as it seems to me, irrefragable evidence of\n_creative forsight_. The parts of this apparatus cannot have produced\none another; one part is in the mother, another part in the young one;\nwithout their harmony they could not be effective; but nothing except\ndesign can operate to make them harmonious. They are intended to work\ntogether; and we cannot resist the conviction of this intention when\nthe facts first come before us.\"\n\nWe cannot stop to pass in review the structural marvels of the human eye\nand ear, of the digestive organs, and circulatory system of animals, of\nadaptations of fishes to the watery element. But we must mention an\noutstanding feature of all animal life, the evident likeness of plan\nupon which the _entire kingdom_ of sentient life is constructed. From\namoeba and other infusorial animals of simplest structure, through coral\nand oyster, bird, reptile, to mammals, there is an evident gradation,\nmany structures being represented in entire great groups of living\nbeings, such as the air-breathing lung. Here is a grand plan of animal\nlife, which permits us to classify all living things into a system.\nThere are classes and subclasses, orders or families, suborders, tribes,\nsub-tribes, genera, species, and varieties, just as in the world of\nplants and even, according to their atomic weight, among the elements.\nWe see in all this, Creative Design. The evolutionist believes that he\ncan percive [tr. note: sic] stages of progress. Similarity of plan is\ninterpreted as proof that there is a common origin. Are we to admit, in\nthe face of all that has been said about the fixity of species (to\nmention only this), the reasonableness of such an assumption? Does\norderliness and plan argue for development? The steam-engine is a\nmachine of remarkable structure. It has had, in one sense of the term,\na wonderful \"evolution.\" It is based on certain principles, the\nfoundation one of which is the expansibility of steam, and its ability,\nwhen confined in a cylinder, to give motion to a piston. The\nsteam-engine was first used for pumping, then for turning machinery,\nthen for propelling boats, and now its crowning department is seen in\nthe locomotive. There is a plan, a likeness, a similarity, which runs\nthrough all steam-engines, whether they be found in the mine, in the\nmill, beneath the deck of the steamship, or on the railroad track. But\nthe locomotive is not formed from the mine engine; it is made new, and\nis a distinct type. And yet, the same principles are seen in both. Even\nso it is with the genera of animals. The whale and the elephant both\nhave backbones, jointed limbs, warm blood, and a hundred homologous\norgans. They are both mammals, both are sagacious, and are gifted with\nacute senses. But otherwise they are unlike as the monster locomotive\nthat pulls the heavy train over the Sierras, and the compound engines of\nthe _Vaterland_. Similarity of structures argues powerfully for unity of\nplan, but by no means proves identity of origin.\n\nThe evidence of design in nature conflicts with the idea that all things\nin the organic domain have come to be what they are by chance. But it\nagrees perfectly with the Christian view of animal nature. What is that?\nIt is that God created the different classes of existences in the strict\nsense; that is, that he created them separate classes and species, each\nwith its own peculiarities and habits, while, at the same time, they\nrise one above the other in general and steady order, with certain\ngeneral organs and functions, which run through nearly all except the\nlowest classes, each higher class having also some distinct and\nadditional peculiarities not found in those below it. In other words, to\nthe Christian the steadily ascending scale in the work of creation is\nonly the unfolding or development of the great plan of creation that was\nin the mind of God. He believes that God did not create one or more\nsimple cells or germs, and cause all higher forms to be evolved from\nthem, interfering only once or twice (when the backbone appeared, the\nnourishing breast, the mind of man, etc.), but that he, in the execution\nof his plan, created successively as distinct orders and species those\nthings and beings which now exist as distinct orders and species, and\nmany of which have become extinct. This is the Story of Creation as\ngiven in Genesis: Each plant, each animal, created in its own place in\nthe scale of living thing, but each created as a species,--\"after their\nkind,\" the phrase repeated after each creative act of the third, fifth,\nand sixth day, except with reference to man, who was not created as a\n\"species\" but after the image of God.\n\nBut the evidences of design are yet of a higher nature than we have so\nfar considered. There is not only Creative Intelligence at work in the\npollen of flowers, the breathing of sponges, and the eagle's orb of\nvision; Mind dominates _the universe as a whole_. Everywhere there is\nlaw and periodic, rhythmical motion. The Lord, speaking to Job, refers\nto the \"measures\" of the earth, the \"lines\" which He has stretched upon\nit. He asks, concerning the heavenly bodies: \"Canst thou bind the sweet\ninfluences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring\nforth Mazzaroth in his season? Or canst thou guide Arcturus with his\nsons?\" And Job answers: \"I know that Thou canst do everything.\"\n\nAnd so there is a Reign of Law in the dew on the grass (Job 38, 28), and\nin the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. The Universe is ruled by Mind.\n\nProfessor Koelliker (Leipsic) says in his work _\"Ueber die Darwinsche\nSchoepfungstheorie\"_ (1904): \"The development theory of Darwin is not\nneeded to enable us to understand the regular harmonious progress of the\ncomplete series of organic forms from the simpler to the more perfect.\nThe existence of general laws of nature explains this harmony, even if\nwe assume that all beings have arisen separately and independent of one\nanother. Darwin forgets that inorganic nature, in which there can be no\nthought of a genetic connection of forms,\" that one form of crystal, for\ninstance, arose out of another, \"exhibits the same regular plan, as the\norganic world (of plants and animals), and that, to cite only one\nexample, there is as much a natural system of minerals as of plants and\nanimals.\" We can go a step farther and say that there is system and\norderly design even in the position and movements of the stars,--which\ncertainly have not been evolved one from the other.\n\nMore marvellous still, we are permitted to believe that there is an\nidentity of plan connecting the arrangement of atoms in a molecule and\nthe position of the stars and planets. Dr. Charles Young, Professor of\nAstronomy in Princeton College, says in his larger text-book upon his\nspecial theme that \"our planetary system (the sun and planets) is not a\nmere accidental aggregation of bodies,\" that \"there are a multitude of\nrelations actually observed which are wholly independent of gravitation.\"\nIn other words, in the position and motions of the planets there are\nevidences of design which cannot be accounted for by natural law. We\nshall point out an instance of such arrangement,--the progressive\ndistance of the planets from the sun, as first discovered by Titius of\nWittenberg, and later (in 1772) brought to the attention of the\nscientific world, by Johann Bode, the celebrated German astronomer. It\nis exhibited by writing a line of nine 4's and then placing regularly\nincreasing numbers under the several 4's, beginning with the second.\nThus 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192, and 384, each increased by 4, will give\nthe resultant series, 4, 7, 10, 16, 28, 52, 100, 196, 388. These numbers\ndivided by 10 are approximately the true distance of the planets from\nthe sun in terms of the radius of the earth's orbit, with the exception\nof Neptune. Hence there is, in the arrangmeent of the planets, as\norderly a system as we have noted with reference to the leaves on a\nplant. Any rational man on earth, finding an orderly system of materials\narranged in such relation by such means, would instantly conclude that\nit must be due to intelligence and not to mere chance.\n\nNow, it is a remarkable fact that in the so-called Periodic Law of the\nelements constituting matter the same relation is observed. Of the\neighty elements, no two now known have exactly the same capacity to\nresist heat, and no two atoms of the same elements have the same weight\nas compared with an atom of hydrogen. But these differences in\nresistance to heat and in weight, are not haphazard, but are so\nregularly progressive that they can be arranged in a series of regularly\nprogressive increasing intervals. Most marvellous of all, however, when\nthese differences in specific gravity are examined, we find that they\nbear a close resemblance to the arrangement of the planets in\nprogressive distances from the sun. \"There appears to be one law for\natoms and for worlds.\"\n\nAgain we ask, when there is such orderly arrangement and plan throughout\nnature, should the orderly plan of plant and animal life be regarded as\na proof of evolution? Certainly, atoms have not evolved from atoms, nor\nplanets from planets.\n\nAnd again, since omnipotence alone can account for the \"sweet influences\nof the Pleiades,\" the \"bringing forth of Mazzaroth\"--the constellations\nof the heavens in their nightly revolutions,--why resist the conviction\nthat omnipotence, voiced forth in the beginning, accounts for the life\non earth that now exists?\n\nOne more consideration, and we have done. Life on earth exists only\nthrough a combination of very complex physical conditions. These\nconditions are such as cannot, in their combination, be referred to\nchance, Fairhurst says, in his _\"Organic Evolution Considered:\"_ \"The\nsimple substances which constitute the earth are of such kinds and are\nfound in such relative quantities as not only to render life possible,\nbut also to contribute to the well-being of man as an intelligent and\nmoral agent. I look upon the concurrence of all these things, according\nto any theory of _chance,_ as being entirely impossible. The conditions\nthat must be fulfilled before living beings are possible are so complex\nthat _nothing short of the wisdom of a Supreme Intelligence could have\nproduced them.\"_ (cf. Rom. 1, 20.)\n\nThis view has found support in a most unexpected quarter. No less a\nperson than Alfred Russel Wallace, famed as the discoverer, independently\nof Darwin, of the principle of Natural Selection, in his last book,\n_\"Man's Place in the Universe,\"_ (1903) defended a position so subversive\nof every cherished belief (or unbelief) of scientists that it easily\nranks as the greatest literary sensation, in the domain of natural\nscience, of the century. Wallace assembled all the latest astronomcial\n[tr. note: sic] and other scientific discoveries and all knowledge\nbearing on the subject announced in his title. He deduces therefrom the\ntheory:--First, that the earth or solar system is the physical center of\nthe stellar universe. Second, _that the supreme end and purpose of this\nvast universe was the production and development of a living soul in the\nperishable body of man._\n\n\"Modern skeptics,\" says Wallace, \"in the light of accepted astronomical\ntheories (which regard our earth as uttterly insignificant compared with\nthe rest of the universe) have pointed out the irrationality and\nabsurdity of supposing that the Creator of all this unimaginable\nvastness of suns and systems should have any special interest in so\npitiful a creature as man, an imperfectly developed inhabitant of one of\nthe smaller planets attached to a second or third rate sun, while that\nHe should have selected this little world for a scene so tremendous and\nso necessarily unique as to sacrifice His own son in order to save a\nportion of these miserable sinners from the natural consequences of sins,\nis in their view a crowning absurdity, not to be believed by any rational\nbeing.\"\n\nWe cannot follow Mr. Wallace's argument in detail. Suffice to say, that\nhe adduces a vast amount of data showing, first, that the universe is not\ninfinite, but has certain bounds, and that our earth and its system are\nin the center of it, and, secondly, that the entire purpose of the\nproduction of the universe is the human race. The earth, says Wallace, is\nthe only body capable of sustaining life. Life is not possible on any of\nthe planets, because they are either too close or too far distant from\nthe sun; some are probably composed of gas. He proves, on the basis of\naccepted calculations, that of all the stars in the heavens there is not\neven a remote probability that any are attended by bodies which can\nprovide the elements of life. Now, he says, this very peculiar position\nof the earth cannot have been due to accident. He refuses to believe that\nthe earth should occupy this favored position \"as the result of one out\nof a thousand million chances.\"\n\n\"On the other hand,\" he says, \"those thinkers may be right who, holding\nthat the universe is a manifestation of mind, and that the orderly\ndevelopment of living souls supplies an adequate reason why such a\nuniverse should have been called into existence, believe that we\nourselves are its sole and sufficient result and that nowhere else than\nnear the central position in the universe which we occupy could that\nresult have been attained.\"\n\nThis conclusion of Mr. Wallace has, indeed, not found acceptance among\nscientists. Naturally not. If a materialistic conception of the universe\nis to prevail, if evolution in some form is to be accepted, we must have\na universe of chance, not of a plan which spans the remotest star and\nthe soul of the new-born infant in one tremendous arc. But it is highly\ninstructive to observe how the scientists in 1903 met Wallace's argument.\nOne very distinguished reviewer said:\n\n_\"Too little is known,_ the most essential astronomical theories are too\nmuch _a matter of conjecture,_ to give much strength to a theory built\nup entirely of _such conjectural materials_. The argument from\n_probabilities_ can easily be turned against the author, for when a\nchain of reasoning depends upon _a long series of problematic premises,_\nthe doubt of these premises increases in a mathematical ratio. Weakness\nin an argument is as cumulative as strength and while such of Dr.\nWallace's conclusions taken separately may receive the support of eminent\nscientists, hardly any of them has received such demonstration as to\nentitle it to unreserved credence.\"\n\nThis, at last, is a frank admission. Wallace quoted the generally\naccepted results of scientific calculation and research. On the basis of\nthese results he demonstrates that the entire object of Evolution (to\ndemonstrate the development of all things by natural causes, without a\ndirecting intelligence), is negatived by a proper consideration of\n\"ascertained data,\"--since these data, taken all together, prove a\nstupendous plan behind all natural phenomena, and the end of this plan,\nthe human soul. In rebuttal we are now told that \"the most essential\nastronomical theories\"--as e.g. the Copernican System, Herschel's laws,\nthe Newtonian theory of gravitation,--\"are matter of conjecture\" (in\nplain English, are blind guesses), are \"problematic,\" and \"hardly any\nentitled to unreserved credence.\"\n\nThus do we find, that the greatest of Darwinians, on a mature\nconsideration of the subject, reached a conclusion which makes evolution\nas a theory quite unnecessary; he found that the world is ruled not by\nblind forces inherent in matter but by Supreme Intelligence. And in\ntheir effort to keep themselves from being engulfed in the apostacy of a\ngreat leader, the scientists, as by a unanimous chorus, announce that\nthe scientific dogmas which enter more or less essentially into their\natheistic conception of the universe, are nothing but surmises!\n\nWhat reason has a Christian to surrender his faith on account of the\ncontradiction of scientists? He has the oracles of God, the sure Word of\nHim Who created all things in six natural days. And if he but escape the\nfascination of scientific speculations, and study the works of God\nwithout bias, he will find in Nature nothing that does not agree with\nthe Book.\n\n\nCHAPTER TWELVE.\nThe Fatal Bias.\n\nIf the theory of evolution is contradicted as we believe by the data of\nexperimental science, by the history of civilization, by the facts\nespecially of religion, more especially of Christianity, then the\nquestion is justifiable: Why do scientists uphold the evolutionary\ntheory in some form or other, in spite of such absence of proof and such\ninsufficiency of the hypothesis?\n\nIn answering this question let us first observe that scientists do not\nstand opposed to Christian belief _as representatives of science_. It is\nnot science, but the scientists, not geology, but the geologists, not\nphysics, but the physicists that oppose Christian theology. In other\nwords, there is no conflict between the _facts_ of science and the facts\nof revelation. Why should one not be able to maintain Christian faith\nthough one accept the fact that the volume of expired air is one-fifth\nless than inspired air; that plant substance is composed of cells; that\nHalley's comet returns to our system every seventy five years; that\nSicily was part of the Roman Empire in the time of Augustus? These\nphysiological, botanical, astronomical, and historical facts are not in\nconflict with the religious beliefs based on Scripture. The same holds\ngood with reference to the so-called laws of nature. These \"laws\" are\nbut group-names for certain phenomena. Thus we speak of the law of\ngravity, of the conservation of energy, the Laws of Charles and Mariotte\nregarding gaseous bodies, zoological laws, physiological, and\npsychological laws. A book which merely records and classifies these\nlaws and describes the phenomena underlying them, is a truly scientific\nbook, yet the acceptance of all that it contained would not force the\nsurrender of any point of Christian doctrine. Hence we say that there is\nno contradiction between science and theology, between nature and\nreligion.\n\nIt is otherwise with the _constructions and the interpretations_ which\nthe scientists place upon the facts of science. For instance, there is\nan evident similarity of structure in many animals; they are built on a\nsimilar plan; their organs have similar or even identical functions.\nThese are simply facts ascertained by observation. Their acceptance does\nnot place any burden on Christian faith. But scientists interpret these\nfacts to mean that there is progressive development in animal and plant\nlife. They have found certain laws (Natural Selection and others) by\nmeans of which they require only forces resident in matter to explain\nthe universe. On their hypothesis there is no necessity of miracles nor\nneed we believe in God. Observe, this is the result of speculation, not\nobservation; interpretation of facts, but not a conclusion drawn from\nfacts themselves. It is not science but scientists that are opposed to\nthe Christian religion.\n\nThis view is supported also by the reflection that the history of\nspeculative thought has ever revealed an anti-Christian intent and\npurpose, a fatal bias of scientists and philosophers against the\nteachings of Christianity. The modern anatomist and physiologist may\ndeclare that his science precludes the necessity of faith in God and of\nprayer; that through his research he has become a materialist, an\natheist. But even in the Middle Ages, when practically all of anatomy\nand physiology was yet unexplored, the physicians of that day were as\nmaterialistic as those of our own. The medieval saying was: \"Tres\nphysici, duo athei,\" \"of every three physicians, two are atheists.\" The\nscience of the Middle Ages differed very materially from the science of\nour own day. Is it not clear that the same result cannot be produced by\ncauses so dissimilar? That materialism and atheism which scientists\nannounce as a result, is really the starting point of their speculations.\nOtherwise, how account for the fact that physicists are, as a rule,\ngross materialists now as they were forty years ago, although all\ntheories regarding the composition of matter have been radically altered\nsince that day? Evidently, the modern scientist is not on account of his\nresearch and speculation induced to proclaim himself as agnostic; quite\nthe reverse, the fact that on _any_ system of physics, zoology,\npsychology, the conclusions remain the same, proves that these\nconclusions were in the mind before the facts were investigated.\nUnbelief is not a product of scientific and philosophic speculation, it\nis rather their origin and source. There is a settled purpose in\nrelation to which the facts are classified and interpreted. Not all\nscientists are as honest as Huxley who announces this purpose in the\nintroduction of his _\"Science and Hebrew Tradition:\"_ \"These essays are\nfor the most part intended to contribute to the process of destroying\nthe infallibility of Scripture.\"\n\nAdditional light is received from the observation that scientists adhere\nto their agnostic conclusions even after the premises have been found at\nfault, on which they based their conclusions. It is the end and aim of\nevolution to demonstrate that all processes of life and the history of\nliving organisms may be accounted for without the assumption of a\npersonal Creator. Thus the very beginning of our universe is accounted\nfor (in the nebular hypothesis) by the origin of force and motion in\nmatter. However, President Lowell, of Harvard, twenty years ago said\nthat the nebular hyopthesis was \"founded on a fundamental mistake.\"\n(_\"The Solar System,\"_ p. 119.) Do we find that scientists, though\nforced to surrender this prop, have given up atheistic evolution? By no\nmeans. Evidently, their atheism is older than their evolution.\n\nFifty years ago it was thought that in the heavenly bodies called\nnebulae the material of which the world was made had been discovered. It\nwas assumed that these nebulae were worlds in the process of formation.\nIn 1914 the scientists at Lick Observatory concluded, from the great\nspeed at which the nebulae traveled, that they are the _remains_ of\nworlds which _have been_ or are passing, and are not the constituents\nof worlds to be. This destroyed another supposition favoring the theory,\nbut we do not notice that scientists have become more friendly to\nChristianity. Or consider the latest speculations on the composition of\nmatter as contained in the works of Lodge, Crookes, and Lord Kelvin. It\nis now believed that matter is composed of electrical particles smaller\nthan atoms, called electrons. An atom of gold is said to consist of\n137,200 electrons. Now, if one considers how closely physical theories\nare bound up with the principle of evolution, should we not expect\nscientists to renounce this principle when another stone in its\nfoundation has been destroyed? And since there is no such renunciation,\nis it not plain that this class of scientists insists upon an atheistic\ninterpretation of the universe, no matter on what hypothesis? For the\nslow increase of variations in plants and animals, by which Darwin\naccounts for the origin of species, the evolutionists demanded more\nthan 400,000,000 years. But it is asserted on the strength of certain\ncalculations by physicists that the earth cannot possibly have existed\nmore than 40,000,000 years. This latter figure, based especially on the\ncalculations of Lord Kelvin, caused doubts to be raised regarding\nevolution which prompted many scientists to renounce it as a working\ntheory. Rudimentary structures received attention, and as a result, St.\nJohn Mivart says: \"It is an absolute fad that there is no instance of\ntransmutation of species.\" Dr. Nathaniel S. Shaler, Professor of Geology\nin Harvard, wrote: \"It is not proved that a single species of the two or\nthree millions now on earth has been established by natural selection.\"\nThus the evolutionary philosopher is compelled to relinquish one theory\nafter another; the biologist knocks out the under-pinning, the\ngeologists and physicists demolish most of the residue; yet the\nadvocates of evolutionism adhere to their purpose to banish God from the\nuniverse. In this we have conclusive proof that what evolutionists\npretend to find as the conclusion of their research, in reality was a\nsettled conviction in their minds before they commenced their\ninvestigation, and to which, in their bias, they propose to hold fast,\nno matter what happens to the evidence once announced as final.\n\nThe warfare of philosophy against Christian faith is readily explained.\nMan is corrupt. He loves sin. He is conscious of his guilt and fears the\npenalty. Hence every avenue of escape is welcome, if only he can\npersuade himself that there is no God, that there is no judgment. Man is\nproud, he desires no Savior. Hence the tendency to prove that no Savior\nis necessary; that there is no guilt attaching to sin, that there is no\nabsolute right and wrong. Hence, too, the doctrine of the agnostic, that\nwe can ascribe no attribute to God. When we read the _\"Synthetic\nPhilosophy\"_ of Spencer, we are apt to belive [tr. note: sic] that the\nagnosticism there set forth is the result of deep philosophic\nspeculation. Nothing further from the truth. Man, even cultured,\nphilosophic man, wants no restrictions placed upon pride and selfishness;\nhence it is necessary to rid the mind of the fear of divine justice;\nhence we have an interest in demonstrating that God \"has no attributes\"\n--such as \"just,\" for instance. The Psalmist describes this attitude:\n\"Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us.\"\n\nNo man who has grasped the inner motive of all scientific effort to\ndemolish faith can fail to understand why the rabble greets with such\njubilant acclaim every new attack upon the Biblical narrative. No man\nwho has pondered this motive can be ensnared in the net of science\nfalsely so called. He has seen its inwardness, its fatal bias.\n\nThus a Christian may preserve an attitude of mental balance over against\nscience. The Christian believer may admire the achievements of science\nwithout being carried away by the speculations of scientists. Great is\nthe progress of modern medicine, so great, that even the past ten years\nhave witnessed great advances in treating disease. Chemistry has\ndeveloped greater marvels than was ever ascribed to the wizard's wand\nby Oriental poets. What astounding performances in applied science--the\nPanama Canal, the Hudson Tunnels, the development of the automobile and\nof the airplane, and the perfection of the telephone and the moving\npicture! We may exult in all these victories of mind over matter, and\nyet stoutly oppose those theories which would make of the mind which\ncreated all these marvels merely a development of the instincts of the\nape.\n\nIt is possible, even, to be a scientist and in no wise compromise one's\nChristian faith and honesty of Christtian [tr. note: sic] profession.\nWherever men have contented themselves with purely scientific research,\nwith investigating and tabulating the phenomena of nature and\nestablishing the laws of life and motion in the universe, they have\nfound no difficulty in retaining a child-like faith. Among those\nscientists of the first rank who, far from being forced to the\natheistic conclusion, recognized a wonderful harmony between science\nand revelation, was a Kepler, who was led by meditations on the harmony\nof theology with mathematics to follow those laborious calculations by\nwhich he first established the orbit of Mars and then of other planets;\namong them was a Newton, called by Justus Liebig \"the most sublime\ngenius in a thousand years,\" who asserted that his entire system of\nmechanics was untenable without the supposition of divine Power; a\nDavy, prince of chemists, who \"saw in all the forces of matter the\ntools of Divinity;\" a Linne, called by Prof. Fraas the \"greatest\nnaturalist of all times,\" who commences his \"System of Nature\" thus:\n\"Awakening I saw God, the Eternal, the Infinite, the Omniscient, the\nOmnipotent, and I was amazed. I read some of His traces in creation.\nWhat unspeakable perfection!\" We find in the roster of scientists who\nbelieved in an inspired Bible and a divine Savior, such men as Hans\nChristian Oerstedt, the great discoverer of electro-magnetism and the\nfather of all modern electrical science, who declared that he \"had but\na desire to lead men to God by his books;\" Lavoisier, father of modern\nchemistry, a Christian; Maedler, who reached the front rank of modern\nastronomers without relinquishing his childhood faith and who said: \"A\nreal scientist cannot be an infidel;\" Ritter, greatest of geographers,\nwho said: \"All the world is replete with the glory of the Creator;\"\nVirchow, the surgeon of worldwide fame, who all his life was an\noutspoken opponent of the evolutionary theory and whose last prayer,\nuttered in the presence of his fellow-scientists, was: _\"Christi Blut\nund Gerechtigkeit . . . .\"_\n\nSpeaking of the triumphant Redeemer the Lord says Isa. 53: \"I will\ndivide Him a portion with the great and He shall divide the spoil with\nthe strong. The kings of the earth shall serve Him.\" The prophecy was\nfulfilled when kings not only on material thrones but kings in the world\nof intellect and giants of learning have paid homage to the God-man\nJesus Christ. Throughout the record of modern science and erudition\nthere are shining examples of the truth that great mental power and\nprofound research are not incompatible with humble acceptance of Bible\nteachings. The spiritual blindness of natural man, his intellectual\npride, and the depravity of his will account for the attitude of many\nscientists over against the facts of revelation. From the shifting\nquicksand of their speculation we may rise unharmed on the pinions of a\nfaith guided by the principle: \"It is written.\"","title":"Evolution: An Investigation and a Critique","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":41242}