{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_44479/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_44479","id":"gutenberg_44479","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44479","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Evolution"],"text":"Transcriber's note:\n\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Illustration: titlepage]\n\n\n\n\n  The Other Side of\n  Evolution\n\n  Its Effects and Fallacy\n\n  BY\n  REV. ALEXANDER PATTERSON\n\n  Director, Presbyterian Training School of Chicago\n\n  Author of\n  \"The Greater Life and Work of Christ,\" \"The Bible As It Is,\"\n  \"Bird's-Eye Bible Study\" and \"The Bible Manual.\"\n\n  [Illustration: logo]\n\n  CHICAGO\n  THE BIBLE INSTITUTE COLPORTAGE ASSOCIATION\n  826 NORTH LA SALLE STREET\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1903\n\n  BY\n  THE BIBLE INSTITUTE COLPORTAGE\n  ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n  PREFACE.\n\n  Claims of Evolution. -- Interest in subject. -- Effect\n  on Christian belief. -- Opinion of eminent scholars.\n  -- Effect on the common man. -- Evolution being accepted\n  on exparte evidence. -- Question too important\n  to be left to science. -- The average man capable of\n  understanding the arguments. -- The court of last\n  resort.                                                  vii\n\n\n  INTRODUCTION.\n\n  Meaning of Evolution. -- Conversational and scientific\n  use of the word. -- Le Conte's definition. -- Spencer's\n  Spheres of Evolution. -- Theistic and Atheistic\n  Evolution. -- The origin of man, the vital point. -- The\n  Bible account and Darwin's.                              xix\n\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n\n  EVOLUTION IS AN UNPROVEN THEORY.\n\n  Nearly all evolutionists admit this. -- Citations from\n  Tyndall, Spencer, Huxley, Prof. Conn, Whitney,\n  Dr. J. A. Zahm, Dr. Rudolph Schmidt, and others. --\n  Evolution rejected by many and opposed. -- Complaint\n  of Prof. Haeckel on this. -- Prof. Virchow's\n  opposition. -- List of scientists who do not advocate\n  Evolution. -- Discarded theories of the past. --\n  Uncertainty of scientific theories in general.             5\n\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n\n  THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE AND EARTH.\n\n  The four problems facing Evolution, the origin of\n  matter, of force, the formation and orderly adjustment\n  of the universe and the origin of life. -- Evolution\n  makes no attempt at the first two. -- Spencer admits\n  it is the unknowable. -- Lord Kelvin's testimony. --\n  Prof. George Frederick Wright on the Nebular\n  Hypothesis. -- The solar system unique. -- The fire-mist\n  and its wonderful contents. -- Failure as to\n  origin of life. -- Le Conte's theory. -- Testimony of\n  Tyndall, Wilson, Conn, against spontaneous generation.    17\n\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n\n  EVOLUTION OF SPECIES.\n\n  Evolution's great field. -- No case of evolution known\n  --No cause of evolution known. -- How evolution originated\n  species. -- Argument from Geology. -- Geologists\n  opposing it; Sir J. W. Dawson, Sir R. Murchison, Barrande.\n  -- Prof. Conn's admissions. -- Haeckel's admissions. --\n  The argument from Morphology. -- Rudimentary parts. --\n  The Eohippus, \"Old Horse.\" -- Argument from classification\n  of species. -- No agreed classification. -- Evolution's\n  phantom tree. -- No changes in Egypt's 4,000 years or\n  prehistoric man's longer time. -- Distribution of plants\n  and animals. -- Argument from Embryology. -- The\n  three-fold argument of Evolution. -- Facts opposing\n  Evolution.                                                26\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n\n  THE EVOLUTION OF MAN.\n\n  The vital question. -- All evolutionists agree here. -- The\n  two accounts of Bible and Evolution. -- Arguments\n  from origin of species. -- Argument from similarity\n  of structure. -- Argument from human characteristics. --\n  Rudimentary organs in man. -- The \"gill-slits.\" -- How\n  the brute became man. -- Prof. Edward Clodd's\n  account of \"The Making of a Man.\" -- Edward\n  Morris' description of primeval man. -- The Theistic\n  Evolutionist's Adam and how he fell. -- The Missing\n  Link. -- The Calaveras skull. -- Neanderthal skull. --\n  Haeckel's \"Pithecanthropus-Erectus.\" -- The Colorado\n  monkey's skeleton. -- Croatia skeletons. -- Argument\n  from the brain. -- Prof. Clodd's story of how\n  man got his brain. -- Argument from language. -- Prof.\n  Max Mueller's protest. -- Argument from prehistoric\n  man.--Antiquity of man. -- Testimony as to\n  man's recent origin from Prof. George Frederick\n  Wright, S. R. Pattison, Prof. Friedrich Pfaff, Winchell,\n  Dr. J. A. Zahm.--Argument from uncivilized\n  races. -- Argument from history of limits of man's\n  history. -- Evolution and religion. -- Evolution's ethics.\n  -- Christian experience.--Christ and evolution.           60\n\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n\n  EVOLUTION UNSCIENTIFIC AND UNPHILOSOPHICAL.\n\n  Four steps necessary to proof, Facts, Classification,\n  Inferences, Verification. -- Fails to account for\n  facts. -- Has no classification. -- False in inferences\n  and has no verification. -- Rests on imagination. --\n  Tyndall's \"Scientific Use of the Imagination.\" --\n  Evolution the Doctrine of Chance revamped and clothed\n  in scientific terms.                                   112\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n\n  EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE.\n\n  Evolution has no scriptural argument. -- The two accounts\n  mutually exclusive. -- Bible account appealed\n  to by all Scripture writers as Fact. -- Evolution's\n  interpretation of Scripture. -- Christ's testimony to the\n  facts of Scripture. -- Evolution and Bible doctrines. --\n  Importance of Adam as basis of Scripture doctrine. -- Man's\n  state and remedy as given by Evolution and by the Bible. --\n  The future of the Bible and of Evolution. -- Evolution in\n  its logical form is Atheism.--Evolution a relic of\n  heathenism.--Testimony of James Freeman Clarke, Sir J.\n  William Dawson.                                          120\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n\n  THE SPIRITUAL EFFECT OF EVOLUTION.\n\n  Must affect the spiritual state. -- Effect on candidates for\n  ministry. -- Latent effect on faith. -- On experimental\n  religion. -- Evolution as a state of heart. -- A comfortable\n  theory to the impenitent. -- Prepares for \"isms.\" -- Weakens\n  pulpit power. -- Eliminates faith in the supernatural and\n  eternal. -- Education's place in modern giving. -- Is this\n  the last form of unbelief? -- The common people and the\n  Gospel of the Cross.                                     137\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nEvolution is claimed by its advocates to be the greatest\nintellectual discovery of the past century, and, by some, the\ngreatest thought that ever entered the mind of man. In the words of\nits greatest philosopher, Herbert Spencer, \"It spans the universe\nand solves the widest range of its problems, which reach outward\nthrough boundless space, and back through illimitable time,\nresolving the deepest problems of life, mind, society, history and\ncivilization.\" It has woven into one great philosophy the history\nof the material universe, the entire organic creation, man and all\nhis faculties, the whole course of human history and the origin and\nprogress of all religion.\n\nIt also undertakes to account for the Bible, for what is popularly\ncalled higher criticism represents the biblical branch of Evolution.\nIt has reconstructed the Bible and remanded its miraculous\nnarratives to the realm of myth. It has formulated a theology in\nwhich the most sacred doctrines of evangelical belief are discarded.\nIn its central theory of the origin of man, it vitally affects the\ndoctrines of the nature of man, of sin and penalty, man's need and\nthe work of Christ. It even touches the person of Christ, for many\nof its advocates say that He too comes within its scope. In its\nradical and most consistent form, it utterly discards belief in God.\nMost of the great teachers of Evolution, such as Ernst Haeckel of\nJena, are and have been atheists.\n\nIt is true that many evolutionists are theistic. But it is not\nenough to be theistic. The devil is \"theistic,\" so was Thomas\nPaine. Christianity is far more than theism. It is the grossest\nsophistry to teach that because a belief has some truth in it we\nmust therefore tolerate it. All false doctrine is sugarcoated with\ntruth. That we are not overstating the dangerous nature of the\ntheory will appear from the following opinions of competent scholars\nand observers.\n\nProf. George Frederick Wright, the eminent geologist, says of\nEvolution: \"It is the fad of the present, which is making such\nhavoc and confusion in the thought of the age, leading so many into\nintellectual positions, whose conclusions they dare not face and\ncannot flank, and from which they cannot retreat except through the\nvalley of humiliation.\" (_Bibliotheca Sacra_, April, 1900.)\n\nProf. George Howison sounds this alarm: \"It is a portent so\nthreatening to the highest concerns of man, that we ought to look\nbefore we leap and look more than once. Under the sheen of the\nevolutionary account of man, the world of real persons, the world\nof individual responsibility, disappears; with it disappears the\npersonality of God.\" (_Limits of Evolution_, pp. 5, 6.)\n\nThere is a vital connection between Facts, Doctrines, Experiences,\nConduct and Prospects. These successively flow from each other.\nChristianity rests on facts, from these we derive doctrines and from\ndoctrines come experiences, which give rise to conduct and that ends\nin suitable prospects. Facts form the basis of Christianity. When,\ntherefore, Evolution attacks the Facts of the Bible, it attempts to\nundermine the very basis of all Christianity. President Francis L.\nPatton has said: \"You may put your philosophy in one pocket and your\nreligion in another and think that, as they are separate, they will\nnot interfere, but that will not work. You have to bring your theory\nof the universe and your theory of religion together. This is the\nwork of this age.\"\n\nWhile all do not go the length of the radical evolutionists, yet\nsuch is the natural working of the human mind, that this will be its\nlogical conclusion. If this theory is accepted, we must look for\nwidespread lapse from all Christian faith and, as conduct follows\nbelief in all intelligent creatures, we shall see also great moral\ndeclension.\n\nTo the ordinary man, the matter appears in this light: If we cannot\nbelieve a man's statements we will not take his advice. If we cannot\nbelieve the Bible's narratives why should we believe its religion?\nIf it is not trustworthy as to facts of this world, why depend upon\nit as to the other world? If it cannot teach correctly the nature of\ninsects and animals, why should it be able to tell us the nature of\nGod? The common man reasons rightly. The Bible must stand or fall by\nits reliability all along the line of truth of every kind.\n\nEvolution is being taught, or taken for granted to-day in high\nschools, academies, colleges, universities, and seminaries. It meets\nthe Sunday School scholar at the first chapter of Genesis. A busy\ncity pastor says he has been asked about it every day in the week.\nIt is a living question and must be met. In every free library are\nthe works of Spencer, Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley and others, and these\nare read continually.\n\nIt does seem as if the other side of such a question ought to be\ngiven and considered, if there be another side, and there certainly\nis.\n\nThe theory of Evolution is being accepted to-day upon ex-parte\nevidence. The books on Evolution are numbered by hundreds, those\ngiving the other side are few. Many do not even read for themselves\nbut rely upon the weight of noted names, or the supposed \"consensus\nof scholarship.\"\n\nIt is even asserted that none but scholars have the right to\ndiscuss the subject. Dr. Lyman Abbott says in his \"Evidences of\nChristianity\" that \"those who are not scientists must be content to\nawait the final judgment of those who are experts on this subject,\nand meanwhile accept tentatively their conclusions.\" Not to notice\nthis demand that we rest on an unfinished theory, might we not ask\npermission to accept, \"tentatively\" at least, the Bible as it is,\nwhile awaiting the conclusions of scientists as to what we shall\nthink or believe about it; especially in view of the fact that all\nthat has been done so far by Christianity on earth has been effected\nby the conservative belief in the Bible.\n\nBut non-scientific people are able to comprehend Evolution. The\nscientist to-day is able to state conclusions in language the\nnon-scientific can readily understand, and the evolutionist himself\ntells us we can understand his facts and arguments. So we who are\nnot scientists may proceed to investigate a subject in which we\nhave so much at stake. The questions involved are too important to\nbe left to the scientist alone. The scientist is mainly a witness\nas to the facts of nature. It is the duty of the whole body of the\nintelligent Christian community, lay and clerical, to generalize and\ndraw conclusions. These form, as they have in the past, the court\nof last resort in such discussions. The best generalizer will be,\nnot the scientist whose labors are necessarily confined to a single\nscience, or even to a department of it, and who may be even more or\nless biased by his environment, but the best juryman will be the\nintelligent non-scientific mind. It is before the judgment seat of\nChristian Common Sense that this and all other theories must appear.\nIt is the man in the pew who says to this pastor, Come, and he\ncometh, and to that professor, Go, and he goeth.\n\nNor is this examination premature. Evolution has been now for many\nyears before the public and its writings fill libraries. We may\nassume that the evidence is now before us and, if not all in, at\nleast enough is given us by which to judge its nature and probable\noutcome. This we may further assume in view of the fact that the\nadvocates of the theory admit that an increasing number of facts are\nnot giving increasing evidence but that their case is more beset\nwith difficulties than in the day of Darwin, the father of the\nhypothesis, or rather, its step-father. So we may proceed with our\nexamination.\n\nThe author of this book makes no claim to being a scientist. He is\nsimply one of the great jury to whom this theory appeals. He has,\ntherefore, here simply considered the evidence and given herein his\nconclusions. The facts and arguments of evolutionary writers will\nform the chief source of the examination. Nearly one hundred writers\nand works are cited. Out of its own mouth we will condemn it.\n\nThe citations in a book as small as this must be brief but care has\nbeen taken that they are fair as to the points they are given to\nshow. It is not claimed that the citations from evolutionary writers\nexhibit their opinion on the whole subject but that they do show\ntheir fatal admissions and their general uncertainty on the whole\nsubject.\n\nIt will be shown that Evolution is not accepted by all scientists\nand scholars; that it is rejected by some of the greatest of these;\nthat it is admittedly an unproven theory; that it has never been\nverified and cannot be; that not a single case of evolution has\never been presented, and that there is no known cause by which it\ncould take place. Its arguments will be considered one by one and\ntheir fallacy shown. It will be shown to be, by its own principles,\nunscientific and unphilosophical, and simply a revamping of the old\ndoctrine of Chance clothed in scientific terms. Finally, it will be\nshown that it is violently opposed to the narrative and doctrines of\nthe Bible and destructive of all Christian faith; that it originated\nin heathenism and ends in atheism.\n\nMuch of the material in this book has been presented by the author\nin lectures upon the Bible during Bible institutes and conferences,\nand he has been frequently requested to put it in printed form. He\nhopes that where the arguments do not convince, they will at least\nbring the reader to what Mr. Gladstone called \"that most wholesome\nstate, a suspended judgment.\"\n\nAmong others, the following writers are cited: Agassiz, Abbott,\nArgyle, Askernazy, Balfour, Brewster, Ballard, Bruner, Barrande,\nBunge, Brown, Bowers, Bixby, Bonn, Clodd, Conn, Cope, Clarke,\nCooke, DeRouge, Dana, Dawson, Dubois, Etheridge, Fovel, Fiske,\nGladstone, Galton, Gregory, Hilprecht, Huxley, Howison, Haeckel,\nHaecke, Harrison, Herschel, Hartman, Harnack, Heer, Humphrey,\nHoffman, Hamann, Ingersoll, Jones, Kelvin, Koelliker, Liebig, Lecky,\nLeConte, Lang, Meyer, Max Mueller, Monier, Murchison, Naegeli,\nPaulsen, Pfaff, Petrie, Pattison, R. Patterson, Pfliederer, Patton,\nParker, Ruskin, Romanes, Reymond, Renouf, Schliemann, Sayce, Starr,\nSchultz, Sully, Spencer, Schmidt, Sedgwick, Stuckenberg, Snell, See,\nTownsend, Thomas, Tyndall, Thomson, Virchow, Von Baer, Wallace,\nWinchell, Warfield, Wright, Whitney, Wagner, Woodrow Wilson, White,\nWiseman, Zahm, Zoeckler.\n\nI especially acknowledge indebtedness to Prof. George Frederick\nWright, of Oberlin College, in revising this book and for his\nvaluable suggestions and corrections, and especially his favorable\nintroduction. To his works confirming many of my conclusions I\nrefer the reader, as follows: The Logic of Christian Evidence, The\nScientific Aspects of Christian Evidences, The Ice Age in North\nAmerica, Man in the Great Ice Age.\n\n  ALEXANDER PATTERSON.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THIRD EDITION.\n\n\nIn issuing a third edition of this book it is proper to state what\nchanges, if any, have occurred in the discussion.\n\nWhile the belief in Evolution is wide-spread, no known cause or\ncauses have yet been discovered by which the supposed changes in\nspecies occurred, for \"Evolution\" is not a force or energy of any\nkind, but only the name of a theory by which the present order of\nnature is supposed to have come. The method Darwin proposed was\nby Natural Selection arising from the prodigality of production,\nthe small variations that occur in living things, the struggle for\nexistence and the survival of the fittest, aided by environment and\nother causes all of which by slow degrees during infinite ages have\nproduced the progressive order of species.\n\nThis has been decided to be insufficient and has been abandoned by\nevolutionary writers. It is now agreed that the changes must have\noccurred in variations originating in the embryo or in the germ, or\nin the very substance of which that is composed. But all this is far\nbeyond human ken as all writers admit, as follows: \"We are ignorant\nof the factors which are at work to produce evolution. We do not\neven know whether the life processes are conducted in accordance\nwith the principles of chemistry and physics, or are in obedience to\nsome more subtle vital principle.\" (Metcalf, _Organic Evolution_.)\nPresident David Starr Jordan and Prof. Vernon Lyman Kellogg, both of\nStanford University, say: \"These changes or variations, if they do\noccur, cannot be explained.\" (_Evolution and Animal Life, p. 112._)\n\nThis is universally admitted by scientific writers and the\nsearch is now for some proof for Evolution along these lines.\nBut as President Jordan makes the still greater confession that\n\"science does not comprehend a single elemental fact of nature,\"\nand such writers as the late Lord Kelvin, president of the British\nAssociation for the Advancement of Science, agree thereto, the\nrequired proof seems far off.\n\nSo the discussion is in even a less tangible state than in Darwin's\ntime, for that had a theory supposed to be sufficient, but now there\nis no known cause which can be demonstrated or offers the slightest\nexplanation, as admitted above by these leading writers.\n\nThe facts which are advanced to support the theory are dealt with\nin this volume and their fallacy shown, that all may be explained\nwithout reverting to such an unproven theory as Evolution.\n\n  ALEXANDER PATTERSON.\n\n  _Chicago, April 15, 1912._\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nBY PROF. GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT OF OBERLIN COLLEGE.\n\n\nThe doctrine of Evolution as it is now becoming current in popular\nliterature is one-tenth bad Science and nine-tenths bad Philosophy.\nDarwin was not strictly an Evolutionist, and rarely used the word.\nHe endeavored simply to show that Species were enlarged varieties.\nThe title of his epoch making book was, \"The Origin of Species by\nNatural Selection.\" On the larger questions of the origin of genera\nand the more comprehensive orders of plants and animals, he spoke\nwith great caution and only referred to such theories as things\n\"dimly seen in the distance.\"\n\nHerbert Spencer, however, came in with his sweeping philosophical\ntheory of the Evolution of all things through natural processes,\nand took Darwin's work in a limited field as a demonstration of his\nphilosophy. It is this philosophy which many popular writers and\nteachers, and some thoughtless Scientific men have taken up and made\nthe center of their systems. But the most of our men of Science are\nmodest in their expressions upon such philosophical themes. Herbert\nSpencer does not rank among the great men of Science of the day.\nLord Kelvin's recent remarks upon the subject are most truthful and\nsignificant. (See below pp. 18, 24.)\n\nMr. Patterson does well to emphasize the fact that _orderly\nsuccession_ does not necessarily imply _evolution from resident\nforces_. The orderly arrangements of a business house proceed\nfrom the activity of a number of free wills, each of which might\ndo differently, but act in a definite manner, through voluntary\nadherence to a single purpose. God is all wise and good as well as\nall powerful. His plan of Creation will therefore be consistent\nwhatever be the means through which he accomplishes it.\n\nMr. Patterson, also, does well to dwell upon the \"uncertainties of\nScience.\" Inductive Science looks but a short distance either into\nspace or time, and has no word concerning either the beginning of\nthings or the end of things. Upon these points the Inspired Word\nis still our best and our only authority. While not saying that\nall the points in this little volume are well taken, I can say\nthat I disagree with fewer things in it than with those in almost\nany other on the subject, and that it is fitted to serve as a very\nneedful tonic in these days of the confusion of bad Philosophy and\nfragmentary Science.\n\n  GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT.\n\n  Oberlin, Ohio, Aug. 10, 1903.\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD.\n\n\nBefore entering upon the discussion we need to enquire as to the\nmeaning of the word \"Evolution\" as applied to the theory. We must\nalso ask a definition of the theory as given by its best-known\nwriters; and also enquire as to the spheres it claims to cover. To\nclearly state a question is often half the task of solving it.\n\n\nMEANING OF EVOLUTION.\n\nWe must distinguish between the ordinary conversational sense of\nthe word Evolution and the technical use of the term as designating\na theory by that name. We speak of the evolution of the seed into\nthe plant and the further evolution of the flower and the fruit,\nmeaning by our words merely the natural progressive action of the\nlife within the plant. This principle the evolutionist applies to\nthe whole universe which he says came in a similar way.\n\nAgain we use the word Evolution to describe any succession of things\nwhich show progress. Such an instance is given us in the change in\nappliances for the use of steam from the time when its power was\nfirst observed in the lifting lid of the tea-kettle to the time\nwhen it drives the latest ocean liner. This is, however, simply the\nsuccession of a series of things in advancing order, but without\nvital connection. Their real relation is outside of themselves in\nthe minds of the inventors who, in turn, may be many and widely\nseparated. Succession is not Evolution nor does it prove or imply\nsuch a process. That demands an intimate and genetic connection\nbetween the things as they appear, the higher growing out of the\nsubstance of the lower in physical things and the intellectual\nlikewise.\n\nThe theory of Evolution asserts that from a nebulous mass of\nprimeval substance, whose origin it never attempts to account for,\nthere came by natural processes, as a flower from a bud, and fruit\nfrom the flower, all that we see and know in the heavens above and\nthe earth beneath.\n\nTyndall's statement of the scope of the theory is as follows: \"Strip\nit naked and you stand face to face with the notion, that not only\nthe ignoble forms of life, the animalcular and animal life, not only\nthe more noble forms of the horse and lion, not only the exquisite\nmechanism of the human body, but the human mind with its emotions,\nintellect, will and all their phenomena, were latent in that fiery\ncloud.\" (_Christianity and Positivism_, p. 30.)\n\nDr. Lyman Abbott further defines its application to man thus:\n\"Evolution is the doctrine that this life of man, this moral,\nthis ethical, this spiritual nature has been developed by natural\nprocesses.\" (_Theology of an Evolutionist._)\n\nHerbert Spencer's celebrated definition is as follows: \"Evolution is\na progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from general\nto special, from the simple to the complex elements of life.\" But we\ndeny the right to apply this definition exclusively to the theory of\nEvolution. Creation also proceeds on the same order, so also does\nmanufacture or any other intelligent operation.\n\nThe clearest account of the theory is that given by Prof. Le Conte,\nas follows: \"All things came (1) by continuous progressive changes,\n(2) according to certain laws, (3) by means of resident forces.\"\n(_Evolution and Religious Thought._) It is the latter clause in\nwhich the real meaning of the theory lies. These \"resident forces\"\ninclude exterior influences such as food, climate, etc.\n\nThe theories of Evolution are as many as the respective writers.\nEach one has his own theory as to the scope and cause and operation\nof it all. Theistic Evolution allows the intervention of God at the\ncreation of the primeval \"fire-mist\" and at the origin of life and\nthe production of man's spiritual nature. The atheist denies any\ninterference of a Creator at all. Haeckel says the best definition\nof Evolution is \"the non-miraculous origin and progress of the\nuniverse.\" He and many others say that if the Creator is admitted at\nany point, He may as well be admitted all along. This is consistent\nEvolution.\n\nThe theistic and the atheistic evolutionist however agree in saying\nthat man was descended from the brute, as to his body at least, and\nsome even, as above shown, claim this descent for the whole man.\nThis doctrine as to man is the vital part of the whole theory and\nin this all evolutionists are practically agreed. So that so far as\ntheir effect on Christian doctrine and Bible fact is concerned, all\nmay be classed together.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nEVOLUTION AS AN UNPROVEN THEORY.\n\n\nWith perhaps the exception of Prof. Ernst Haeckel of Jena, all\nevolutionists admit that Evolution is unproven. One of the latest\nwriters, and most impartial, is Prof. H. W. Conn, who says in\nhis \"Evolution of To-day:\" \"Nothing has been positively proved\nas to the question at issue. From its very nature, Evolution is\nbeyond proof.... The difficulties offered to an unhesitating\nacceptance of Evolution are very great, and have not grown less\nsince the appearance of Darwin's _Origin of Species_, but have in\nsome respects grown greater.\" (pp. 107, 203.) He makes many such\nadmissions. Dr. Rudolph Schmidt writes, \"All these theories have not\npassed beyond the rank of hypotheses.\" (_Theories of Darwin_, p.\n61.) Prof. Whitney, of Yale University, says, \"We cannot think the\ntheory yet converted into a scientific fact and those are perhaps\nthe worst foes to its success who are over-hasty to take it and use\nit as a proved fact.\" (_Oriental and Linguistic Studies, pp. 293-4_)\nTyndall said: \"Those who hold the doctrine of Evolution are by no\nmeans ignorant of the uncertainty of their data, and they only yield\nto it a provisional assent.\" (_Fragments of Science_, p. 162.) Dr.\nJ. A. Zahm writes: \"The theory of Evolution is not yet proved by any\ndemonstrative evidence. An absolute demonstration is impossible.\"\n(_Popular Science Monthly_, April, 1898.) Huxley said, \"So long\nas the evidence at present adduced falls short of supporting the\naffirmative, the doctrine must be content to remain among the\nhypotheses.\" (_Lay Sermons_, p. 295.) Down to the end of his life,\nhe said the evidence for Evolution was insufficient. (_Quarterly\nReview_, January, 1901.)\n\nThis universal admission will be a surprise to the non-scientific,\nespecially in view of the astounding and sweeping claims the theory\nhas made. It will seem strange that a confessedly unproven theory\nshould be made the basis of all \"modern thinking,\" the foundation\nof a universal philosophy, the cause of a revolution in theology,\nand the reason for rejecting the narratives of the Bible, and, on\nthe part of some, of abandoning Christianity and launching into\natheism. Yet such is the case. Well may we draw a long breath here\nand say, Is this Science? Is it scientific to accept as true an\nunproven theory and make it the basis of all belief? We have even\nmore startling facts to present as to this amazing form of unbelief.\n\nIn discussing Evolution, we must also continually distinguish\nbetween fact and theory, between things proven and assumed. For the\nwriters continually intermingle these in a confusing way. We need\never to ask concerning its statements, Is this proven or assumed?\nThe jury have a right to ask that everything be proved absolutely\nbefore rendering a verdict for Evolution.\n\n\nEVOLUTION IS NOT ACCEPTED BY ALL SCIENTISTS AND SCHOLARS.\n\nThe statement is often made that Evolution has \"the Consensus of\nScholarship.\" This carries force to the non-scientific, indeed to\nall, for we must rest our faith, for facts at least, on the opinion\nof scientists. But while many have followed it, there remain many\nscholars who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Prof. Haeckel, its\ngreatest living advocate, complains bitterly of the opposition of\nmany of the scientists of Europe, and that many once with him have\ndeserted him.\n\nThe late Dr. Virchow, the great pathologist and the discoverer of\nthe germ theory, was an active opponent of Evolution. He says: \"The\nreserve which most naturalists impose on themselves is supported\nby the small actual proofs of Darwin's theory. Facts seem to teach\nthe invariability of the human and the animal species.\" (_Popular\nScience_, pp. 50, 52.) Dr. Groette, in his inaugural address as\nrector of the University of Strasburg, rejected Evolution.\n\nDr. D. S. Gregory of New York, editor of the Homiletic Review and\nin a position to know the facts, vouches for the statement, that,\n\"It is a strange fact that no great scientific authority in Great\nBritain in exact science, science that reduces its conclusions to\nmathematical formulae, has endorsed Evolution.\"\n\nThe late Dr. J. H. W. Stuckenberg, of Cambridge, wrote me, that many\nof the scientists of Germany reject the extreme views of Evolution,\nand the inferences which men like Prof. Haeckel, of Jena, have\ndrawn from Darwinism. He quotes Dr. W. Haecke, a zoologist of Jena,\nthe home of Prof. Haeckel, as saying: \"We the younger men must\nfree ourselves from the Darwinian dogma, in which respect quite a\nnumber of us have been quite successful.\" Prof. Paulsen, of Berlin,\nhas exposed some of Haeckel's fallacies and regards his reasoning\nas \"a disgrace to Germany.\" He said the mechanical theory for\nwhich Darwinism was held to stand, is rejected by such scientists\nas Naegeli, Koelliker, M. Wagner, Snell, Fovel, Bunge, the\nphysiological chemist, A. Brown, Hoffman and Askernazy, botanists;\nOswald Heer, the geologist, and Otto Hamann, the zoologist. Of Carl\nErnst von Baer, the eminent zoologist and anthropologist, Haecke\naffirms, that in early years he came near adopting the hypothesis\nof Evolution into his system, but that at a later date he utterly\nrejected it. The same change occurred in the late Du Bois Reymond\nand Prof. Virchow, the eminent scientist of the University of\nBerlin. (See also articles of Dr. Stuckenberg in _Homiletic Review_,\nJanuary, 1901, May, 1902.)\n\nSir J. William Dawson, the great geologist of Canada, utterly\nrejected it and says: \"It is one of the strangest phenomena of\nhumanity; it is utterly destitute of proof.\" (_Story of the Earth\nand Man_, p. 317.) Dr. Etheridge, examiner of the British Museum,\nsaid to Dr. George E. Post, in answer to a question, \"In all\nthis great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the\ntransmutation of species. This museum is full of proofs of the utter\nfalsity of these views.\" Thomas Carlyle called Evolution \"the gospel\nof dirt.\" Ruskin said of it, \"I have never yet heard one logical\nargument in its favor. I have heard and read many that are beneath\ncontempt.\" (_The Eagles Nest_, p. 256.)\n\nProf. Z\u0102\u00b6ckler writes: \"It must be stated that the supremacy of\nthis philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its defenders\nat the outset. A mere glance at the history of the theory during\nthe four decades that it has been before the public shows that the\nbeginning of the end is at hand.\"\n\nSuch utterances are now very common in the periodicals of Germany,\nit is said. It seems plain the reaction has commenced and that the\npendulum that has swung so strongly in the direction of Evolution,\nis now oscillating the other way. It required twenty years for\nEvolution to reach us from abroad. Is it necessary for us to wait\ntwenty years more to reverse our opinions? Why may we not pass upon\nfacts for ourselves without awaiting the \"Consensus of European\nScholarship,\" which is after all so subject to perplexing reversals?\nIt makes plain people dizzy to attempt to follow leaders of opinion\nwho change with every wind that blows across the ocean.\n\nMany citations will appear in the following pages which show the\nstrong exceptions taken by leading scholars against the theory\nin whole or in part. Indeed, as said already, the arguments to\nbe given herein against Evolution are drawn from the statements\nof leading evolutionists themselves. Some of these are earlier\nopinions and some their latest utterances. In every case the state\nof the discussion will be shown to be far from that \"Consensus of\nScholarship\" so airily claimed by the writers on the subject and so\nunhesitatingly accepted by their followers.\n\nIt may be objected that some of these authorities are dead and that\nlater scholars differ from them. Not to mention the names of still\nliving writers named above, let us remark that all wisdom is not\nleft to our day. Socrates and Bacon are dead, yet their opinions are\nstill of value. Moses is dead, yet the Ten Commandments are still\nbelieved if not obeyed. Our present evolutionary writers will also\none day be dead, yet they hope even then to be given some credit for\nsense and science. The \"consensus of scholarship\" ought to include\nwisdom past as well as present.\n\nIt is also to be remembered that there are thousands of quiet\nthinkers who have never given in their adhesion to this startling\ntheory, and more, that the great masses of the church at least, have\nno confidence in it. Those preparing to launch their ships upon this\ncurrent had better, as a matter of common prudence at least, wait a\nwhile at least till the mists have rolled away.\n\n\nDISCARDED THEORIES OF THE PAST.\n\nProf. George Frederick Wright says, \"The history of science is\nlittle else than one of discarded theories.... The so-called science\nof the present day is largely going the way so steadily followed in\nthe past. The things about which true science is certain are very\nfew and could be contained in a short chapter of a small book.\"\n(_The Advance_, May 12, 1902.)\n\nIt is sometimes charged to the church that it has held theories\nwhich the discoveries of science have shown to be untrue. But it\nmust be borne in mind that these false theories were just as firmly\nheld by the scientists of the day as by the church.\n\nDr. Andrew White has written two great volumes on the warfare\nbetween science and theology. He might write many and larger volumes\non the wars between the theories of science. Every one of these\ndiscarded theories, and they are numbered by thousands, has been the\ncenter of terrific conflicts.\n\nGalileo's discovery of the satellites of Jupiter was opposed by his\nfellow astronomers, who even refused to look at them through his\ntelescope. Dr. J. A. Zahm quotes Cardinal Wiseman as saying that\nthe French Institute in 1860 could count more than eighty theories\nopposed to Scripture, not one of which has stood still or deserves\nto be recorded. At a meeting of the British Association, Sir William\nThomson announced that he believed life had come to this globe by a\nmeteor. His theory lived less than a year. Mr. Huxley said that the\norigin of life was a sheet of gelatinous living matter which covered\nthe bottom of the ocean. This theory had even a shorter life. Among\nthe most recent reversals of this kind is that of a universally held\ntheory, namely, that coral reefs are built up by the coral insects\nin their desire to keep near the surface as the ocean's bottom\nsinks. Prof. A. Agassiz has just demolished this theory.\n\nScholars were unanimous a short time ago that Troy was a myth. But\nDr. Schliemann's great discoveries have overthrown that \"consensus\nof scholarship.\" Prof. Harnack, one of the greatest of critics in\nhis great work, _The Chronology of the Christian Scriptures_, admits\nthat science, meaning Higher Criticism, has made many mistakes and\nhas much to repent of. Joseph Cook said, \"Within the memory of man\nyet comparatively young, the mythical theory of Strauss has had its\nrise, its fall, its burial.\"\n\nThe thirty thousand citizens of St. Pierre on Martinique, trusting\nin the assurances of the scientists, remained in their fated city\nand the next day were overwhelmed in the most awful calamity of\nmodern times.\n\nWe may consider in this connection the dissatisfaction of some of\nthe greatest minds of evolutionary circles with the results of their\nown theory.\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer is thus quoted, writing in his eighty-third\nyear: \"The intellectual man, who occupies the same tenement with\nme, tells me that I am but a piece of animated clay equipped with\na nerve system and in some mysterious way connected with the big\ndynamo called the world; but that very soon now the circuit will be\ncut and I will fall into unconsciousness and nothingness. Yes I am\nsad, unutterbly sad, and I wish in my heart I had never heard of the\nintellectual man with his science, philosophy and logic.\" (_Facts\nand Comments._)\n\nProf. Frederic Harrison, the agnostic, thus writes: \"The philosophy\nof evolution and demonstration promised but it did not perform. It\nraised hopes, but it led to disappointment. It claimed to explain\nthe world and to direct man, but it left a great blank. That blank\nwas the field of religion, of morality, of the sanctions of deity.\nIt left the mystery of the future as mysterious as ever and yet as\nimperative as ever. Whatever philosophy of nature it offered, it\ngave no adequate philosophy of Man. It was busy with the physiology\nof Humanity and propounded inconceivable and repulsive guesses about\nthe origin of Humanity.\" (_North American Review_, December, 1900,\np. 825.)\n\nFrom the opposite side of the field, President Woodrow Wilson\nwrites: \"This is the dis-service scientific study has done for us;\nit has given us agnosticism in the realm of philosophy, scientific\nanarchism in the field of politics. It has made the legislator\nconfident that he can create and the philosopher sure that God\ncannot.\" (_Forum_, December, 1896.)\n\n\nUNCERTAINTY OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES IN GENERAL.\n\nAnother feature which strikes the non-scientific mind curiously\nis the wide differences among great scientists as to the facts of\nnature. The age of the earth is variously declared to be ten million\nyears by some, and by others equally able, a thousand million years.\nThe temperature of its interior is stated to be 1,530 degrees\nby one, and 350,000 degrees by another. Herschel calculated the\nmountains on the moon to be half a mile high, Ferguson said they\nwere fifteen miles high. The height of the Aurora Borealis is\nguessed from two and a half to one hundred and sixty miles, and its\nnature is still more widely described. The delta at the mouth of the\nMississippi was calculated by Lyell to have been 100,000 years in\nforming. Gen. Humphrey, of the United States survey, estimated it at\n4,000 years, and M. Beaument at 1,300 years.\n\nThe deposits of carbonate of lime on the floor of Kent Cavern in\nEngland have been estimated by different scientists to have been\nfrom a thousand to a million years in forming.\n\nThe discovery of radium and other similar substances, it is said, is\nalmost revolutionizing the theories of the constitution of matter\nand affecting all physical science.\n\nThese facts are not cited to discredit science. No one in his\nsenses would fail to acknowledge our great debt to the earnest and\nlaborious workers in these varying fields. But these instances\nof many such are cited to show that there is need for caution in\naccepting proposed theories.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nEVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE AND EARTH.\n\n\nIn undertaking to account for the universe, Evolution faces four\nproblems. 1. The origin of matter. 2. The origin of force. 3. The\nformation and orderly arrangement of the universe. 4. The origin\nof life. In all of these it fails; it confesses its failure in the\nfirst two and last, and makes ludicrous attempts to explain the\nthird. We will consider each in turn.\n\n1. Evolution fails to account for the origin of matter. Spencer\nsays this is the Unknowable. So that Spencer's great philosophy\nrests on what he doesn't know and cannot find out. Darwin said as\nto the origin of things, \"I am in a hopeless muddle.\" Prof. Edward\nClodd wrote: \"Of the beginning of what was before the present state\nof things, we know nothing and speculation is futile, but since\neverything points to the finite duration of the present creation, we\nmust make a start somewhere.\" (_Story of Creation_, p. 137.) Science\nis what we know. Therefore Evolution rests upon an unscientific\nfoundation. Nor is there any other account conceivable than that\nthe Bible gives. As long as this first and fundamental fact is not\nsolved, the theory must be content to be at most a limited one, and\nfar from being that sweeping discovery which its advocates assert it\nto be.\n\n2. Evolution fails to account for the origin of Force. The great\nforces which animate the universe, such as gravity, heat, motion and\nlight, must be accounted for by this theory to give it the standing\nit demands. It makes no attempt to do this. Evolution is silent when\nwe ask, Whence came these mighty forces? Calling them Laws of Nature\ndoes not answer the question. Laws need law makers and enforcers\nalso. Laws do not enforce themselves. As forces, they show the\nceaseless giving out of energy. Where is the dynamo from which this\nperpetual energy originated and still proceeds?\n\nIn this connection, let us notice the reticence and limitations of\nreally great scientists as to the nature of these energies. Lord\nKelvin, the greatest living scientist, said at the meeting of the\nBritish Association for the Advancement of Science, of which he was\npresident: \"One word characterizes the most strenuous of the efforts\nfor the advancement of science that I have made perseveringly for\nfifty-five years. That word is failure. I know no more of electric\nand magnetic force, or of the relation between ether, electricity\nand ponderable matter, or of chemical affinity, than I knew and\ntried to teach to my students of natural philosophy fifty years ago\nin my first session as professor.\"\n\nHaeckel himself, the greatest living evolutionist, admits: \"We\ngrant at once that the innermost character of nature is just as\nlittle understood by us as it was by Anaximander and Empedocles\n2,400 years ago.... We grant that the essence of substance becomes\nmore mysterious and enigmatic the more deeply we penetrate into the\nknowledge of its attributes.\" (_Riddle of the Universe._)\n\n3. Evolution fails to account for the orderly movements of the\nheavenly bodies which have the accuracy of a chronometer, aye,\nwhich are the standards by which all chronometers are regulated,\nso that the astronomer can calculate to a second when the heavenly\nbodies shall pass any particular point of view or form their many\nconjunctions. There is no collision, no noise. \"There is no speech\nnor language, their voice is not heard.\"\n\nOur Solar System is unique in the heavens. Prof. See tells us\nthere is no other like it in the regularity of its orbits, and in\nits distant position from the powerful attractions of the mighty\nsystems of the heavens. The earth, too, is the only world so\nfar known to be advanced enough for the production of life. Its\nsituation is far enough from the sun to be beyond its powerful heat\nand electric energy and yet near enough to preserve and continue all\nlife. The arrangement of its surface into land and water proportions\ngives the requisite amount of moisture over the land areas. The\natmosphere is mixed of gases in just the right proportions for life.\nAll this speaks as loudly as any mechanism can speak, of intention\nand benevolence and control and careful adjustment; far from\nthat haphazard effect which comes from the undirected working of\n\"resident forces.\"\n\nEvolution declares the universe began with a nebulous mass,\nwhich Tyndall says was \"fire-mist,\" and contracted as it became\ncold; but Spencer says it was a cold cloud which became heated\nas it contracted. We are left to the perplexity of deciding for\nourselves which theory we will accept. This is only one of many such\ncontradictions we shall meet. But however, or whatever it was, it\norganized itself into the wonderful universe of stars by a rotary\nmotion which the contraction produced, and this threw off portions\nas a carriage wheel throws off mud, each portion taking up a similar\nmotion and cooling in a similar fashion until it became cool enough\nfor living things.\n\nProof for all this is supposed to be seen in a nebula which is seen\nin the constellation Orion, which has a spiral form and is supposed\nto be a world in the making.\n\nBut in February, 1901, a new star appeared surrounded by a nebula\nand this in rapid motion from the center. This sudden appearance\nof a world in a nebulous state seems like the reversing of the\nevolutionary process or indeed like a world being destroyed and\nreduced to its first estate. Other facts are also contradictory,\nsuch as the motion or revolution of some of the satelites in a\nreverse order from that demanded by the theory.\n\nIndeed the whole nebular theory is now being called in question.\n\nProf. George Frederick Wright of Oberlin University, thus writes of\nit:\n\n\"The nebular hypothesis, which all forms of evolution now assume\nfor a beginning, involves the supposition that the molecules of\nmatter composing the solar system were originally diffused through\nspace like the particles of mist in a vast fogbank, and that then,\nunder the action of gravitation, they began to approach each other\nand to collect in masses, which began to revolve about their axes\nand to move in orbits around the center of attraction. Every step\nin this supposition involves an added mystery. The existence of the\nmolecules in their original diffused state is but the beginning of\nthe mystery, though that is utterly incomprehensible.\n\n\"The power of gravitation which compels the separated particles\nto approach each other is an utter mystery, which has completely\nbaffled all efforts at explanation by scientific men. The revolution\nof the various masses of the solar system on their axes and in their\norbits is another mystery for which there is no solution.\n\n\"Thus is the thorough-going evolutionist at every point confronted\nwith an insoluble mystery, and he deceives himself if he fancies\nthat he has discovered anything which will take the place of the\nChristian's conception of God as the creator, sustainer and ruler of\nall things.\" (_Record-Herald_, Chicago, Dec. 24, 1902.)\n\nOther facts are even more perplexing to this theory. The moon is\nmoving from her place at an increasing rate and astronomy cannot\naccount for it. The earth's axis of revolution has varied from time\nto time. Only one star in a thousand has ever been catalogued. Of\nonly about a hundred is the calculation of the parallax possible, so\ndistant are they.\n\nAs to our earth, a well-known writer says: \"No one of standing in\nthe scientific world of to-day is willing to go on record as having\na theory of his own regarding the internal fires of this planet or\nattempting to account for their origin.\"\n\nIn view of this state of uncertainty, it seems to the non-scientific\nmind hazardous to project across these vast ages a guess as to what\nthe conditions were and how the universe originated. And above all\nto found on this guess a vast philosophy of the universe affecting\nall we hold precious for this life and that to come. Well may we\nhesitate before such demands.\n\n4. The origin of life is a problem Evolution has sought in vain to\nsolve or account for by its natural or resident forces.\n\nProf. Le Conte labors hard to show that it might have come from the\nunion of the four gases, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen,\nunder some peculiar circumstances. If he had said under the direct\nact of the Creator we could assent cheerfully. For these do enter\ninto the substance which forms the bodies of living things. But\nthe claim of Evolution is that all came by \"resident forces,\"\nself-operating. Once admit the direct act of the Creator, and, as\nHaeckel says, they might as well admit it along the whole process,\nfor the argument for a single instance is valid for the whole. So\nthey will have none of it.\n\nProf. Le Conte labors to show that protoplasm might be\nself-originating, but Prof. Conn says, \"Protoplasm is not a\nchemical compound but a mechanism.... Unorganized protoplasm\ndoes not exist.... It could never have been produced by chemical\nprocess. Chemistry has produced starches, fats, albumens, but not\nprotoplasm.\" (_Method of Evolution._)\n\nLord Kelvin, in writing to the _London Times_, said:\n\n\"Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country,\nif he believed that the grass and flowers which we saw around us\ngrew by mere chemical forces. He answered, 'No, no more than I could\nbelieve that a book of botany describing them could grow by mere\nchemical forces.'\"\n\nTyndall, after laborious experiments during eight months, thus\ncandidly states the result, in an address before the Royal\nInstitute, London: \"From the beginning to the end of the inquiry,\nthere is not, as you have seen, a shadow of evidence in favor of\nthe doctrine of spontaneous generation.... In the lowest, as in the\nhighest of organized creatures, the method of nature is, that life\nshall be the issue of antecedent life.\"\n\nAnd Mr. Huxley also admitted, \"The doctrine that life can only come\nfrom life is victorious all along the line.\" Prof. Conn states,\n\"There is not the slightest evidence that living matter could arise\nfrom non-living matter. Spontaneous generation is universally given\nup.\" (_Evolution of To-day_, p. 26.)\n\nWilson, the great authority on the cell says, \"The study of the\ncell has seemed to expand rather than narrow the enormous gap that\nseparates even the lowest forms of life from the inorganic world.\"\n(_The Cell in Development and Inheritance_, p. 330.)\n\nHere then, is the greatest chasm of all: Evolution fails at the\nvery start in the story of life. Yet this is its chosen field.\nOn this depends the whole theory. If there was a Creator at the\norigin of life, why not at the origin of all living things? It\nis simply a question of degree. The making of a single cell, the\nsimplest creature that lives, is as great a mystery as that of man.\nConceptually the one is as possible as the other.[1]\n\n  [1] See these points discussed more fully in Wright's Scientific\n  Aspects of Christian Evidences.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF SPECIES.\n\n\nThis is Evolution's great field of labor. It was this which mainly\noccupied Darwin's labors and is the basis of the whole sweeping\ntheory. This suggested man's animal origin and all that follows as\nto man's history and religion and civilization. So that this is the\nbasal part of Evolution. Yet against this fundamental argument, two\ngreat charges are made and admitted: First, not a single case of\nevolution of species is known, and, second, no law or force by which\nsuch changes could take place has been discovered. We will consider\nthese two fatal defects.\n\n\nNOT A SINGLE INSTANCE OF EVOLUTION IS KNOWN.\n\nIn support of this assertion we might quote the admissions of nearly\nevery evolutionary writer. Prof. Winchell writes upon this point as\nfollows:\n\n\"The great stubborn fact which every form of the theory encounters\nat the very outset is, that notwithstanding variations, we are\nignorant of a single instance of the derivation of one good species\nfrom another. The world has been ransacked for an example, and\noccasionally it has seemed for a time as if an instance had been\nfound of the origination of a genuine species by so-called natural\nagencies, but we only give utterance to the admissions of all the\nrecent advocates of derivation theories, when we announce that the\nlong-sought _experimentum crucis_ has not been discovered.\" (_The\nDoctrine of Evolution_, p. 54.)\n\nProf. Conn, in one of the most recent works upon Evolution, says:\n\"It is true enough that naturalists have been unable to find a\nsingle unquestioned instance of a new species.... It will be\nadmitted at the outset on all sides, that no unquestioned instance\nhas been observed of one species being derived from another.... It\nis therefore impossible at present to place the question beyond\ndispute.\" (_Evolution of To-day_, p. 23.)\n\nHere then is a fatal defect. The world has been ransacked for\nevidence, the museums are full of specimens, the secrets of nature\nhave been explored in every land, the minutest creatures discovered\nand analyzed. We have the remains of animals and plants of many\nkinds thousands of years old, such as the mummied remains from\nEgypt, and yet not a single instance of the change Evolution asserts\nhas ever been known! Yet this change of species is the fundamental\nargument of Evolution. On this rests its theory of the origin of man\nand all that flows from that assertion, and this basal assertion is\nabsolutely without an actual instance of fact.\n\nThe changes in certain species such as roses, primroses, tomatoes,\npigeons and dogs, are not new species, but only varieties, having\nnone of the traits of species, easily intermingling, propagating,\nand readily reverting to their original forms, changes which true\nspecies are not susceptible of. Darwin admitted that the continued\nfertility of these varieties was one of his greatest difficulties.\nOne of the definitions of species is that they will not interbreed\nand propagate. So that hybrids are sterile. \"After its kind,\" is the\nprimal law of nature, and as Dr. Jesse B. Thomas says, \"The stubborn\nmule still blocks the way of Evolution.\"\n\n\nNO CAUSE OF EVOLUTION IS KNOWN.\n\nEvolution is not a force. There is no power or cause which is known\nas Evolution. The word simply describes the order in which things\nhave been supposed to come. We must draw a clear line of distinction\nbetween Cause and Order of Appearance. There is a certain order\nin the succession of living things as they came, but what caused\nthat order is the very question at issue. The Duke of Argyle warns\nagainst confusing these when he says, \"Evolution puts forward a\nvisible order of phenomena as a complete and all-sufficient account\nof its own origin and cause.\" (_Theories of Darwin._)\n\nThe absence of an agreed cause is admitted by evolutionists. Huxley\nsays, \"The great need of Evolution is a theory of derivation.\"\n(_Man's Place in Nature._) Darwin admits, \"Our ignorance of the laws\nof derivation is profound.\" (_Descent of Man._) \"The laws governing\ninheritance are for the most part unknown.\" (_Origin of Species._)\nProf. Conn in _Evolution of To-day_, says, \"No two scientists are\nagreed as to what is the cause of the supposed changes of species.\"\n(p. 337.) Prof. Clodd traces it to the protoplasm which forms the\ngerm and ends his exhaustive treatise by saying the cause is still\nunknown. (_Method of Evolution._)\n\nDarwin's theory was Natural Selection. It is this which is\ntechnically called \"Darwinism,\" although some writers apply that\nname to the general subject of Evolution. Natural selection is the\ntheory that inasmuch as minute variations occur in the struggle\nof living things for existence, the variations which would prove\nfavorable to the welfare of the animal would be transmitted to\nits progeny and be increased and so, in many generations, the\naccumulating effects, aided by climate, food, sexual selection, and\nother causes, would amount to a new species. Prof. Conn says of this\ntheory, \"Natural selection is almost universally acknowledged as\ninsufficient to meet the facts of nature, since many facts of life\ncannot be explained by it.\" (p. 243.)\n\nMr. Huxley said long before: \"After much consideration, and with\nassuredly no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear\nconviction that as the evidence now stands it is not absolutely\nproved that a group of animals, having all the characteristics\nexhibited by species in nature, has ever been originated by\nselection, whether natural or artificial.\" (_Lay Sermons_, 295.)\n\nThe theories as to what produced the supposed changes are as many\nas the writers on Evolution. Prof. Conn says, \"All agreement\ndisappears. Each thinker has his own views.\" And adds, \"Thus far\nwe have seen no indication of the manner in which this evolution\nhas been manifested.\" (p. 20.) Prof. J. Arthur Thomson, lecturer on\nzoology in the School of Medicine, Edinburgh, said: \"Unless we can\ngive some theory of the origin of variations we have no material for\nfurther consideration. Unfortunately we are very ignorant about\nthe whole matter.\" The various writers ascribe the changes to food,\nclimate, sexual selection, extraordinary births, isolation and many\nother supposed causes. All these have been in turn combatted by\nother evolutionist writers, and the war goes on and has produced\nlibraries of volumes. It is around this that the conflict rages and\nthe war is a merry one.\n\n\nHOW EVOLUTION ORIGINATED SPECIES.\n\nIt is when Evolution gives the particulars of these changes that it\nbecomes especially interesting. We will, by way of lighting up the\nexamination, consider a few of the stories it tells us as to how\nthings came.\n\nSpencer tells us how the backbone came to be, for the primitive\nanimals had none. Prof. Conn quotes his account as follows: \"He\nthinks the segmentation, the division of the spinal column into\nvertebrae, arose as the result of strains. Originally the vertebrate\nwas unsegmented, but in bending its body from side to side in\nlocomotion through the water, its spinal column became divided by\nthe action of simple mechanical force.\" (_Evolution of To-day_, p.\n65.) Thus what we usually consider a serious calamity, the breaking\nof one's backbone, became one of the greatest blessings, for\nwhat would we be without flexible backs, with which to follow the\nmeanderings of Evolution?\n\nEvolution also tells us how legs originated. The earliest animals\nwere without legs. Some animal in this legless state found on its\nbody some slight excrescences or warts, which aided materially\nits progress as it wiggled along, and thus it acquired the habit\nof using these convenient warts. This habit it transmitted to its\nposterity and they increased the habit until the excrescences,\nlengthened and strengthened by use, became legs of a rudimentary\nkind, which by further use developed a system of bones and muscles\nand nerves and joints such as we have ourselves.\n\nSpencer's account of the origin of quadrupeds is that the earliest\nanimals propagated by dividing into two parts, and in some of\nthese the division was not perfectly made, and so the animal had\nduplicated ends, each of which had legs, forming finally the present\nquadruple arrangement.\n\nEyes originated from some animal having pigment spots or freckles\non the sides of its head, which, turned to the sun, agreeably\naffected the animal so that it acquired the habit of turning that\nside of its head to the sun, and its posterity inherited the same\nhabit and passed it on to still other generations. The pigment spot\nacquired sensitiveness by use and in time a nerve developed which\nwas the beginning of the eye. From this incipient eye came the\npresent wonderful combination of lenses, nerves and muscles, all so\naccurately adjusted that, of the sixteen possible adjustments of\neach part, only once in a hundred thousand times would they come\ntogether, as they now are, by chance.\n\nLand animals began thus, according to Evolution: In a time of\ndrought some water animals, stranded by the receding waters, were\nobliged thenceforth to adopt land manners and methods of living.\nAlthough, strangely, the whale by the same cause was forced to the\nwater, for it was once a land animal, but in a season of drought was\nobliged to seek the water's edge for the scant remaining herbage,\nand, finding the water agreeable, remained there and its posterity\nalso, and finally, the teeth and legs no longer needed, became\ndecadent and abortive as we see them now. Darwin inferred the\nhistory of the whale's marine career from seeing a bear swimming\nin a pool and catching insects with its wide-open mouth as it so\nskimmed the water's surface.\n\nThe same drought produced another and wonderful change, for it is\nto this that the giraffe owes his long legs and neck. The herbage\non the lower branches withering up, he was obliged to stretch his\nneck and legs to reach the higher branches. This increased, as all\nsuch changes increased, in his posterity, and finally after many\ngenerations produced the present immense reaching powers of the\ngiraffe. So that the same drought deprived the whale of his legs and\nconferred them upon the giraffe.\n\nThe mere recital of these speculations will be enough for all who\nhave not surrendered their judgment to the keeping of others. It\nseems scarcely necessary to assure readers unacquainted with the\ntheory, that this is not exaggeration or caricature. We have simply\nabbreviated, and rendered into untechnical language, the accounts of\nevolutionary writers given in all seriousness and with high-sounding\nscientific terms. Any such work will give many specimens of similar\naccounts. Reply seems unnecessary, yet must be made.\n\n1. All this is pure speculation. Not a single such change is known,\nor has been observed.\n\n2. All is based on Natural Selection, which evolutionists have\nthemselves discarded; yet for want of any other theory they are\nconstantly obliged to fall back upon it.\n\n3. Such acquired traits are not transmitted, as Prof. Thomson of\nEdinborough, tells us. Only characteristics inherited, or congenital\nin the fertilized egg cell, are so transmitted. (_Outlines of\nZoology_, p. 66.) The \"sports\" such as the white robins and crows\noccasionally seen, disappear as individuals and do not propagate as\ndistinct types.\n\nLet us pause here to contemplate the spectacle of a theory, which\nits own advocates admit is unproven, and which has been opposed by\nsome of the greatest minds, a theory which has not a single direct\nfact of evidence, and has no way of accounting for the changes which\nit declares have taken place; such a theory accepted as the basis\nof every science, the foundation of a universal philosophy, taught\nin educational institutions to youth as if demonstrated, demanding\nimmediate and universal submission, undertaking to revise Scripture,\nto revolutionize theology, and to prescribe what we must do to be\nsaved and to save others! Surely it is safe to hesitate before such\ndemands.\n\nWe will not discount the great service done humanity in the patient\nresearch in the realms of nature by laborious students. All this\nshould be given weight. We also admit the value of a theory as a\nmeans to the ascertaining of truth. But we cannot consent that\nthe vast interests affected by Evolution shall be decided by \"the\nbalancings of probabilities,\" or the mooted value of a theory.\nThis is no place for theories, which must be held tentatively, if\nat all. This is a matter which affects the belief and lives and\nhopes of millions, their welfare here and hereafter. Religion is\ntoo sacred to be made a shuttlecock tossed about in the arena of\nintellectual amusement.\n\nSir J. William Dawson said of some writers and their theories: \"To\nlaunch a clever and startling fallacy, which will float a week and\nstir up a hard fight, seems as great a triumph as the discovery\nof an important fact or law; and the honest student is distracted\nwith the multitude of doctrines and hustled aside by the crowd of\nambitious groundlings.\" (_Story of the Earth and Man_, 313.)\n\nEvolution has much to say for itself, but, as we see, it is all\nof the nature of circumstantial evidence. This seems to the\nnon-scientific mind as strange for anything called science,\nwhich we have been accustomed to think means something known or\nproven. We have been accustomed to see cases thrown out of court\nwhen presenting no evidence and to fare badly in general on mere\ncircumstantial evidence. However, as Evolution is so persistent\nfor a hearing, we must examine what it has to advance for our\nconsideration. Its arguments are drawn from Geology, Classification,\nDistribution of Plants and Animals, Morphology and Embryology.\n\n\nTHE ARGUMENT FROM GEOLOGY.\n\nThe argument from this science is that the fossils appear in the\nstrata of the earth in advancing order, the simplest first, and more\ncomplex afterwards. The assumption is that the higher came from the\nlower, by a chain of infinitesimal changes, through a long series of\nages. Now the facts are not as claimed. We will show this later. But\nadmitting that they are, the argument is wanting.\n\n1. All this is pure assumption. No such changes are known in\nexisting species to have ever taken place, and the assumption that\nthese changes took place in geologic ages is wholly unwarranted. If\nit cannot be predicated of the animals we see and know, how can it\nbe asserted of a period millenniums ago?\n\n2. Mere succession is not evolution. The coming in orderly\nsuccession is evidence of some plan but not necessarily of\nevolution. An intelligent Creator would work in the same way,\nespecially if he had intelligent beings to instruct thereby, at the\ntime or afterwards.\n\n3. Evolution in comparing the successive comings of the rocky strata\nand the fossil creatures, compares two kinds of things that cannot\nbe made analogous. Rocks are not produced by evolution, the higher\ngrowing out of the lower, as is claimed of species. That certain\nspecies appeared with the lower rocks and strata, and higher orders\nwith later rocks and strata only proves of one, as of the other,\nan advancing order of production but tells nothing of the cause of\neither.\n\n4. We are supported in these doubts as to the value of Evolution's\nargument from Geology by the fact, that many of the most eminent\ngeologists deny any proof of evolution in their chosen science.\n\nSir Roderick Murchison said, \"I know as much of nature in her\ngeologic ages as any living man, and I fearlessly say that our\ngeologic record does not afford one syllable of evidence in support\nof Darwin's theory.\" The great Swiss geologist, Joachim Barrande\nstates, \"One cannot conceive why in all rocks whatever and in all\ncountries upon the two continents, all relics of the intervening\ntypes should have vanished.... The discordances are so numerous and\npronounced, that the composition of the real fauna seems to have\nbeen calculated by design for contradicting everything which the\ntheories (of Evolution) teach us respecting the first appearance and\nprimitive evolution of the forms of life upon the earth.\" (Quoted by\nWinchell, in _Doctrine of Evolution_, p. 142.)\n\nProf. Conn, an evolutionist, admits the presence of many facts\ndisclosed by geology which oppose the theory of Evolution. He says,\n\"In the earliest records geology discloses, we find not a few\ngeneralized types but well differentiated forms, nearly all the\nsub-kingdoms as they now exist, five-sixths of our orders, nearly\nan equal proportion of sub-orders, a great many families and some\nof our present species. All this is a surprise and an unexplained\nproblem.\" Such a result, he says, is not what Evolution would lead\nus to expect. All the important classes of animals made their\nappearance without warning. (_Evolution of To-day_, pp. 6, 100, 103,\n118.)\n\nHaeckel writes, \"We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that various\ngroups have from the time of their first appearance, burst out into\nan exuberant growth of modification of form, size and members, with\nall possible, and one might almost say, impossible shapes, and they\nhave done this within a comparatively short time, after which they\nhave died out not less rapidly.\" (_Last Link_, p. 144.)\n\nThe testimony of geology, as adduced by geologists and even by\nevolutionists, is that it does not sustain the claims of Evolution.\nSpecies existed in present form from the earliest times. Geologic\nspecies came in suddenly and went out suddenly. Some of the\nsimplest remain unchanged through all earth's transformations to the\npresent time. (Dr. Robert Patterson, _Errors of Evolution_, p. 221.)\nThe great fossil cemeteries show that the living creatures fell in\nserried ranks, overtaken by cataclysms, in every act of life. Le\nConte tries to explain this by saying that there were \"paroxysmal\"\neras, but what the paroxysms were, or whence they came, he does not\nsay. The whole testimony is against Evolution and reverts to proof\nof the Bible story of Creation. Professor Adam Sedgwick says: \"At\nsucceeding epochs, new tribes of beings were called into existence,\nnot merely as the progeny of those that had appeared before them,\nbut as new and living proofs of creative interference.\"\n\n\nTHE ARGUMENT FROM CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIES.\n\nThis is one of the strong points of Evolution. It is claimed that\nplants and animals can be so classified in an ascending order that\nit is evident the higher came out of the lower. We object as follows:\n\n1. There is no classification agreed upon by scientists. This comes\nlargely from want of agreement as to what a species is. Scientists\ndiffer widely and radically. Spencer presents a review of all these\nschemes of classification and ends by saying, \"It is absurd to\nattempt a definite scheme of relationship.\" His own plan of the\nscheme he says is the figure of a \"laurel bush squashed flat by a\ndescending plane.\" (_Principles of Biology_, p. 389.) This agrees\nwith his statement as to the absurdity of such schemes. Some arrange\nthe whole in a continuous straight line from the lowest up.\n\nDarwin thought the whole came from half a dozen germinal forms.\nWhere these came from he did not say. Dr. J. Clark Ridpath said,\n\"The eagle was always an eagle, the man always man. Every species\nof living organism has I believe come up by a like process from\nits own primordial germ.\" (_Arena_, June, 1879.) Haeckel insists\nthat the theory demands but a single primeval germ as the ancestor\nof all living things. He presented a tree, showing twenty or more\nstages between primeval protoplasm and man, but this has been now\nrejected by evolutionists. Prof. D. Kerfoot Schults represents\nthe classification as follows: \"If all the animals that have ever\nexisted on the earth be represented by a tree, those now existing\non the earth will be represented by the topmost twigs and leaves,\nand the extinct forms will be represented by the main trunk and\nbranches.\" (_First Book on Organic Evolution_, p. xiv.)\n\nBut the source of all, the primeval protoplasm, is wanting. The\nmissing primeval germ or germs leaves the tree without a root,\nand Prof. Conn tells that even the sub-kingdoms are not united by\nfossils. Spencer admits that not a single species has been traced to\nits source or its family tree completed, and even the ancestors of\nour living species are wanting.\n\nProf. Dana admitted as follows, \"If ever the links (upon which\nthe doctrine of Evolution depends) had an actual existence,\ntheir disappearance without a trace left behind is altogether\ninexplicable.\" Here then is a tree without root or trunk or\nbranches, and having only the tips of outer twigs and leaves, in\nother words, a phantom tree, a fit representation of the theory for\nwhich it stands.\n\nThe present orders of plants and animals give a strong argument\nagainst Evolution. It has been seen that Succession is not\nEvolution. The mere coming of animals in orderly succession\nshows only plan, but the means of executing that plan is not\nshown thereby. But further, while in the geologic ages there was\nSuccession, here in our age is Simultaneousness of species, two\nvery different and contradictory phenomena. Why has Succession\nceased? Why have not the higher orders pushed the lower out, as in\nthe geologic ages, if Evolution was the cause? Yet here they all\nexist quietly together as if they knew nothing of Evolution or its\nrequirements.\n\nNor have any such changes occurred in thousands of years, as the\nmummied remains of cats and crocodiles and ibises in Egypt show.\nSurely 4,000 years would show some evolution if there had been such\na thing; but it is not seen in all the 4,000 years, or even in the\nmore distant period since primeval man existed, for we have the\nremains of animals found with man in his early history. Out of 98\nspecies, 57 are the same as we have to-day unchanged, and still\nothers, as the lingula, the same as in ages past. Thus Evolution's\ntrusted argument from Classification utterly fails of demonstration.\n\n\nDISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS.\n\nThe distribution of plants and animals is another favorite argument\nof this theory. Certain animals are said to be found only in certain\nregions, the bison only in North America, the kangaroo only in\nAustralia, the armadillo only in Mexico. Evolution triumphantly\nasks, Were they created only in these places? We now simply remark\nthat difficulties as to Creation do not prove Evolution. Evolution\nsays the ancestors of these came from other parts ages ago and by\nlong isolation and environment became what they are.\n\nFacts again are against the theory. Huxley himself says that in the\nneighborhood of Oxford are animal remains like those of Australia;\nthat Britain was once connected with the continent, and so these\nanimals passed over. The same is true he says of the isolated fauna\nof New Zealand and South America. (Address in _Daily Post_, March\n27, 1871.)\n\nThis argument might be used against Evolution as well as the\nprevious arguments. Two islands in the Pacific, only fifteen miles\napart, have the animals of Asia in one and of Australia in the\nother. One of the Bermudas has lizards like those of Africa and\nanother like those of America. In fact it is evident that animals\nand plants have scattered widely.\n\n\nTHE MORPHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.\n\nThe comparative study of plants and animals presents another\nargument for Evolution. It is found, for example, that there is a\nsimilarity of plan in the fin of the fish, the wing of the bird,\nthe flipper of the whale, the leg of the animal and the arm of\nthe man. So also in a measure with all other corresponding parts.\nThis Evolution says, shows that all these animals are genetically\nconnected and all came from the same ancestors.\n\nHuxley himself replies to this argument in these words, \"No amount\nof purely morphological evidence can suffice to prove that things\ncame into existence in one way rather than another.\" (_Study of\nZoology_, p. 86.) Another great scientist, Prof. Quatrefages,\nprofessor of anthropology in the Museum of Natural Sciences, Paris,\nwrites on this as follows: \"Without leaving domain of facts, and\nonly judging from what we know, we can say, that morphology itself\njustifies the conclusion that one species has never produced another\nby derivation.\" Prof. Conn admits, after going through the whole\nsubject with the latest facts, that unless some further explanation\ncan be found, homology does not prove descent. (_Evolution of\nTo-day_, p. 76.)\n\nThis resemblance of parts is just what we should expect in things\noriginating from one intelligent operator, whether Creator or\nmanufacturer. It is found in every factory. The wheel is the same\nin the wheelbarrow, the cart, carriage and locomotive. In fact,\nuniformity of plan proves unity in the cause, and not the diversity\nof chance causes claimed by Evolution. If Evolution were true, there\nwould be as much diversity among organs as there is among the forms\nof organs. If the operation of chance conditions has resulted in\nradical changes in the forms of organs, why then is there not this\nsimilar diversity among the organs themselves? Evolution has no\nreply. Creation has such reply; God is one and his plan one. Why\nshould not the forms of all these things be alike, seeing they are\nto live in the same climates, eat the same food and propagate in the\nsame manner?\n\nThe rudimentary, abortive and discarded parts found in some animals\nform one of the strongest arguments Evolution advances. The favorite\ninstance it presents is found in the horse. The horse walks on one\ntoe and has splints further up the leg, which they tell us are the\nremains of the other toes, and the callosities on the leg are the\nremains of thumbs. The remains have been found of an animal as large\nas a dog which resembles the horse and has two toes, and another\nolder animal, as large as a fox, which has four toes. Putting these\nside by side, Evolution calls them all horses, and says the one-toed\nanimal came from the two-toed, and he from the four-toed, and that\nthis proves the evolution of the horse from the Eohippus (Old Horse)\nas it is called.\n\n1. Bearing in mind that this conclusion is pure assumption, and only\ninference at best, let us remark that it violates the primal law of\nevolution laid down by Spencer, that of evolution from the simple to\nthe complex. It should have shown first the one-toed horse, then his\ndevelopment into a two-toed animal, and so on up to a horse having\nfive toes. This would be evolution. As it is, we see the opposite of\nevolution, degradation, which often occurs in nature, and we see few\nif any instances of any subsequent restoration to primal conditions.\n\n2. Besides all this, that most necessary thing to a good horse,\na pedigree, is wanting. The connecting links are all missing in\nhis ancestral tree. For the ancestors of that first of horses are\nunknown. But he is not alone in this, for even his owner has the\nsame sad want of proven descent, as we will see later. Just how the\nhorse lost his appendages, and why he dropped toe after toe in this\nextraordinary manner the story leaves untold.\n\n3. But another great objection exists. It takes time to breed\nhorses. It required all of the Tertiary period to produce the\none-toed animal from the four-toed ancestor and much longer time\nwas required to develop him from a totally different animal, where\nmore than a mere question of toes comes in. For we have to face\nthe difficulty, and the time necessary, to develop a good horse,\nsay from an alligator, and the still greater task of producing him\nfrom an animal without toes at all, or even legs, or anything to\nhang legs on, and simply a bag of jelly-like substance, which the\nevolutionist assures us was the ancestor of all horses and their\nriders. If it appears to the reader that life is too short for such\nbusiness we can say the geologist agrees with him, for he tells us\nthe age of the old earth itself was not one tenth long enough to\nproduce Evolution's horses, and still less their riders.\n\nAnother instance of Evolution's proofs is the swim-bladder of\nfishes. This Evolution sometimes states is an incipient lung, and\nthat the fish learned in a drought to breathe air. Sometimes, as\nthe need of the theory demands, the swim-bladder is claimed as the\nrelic of a discarded lung. These however are two different and\nopposing claims. Either as a prophecy or a relic the swim-bladder\nis fatal to the claims of Evolution. If it is an incipient lung,\nthen here is intention, which Evolution rejects. If a relic, here is\nretrogression, the opposite of evolution. The abortive organ is one\nof the difficulties of the theory which Darwin admitted, and Prof.\nConn tells us, is not yet answered. Prof. Huxley said, \"Either these\nrudiments are of no use to the animal, in which case they ought to\nhave disappeared, or they are of some use to the animal, in which\ncase they are arguments for teleology.\" (_Darwinism_, p. 151.)\n\n\nTHE ARGUMENT FROM EMBRYOLOGY.\n\nEvolution derives its greatest argument from the study of the\nembryo. It makes three claims. First, that the germ of everything,\nplant and animal, is the same, neither chemical analysis nor the\nmicroscope showing any difference. If therefore, such vast variety\ncould come from origins so alike, why could not all we see come from\na similar origin, the primitive animal, which was also such a simple\ncell? Second, in the growth of the embryo it recapitulates the\nancestral history of that particular organism. Third, all this when\ncompared with the geologic record, and the present orders of living\nthings as classified, presents the full succession of the forms of\nlife, the one supplying what the other lacks.\n\nThese claims must be examined separately.\n\n1. The claim that the germs of all living things are alike is not\ntrue. The resemblance is only superficial. Protoplasm, of which the\ngerm is composed, differs and is not homogeneous material. That\nwhich builds the muscles is one kind, and that which builds brain\nand nerves is entirely different. Prof. Clodd tells us it is not a\nchemical compound but a mechanism. Nor could the germs be alike. For\nthe plant breathes carbon, the animal oxygen. The one oxidizes, the\nother deoxidizes. There are still greater and deeper differences.\n\nTyndall says, \"Under the most homogeneous material, there lie\nstructural energies of such complexity, that we must question\nwhether we have the mental elements with which to grapple with\nthem.... The most trained and disciplined imagination retires\nin bewilderment from the problem. In that realm, inaccessible\nto everything but mind, the wonders of Creation are wrought\nout.... Here is determined the germ and afterwards the complete\norganization.\" (_Fragments of Science_, p. 153.) So that these cells\nor germs, which appear so alike, contain each in itself the entire\nplan and life of the coming creature, to the color of a feather, the\ntrick of a hunting dog and the smile and dimples of a child.\n\n2. The second claim that the course of each embryo traverses its\nancestral history, is not nearly so vociferously made as some\nyears ago. Prof. A. Agassiz writes, \"Anything beyond a general\nparallelism is hopeless.\" Prof. Conn admits \"Embryology alone is\nnot a safe guide, and only when verified by the fossils can it\nbe relied upon. It seldom gives a true history.... The parallel\nis largely a delusion.... It often gives a false history.\"\n(_Evolution of To-day_, pp. 125, 134, 137, 150.) Prof. Thomson\nwrites, \"Recapitulation is due to no dead hands of the past, but\nto physiological conditions which we are unable to discover.\"\n(_Outline of Zoology_, p. 63.) He also says that the young mammal\nwas never like a worm, a fish, or reptile. It was at the most like\nthe young of these in their various stages. So far from the course\nof all being alike, Baer says he can tell the difference between the\nembryo of the common fowl and duck on the second day. (_Principles\nof Biology_, p. 1.) So far as this claim holds good, it forms an\nargument against evolution. For here is a goal or ideal to which\nall things strive. This is intention, and plan and purpose, all of\nwhich is opposed to the main idea of Evolution. It is in line with\nCreation.\n\n3. The culminating argument for Evolution is given by arranging in\nascending classification the geologic orders of life (which we have\nseen do not appear as Evolution demands), and placing alongside of\nthese the classification of present animals (which we have seen\nis not agreed upon, and is as diverse as the writers themselves),\nand then laying alongside of these two artificial arrangements,\nthe embryonic recital (which is now doubted and is often false to\nthe past history), and triumphantly pointing to the three-fold\ncombination. The gaps geology shows are thus filled by present forms\nand what both lack, by the embryonic recital.\n\nHere are compared three things which radically differ. The geologic\nrecord shows progress from lower to higher, although not that\ncomplete nor unvarying record necessary to the theory, while the\npresent orders of life exist simultaneously. Both show the existence\nof separate things having no individual connection. The embryo is a\nsingle individual, designed from its conception on a predetermined\nplan, animated by internal forces, and limited to a certain end and\nlife. It is as Dawson says, a \"closed series.\" The worlds of living\nand fossil creatures consist of myriads of individuals, under many\nwidely different conditions, and aimed at widely different ends and\nlives. The two are contradictory for the uses of Evolution.\n\nWhat we do see in these three facts are three marks of personal\nintelligence. In embryonic growth we see the plan of production.\nIn the coming of the fossil creatures we see the progress of the\nplan in historical appearance. In the present display of nature\nwe see the ultimate purpose of the whole. It all forms one great\nconsistent plan and bears all the marks of personal and creative\nwork.\n\nSo that summing up the argument from comparison of the three facts,\nthe geologic order, the present classification, and the embryonic\ngrowth, we find in the first absolute separation of species, in the\nsecond no genetic connection as already shown under that argument,\nand in the third different phenomena having no points in common\nwith the other two. The whole argument then fails of conclusion and\nreverts as the former do, to proof against Evolution.\n\n\nFACTS OPPOSING EVOLUTION OF SPECIES.\n\nA theory to be proven must meet the facts and account for them. The\ntheory in question fails lamentably in this. There are countless\nfacts not only unaccounted for but diametrically opposed to it and\nantagonizing it. We cite some of these:\n\n1. _Degeneration in nature._ Nature shows a constant tendency\ndownward. Prof. E. D. Cope, an eminent evolutionist, writes: \"The\nretrogradation in nature is as well or nearly as well established\nas evolution.\" The wild varieties of plants and animals are far\ninferior to the cultivated kinds. The older species are far\nsuperior to the present. The saber-toothed tiger is far superior\nto the present animal. So also is the Mammoth as compared with\nthe elephant. Plants show degeneration in colors. The order of\nsuperiority is from yellow, the lowest, to white, pink, red, purple\nand blue, the highest. When they drop from blue to yellow, it\nis degeneration. Some now having green flowers once had colored\nblossoms. Progress is not seen to be upward in the flowers. So also\nparasitism is degeneration both in plants and animals. The course of\nnature is not, as it has not been, constant development upward. The\nscripture statement \"The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in\npain,\" describes accurately the condition of nature (_Ro._ 8:22.)\n\n2. _Continued unchanged species for ages._ The crustacea, for\nexample in Lake Tanganyika, Africa, remain as the receding ocean\nleft them ages ago.\n\n3. _Species instead of increasing in number have decreased._ There\nwere 500 species of trilobites. They have all disappeared. There\nwere 900 species of ammonites; all are gone. Of the 450 species\nof nautilus, only three remain. Indeed whole families have become\nobliterated. All this is antagonistic to Evolution.\n\n4. _Species continue the same under the most diverse environments._\nEnvironment is claimed as a cause of the changes demanded by\nEvolution. But the same species exist in the most diverse regions,\ne. g., mosquitoes, whales and oaks.\n\n5. _Adaptation of one species to another._ Darwin says that a\nsingle case of the adaptation of one species to another would be\nfatal to his theory. Yet he himself gives the data for hundreds of\nsuch adaptations. He adduces the fact that a hundred head of red\nclover produced 2,700 seeds. A similar number protected from insects\nproduced none. The fertilization of plants by insects is well known.\nThe Smyrna fig is said to owe its value to its fertilization by the\npiercing of an insect. Some of these insects have been introduced\ninto California for that purpose. There is an orchid which can be\nfertilized only by an insect falling into a cup of liquid which the\nflower has, and escaping through a side opening in which it touches\nthe pollen.\n\nDr. Andrew Wilson writes: The colors of flowers--nay, even the\nlittle splashes of a hue or tint seen on a petal--are intended to\nattract insects that they may carry off the fertilizing dust, or\npollen, to other flowers. It is to this end also that your flowers\nare many of them sweet-scented. The perfume is another kind of\ninvitation to the insect world. The honey they secrete forms a third\nattraction--the most practical of all.\n\n6. _Complex adjustments of nature._ Evolution in vain attempts to\naccount for the wonderful complex adjustments we see in nature, such\nas the mimicry of animals and plants; the walking stick so closely\nresembles a twig that it deceives the closest observer. The withered\nleaf butterfly, with spots and wrinkles, is exactly like the thing\nit imitates. This is true also of the leaf butterfly and of another\nwhich exactly resembles a bird's dropping. Evolution cannot account\nfor the ventriloquism of insects, such as the cricket and tree toad;\nthe battery of the electric eel; the beauty of insects and fish\nand shells and birds and flowers, especially the harmony of their\ncolors. Edible insects are plainly colored, the poisonous kinds\nhighly colored. Some butterflies have \"scare-heads\" on their wings,\nexactly resembling an owl's head, and other insects have similar\nfrightful appearances which they thrust out when attacked. All this\ntells of design and interest and often has the appearance of humor\nin the creation of these numerous creatures.\n\n7. _The mathematical adjustments of nature are as exact as the\nmultiplication table._ Illustrations of this are the accuracy of the\norbits of the heavenly bodies and the law of gravitation. The growth\nof the cell proceeds on geometrical progression in the division of\nparts into 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. The climbing plants form their coils\nwith mathematical accuracy and proportion. The proportions in which\nchemicals will mix is mathematically fixed.\n\nProf. Tyndall thus calls our attention to crystallization: \"By\npermitting alum to crystallize in this slow way we obtain these\nperfect octahedrons; by allowing carbonate of lime to crystallize,\nnature produces these beautiful rhomboids; when silica crystallizes\nwe have formed the hexagonal prisms capped at the end by pyramids;\nby allowing saltpeter to crystallize, we have these prismatic\nmasses, and when carbon crystallizes we have the diamond.\"\n(_Fragments of Science_, p. 357.) \"Looking at it mentally we see the\nmolecules [of sulphate of soda] like disciplined squadrons under\na governing eye, arranging themselves into battalions, gathering\naround distinct centers and forming themselves into distinct solid\nmasses, which after a time assume the visible shape of the crystal\nnow held in my hand. Here then is an architect at work, who makes no\nchips nor din, and who is now building the particles into crystals\nsimilar in shape to these beautiful masses we see upon the table.\"\n(_Belfast Address._)\n\n8. _The structure of living things shows the true principles of\narchitecture._ A Mr. McLaughlin, a noted Scotch mathematician, tried\nby mathematical calculation to ascertain the shape of a building\nwhich would contain the most room with least material and yet embody\nthe greatest architectural strength in its retaining walls. After\nmany laborious calculations, he found after he had arrived at a\nconclusion that the honey bee had long before given the same plan\nof structure in its cell. The human skull is a true dome, and the\nspinal column a true pillar. The ribs of the ship are copied from\nthe fish, the yacht from the duck, and its deep fin from the fish.[2]\n\n  [2] See \"Number in Nature,\" Hastings, Boston, for further\n  illustrations of this.\n\nEvolution pretends to account for every one of these facts by chance\nchanges, extending through countless ages as has already been shown\nin its amazing account of the origin of legs, eyes, backbones and\nother members. Surely this is an appeal to credulity! The faith of\nthe Christian is sometimes taxed but what shall we say of the faith\nof the evolutionist? Which is more credible, the simple account of\nmiraculous creation or this long, involved and absolutely unseen and\nunknown process?\n\n9. _The age of the earth._ Prof. George Frederick Wright, the\ngeologist, tells us that geologic time is not one-hundredth part\nas long as it was supposed to be fifty years ago, and the popular\nwriters who glibly talk of the antiquity of man are behind the\ntimes and ignorant of the new light which as a flood has come from\ngeology.[3]\n\n  [3] See Man in the Glacial Period, by Prof. Geo. Frederick Wright.\n\nSumming up the case, Prof. Francis M. Balfour tells us: \"All these\nfacts that fall under our observation contradict the crude ideas\nof those so-called naturalists, who state that one species can be\ntransmitted into another in the course of generations.\" So also Sir\nDavid Brewster declares: \"We have absolute proof of the immutability\nof species, whether we search for it in historic or geologic times.\"\n\nDr. Etheridge, the famous English authority on fossils, says:\n\"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not\nfounded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. Men adopt a\ntheory and then strain their facts to support it. I read all their\nbooks, but they make no impression on my belief in the stability of\nspecies. Some men are ready to regard you as a fool if you do not go\nwith them in all their vagaries, but this museum is full of proofs\nof the utter falsity of their views.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF MAN.\n\n\nThe central point in the whole theory is the descent of man from\nthe brute. It is this which, as stated, gives it importance to the\nChristian. But for this, the hypothesis would be but a curious\nscientific theory. It is a matter of comparatively minor interest\nhow the universe or the various species came. It is only because\nthese theories are used to assert the animal origin of man that they\nare dealt with here.\n\nIt is in this claim as to the origin of man that all the various\ntheories of Evolution agree, however they may vary in other matters,\nand, as this is the vital point, these theories are considered as\none in this discussion. This is a question merely of fact. Did or\ndid not man descend from the brute or was he specially and divinely\ncreated? This is the question in a nut-shell. The two accounts\nare as follows placed side by side. Darwin's account is accepted\nsubstantially by all evolutionists.\n\n\nTHE BIBLE ACCOUNT.\n\n     (Gen. i:26, 27; ii:7; v:1, 2.)\n\n\"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....\nAnd God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he\nhim; male and female created he them.... And the Lord God formed man\nof the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath\nof life and man became a living soul.... In the day that God created\nman, in the likeness of God made he him: male and female created he\nthem; and blessed them and called their name Adam.\"\n\n\nEVOLUTION'S ACCOUNT.\n\n     (From Darwin's Descent of Man, ii, 372.)\n\n\"Man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and\npointed ears, probably arborial in its habits and an inhabitant\nof the Old World. This creature, if its whole structure had been\nexamined by a naturalist, would have been classed among the\nQuadrumana, as surely as would the common and still more ancient\nprogenitor of the Old and New World monkeys. The Quadrumana and all\nthe higher mammals are probably derived from an ancient marsupial\nanimal, and this through a long line of diversified forms, either\nfrom some reptile-like, or some amphibian-like creature, and this\nagain from some fish-like animal. In the dim obscurity of the past,\nwe can see that the early progenitor of the Vertebrata must have\nbeen an aquatic animal, provided with branchia, with the two sexes\nunited in the same individual.\"\n\nThe Bible account is circumstantial, with mention of places and\nrivers of undoubted historical character. It is accepted by\nsubsequent Scripture writers and made the basis of their historical\nand spiritual teachings. The evolutionary account is lacking in all\nof this. There are no exact data nor any attempt to give any. No\ndescription save an imaginary one is ever given. As no one was there\nto see, the whole is fanciful.\n\nThe two accounts are utterly irreconcilable. Whatever the Scripture\naccount means it does not mean Evolution, and literary justice\ndemands that we do not impose upon a writer a meaning he did not\nintend or give.\n\nProf. Pfliederer writes, \"There is only one choice. When we say\nEvolution we definitely deny Creation. When we say Creation we\ndefinitely deny Evolution.\" Prof. James Sully says, \"The doctrine\nof Evolution is directly antagonistic to that of Creation.\" (_Bible\nStudent_, July, 1901, quoted by Prof. Warfield.)\n\nHow anyone can accept both accounts passes all understanding. The\nlate Dr. John Henry Barrows, president of Oberlin University, tells\nof meeting a Hindu boy in his visit to India, who had attended the\nmission schools and learned there the shape and situation of the\nearth. He had of course previously been taught the Hindu cosmogony\nthat the earth was surrounded by salt water and that by a circle\nof earth and that by successive circles of buttermilk, sweet cane\njuice, and other \"soft drinks\" with intervening circles of land.\nDr. Barrows asked the boy which belief he would hereafter hold. He\nreplied that he would believe both. This might be possible to the\nHindu boy, but it surpasses all previous intellectual feats that any\nintelligent person can accept both the Bible account and Darwin's\naccount of the creation of man.\n\nWe will review the arguments for and against the evolutionary\naccount of the origin of man from the following spheres and subjects:\n\n1. The Argument from the Evolution of Species. 2. From Similarity\nof Structure in Animals and Man. 3. Rudimentary Organs in Man. 4.\nHuman Characteristics in Animals. 5. History of the Evolution of Man\nfrom the Brute. 6. The \"Missing Link.\" 7. The Brain. 8. Man's Mind\nand Consciousness. 9. Language. 10. Pre-historic Man. 11. Antiquity\nof Man. 12. Savage Races. 13. History of Mankind. 14. Religion. 15.\nEthics. 16. Christian Experience. 17. Christ.\n\n\n1. ARGUMENT FROM THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.\n\nOn this argument rests the theory of man's animal origin. But for\nthe desire to prove that such is man's origin, the argument would\nnever have been conceived. We introduce it here again to call\nspecial attention to this fact. We have seen that there is decided\ndifference of opinion on this theory; that many object to it; that\nthere is not a single case of such origin of species known; that\nthere is no law or force or cause agreed upon or known by which\nsuch origin of species could take place; that there are countless\nobjections and facts against it; that its arguments are confessedly\ninsufficient; and they are at best but inferences and only \"the\nbalancing of probabilities.\"\n\nIf therefore the proofs of the Origin of Species are wanting the\nwhole theory of Evolution falls in ruins to the ground. There would\nseem no need to proceed further. Yet Evolution lightly steps over\nthe ruins of its previous claims and proceeds to further assertions.\nSome of the greatest of the exact scientists stop here. Prof.\nDana, the great geologist, says: \"Man's origin has thus far no\nsufficient explanation from science. The abruptness of transition\nfrom preceding forms is most extraordinary and especially because it\noccurs so near the present time.\" (_Elements of Geology._)\n\nProf. Virchow, the most eminent pathologist of Europe, wrote as\nfollows: \"There always exists a sharp line of demarcation between\nman and the ape. We cannot pronounce it proved by science that man\ndescends from the ape, or from any other animal. Whoever calls to\nmind the lamentable failure of all attempts made very recently to\ndiscover a decided support for the '_generatio aequivoc_' in the\nlower forms of transition from the inorganic to the organic world\nwill feel it doubly serious to demand that this theory, so utterly\ndiscredited, should be in any form accepted as the basis of our\nviews of life.\"\n\nMany more such expressions might be quoted from eminent scientists\nto the same effect. But as we will use these under the respective\nheads of the foregoing order of argument, we pass on here to the\narguments as stated.\n\n\n2. SIMILARITY OF STRUCTURE IN ANIMALS AND MAN.\n\nIt is well known that the internal and external form of man is like\nthat of the lower animals. This, Evolution claims, is an argument\nfor genetic connection. The same argument would prove that a\nlocomotive was born from a stage coach, and that from a cart,\nand that from a wheelbarrow. Similarity of structure proves only\nuniformity of design. An intelligent maker of any nature would so\noperate, and man himself so manufactures now. Why should not God\nmake man on the model of the lower animals, seeing he is to live in\nthe same world, under the same conditions, eat the same food and\npropagate in the same way? There is no reason for departure from a\nform which has proved useful and appropriate. All the parts in the\nhuman form have been thus tested in the lower forms and found right\nfor their purpose and are now, as we would expect, applied to man.\nMan is the climax of all. All is for his use in the lower worlds of\nplants and animals; then why not use their frame and inner organs\nalso? The mechanic uses the same appliance such as the wheel in his\nmost complex construction as well as in the simplest engine.\n\nBut there are parts in the human frame not found in the lower\norders. Wallace, one of the greatest evolutionists, says the soft\nhuman skin cannot be accounted for by natural causes, nor the\nvalves in the human veins which are in different position from\nthose of the brute, nor the human foot nor larynx, nor the human\nvoice, especially the female voice, nor the absence of hair on\nthe body, nor why man is short armed and long legged, while his\nape-man ancestor is the reverse. Many more such problems vex the\nevolutionist. Creation accounts for all this, and does so by one\nsimple, sweeping argument in place of Evolution's complex and\nbewildering maze of speculations.\n\nRuskin teaches us in this extract that God works by law and does\nnot deviate therefrom even where it seems to us that He might have\nwrought differently: \"But God shows us in Himself, strange as it may\nseem, not only authoritative perfection, but even the perfection\nof obedience, an obedience to his own laws; and in the cumbrous\nmovement of those unwieldiest of His creatures, we are reminded,\neven in His divine essence, of that attribute of uprightness in the\nhuman creature, 'that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not.'\"\n(_Seven Lamps of Architecture_, II., p. 78.)\n\n\n3. RUDIMENTARY ORGANS IN MAN.\n\nEvolution points to certain features in man which it claims came\nfrom his brute ancestry, such as the long hairs in the eyebrow,\nwhich they say came from the ape-man, the tips of the ear, and the\nhair on the forearm, which slants from the hand to the elbow. The\nwhole outside ear is also claimed as a relic from that brute and is\nunnecessary for hearing. So also of the five toes when a solid foot\nwould have been better, although most of us think not. They also\npoint to some evidences of a tail which they say was rubbed off when\nthe ape-man learned to sit down. This, however, many apes do now\nwith no signs of decreasing tails. Many internal members and organs\nare pointed to, which are too numerous here to mention. One instance\nis as good as the whole catalogue, and one reply also.\n\nAll this proves too much for the theory. Here is the loss of useful\norgans and the survival of others not needed. This is not evolution,\nat least not the kind we have been asked to build our hopes upon for\nprogress. Further, these so-called \"relics of the brute\" are counted\nas having no use save to support Evolution. The \"gill-slits\" in the\nneck of the human embryo are the favorite instance of this kind of\nfact. Haeckel and, after him others, picture the forms of fish,\ndog and man in embryonic state, and say in triumph, There is proof\nof the descent of the man from the dog and of him from the fish;\nand this resemblance has survived to tell the tale, there being no\nother use for it. But this is not the only feature that \"survives.\"\nHeads and mouths and eyes also \"survive.\" Why are these not pointed\nto as proofs of descent? Because we can see use for them, while\nthere appears to be no use for the \"gill-slits\" except to prove\nEvolution. If we could see some use in the \"gill-slits\" in the neck\nof the embryo, the argument of Evolution would fall to the ground.\nEvolution's argument from the gill-slits and all other \"relics of\nthe brute\" rests therefore on ignorance, a very unsafe foundation\nfor a scientific theory, for knowledge is constantly increasing,\nespecially of the human frame, and there is not the slightest doubt,\nreasoning from analogy and past experience, that there is use for\nthese peculiar embryonic features.\n\nWe repeat the argument of Huxley as to these rudimentary parts:\n\"Either these rudiments are of no use, in which case they should\nhave disappeared; or they are of use, in which case they are\narguments for teleology.\" (_Darwinism and Design_, p. 151.)\n\nEvidences of this nature are of that kind called circumstantial, and\nin law are least relied upon, for on such evidence some innocent men\nhave been hung. Shall we condemn the whole race to a bestial origin\non the same evidence? All arguments founded on such facts are weak,\npuerile and unworthy of scientists. No wonder that Prof. Paulsen\nsaid Haeckel's speculations are \"a disgrace to the philosophy of\nGermany.\" Shall we suspend a philosophy of the universe upon a few\nlong hairs? Shall we allow the guess as to the origin of the tip of\nthe outer ear to revolutionize theology? Shall we risk our eternal\ndestiny on the supposed uselessness of the so-called \"gill-slits\" in\npremature puppies? Yet this is the demand of Evolution reduced to\nplain English.\n\n\n4. HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS IN ANIMALS.\n\nThe human characteristics found in animals form an argument for\nEvolution. We find the animals have memory, love, hatred, jealousy;\nthat they can think and plan, use means and weapons, admire things\nof beauty, and some have sports. All of this, so Evolution claims,\npoints to genetic connection with man. But all this only shows\nuniformity in the inner as in the outer being. There is as much\nreason for the one as for the other. Life is the same wherever we\nfind it. The forces which operate in the rain drop are the same\nas in the universe of boundless space. The intellectual nature of\nman is the same as that of angels who have no genetic connection\nwith us. Even devils are the same in the intellectual nature\nas God himself. Mind is the same thing wherever it exists. To\nsay therefore that because animals have certain characteristics\nlike those of man, they are the ancestors of man, is a leap to a\nconclusion entirely unwarranted by either facts or logic. Yet it is\non such conclusions that Evolution rests. Creation would proceed on\nthe same comprehensive plan, and we have seen that man does also. He\napplies his forces as he does his materials to the most varied uses.\n\nNor has any instance of the development of a brute or his faculties\nto any approach to man's faculties ever been known. The highest\nanimal is still immeasurably below the lowest and most bestial man,\nnot only in the grade of the faculties that they have in common,\nbut in others which the animal does not possess and cannot acquire.\nThere is a great gulf fixed which they do not pass over--as our next\nsection will show.\n\n\n5. HISTORY FROM THE BRUTE TO THE MAN.\n\nMany have essayed the relation of the story of the change from the\nbrute to the man. In doing so, some have covered themselves with\nridicule, yet the attempts continue to be made as do others to\nproduce perpetual motion. To bridge this chasm is necessary in order\nto sustain Evolution, for this is the heart of the question. It is\nsaid that a famous professor of history abandoned his chair because\nof the uncertainty of the facts of history. One would expect that\nthe attempt to relate what happened before man had any history,\nor even existed, would be even more hazardous. Yet we are given\nthe account with such assurance as sometimes to deceive the very\nelect--who abandon their Bibles. Haeckel's attempt was the most\nimpressive, and swept all before it, for a year or two. He presented\na many-branched tree, whose roots were protoplasm, its trunk\nprotozoa, its successive branches sponges, fish, reptiles, birds,\nmarsupials, monkeys, apes, man-apes, and the topmost branches, man.\nOf the twenty-one stages, half have been proved to be \"wrong\" by\nevolutionists and the rest are \"doubtful.\"\n\nThe home of the primeval man, or ascending-ape, whichever it or he\nwas, is one of the difficult facts to settle. Haeckel locates it at\nthe bottom of the Indian ocean. He can thus defy disproof. Another\nsays it was in the tropics somewhere. This is also a safe assertion.\nThe difficulty is that the remains of the pre-historic man are found\nin the northern regions, while the ancestor animal was a denizen of\nthe tropics. So another declares that the original home was in the\nnorthern regions, to which a pair of wild animals of the ancestor\nkind were driven by something or somebody, and their retreat cut\noff, and so they were forced to the life in caves and adopted the\nhabits we find among cave dwellers.\n\nBut although our ancestor cannot be located we are told just who and\nwhat he was. Thus Prof. Edward Clodd, an authoritative evolutionist,\ntells us in his book, \"The Making of a Man,\" as follows: \"Whichever\namong the arboreal creatures possessed any favorable variation,\nhowever slight, of brain or sense organ, would secure an advantage\nover less favored rivals in the struggle for food and mates\nand elbow room. The qualities which gave them success would be\ntransmitted to their offspring. The distance in one generation would\nbe increased in the next; brain power conquering brute force and\nskill outwitting strength. While some for awhile remained arboreal\nin their habits, never moving easily on the ground, although making\nsome approach to upright motion, as seen in the shambling gait of\nthe manlike apes, others developed a way of walking on their hind\nlegs, which entirely set free the fore limbs as organs of handling\nand throwing. Whatever were the conditions which permitted this, the\nadvantage which it gives is obvious. It was the making of a man.\"\n(p. 126.)\n\nIt seems difficult, indeed unfair, to take this seriously. We must\nassure the reader that the author of this description shows no\nintention of humor either here or elsewhere in his work, or indeed\nany consciousness of it. All is given in perfect sobriety. We must\ntherefore accept it as a profound scientific deliverance of the most\nauthoritative kind and deal with it accordingly, and believe that\nwalking on the hind legs and throwing things with the fore limbs was\n\"the making of a man.\" How easily men are made!\n\n1. This argument rests on the theory of Natural Selection now\ndiscarded by most evolutionists.\n\n2. Apes have done all he here claims and far more. The chimpanzee\nhas been taught to sit at a table, to drink out of cups, to eat\nwith a knife and fork, to wipe his mouth with a napkin and use a\ntoothpick, but has got no further in the ways of good society, and\nas to increase of cranial development, has obtained none save as the\neffects of undue potations have produced an enlarged feeling.\n\n3. The whole account is purely imaginary as no professor of\nEvolution was there to observe the facts. It is in short an\nintrusion into the realm of fiction, which clearly belongs to Mr.\nKipling in his wonderful jungle stories.\n\nAgain in his book on \"Man and His Ancestor,\" (p. 67.) Prof. Morris\ngives us a full description of this unseen and purely hypothetical\nancestor as follows: \"It was probably much smaller than existing\nman, little if any more than four feet in height, and not more\nthan half the weight of man. Its body was covered, though not\nprofusely, with hair; the hair of the head being woolly or frizzly\nin texture and the face provided with a beard. The face was not\njet black, like a typical African, but of a dull brown color; the\nhair being somewhat similar in color. The arms were long and lank,\nthe back being much curved, the chest flat and narrow, the abdomen\nprotruding, the legs rather short and bowed, the walk a waddling\nmotion somewhat like that of the gibbon. It had deep set eyes,\ngreatly protruding mouth with gaping lips, huge ears and general\n\"ape-like aspect.\" Prof. John Fiske thought it was much more than a\nmillion years since man diverged from the brute. During an active\ngeologic age before the cave-man appeared on the scene, \"a being\nerect upon two legs and having the outward resemblance of a man\nwandered hither and thither upon the face of the earth.\" (_Destiny\nof Man_, p. 55.)\n\nWe read all this with astonishment that anyone could penetrate the\ndim vista of millions of years ago and transcribe such a detailed\nand circumstantial account of what then existed. It reads like a\npicture from life. Yet not only was the writer not there, but no one\nelse was present, for this was the father of us all, according to\nEvolution.\n\nWe are told that, given time enough, all this series of changes\nfrom the primeval cell to the modern philosopher or scientist is\npossible. But time for this is limited by the age of the earth. For\nLord Kelvin has stated that only a few million years are possible\non any calculation and this would all be needed for the change from\nape to man to say nothing of the interminable ages necessary for the\nchange from the protozoa to the fish and then to land animals and so\non to mammals and up to the ape.\n\nThe after life of the ape-man is described with the same\ncircumstantiality as the coming to manhood's estate. Dr. Robert\nPatterson combines the various features of Evolution's description\nand this creature's history in the following extract: \"It is a\nfearful and wonderful picture they give us of the origin of marriage\nfrom the battles of baboons, of the rights of property established\nby terrible fights for groves of good chestnuts, of the beginning\nof morals from the instincts of brutes, and of the dawnings of\nreligion, or rather of superstition, from the dreams of these\nanimals; the result of the whole being that civilization and society\nand law and order and religion are all simply the evolution of the\ninstincts of the brutes and that there is no necessity for the\ninvoking any supernatural interference to produce them.\" (_Fables of\nInfidelity._)\n\nIt is here we meet the \"theistic\" account of the origin of man.\nIt was to this creature we are told God imparted a soul or spirit\nsupernaturally. For this strange creature was the Adam of theistic\nEvolution. Eve they say nothing about. Nor are we told how or when\nthe soul was imparted, whether in a single animal, a pair, or a\nherd; whether awake or asleep. Nor are we told what they did next,\nor how the soul-ape got along with the rest of the species. Nor are\nwe told what particular state, or act, or habit, entitled him to the\nnew nature he received. It seems as if the ability to \"stand on the\nhind legs and throw things with the fore limbs,\" which Prof. Clodd\ntells us was the \"making of a man,\" scarcely entitled him to such a\ndivine inheritance as an immortal soul.\n\nThis also was the Adam who fell according to the theistic\nevolutionist, though how such a creature could \"fall\" seems\ndifficult to conceive. It was this thing whose sin, Paul tells us,\nbrought death on the whole race. It was this who is a type of\nChrist who is \"the Second Adam.\" Out and out Evolution has but a\nfraction of the difficulties, either physical or spiritual, to face\nthat this make-shift compromise \"theistic\" theory has before it. It\nis not surprising that the thorough-going evolutionist rejects this\nstrange compound of fiction and theology.\n\nWe appeal to the common, every-day man of fair judgment: Which\ntakes more faith, or if preferred, credulity, the accepting of\nthat strange, complex, unauthenticated account of man's origin or\nthe simple and, with an omnipotent God in mind, entirely possible\naccount of the Bible? \"The Lord God formed man of the dust of the\nground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man\nbecame a living soul.\" Which is the more noble, the more satisfying\nto our desires for a high and divine origin as well as high and\ndivine destiny?\n\n\n6. THE MISSING LINK.\n\nThe Missing Link is the great desideratum of Evolution, for the\nevolutionist indignantly disclaims the present apes or monkey as\nancestors. He tells us the connecting link was a creature superior\nto these. But of which he is unable to show any specimen. It is\npurely mythical. We have the remains of millions of animals\nreaching through all the ages and why is this particular specimen\nwanting?\n\nDr. Rudolph Virchow, the great discoverer of the germ theory, has\nfor thirty years, according to Haeckel, \"opposed the theory of man's\ndescent from the brute.\" (_Last Link_, p. 27.) He himself says: \"The\nintermediate form is unimaginable save in a dream.... We cannot\nteach or consent that it is an achievement that man has descended\nfrom the ape or other animal.\" (_Homiletic Review_, January, 1901.)\n\nDr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of natural sciences in the University\nof Erlangen, writes on the question as follows: \"Nowhere in the\nolder deposits is an ape that approximates more closely to man,\nor man that approximates more closely to an ape, or perhaps a man\nat all. The same gulf which is found to-day between man and the\nape goes back with undiminished breadth and depth to the tertiary\nperiod. This fact alone is sufficient to make its unintelligibleness\nclear to every one who is not penetrated by the conviction of the\ninfallibility of the theory of the gradual transmutation of and\nprogressive development of all organized creatures. If, however,\nwe now find one of the most man-like apes (gibbon) in the tertiary\nperiod, and this species is still in the same low grade, and side\nby side with it, at the end of the ice period, man is found in the\nsame high grade as to-day, the ape not having approximated more\nnearly to man, and modern man not having become further removed from\nthe ape than the first man, every one who is in a position to draw\na right conclusion can infer, that the facts contradict a theory\nof constant progression, development and ceaselessly increasing\nvariation from generation to generation, as surely as it is possible\nto do.\" (_Age and Origin of Man_, Am. Tr. Soc., p. 52.)\n\nFrom time to time the discovery of the \"missing link\" is announced\nand telegraphed through the civilized world, only to be remanded to\nits place among the remains of brutes or men. We will consider the\ninstances of such as they have been presented:\n\n1. The Calaveras Skull now in the California State Museum. This has\nbeen shown recently to be a hoax. It was placed in a mine shaft 150\nfeet deep, by Mr. R. C. Scribner, a storekeeper at the mine, as a\npractical joke. This he lately acknowledged to the Rev. W. H. Dyer,\nof Los Angeles, a clergyman of the Episcopal church.\n\n2. The Neanderthal Skull. This was found in 1856 in Prussia. It had\nnarrow receding forehead and thick ridges over the eyes. It was\nclaimed by the evolutionists as from two to three hundred thousand\nyears old. Dr. Meyer of Bonn examined the evidence, and found it\nto be the skull of a Cossack killed in 1814. Many other scientists\nagreed with him. (_Bible Science and Faith_, p. 278.)\n\n3. The Colorado specimen. Prof. Stephen Bowers of the Mineralogical\nand Geological Survey of California, gives this account of another\nsuch discovery: \"A few years ago the newspapers contained an account\nof the discovery of a skeleton in Colorado, by a Columbia College\nprofessor, which he was pleased to call the 'missing link' between\nman and the apes. He gave this remarkable creature an antiquity of\na million and a half of years. The friable bones were carefully\nwrapped in cotton and shipped east. But scarcely had the learned\nprofessor gotten away with his prize when certain cowboys came\nforward and claimed the bones to be that of a pet monkey which they\nburied but a dozen years previously.\"\n\n4. The late find of skeletons at Croatia, Austria, is heralded as\nthe discovery of a connecting link. But these are skeletons of men\nand not of brutes. They are degraded men and nothing is better known\nthan the possibility of degeneracy in man. We have degenerates now\nwith all the peculiarities of these low specimens, retreating brows\nand jaws and flat faces. Degeneracy does not prove evolution. While\nthe shape of these skulls is low and long it has not been shown that\ntheir cubical capacity is much less than that of normal man.\n\n5. The Pithecanthropus Erectus. This is the most popular relic\nwith Evolution. It consists of a piece of a skull from the eyes\nupward, a leg bone and two teeth. These were found in Java by Dr.\nvon Eugene Du Bois in 1891. The cubic measurement of the skull is\n60 inches, the same as that of an idiot, that of a normal man being\n90 inches, and of an ape 30. These specimens were found at separate\nplaces and times. The skull is too small for the thigh bone. The age\nof the strata in which they were found is uncertain. Authorities\nare divided as to the nature of these. Haeckel admits that the\nbelief that this is the missing link is strongly combatted by some\ndistinguished scientists. At the Leyden congress, it was attacked by\nthe illustrious pathologist Rudolph Virchow.\n\nThe assumptions based upon this specimen and necessary for evidence\nare as follows: First, that it is as old as claimed, a hundred\nthousand years at least, or a million as stated by some. Second,\nthat these bones belong to the same individual. Third, that they are\nthe remains of a full-grown individual. Fourth, that they are the\nremains of a human or semi-human being. Fifth, that they are not\nthe remains of an idiot whose capacity the brain represents.\n\nWith all these unproven assumptions, and against the opinion of many\nof the finest scientists in Europe, Haeckel and some evolutionists\nhave declared this is the missing link. They place this piece of\na skull of one creature upon this leg of another and insert these\nteeth belonging to a third, all so far separated in life that they\nprobably did not even know each other, and rechristen the whole\n\"Pithecanthropus Erectus,\" which may be freely translated \"The ape\nthat walked like a man,\" being thus the first that arrived at that\npoint which Prof. Clodd tells us was \"the making of a man.\" And this\nspecimen is Haeckel's _Last Link_, and this he says demonstrates the\ntruth of Evolution.\n\nThe evidence of bones and other remains is now generally suspected.\nIt has been found that even in the case of recent remains, as in\ncriminal trials, experts are often unable to decide whether they are\nhuman or brute, recent or remote, and what part of the frame they\noccupied. It is said that Wallace, the great cotemporary with Darwin\nin the promotion of the theory, now admits there is no evidence of\nan evolutionary link between man and the lower animals.\n\n\n7. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE BRAIN.\n\nThe brain forms the principal difference between man's body and the\nbrute's. The brain is especially used as proof by the evolutionist.\nIt is the organ of mind. Its size corresponds with the intellectual\nstate of the creature. It is the theory of Evolution that there was\nan increase in the size of the brain in some of the man-apes of that\nday, although none such is seen now.\n\nProf. Edward Clodd thus describes these supposed brain changes after\nthe Ice Age: \"The changes by which he met these new conditions were\nin a very small degree physical. They were almost wholly mental. The\nprincipal physical change was in the growth of the brain and the\nexpansion of the cranium, giving rise to a less bestial physiognomy\nand an advanced mental power.\" (_Man and His Ancestor_, p. 181.)\n\nHow could man adapt himself by increasing the size of his brain?\nWhy should the passing away of the ice age increase the size\nof the brain? However, he disposes of the whole matter, after\narguing through pages of supposition and assumption, by stating,\n\"The absence of facts forces us to confine ourselves largely to\nsuggestions and probabilities.\" (_Making of a Man_, p. 188.) But\nprobabilities are not science and we have a right to ask from those\nclaiming to be scientists actual facts and not guesses, for so\ngreat an assertion as the descent of man from the brute.\n\nThe capacity of the ape brain is 30, of the human 90 cubic inches.\nThere is no evidence of change in either the ape or the man. The\nprehistoric man has as good a head on his shoulders as his modern\ndescendants. Bruner says the most ancient skulls even exceed\nours. Dr. Pfaff says the stone age men are equal to the present\ngeneration. So if education does not increase the size of man's\nbrain, why should the new tricks of Prof. Clodd's ancient \"arboreal\ncreature\" enlarge that individual's brain 200 per cent? On the\nother hand, the ape of to-day and the ape of 3,000 years ago as\nmummied and preserved in Egypt are the same. The big-brained ape\nof Evolution has unaccountably disappeared and even his skull is\nmissing.\n\n\n8. MAN'S MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS.\n\nEvolution claims that all man's faculties have been derived from the\nbrute, as was his physical frame. It is fair to say that this is\nmet at the door by the protest of some of the greatest scientists,\nthemselves sympathetic with Evolution.\n\nProf. John Fiske wrote on the origin of mind: \"We can say when mind\ncame on the scene of evolution, but we can say neither whence nor\nwhy.... It is not only inconceivable how mind should have been\nproduced from matter, but it is inconceivable that it should have\nbeen produced from matter.\" (_Darwinism_, pp. 63, 69.) Prof. Dana\nhas said, \"The present teaching of geology is that man is not of\nnature's making.... Independently of such evidences, man's high\nreason, his unsatisfied longings, aspirations, his free will, all\nafford the fullest assurance that he owes his existence to the\nspecial act of the Infinite Being whose image he bears.\" (_Geologic\nStory_, p. 290.)\n\nProf. George H. Howison writes on this theme: \"To make evolution\nthe ground of the existence of mind in man, is destructive to the\nreality of the human person and therefore, of the entire world of\nmoral good and of unqualified truth.\" (_Limits of Evolution_, p. 6.)\nLord Kelvin, the most eminent living scientist, wrote in a letter to\nthe London Times, \"Every action of human free will is a miracle to\nphysical and chemical and mathematical science.\"\n\n\n9. LANGUAGE.\n\nEvolution has long tried to create an argument for the derivation of\nman's speech from the cries of animals. This is met however by the\nphilologist with positive denial. Prof. Max Mueller says: \"There is\none barrier which no one has yet ventured to touch,--the barrier of\nlanguage. Language is our Rubicon and no brute will dare to cross\nit.... No process of Natural Selection will ever distill significant\nwords out of the notes of birds and animals.\" (_Lessons on the\nScience of Language_, pp. 23, 340, 370.)\n\nFalse claims have been made for the languages of savage people and\nancient races. Darwin said that the people of Terra del Fuego were\nthe lowest in the scale, so far as discovered, and their language\ncorrespondingly crude. But further investigation shows that they\nhave 32,430 words; over twice as many as Shakespeare used. The\nlanguage of some of the tribes of the Congo is described by a\nmissionary as more complex than Greek. The history of languages\nshows the same want of evidence for an evolutionary origin. The\noldest forms are the most complex. Modern Greek and Latin are\nsimpler than the ancient forms. English is an improvement in this\nrespect on the old Anglo Saxon, whose grammatical forms it has\nlargely cast off and reduced the language to greater simplicity.\n\nA scientist is now endeavoring to ascertain the speech of monkeys.\nHe has ascertained that these animals have different sounds for\ndifferent wants, a fact as to other creatures that he could have\nascertained by a visit to the nearest poultry yard. The hen has as\nmany calls as the monkey, and as many meanings too. Her call for\nfood is one sound. Her cry of alarm at a passing hawk is another,\nand her brood perfectly understands all, and without previous\neducation. All animals and birds, and many insects too, have sounds\nwith meaning in them, but language is another matter.\n\n\n10. PREHISTORIC MAN.\n\nThe remains of early races form an argument used by Evolution. These\nremains are found in many places in caves and are accompanied by\ntools of stone and vessels of pottery and the remains of animals.\nThese degraded peoples are pointed to by Evolution as man in a state\nof development.\n\nIf the preceding arguments were well founded this would appear\nreasonable enough. But in view of the fallacious character of the\nprior reasoning, we must halt at this claim. There are many and\nconclusive reasons for rejecting this unproven claim. For it is\nunproven. It is only inference and assumption.\n\n1. These men of the cave do not necessarily represent man in a\ncourse of progress, for we find to-day the same classes of people\nwith their stone tools and pottery and living as prehistoric\nman lived. There to-day exist men in every stage of the supposed\nprogress from the cave man to the highest in civilization. Such\nremains could be had in any burial place of these savage peoples.\nPrehistoric man, so-called, is still with us and we can interview\nhim as to his state and history.\n\n2. We have seen that modern man has not developed in brain capacity\nabove prehistoric man. It is also true that he has not developed\nphysically. Dana tells us that the skeleton found at Mentone\ncompares favorably with the best modern men. Indeed we have\ndegenerated in many respects. We have almost lost the sense of\nsmell as compared with savage peoples or even animals. Our teeth\nare certainly not improving. If we are to find perfect specimens\nwe do not look at the most advanced classes but to the reverse.\nThose who live to extreme old age are generally in the lowly ranks.\nBut why has physical development ceased at all? Why are there not\nsome superior beings by this time? But alas, there are no marks\nor indications of wings or halos on either the great saints or\nscientists of the day.\n\nWe are told that while physical evolution has ceased among men,\nevolution now works along mental lines of progress. This is a\nradical shifting of the ground of evolution, for heretofore all\nthis has been not only omitted but discarded. If evolution is\nanything, it is physical. Nor does Evolution give any account of\nthe causes of the stoppage of physical development and the change\nto mental evolution. We will also show later that this supposed\nprogress has not been such as claimed.\n\n\n11. ANTIQUITY OF MAN.\n\nEvolution asserts that a vast antiquity for man has been proven\nby remains that have been found. It is commonly said that these\nremains are hundreds of thousands of years old. But the claims for\nthese vast periods are now being greatly reduced and generally\ndiscredited. Dr. Zahm says of these speculations: \"We could not\ngive a better illustration of the extremes to which the unguided\nhuman intellect is subject than the vacillating and extravagant\nnotions of the antiquity of man.\" (_Bible Science and Faith_, p.\n315.) The age of the peat beds of Abbeville, in France, in which\nhuman remains were found, was once estimated at 20,000 years. The\nestimate has been reduced to a fifth of that age. The remains of the\nanimals found with man are supposed to prove his extreme antiquity.\nThe remains of the mammoth were once cited as such proof. But the\nmammoth has been found in such a state of preservation that its\nflesh has been fed to the dogs.\n\nThe enormous ages which have been credited to these remains are well\nillustrated by the discovery of a skeleton at New Orleans while\ndigging for the gas works. From the depth of the stratum in which\nit was found it was estimated by scientists at the age of 57,000\nyears. Soon after, the gunwale of the skeleton's Kentucky flat boat\nwas found in the same stratum, and the age therefore of the remains\nwas reduced from 57,000 to 50 years. The evidences from peat bogs,\nstalagmite formations, stone, iron and bronze tools are all now\nconsidered unreliable by scientists. So many exposures of mistakes\nin the estimate of age from these have been made, that the whole is\nlooked upon with suspicion. Instance after instance might be given.\n\nIt has been claimed that we can arrange these past races in an\nascending order as they worked in stone, bronze, or iron, in their\nsuccessive history. This is a false theory. We have all these \"ages\"\nexisting to-day. On the other hand, Dr. Livingstone found no stone\nage in Africa. Dr. Schliemann found in the ruins of Troy the bronze\nage below the stone age. The early Egyptians used bronze, the\nlater ones stone tools. In the Chaldean tombs all these are found\ntogether. Europe had the metal age while America had the stone age.\n(_Creation and Evolution._ Prof. Townsend.)\n\nThese prehistoric races to which Evolution points us as representing\nman in his early state, do not represent that early world. They are\nfound at the outer limits of the world and not at the acknowledged\ncenter whence man came. They are, in short, what we find to-day\nat the outlying regions of earth. They therefore, are exceptional\npeoples and not representative of the world at that time, or now.\n\nThe dynasties of Egypt were once cited against the Bible narrative,\nbut these have been reduced to moderate figures. A thousand years\nwas taken off by one discoverer recently from the age of the\nmiddle kingdom. There is a question whether the Egyptian dynasties\nwere successive or in some cases contemporary. There is also the\nwell-known fact that the Egyptians had years of varying length.\nThey often counted dynasties by years of three months and also of\na month! Dr. Flinders Petrie lately discovered in the tombs of the\nkings, preceding the first dynasty of Egypt at Abydos, Grecian\npottery of Mycean clay, and this in a tomb estimated to date from\n5,400 B. C.! (_Atlantic Monthly_, October, 1900.)\n\nThe same kind of estimating is now being done from the Assyrian\ntablets and their records. We must remember these old kings were\ngreat boasters and liars, too. We don't know the basis of their\ncalculations. Perhaps Assyria also had three month years. If their\nmethod was like Egypt's, and they were connected as we know by much\nintercourse and literature, we may expect like inaccuracy. The\nancient dates given in the inscriptions found in Nuffar recently,\nare already suspected by scholars. The date for the temple uncovered\nthere was 3,200 B. C. This number is the product of forty multiplied\nby eighty; evidently a round number for eighty generations, and not\nat all a careful or exact chronological statement.\n\nHowever, let us compare the two accounts, the Bible and the\nAssyrian. The one precise in statement, accurate in ten thousand\npoints as demonstrated, with us for thousands of years, trusted and\ntried. The other inexact, mythical in its legends, having all the\nmarks of inaccuracy, just discovered, made by people we know nothing\nof and having no character to speak of, and full of vain boastings\nand absurd claims. Which is the true and which the false? Let the\njury decide. We will abide the verdict.\n\nProf. A. H. Sayce of Oxford, writes: \"The light that has come\nfrom the remnants of the past has been fatal to the pretenses of\ncritical skepticism. The discoveries of Abydos have discredited\nits methods and results. They have shown that where they can be\ntested they prove to be absolutely worthless. It is only reasonable\nto conclude that methods and results, that thus break down under\nthe test of monumental discovery, must equally break down in other\ndepartments of history where no such test can be applied. It is\nnot the discoveries of the higher critics, but the old traditions\nwhich have been confirmed by archaeological discovery.\" (_Homiletic\nReview_, March, 1901.) This statement is made by one of the most\nable archaeologists and semitic scholars in the world.\n\nThe age of man on earth has much testimony from science agreeing\nwith the Bible account. From many the following are cited:\n\nDr. J. A. Zahm, the distinguished scholar, says, \"I am disposed to\nattribute to man an antiquity of about ten thousand years. It seems\nlikely that the general consensus of chronologists will ultimately\nfix on a date which shall be below rather than above ten thousand\nyears as the nearest approximate to the age of our race.\" (_The\nBible, Science and Faith_, p. 311.) He quotes many other authorities.\n\nProf. Winchell tells us, \"The very beginnings of our race are still\nalmost in sight.\" (_Sketches of Creation._) Dawson thinks man has\nbeen on earth about seven thousand years. Geology agrees that man\ndid not exist before the ice age. The stone age is fixed at about\nseven thousand years ago by others.\n\nProfessor George Frederick Wright tells us, \"The glacial period did\nnot close more than ten thousand years ago. This shortening of our\nconception of the ice age renders glacial man a comparatively modern\ncreature. The last stage of the excessive unstability of the earth\nwas not so very long ago and continued down to near the introduction\nof man.\" (_Bibliotheca Sacra_, April, 1902.)\n\nS. R. Pattison, F. G. S., tells us, \"Science shows to us a number of\nconverging probabilities which point to man's first appearance along\nwith great animals about 8,000 years ago.\" (_Age and Origin of Man\nGeologically Considered, Am. Tr. Soc._, p. 29.)\n\nDr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of natural science in Erlangen, thus\nsums up the evidence from geology as to man: \"(1) The age of man\nis small, extending only to a few thousand years. (2) Man appeared\nsuddenly: the most ancient man known to us is not essentially\ndifferent from the now living man. (3) Transitions from the ape to\nthe man, or the man to the ape, are nowhere found. The conclusion we\nare led to is that the Scripture account of man, which is one and\nself-consistent, is true.... This account of man we accept by faith,\nbecause it is revealed by God, is supported by adequate evidence,\nsolves the otherwise insoluble problems, not only of science and\nhistory, but of inward experience, and meets our deepest need....\nThe more it is sifted and examined the more well founded and\nirrefragable does it prove to be.\" (_Age and Origin of Man_, Am. Tr.\nSoc., pp. 55-56.)\n\n\n12. SAVAGE RACES.\n\nEvolution delights to compare savage peoples alternately with\npresent civilized races and with the brute. Prof. Conn says, \"There\nis a greater difference between a Newton and a Hottentot, than\nbetween the Hottentot and the orang-outang.\" He fails to notice, or\nstate, that the first is a difference of degree only, and the latter\na difference of kind. It would be possible to develop a Hottentot\ninto a philosopher, but no attempt is ever dreamed of, to change an\norang-outang into a Hottentot. On the other hand, the lowest savages\nhave under culture shown their human inheritance of faculties beyond\nthe brute. Two pigmies taken to Italy learned to speak Italian in\ntwo years with fluency. They showed themselves superior to many\nEuropean children, and one became proficient in music. The skill of\nthis race with poisoned arrows, pits for game, and cultivation of\nvarious kinds, is well known.\n\nThe savage races show the opposite of evolution. They are races in\nruins. Max Mueller says, \"What do we know of savage tribes beyond\nthe last chapter in their history? They may have passed through\never so many vicissitudes, and what we consider as primitive may\nbe for all we know a relapse into savagery, or corruption of what\nwas something more rational and intelligible in former ages.\"\nThis estimate of this great scholar is attested by facts. Where\nto-day is the Hindu race that could build the Taj Mahal? What Greek\nrace to-day could reproduce the architecture or statuary of their\nancestors? The ruins of all eastern and many western lands point to\nfallen races as well as ruined structures. The world's history is\nthat of the fall of great nations such as Egypt, Babylonia, Greece,\nRome, in all of which are sad examples of architecture and peoples\nalike in decay.\n\n\n13. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY.\n\nHistory is appealed to to show the progress of man and his\ncontinuance in the evolutionary line since his origin in the brute.\nOur present civilization is pointed to and compared with the past\nand we are told that this is the result of evolution.\n\nSome remarks of a preliminary kind are called for here. It is to be\nremembered that history does not cover a very long period, that the\nrecord is often broken, and that the facts are often very uncertain.\nLarge sections of the world we know historically nothing or little\nof, such as Asia and Africa. We must remember that progress is\nconfined mostly to Europe and America and these form but a third\nof the population of the world. Also that European progress is a\ncomparatively recent matter. We are now considering the entire\nhistory of the race and must take in these vast outside regions\nto arrive at correct conclusions. To judge the entire progress\nof mankind from a short-sighted view of a limited portion is as\nunscientific as it is unscriptural.\n\nWe must also remember that Europe owes its progress to the influence\nof Christianity. For to-day it is the Christian nations only that\nhave progress and the most Christian have the most progress. No\nfact is better seen or proven. Lange states, \"Among human tribes\nleft to themselves, the higher man never comes out of the lower.\nApparent exceptions do ever, on close examination, confirm the\nuniversality of the rule in regard to particular peoples, while the\nclaim, as made for the world's general progress, can only be urged\nin opposition by ignoring the supernal aids of revelation that have\never shown themselves directly or collaterally on the human path.\"\n(_Commentary on Genesis_, p. 355.) We have seen that so far as\npresent savage races are concerned they have made no progress, and\nsemi-civilized races, such as the Egyptians, Chinese and Hindus have\nretrograded.\n\nWe need also to consider the vast and great civilizations which\nexisted in remote antiquity as is now revealed by archaeology. The\nrecent discoveries in Assyria and Babylonia and Egypt show vast\nempires of culture as well as national extension and power, and that\ntheir earlier culture was the greatest. So Prof. Hilprecht, of the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania, testifies of Babylonia: \"The flower of\nBabylonian art is found at the beginning of Babylonian history.\"\n(_Recent Researches in Bible Lands_, p. 88.) Horace Bushnell tells\nus, \"All great ruins are but a name for greatness in ruins.\"\n\nIt is to Egypt we must go for the earliest records of human\ncivilization. Here the account of Prof. Sayce, of Oxford, gives\nus the facts: \"The earliest culture and civilization to which\nthe monuments bear witness was in fact already perfect. It was\nfull-grown. The organization of the country was complete. The arts\nwere known and practiced. Egyptian culture as far as we know at\npresent has no beginning.\" (_Recent Researches in Bible Lands_, pp.\n101, 102.) \"The older the culture, the more perfect it is found to\nbe. The fact is a very remarkable one, in view of modern theories of\ndevelopment and of the evolution of civilization out of barbarism.\nWhatever may be the reason, such theories are not borne out by the\ndiscoveries of archaeology. Instead of the progress one should\nexpect, we find retrogression and decay. Is it possible the Biblical\nview is right after all and that civilized man has been civilized\nfrom the outset?\" (_Homiletic Review_, June, 1902.) Prof. Flinders\nPetrie tells us that the Great Pyramid bears on its stones the marks\nof the solid and tubular drill, edged with stone as hard as diamond,\nand cutting one-tenth of an inch at a revolution, and showing no\nsign of wear. They had also straight and circular saws. The same\nbuilding reveals scientific and astronomical knowledge equal in\nsome respects to modern science.\n\nNot only were the past civilizations great, but, in many respects,\nfar above the present. So that the race has even fallen from higher\nlevels. Lecky thus writes of the Greeks: \"Within the narrow limits\nand scant populations of the Greek states, arose men, who in almost\nevery conceivable form of genius, in philosophy, in epic, dramatic\nand lyric poetry, in written and spoken eloquence, in statesmanship,\nin sculpture, in painting, and probably in music, attained the\nhighest levels of human perfection.\" (_History of European Morals_,\np. 408.) Galton says of the same civilization: \"The millions of\nEurope, breeding as they have for two thousand years, have never\nproduced the equal of Socrates and Phidias. The average ability of\nthe Athenian race is, on the lowest possible estimate, nearly two\ngrades higher than our own; that is, about as much as our race is\nabove the African negro.\" (_Hereditary Genius_, p. 320.)\n\nIt does seem as if such testimony of these great scholars should\nmake us not only chary of the theory which claims ever upward\nand onward progress, but also more modest in our boasted modern\nprogress and position. Prof. Frederick Starr of the Anthropological\ndepartment of Chicago University, says that the American race is\nreverting to the Indian state. He bases this on measurements of\nfaces of 5,000 children. This is a dismal outlook. It is not what\nEvolution has promised us. The followers of Evolution have reason to\nbe indignant at such a turn in its course. However, we may comfort\nthem and ourselves with the hope that if Evolution fails us we have\nother resources.\n\n\nEVOLUTION AND RELIGION.\n\nConsciousness of God and the hereafter is the great distinction\nbetween man and brute. This is the basis of all religion. Of this\nEvolution gives the origin in the dreams of animals.\n\nAccording to that department of the evolutionary theory popularly\ncalled Higher Criticism, all religion, including Israel's and\nChristianity, was derived from fetishism and from that it developed\nto animism, and so to polytheism and finally monotheism. But the\nlowest savages have, according to anthropology, the belief in a\nSupreme Being. Andrew Lang says, \"It is among the lowest savages\nthat the Supreme Beings are regarded as eternal, moral, powerful.\"\n(_Making of Religion_, p. 206.) Fetishism and animism are processes\nof decay, says Dr. John Smith, quoting Hartmann, DeRouge, Renouf,\nLang and others. (_Integrity of Scripture_, p. 68.) Traces of\nmonotheism are found in China, India, Egypt and elsewhere. In all\nnations is this decay found save in one, Israel.\n\nIt is further found that mankind had an original theistic religion\ncommon to the race, which is just what the Bible teaches. All the\nevidence is to the effect that the further back we go, the purer the\nreligions are found to be. The earliest Romans were more pure in\nreligion than the later people. The early Greeks more so than the\nmore recent. The early handwritings give a purer and more theistic\nreligion than the later books. Dr. Jacob Chamberlain thus sums up\nthe evidence for the Hindu Vedas: \"They all teach the Godhead is\none, that he is good, that man is in a state of sin, not at peace\nwith the Holy One, that man is in need of holiness and purity, that\nthere can be no harmony between sinful man and a holy God unless\nsin is in some way expiated and expurgated, and that this is the\ngreatest and most worthy end of existence.\" (_Northfield Echoes_,\nAugust, 1900, p. 256.)\n\nThe ruins of Assyria and Egypt point to a religion resembling that\nof the Israelites. So far is this noticed that some have said\nthat Moses copied much of what he taught Israel from them. This\nconclusion is not necessary. The fact is that man had a deposit of\ntruth at the beginning, and all men had the same. Both Moses and\nEgypt and Assyria therefore, had much of what survived from that\nearly revelation. The fact here stated agrees with the Bible account\nand not with Evolution.\n\n\"The study of the mythology and philosophy of the heathen world\ndoes not show an evolutionary progress to a higher state, but\nthe reverse.\" (Francis M. Bruner in _The Evolution Theory_.)\nChristianity has not been a development of these religions, for\nit is and was, antagonistic to them at every point. It was an\nopposing force introduced suddenly and utterly at variance in every\nparticular with all about it.\n\nSir M. Monier said in an address in 1887: \"There can be no greater\nmistake than to force these non-christian writings into conformity\nwith some scientific theory of development, and then point to\nthe Christian's Holy Bible as the crowning product of religious\nevolution. So far from this, these non-christian books are all\ndevelopments in the wrong direction. They begin with some flashes of\ntrue light and end in utter darkness.\"\n\n\nEVOLUTION AND ETHICS.\n\nEvolution has a system or systems of Ethics. It traces the beginning\nof the sense of right and wrong to the instincts of animals, such as\nthe parental instinct, the recognition of marital rights, and the\nright to respective properties such as nests and burrows. So that\nthe animal, or man, came to see that it was best on all accounts to\nbe good to oneself and others. So Mr. Spencer's definition of right\nis the happiness of oneself, one's offspring and others. Acts are\ngood or bad as they increase happiness or misery. He ignores the\nmoral instinct and exalts expediency and utility. This is the level\nof the uncivilized or savage races.\n\nDr. James Thompson Bixby of Leipsic, makes humanity the goal of\nEvolution's ethics. \"The test of what is morally good is the\ntendency of the given motive to help forward the progress of the\nrace toward the ideal humanity.\" (_Ethics of Evolution_, p. 212.)\nEvery Bible believer will see how far short these fall of the\nstandard of holiness and happiness the Bible places before us. But\nwhen or where did any people ever aim to help forward the \"ideal\nperfection of humanity\" who did not have the mighty impulse which\nthe Bible, and only the Bible, gives to that object? There is not\neven the sense of brotherhood necessary for the motive. To point\nnatural man to that is to ask him to act outside his nature.\n\nThe law of the Struggle for Existence never taught Christian ethics.\nThe self-sacrificing Christian has something which never came from\nEvolution. The Cross is the final test of Evolution. By it that\ntheory and all other false theories are weighed in the balances\nand found wanting. The struggle for existence is the law of self\nand is the antithesis of the Cross, which is the very opposite of\nthe struggle for existence. Nor is the struggle for existence the\nlaw of the lower creature. That law is to bring forth fruit, to\npropagate their species. That is the plant's goal; when it has so\ndone it retires or dies. The little bird will struggle more fiercely\nfor its young than for its food, or even for its life, which it\nimperils often to save its brood. Below the unfallen creation and\nregenerated humanity is the unregenerated selfish man. Not Evolution\nbut Revolution can create Christian ethics. History does not present\nan instance of progress in ethics save as aided by the Bible.\n\n\nEVOLUTION AND CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE.\n\nIn undertaking to account for man, Evolution must account for the\nfact of Christian experience. Conversion revolutionizes a man. It\nturns him against his natural likes and dislikes. He even turns\nagainst himself and the selfish becomes unselfish. This is not\ndevelopment, for that operates according to the nature of the thing.\nDevelop a wolf and you may get a dog. Develop man from the savage\nstate and you may have the condition of the Greek in the highest\nstate of culture and yet in the lowest state of vice. Introduce\nChristian experience and you have Christianity with all the\ncivilization which proceeds and flows from it.\n\nThere is no such consistent body of testimony for any fact, science\nor truth as there is for Christian experience. It is the same in\nall ages, in all lands and in all classes of society, and in all\ncircumstances of life. This evidence is perfectly legitimate and\nmust be considered by the student of human life and character.\nLet Evolution then account for Conversion which changes man's\ninner nature, and gives a life which lives contrary to natural\nhuman instincts and conduct; and Christian hopes which yearn for\ndeliverance from sin and self and long for the highest spiritual\nstate and hasten to meet the holy and all-seeing God.\n\nThe missions of our great cities as well as those of the foreign\nfield are full of witnesses for the transforming effect of Christian\nexperience. The author of this book can vouch for the following\nfrom personal knowledge. A business man in Illinois became addicted\npartly from use in disease to alcohol and the use of morphine and\nalso cocaine. He used all these and in excessive quantities; as\nmuch as forty grains of morphine in a day. He tried seven \"cures.\"\nHe visited Europe to consult specialists. He spent in all over\n$15,000 in seeking a cure and all in vain. By the persuasions of\nChristians he was led to seek relief in prayer and experienced what\nChristians call conversion and was immediately delivered from all\nhis appetites. The author of this saw him three months after and\nfound him a sober man and without any desire for drink or drugs.\nHe saw him again a year after and he was still rejoicing in full\ndeliverance. Since beginning this book, a correspondence was had\nto verify the case still further, and he is reported as follows:\n\"In January, 1899, his weight was 113 pounds. In January, 1901,\nhis weight was 183 pounds. He is an official member of a prominent\nchurch, a director of the Young Men's Christian Association and a\ngreat worker in both.\" No evolution can account for such a change.\nIt is as great a miracle as cleansing the leper.\n\nProf. George Romanes of Oxford, was, it is said, brought back from\ninfidelity to faith by the letters of a Japanese missionary friend,\ndealing with experimental and practical religion. Evolution asks\nfor facts. Here are facts, and they tell not of Evolution but of\nRegeneration.\n\n\nEVOLUTION AND CHRIST.\n\nEvolution cannot account for Christ. Without entering here on\nan argument for His divinity, we simply present him and ask the\nevolutionist to account for such a character and life. Let us listen\nto what the enemies of Christianity say of Christ.\n\nRenan said: \"The incomparable man to whom the universal conscience\nhas decreed the title of the Son of God, and that with justice....\nBetween thee and God there will be no longer any distinction.\"\n\nJean Paul Richter said: \"The holiest among the mighty, the mightiest\namong the holy, He lifted with pierced hands empires off their\nhinges and turned the stream of centuries out of its channel and\nstill governs the ages.\" (Dr. Liddon's _Bampton Lectures_.)\n\nRousseau testified as follows: \"What sweetness, what purity in his\nmorals! What force, what persuasion in his instructions! His maxims\nhow sublime! His discourses, how wise and profound! such presence\nof mind, such beauty and precision in his answers, such empire over\nhis passions! It would be much harder to conceive that a number of\nmen should have joined together to fabricate this book than that a\nsingle person should furnish out the subject to its authors. Jewish\nwriters would never have fallen into that style, and the gospel has\nsuch strong and such inimitable marks of truth that the inventor\nwould be more surprising than the hero.\" (_Emilius and Sophia_, or\nAn Essay on Education, pp. 79, 80, 81.)\n\nThomas Paine: \"The morality that he preached and practiced was of\nthe most benevolent kind. It has never been excelled.\" (_Age of\nReason_, p. 5.)\n\nRobert Ingersoll, to M. D. Landon, in a letter giving permission to\nprint his speeches: \"In using my speeches do not use any assault\nI may have made on Christ which I foolishly made in my earlier\nlife. I believe Christ was the perfect man. 'Do unto others' is the\nperfection of religion and morality. It is the _summum bonum_.\"\n(_Homiletic Review_, November, 1899, p. 475.)\n\nTheodore Parker: \"Shall we be told such a man never lived--the whole\nstory is a lie? Suppose that Plato and Newton never lived, that\ntheir story is a lie? But who did their works and thought their\nthoughts? It takes a Newton to forge a Newton. What man could have\nfabricated Jesus? None but a Jesus.\" (_Discourses on Religion_, pp.\n362-3.)\n\nNapoleon Bonaparte: \"Everything in Jesus Christ astonishes me. His\nspirit overawes me. Between him and whoever else in the world there\nis no possible line of comparison. I search in vain in history to\nfind the similar to Jesus Christ, or anything which can approach the\nGospel. In him we find a moral beauty before unknown, and an idea of\nthe Supreme superior even to that which creation suggests.\"\n\nTo say that Jesus was an evolution of that age, as some\nevolutionists do say, and that we may look for even a greater in the\nfuture, is to be guilty not only of blasphemy but of gross ignorance\nas to the age in which Jesus came. There was nothing in that age to\ngive rise to such a character. He came as a flash of lightning in a\ndark sky, or, according to the Bible figure, as the rising of the\nsun in the world's night.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nEVOLUTION UNSCIENTIFIC AND UNPHILOSOPHICAL.\n\n\nBefore making so serious a charge against a scientific theory as\nthat it is both unscientific and unphilosophical, we will show\nthat others have held a similar view and that among these are many\nscholars. We have already seen Prof. Paulsen's remark that Haeckel's\nreasonings are a \"disgrace to the philosophy of Germany.\" Prof.\nGeorge Frederick Wright calls Evolution a \"fad,\" \"the cast-off\nclothing of the evolutionary philosophy of fifty years ago.\" The\nDuke of Argyle says, \"It is such a violation of and departure from\nall that we know of the existing order of things as to deprive it of\nall scientific base.\"\n\n\nEVOLUTION FAILS IN ALL THE STEPS OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF.\n\nThere are four stages of proof necessary for a full demonstration.\n\n1. Observation of facts.\n\n2. Classification of these facts.\n\n3. Inferences legitimately drawn therefrom.\n\n4. Verification of these conclusions.\n\n1. It fails in its facts. That this is true is evident from the\nreticence of the exact scientists to commit themselves to the\ntheory. If the facts were all that they say, these laborious and\nfaithful laborers in the laboratory and field would acknowledge the\ncase. In the presentation of facts, the theoretical evolutionist\nculls out and magnifies those looking his way and passes in silence\nor minifies those antagonistic to the theory. It makes much of the\nchange of a low salt water animal into its fresh water form, and\npasses over the immutability of all the great species. Evolution\ndwells upon the splints in the leg of the horse and passes over\nlightly the vast unbridged gaps between organic and inorganic\nmatter, the origin of the vertebrates, the countless missing links\nbetween the species. It rests its argument on the \"gill-slits\"\nin the necks of embryonic fish, puppies and infants, and passes\nairily over the origin of matter, of life, of consciousness and of\nChristian experience. It presents ex-parte evidence.\n\n2. Evolution fails in classification. We have seen the testimony of\nEvolution itself on this point. Nor is there any agreed definition\nof species. Not a single species has been traced to its origin.\nThe species defy chronological classification. The most primitive\nspecies exist to-day and the most advanced were in existence almost\nat the first. Nor can the classifications which are attempted\nbe advanced as proof of evolution. They are as evidential of\nmanufacture or of creation or of any other process of intelligent\nmind.\n\n3. Evolution rests on inferences. As its great philosopher, Spencer,\nhas said, no inference is warranted unless it accounts for all the\nfacts. Not only does no inference of Evolution do this, but it\nadmits again and again that it is beset with countless difficulties.\nNor are these inferences the only ones that might be drawn. It is\nnot only necessary to draw an inference but to show that no other\ninference is possible. Some of these are the wildest possible\ndeductions from the facts,--as for example, the theories as to the\norigins, already cited, as to whales and giraffes. Sir J. William\nDawson, the eminent geologist, says of Evolution's deductions as\nfollows: \"It seems to indicate that the accumulated facts of our age\nhave gone altogether beyond its capacity for generalization, and but\nfor the vigor which one sees everywhere, it might be taken as an\nindication that the human mind has fallen into a state of senility\nand in its dotage mistakes for science the imaginations which are\nthe dreams of its youth.\" (_Story of the Earth and Man_, p. 317.)\n\nThe works of writers on Evolution abound in such phrases as \"seems\nto be--I infer--it is conceivable--it might have been--it is\nprobable--I think--apparently--must have been--no one can say--not\ndifficult to conceive,\"--and other unscientific terms, and on such\ndeductions they project other inferences, and so leap skilfully from\none supposition to another across the quagmire of Evolution.\n\nEvolution is undertaking a philosophical impossibility--the proving\nof a negative, that there could be no other method than derivation.\nThis is the philosophical basis of the whole theory.\n\n4. Finally Evolution fails in the fourth step. It admits again\nand again that it has not demonstrated its case. Not a single\ninstance of evolution of species has been shown or produced, and\nno law of the change is given. The gaps it does not bridge are\nmany. We specially need to notice that it gives no account of the\norigin of matter or force. It can give no account of the origin\nof life. It utterly fails to account for man's self-consciousness\nor intellectual, moral or spiritual nature. It takes no account\nwhatever of the other world or life and entirely disregards the\nfacts of Christian experience. In short, so far from being a great\nuniversal philosophy, it is simply a disjointed combination of\nunproven theories.\n\nThe evolutionist, Prof. Conn, admitting the missing factors, says\ncandidly, \"It is therefore impossible to make Evolution a complete\ntheory.\" (_Evolution of To-day_, p. 6.)\n\nSir J. William Dawson thus sums up the evidence: \"The simplicity\nand completeness of the evolutionary theory entirely disappear when\nwe consider the unproved assumptions on which it is based and its\nfailure to connect with each other some of the most important facts\nin nature; that in short, it is not in any true sense a philosophy,\nbut a mere arbitrary arrangement of facts in accordance with a\nnumber of unproved hypotheses. Such philosophies, falsely so-called,\nhave existed ever since man began to reason on nature, and this last\nof all is one of the weakest and most pernicious of all. Let the\nreader take up either Darwin's great book or Spencer's Biology and\nmerely ask, as he reads each paragraph, What is here assumed and\nwhat is proved? and he will find the fabric melt away like a vision.\nSpencer often exaggerates or extenuates with reference to facts and\nuses the art of the dialectician where argument fails.\" (_Story of\nthe Earth and Man_, p. 330.)\n\nProf. William Jones tells us Evolution is \"a metaphysical creed\nand nothing else; an emotional attitude rather than a system of\nthought.\" (_Homiletic Review_, August, 1900.)\n\n\nEVOLUTION RESTS ON IMAGINATION.\n\nThe evolutionist not only uses his imagination but claims the right\nto do so. Tyndall has written an essay on the Scientific Use of the\nImagination. Now when the pictures of an evolutionist's imagination\nare held up as facts, as in the description of man's development\nfrom the brute, he leaves the realm of science and enters that\nof fiction. Mr. Gladstone has said of this: \"To the eyes of an\nonlooker their pace and method seem to be like a steeple-chase. They\nare armed with a weapon always sufficient if not always an arm of\nprecision, 'the scientific imagination.' They are impatient of that\nmost wholesome state a Suspended Judgment.\" (_Homiletic Review_,\nOctober, 1900, quoted by Dr. Jesse B. Thomas.)\n\n\nEVOLUTION IS THE DOCTRINE OF CHANCE.\n\nThe language used by the evolutionist is peculiar for persons\nclaiming to believe in law as the great agency of nature and to\nbase their conclusions on the operation of fixed causes. The\nchanges which together make up the birth of a new species are\noccasioned they say by \"chance happenings,\" \"undesigned variations,\"\n\"accidental variations,\" \"utterly undetermined antecedents,\"\n\"unintentional variations,\" and other like expressions. The synonyms\nof this idea are exhausted by them in describing the way in which\nthe changes first occurred, by which one species began the journey\nup to another stage of existence. It is simply a revival and\nrevamping of the old doctrine of chance.\n\nProf. Frank Ballard says of this: \"Chance manufactured protoplasm\nout of nebulosity.... To accept this after rejecting faith on the\nground of its difficulty, is to quibble and cavil.\"\n\nAn illustration of the appeal to chance and its use is found in the\nfollowing account as given by Prof. Ernst Haeckel, the greatest\nliving teacher of Evolution, of how tree-frogs became green: \"Once\nupon a time there were among the offspring of ancestral tree-frogs\nsome which among other colors exhibited green, not much, perhaps\nnot even perceptible to our eyes. The occurrence of this color was\nspontaneous, a freak. The descendants of these greenish creatures,\nprovided they did not pair with frogs of the ordinary set, became\nstill greener and so on, until the green was pronounced enough to\nbe of advantage when competition set in.\" (_Last Link_, p. 176.)\nHere the origin of greenness in the tree-frog begins with a chance\nhappening and is promoted by a chance union of the greenish frog\nwith one not in \"the ordinary set,\" but of the more select circle\nof the green, and the favoring chances continued in this same\nremarkable way until the color became of use in protecting them.\n\nIt was with similar chance happenings, Evolution tells us, that all\nthe great kingdoms, classes, orders, families, genera and species\noriginated. It was by chance happenings that the present beautiful\nand infinite variety of nature came. It was by unintended accidents\nthat the wonderful adjustments in the universe came. It has been\ncalculated that the possibility of the letters of the alphabet, if\nthrown promiscuously, coming together in the present order is once\nin five hundred million million million times. What would be the\nchances of the innumerable combinations of nature coming together\nin the order in which they are by the chance happenings to which\nEvolution attributes them?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nEVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE.\n\n\nThe interest in the question of how things came to be centers for\nthe believer in the Bible narrative and doctrine. We have been\naccustomed to bring all things to Bible testing and so far with\nassured results. The Bible has never failed and we believe will not\nfail now. We therefore ask, What does it teach as to Evolution? We\nare amazed to find Evolution makes no appeal to the Bible, and the\nBible makes no allusion to Evolution. They are strangers to each\nother. The argument from Scripture for Evolution has not yet been\nwritten. The best the theistic evolutionist can say as to the Bible\naccount of the origin of man is an apology for its narratives, or\nsome explanation which vaporizes its facts into figures of speech.\n\nWe have heretofore given the Bible account and that of Evolution\nprinted in parallel columns (p. 61). The reader is again referred to\nthese, and asked to notice the differences in these two accounts.\nThe Bible account is not the description of the slow transformation\nof an ape into a man-like ape, and that into an ape-like man, and\nthat into a cave man, and he into a stone-tool man, and that again\ninto a pottery-making savage, and he into a weapon-making barbarian,\nand he into a Chinese and after that into a Roman or Greek, and\nlast into an Englishman and American and he into a spiritual being\nin the image and likeness of God. Common literary honesty demands\nthat we give an author his own intended meaning. If the Bible\nmeant Evolution why did it not give it? Two accounts more utterly\ndissimilar could scarcely be given than the Bible account of man's\ncreation and the account of Evolution. We may take one or other and\nbe consistent but the rules of literary exegesis and common sense\nand Scripture alike forbid taking both.\n\nTo call it \"poetry\" or an \"allegory\" is no explanation. Why did not\nthe writer make poetry or allegory which had some agreement with\nfacts? Why lead us into a perplexing situation when he might as well\nhave given us some other account or omitted it altogether?\n\nThe differences between these two accounts are obvious. The\nBible account describes a definite act, the Evolution account\na long-continued process through millions of years. The Bible\naccount is a production _de novo_ of a new and original creature;\nthe Evolution account gives one of a numerous line of ancestors;\nthe Bible account presents us with a perfect creature \"in the\nlikeness of God;\" the Evolution account with a brute slightly\nraised above the common herd. The Bible account gives a descriptive\nnarrative with accompanying events; the Evolution account leaves\nall the events unknown save as guessed at by the imagination of the\nvarious writers. The Bible account gives a high and noble origin\nby a special and creative act of his Creator; Evolution tells of\na degraded origin from a brute by the operation of blind forces.\nThe Bible account is noble and satisfying and, to one who believes\nin an omnipotent God, credible, calling for belief in one creative\nact; the Evolution account is filled with difficulties and paradoxes\ncalling for the wildest stretch of imagination and the utmost\napplication of credulity.\n\nThe Bible account is frequently referred to as an actual history\nby other Scripture writers; the evolutionary account has not one\nScripture reference or the slightest hint from Scripture of its\nhaving any place whatever in fact. The Bible account agrees with\nand is the basis of the spiritual teachings of the Bible; the\nevolutionary account has no such agreement and needs to be explained\naway to be allowed any place whatever in sacred writings. If the\nBible is the book the common consent of the wisest of all mankind\nand of every age has affirmed it to be, it should have some\nintimation of this \"greatest discovery of the human mind.\" For the\nBible does touch on the greatest problems of the world and life.\n\nNot only does the Bible give a very different account of the\norigin of man, but also of nature. Its definition of the beginning\nof things is as follows: \"By faith we understand that the worlds\nhave been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not\nbeen made out of things which do appear.\" (Heb. 11:3.) The term it\napplies to this is Creation. It gives also a circumstantial account\nof the coming of the present order as we have it, closing with man's\ncreation.\n\n\nEVOLUTION'S INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE.\n\nIn order to bring the evolutionary theories within the possibility\nof Bible sanction, a theory of interpretation is adopted which calls\nthe narratives of Creation and the Fall myths, legends, allegories,\nparables, \"scenic representation,\" or \"idealized history\" according\nto the theological bias of the interpreter. These all amount to\nthe same thing, for they do away with the historical value of the\naccounts. It is only a play upon words to say they are \"parables\"\nfor parables are not unhistorical. Every one of Christ's parables\nis true to life and facts. It is claimed that the Bible narratives\nare poetry and therefore are not historical. The evolutionist for\nhis purpose confounds poetry and fiction. They are not synonymous.\nA poetical form does not imply fictitiousness. The Psalms have much\nhistory under their poetical form. But the first chapter of Genesis\nis not poetry. Hebrew poetry has a well-defined form as seen in the\npoetical books. This chapter does not conform to that form, and\naccordingly it is printed not in poetical form but as prose in the\nRevised Version. The mere repetition of certain phrases is not the\nmark of poetry, but is characteristic of the oriental languages in\nwhich the Bible was written.\n\nBut who is to decide what in the Bible is historical and what is\nnot? What is to hinder anyone from so discarding any fact whatever\nin the Bible? Why has not the enemy of Christianity the same\nright to apply this reasoning to the accounts of the death and\nresurrection of Christ? Where will this process end? The proclaimer\nof such theories is putting a weapon into the hands of the opponent\nof Christianity that he will use one day to the destruction of the\nfaith of many. Once having permission to apply these terms, it is\neasy to make these narratives, or anything else in the Bible, mean\nanything or nothing as is desired. As an ancient writer said,\n\"Twenty doctors can make a text read twenty different ways.\" We\nprotest against this loose method of interpretation for many reasons:\n\n1. We object to every new theory interpreting the Bible to suit\nitself.\n\n2. There is not the slightest warrant in these narratives or\nelsewhere for such interpretation. They are given as facts and are\nalways so treated. Creation and the Fall are everywhere spoken of as\nactual facts both by Christ and all other Scripture writers.\n\n3. It is on this system of interpretation that every false system\nrests, such as Mormonism. All the modern vagaries support themselves\nfrom Scripture by accommodation of its language to their doctrines.\n\n4. The Bible is not a book of puzzles, a delphic oracle, to be read\nin any way suited to the occasion or desires. It has a plain meaning\nand is for everyday people and everyday needs.\n\n5. The acceptance of the Bible account as unquestioned fact and the\nliteral interpretation of it by Christ and his apostles ought to be\nenough for anyone calling himself Christian or even for any other\nwho will accept good human testimony. These writers were 1900 years\nnearer the date of the events in question than we. They had access\nto knowledge now lost to us. From any standpoint, we may rest our\nview of these narratives on the testimony of the New Testament\nScriptures. The references of the New Testament to the Old are\nnumbered by hundreds. Any Bible with references, or any text book or\nBible with Helps will show these. It is enough here to give those\nChrist refers to.\n\nChrist himself cites from twelve books and about twenty-four\nnarratives as follows: Creation, Matt. 19:4; Law of Marriage, Matt.\n19:5; Cain and Abel, Matt. 23:35; The Deluge, Matt. 24:37; Abraham,\nJohn 8:56; Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's wife, Luke 17:28-32; Manna,\nJohn 6:49; Brazen Serpent, John 3:14; Shew Bread, Matt. 12:3, 4;\nElijah and his Miracles, Luke 4:25, 26; Naaman, Luke 4:27; Tyre and\nSidon, Matt. 11:22; Jonah and \"The Whale,\" Matt. 12:39; The Books of\nMoses, John 5:46; The Psalms, Luke 20:42; Moses and The Prophets,\nLuke 24:27; Isaiah, Matt. 13:14; Daniel's Prophecies, Matt. 24:15;\nMalachi, Matt. 11:10; The entire Old Testament, Luke 24:44. Of\nnot one of these does he convey the slightest hint of aught but\ntrustworthiness and literal interpretation.\n\n6. The still more serious issue is presented of asserting that\nboth Paul and Christ either did not know that these were myths, or\nknowing so gave no intimation that they used them in any way other\nthan as true narratives. This would not only shake all confidence\nin Christ as divine and his apostles as inspired, but would shake\nall confidence in any fact or teaching from Scripture whatever. For\nScripture rests on facts and these facts on witnesses. To these,\nappeal is constantly made. On the truth of these all depends. Here\nthen is a \"mythical\" Adam made the basis of marriage; a \"mythical\"\nAdam and his fall, the argument for man's need and Christ's work,\nand the same \"mythical\" Adam made the proof of the resurrection. In\nshort the whole system of Bible truth is attacked by these theories,\nfrom credibility in Christ himself to the last hope of the believer\nin the world to come.\n\nWhom shall we believe? Shall we credit Evolution which admits that\nits theory is unproven and full of difficulties, with not a single\ncase of Evolution to support it, nor a power which could produce it,\nand with countless facts to antagonize it, or shall we believe Jesus\nChrist who was never mistaken, or false in his facts, or teachings,\nand who believed these chapters, cited them and accepted their\nnarratives without question?\n\n\nEVOLUTION AND BIBLE DOCTRINES.\n\nWe have arrived at the vital point in this discussion. If Evolution\nwere only a scientific question, it would interest a limited circle.\nAs a deeply religious question it interests all. That Evolution\naffects vitally all evangelical belief is apparent to the most\nsuperficial inquirer. It is not only a matter of historic fact but\nof doctrinal teaching. Man's nature and need as a descendant from\nthe brute is one thing, and as a spiritual being, fallen from the\nlikeness of God, another. The responsibility in either case is very\ndifferent and therefore has to do with eternal destiny for weal or\nwoe, and also with the work of Christ.\n\nThe theology of the Higher Criticism which is also the theology of\nEvolution, of which it is the Biblical branch, is thus summed up\nby an evolutionary writer, in a recent article giving the articles\nof belief of the theology of Evolution: \"The Bible can no longer\nspeak with unquestioned authority.... Poor old Adam disappears....\nChrist's divinity is only such as we may possess ... the atonement\nis only such as we see in all life and nature.... As to the future\nlife we find ourselves left very much in the dark.... We no longer\nregard going to heaven as the center of our interest.\" (Theodore D.\nBacon quoted in _Homiletic Review_, Nov. 1902.)\n\nEvolution teaches, as stated by Dr. George A. Gordon, of Boston:\n\"Man's state and fate is on account of the irrationality he has\nbrought up with him from the animal world.\" (_Immortality and the\nNew Theodicy_, p. 100.) The future of man according to Evolution\nis that as he has risen from the brute state he ought not to be\npunished for his defects but rather rewarded for having done so\nwell. Evolution teaches that man has in himself the elements of his\nsalvation. These if developed will produce the change he needs for\nthis world and that to come. He will proceed on the same lines as he\nhas traveled to reach his present state. Development is the Saviour\nof Evolution. The Bible says that to develop man is to develop sin\nand, \"Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death.\" It requires\nthe intervention of the Supernatural in Regeneration to save man.\nEvolution is self-saving.\n\nThe future is radically affected by the theory of Evolution. The\ndevelopment of mankind is its objective point. To bring man to a\npoint of development will bring the Kingdom of Heaven. The fate of\nthe individual is not made much of. He is sacrificed for the race\nor species. But while not much is made of the individual the general\nteaching is that somehow it will be well with all at last. It is\na fact that all universalists are evolutionists. Evolution makes\nHeaven and Hell terms which mean little or nothing. The present\nsocial state of man is the great quest. Evolution is a bridge which\nreaches neither shore. It knows not whence man came nor where he\ngoes.\n\n1. The Bible rests its doctrines upon its facts. There is no\ncharacter in Scripture aside from Christ upon whose historical\ncharacter so much Scripture doctrine depends as upon Adam. The\ncreation of man is made the basis for the sanctity of marriage by\nChrist, who quotes the words of the account in Genesis. (Matt.\n19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9.) Paul makes this narrative the basis of his\ngreat argument for the state and need of man and the work of Christ.\n\"Through one man sin entered into the world and death through\nsin.... Death reigned from Adam to Moses.... By the trespass of the\none the many died ... the judgment came of one unto condemnation\n... as through the one man's disobedience the many were made\nsinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be\nmade righteous.\" (Rom. 5:12-21, R. V.) Here the actuality of the\nnarrative is the very basis of the declaration of man's state in\nsin and a type of the extent and nature of Christ's work. So also\nthe use by Paul in the account of the resurrection doctrine: \"As in\nAdam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.\" (1 Cor.\n15:22-45.)\n\n2. The Bible teaches that man was made in the image of God. That\nimage was Christ who is elsewhere declared to be \"the effulgence of\nhis glory and the very image of his substance.\" (Heb. 1:3.) In this\nimage man was made. This is a very different picture presented to us\nfrom that given by the evolutionist of a brute \"which could stand on\nits hind legs and throw things with its forelegs.\"\n\n3. The Bible teaches that all are guilty and condemned and lost,\nand without excuse. It teaches that man fell from a high state as\na race and as a race is responsible for his condition. It cites\ndeath as the proof of this. It teaches that man is inherently averse\nto God by nature and wilfully continues to do wrong and in short\nis condemned and lost. It teaches that he once had the truth and\nwilfully gave it up for sin. That he does so now in spite of the law\nof God written in his conscience and that out of Christ he is lost\nand without hope. (Rom. 1-5; Ep. 2:1-3, 11, 12.)\n\n4. The Bible teaches that what man needs is a pardon, a\nreconciliation with God, a ransom, a regeneration, a resurrection.\nHe must be translated from death to life, from the kingdom of\ndarkness to that of light. If he has not all this he is lost and\ndoomed.\n\n5. The Bible teaches that in order that man might enjoy this, Christ\nhad to come and die, \"the just for the unjust that he might bring\nus to God.\" He died as a sacrifice, as an offering, as a ransom, as\na propitiation, as a reconciliation. His death made it possible in\njustice as well as in mercy to save man.\n\n6. The Bible gives a description of man's means of salvation which\nis most opposite to the hope held out by Evolution. It is by a\nradical and supernatural change that he becomes right and only\nas all men so change or are changed will the world become right.\nConversion is not Evolution but regeneration, the implanting of a\nnew and opposite nature.\n\n7. The Bible teaches a different outcome of human life and history.\nIt points to an end by supernatural means to the world and a\njudgment for mankind and the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven\nby supernatural means. It cites the destruction of Sodom and\nGomorrah and the Deluge as examples of the world's end. It gives the\nmost awful combination of earthly figures as the picture of the\ndoom of the impenitent and the most beautiful figures earth and sky\ncan furnish or the mind of man conceive as the home of the saved.\nNothing could be more different than the theologies of Evolution and\nof the Bible.\n\nMany well-meant volumes have been written to reconcile Evolution\nand evangelical belief. None are satisfying, although the eagerness\nwith which some were at first received are witness to the desire to\nretain both beliefs.\n\nThe theistic evolutionist thinks that to find a place for the\nCreator somewhere along the line is enough. St. James rebukes this\ninsufficient theology in these words: \"Thou believest that there is\none God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.\"\n(Jas. 2:19.) So also Christ himself said: \"Ye believe in God believe\nalso in me.... I am the way, the truth and the life.... No man\ncometh unto the Father but by me.... He that honoreth not the Son\nhonoreth not the Father which hath sent him.... For as the Father\nhath life in himself even so gave he to the Son also to have life in\nhimself.... He hath committed all judgment unto the Son that all men\nmay honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth\nnot the Son honoreth not the Father.\" Theism then is not enough in\nthe opinion of Jesus Christ.\n\nThe whole Christian system is in question in this theory. The\nwhole aim of Evolution is to dispose of the supernatural as much\nas possible. The radical evolutionist gets rid of God entirely he\nthinks. The theistic evolutionist limits the interference of the\nsupernatural to the creation of matter, of life, of man's spiritual\nnature, and the incarnation and work of Christ. The tendency of\nevolution is to make the miracles of Christ mythical and the\nphenomena of conversion natural. The theistic evolutionist is on\na side hill. He must go up or down. He is not consistent, and, as\nthe human mind asserts its right to consistency, he is forced,\nwillingly or unwillingly, often unconsciously, to the one side or\nthe other, and he finds himself led along lines which take him\nfar from evangelical belief. In its consistent form, Evolution\nleaves no room for a Creator. Indeed Haeckel, the greatest of\nliving evolutionists and the legitimate successor to Darwin's\nplace and greatness, states, as already quoted, thus: \"It entirely\nexcludes supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious act\nof a personal character. Nothing will make the full meaning of\nthe theory of descent clearer than calling it the non-miraculous\ntheory of creation.\" (_History of Creation_, pp. 397, 422.) Another\nevolutionist, Carl Vogt, says: \"Evolution turns the Creator out\nof doors.\" Infidels all accept of it gladly. Every atheist is an\nevolutionist.\n\n\nEVOLUTION A RELIC OF HEATHENISM.\n\nJames Freeman Clark thus writes: \"In the system of the Greek and\nScandinavian mythology, spirit is evolved from matter; matter up\nto spirit works. They begin with the lowest form of being; night,\nchaos, a mundane egg, and evolve the higher gods therefrom.\" (_Ten\nGreat Religions_, p. 231.)\n\nSir J. William Dawson, the late eminent geologist of Canada, writes\nof the theory as follows: \"The evolutionist doctrine is one of the\nstrangest phenomena of humanity. It existed most naturally in the\noldest philosophy and poetry, in connection with the crudest and\nmost uncritical attempts of the human mind to grasp the system\nof nature; but that in our day a system destitute of any shadow\nof proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of\nspeech and by arbitrary and artificial coherence of its own parts,\nshould be accepted as a philosophy and should find able adherents to\nstring upon its thread of hypothesis our vast and weighty stores of\nknowledge, is surpassingly strange.\" (_Story of the Earth and Man_,\np. 317.)\n\nEvolution is working towards a pantheistic atheism. This is\nexpressed in the creed of the late Cecil Rhodes, the late magnate of\nSouth Africa, as follows: \"I believe in Force Almighty, the ruler of\nthe universe, working scientifically through natural selection to\nbring about the survival of the fittest and the elimination of the\nunfit.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE SPIRITUAL EFFECT OF EVOLUTION.\n\n\nIt is apparent that the adoption of such a theory as Evolution must\naffect the spiritual state of the person receiving it. Man's mental\nand spiritual natures are intimately connected. While those in a\nsettled previous spiritual experience may carry Evolution as \"a\nworking theory\" only, those in an immature state will be vitally\naffected. Especially is this true of youthful minds. It is indeed\na fact that many young men have started with high purposes to\nprepare for the ministry, and even for foreign missions, and have,\nafter adopting these modern theories, abandoned their purpose, and\nthousands have abandoned all personal religion. Pastors can tell of\nmany such instances.\n\nSome have said that the adoption of Evolution has helped their\nfaith. They fail to see that bringing the Bible down to their faith\nis not bringing their faith up to the Bible. It is a weakening of\nfaith and not a strengthening of it. This apparent increase of faith\nsimply prepares the way for its utter ruin. The first step leads to\na wider divergence, as many have shown, that leads to wreck of all\nfaith in a supernatural God or world or Bible. The mind will follow\nits natural workings. Loss of faith in the facts of the Bible leads\nto loss of faith in its truths. The acceptance of this theory still\nfurther leads to a lessening of the sense of our need of Christ that\nthe Bible teaches and man should feel. And further the acceptance\nof this theory, while it may not affect materially the minds of\nexperienced Christians, will through them affect others.\n\nThere is also a latent unconscious loss of faith that is realized\nonly in some great emergency, when in \"the storm and stress\" of life\nthe soul looks out for something to hold to. It is then that the\nrotting platform of unbelief goes down in wreck. The other extreme\nis also a cause of ruin. In the time of great prosperity when all\nthe allurements of life and time and sense present themselves, it\nrequires all the purpose one has to stem the tide of temptations. It\nis here that a false belief will work havoc. The mind conceives that\nafter all sin is not so hateful or salvation so needed or doom so\nfearful.\n\nThe effect on experimental personal experience is evident. Instead\nof looking for a regeneration, a revolution of the inner state, the\nbeliever in Evolution necessarily looks for a change from education\nor other form of development. Such a thing as conversion or a\nbaptism of the Holy Ghost he will cease to look for or desire. There\nwill come declining feeling, lessening devotion, prayer will become\nperfunctory and there will come increasing occupation with and love\nfor other things. Evolution as a belief makes right many things that\nwere before held to be wrong. It is an easy religion to hold. It\nstrikes the world at the angle of least resistance and enables the\nholder to accept almost anything that the natural man desires. The\nconflict of \"the flesh and the spirit\" ceases; the flesh, that is\nthe natural man, has conquered.\n\nThese theories in many seem to be but evidences of a previous wrong\nstate of heart. The wish is father to the thought. The theory is\naccepted because it allows the laying aside of views that restrain\nthe desires. Such persons are willing to admit the existence of God\nand his contact with man at Creation if relieved from any nearer\nrelationship. It is therefore worse than unbelief. It is antagonism.\nIt is enmity. Christ said, \"Men love darkness rather than light\nbecause their deeds are evil.\" The heart and life are the basis\nof their opinions. It is evident that argument here fails. \"A man\nconvinced against his will remains an unbeliever still.\"\n\nEvolution is a comfortable theory to the world. It elevates man.\nIt hides the presence of God. It calls for no repentance or\nconsecration. It boasts of human progress and claims merit therefor.\nIn short it is the worship of man rather than the worship of God. It\ndeifies man and it ignores Christ. Once committed to this theory,\nthere is no extreme the person may not reach. Some have abandoned\nChrist and Christianity because of it. It is in fact in doctrine and\nexperience and conduct, the antithesis of Christianity.\n\nSuch a theory as Evolution and its vaporizing method of Bible\ninterpretation, prepares the way for \"isms\" of every kind. It is to\nthis we are indebted for the swarm of these that afflicts the church\nto-day. Once allow that the Bible may be interpreted to suit such\ntheories and any heresy or absurdity can prove its position from the\nBible as all of them by this same process do.\n\nIt is already weakening the power of the pulpit, and this in turn is\none great reason for the declining effect of the preached word. Once\nreceived into a minister's heart the edge of his sword is dulled if\nindeed the sword is not itself sheathed. He may not preach Evolution\neither as a method of creation or a method of salvation, but his own\ninner faith is weakened in the old truth which had such power to\nconvert the souls of hearers. When openly advocated and taught, it\nis useless to seek revivals among those so taught. So it is the fact\nthat conversions to-day are mainly confined to the young and others\nnot affected by the error.\n\nAll the indications point to the further weakening of the hold upon\nmen of the supernatural and the eternal. To eliminate the former\nand, while acknowledging the latter, to disparage all reference to\nthe future life, seems to be the tendency of the day. As already\ncited, one of its chief advocates tells us, \"Heaven is no longer the\ncenter of the Christian's hope.\" The consequence is the material and\nintellectual interests receive chief attention and other agencies\ntake the chief place religion should have. Education received in\nthe United States over $200,000,000 in gifts during the last few\nyears, to say nothing of the many fold more received from incomes\nand public funds. Meanwhile the causes of Christ are languishing,\nmissions are dwarfed, small churches in great masses of the\npopulation are struggling for existence against fearful odds, while\nthe money of professed Christians pours in these mighty streams for\nall other purposes. No sensible person will disparage education, but\n\"Religion is the chief concern of mortals here below.\"\n\nFurther it is the few who can take advantage of the higher education\nfor which these millions are given. But five per cent of the\ncommon school scholars can attend college. The many must toil for\nexistence. It is to the poor the gospel was preached by its Founder.\nIt is to the poor it means most. To those who have little else it is\nthe all in all. It is to these it should be preached in its freedom\nand fullness. The principles of natural selection of the fittest\nwhich sends millions to higher institutions and neglects the masses\nof the people is the opposite of the gospel.\n\nCardinal Newman wrote: \"There is a special effort made almost\nall over the world, but most visibly and formidably in its most\ncivilized and powerful part, to do without religion.... Truly\nthere is at this time a confederacy of evil marshalling its\nhosts from all parts of the world, organizing itself and taking\nmeasures enclosing the church of Christ as in a net and preparing\nthe way for a general apostasy.\" (_Quoted in \"Christianity and\nAnti-Christianity.\"_ S. J. Andrews, p. 4.) Whether this is the\nfinal form of unbelief is difficult to say. It bears the marks of\nanti-christianity the apostle speaks of. The unbelief of the latter\ndays will rest on belief in the unvarying stability of nature. (2\nPeter 3:4.) The coming of this theory is aimed to dissipate any\nlooking for supernatural changes such as the Scriptures teach are\ncoming to earth, such as the last day, the coming of Christ, the\nresurrection and all the vast series of changes therein declared.\nHence that wholesome fear of God so operative in deterring evil and\nstimulating good is removed. Based on this unbelief, the enemy of\nGod and man can advance to the accomplishment of his purposes as\nnever before. All satanic methods before this have been crude and\ncoarse compared with this last invention. It is the most subtle and\nsweeping of all evil methods to ensnare the mind of man. Based on\nwhat is called science, promoted by the scholars of the day, taught\nin the fountains of learning and preached from pulpit and platform,\nit must have a widespread effect. Heretofore attacks on Christianity\nhave been made from without. This is from within. It is the trusted\nleaders who are now undermining the fortress in which they live.\n\nBut revivals always begin at the bottom. It was a few poor fishermen\nwho commenced the gospel age. It is their successors to whom we\nmust look as we have in the past for return of apostolic power.\n\"God chose the foolish things of the world that He might put to\nshame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the\nworld that He might put to shame the things that are strong; and\nthe base things of the world, and the things that are despised did\nGod choose, yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to\nnaught the things that are: that no flesh should glory before God.\"\n(1 Cor. 1:27, 28, R. V.) So we look hopefully to God for that only\nwhich will deliver the church from this and all other pestilent\nevils, theoretical and practical, a revival of true religion by the\npower of the Holy Spirit, and the preaching of the old gospel of the\ncross of Christ.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n                              Page\n\n  Abbeville, peat beds, 90\n\n  Abbott, Dr. Lyman, xi, 3\n\n  Abydos tombs, 92\n\n  Adam, 77-127\n\n  Adjustments, complex, 56\n\n  Adaptation of species, 55\n\n  Agassiz, 13, 50\n\n  Age of earth, 15\n\n  Antiquity of man, 90\n\n  Ape-man, 75\n\n  Ape, relics of, 68\n\n  Assyrian antiquity, 93\n\n  Assyrian religion, 103\n\n  Armadillo, 43\n\n  Architecture of body, 58\n\n  Askenazy, 9\n\n  Aurora Borealis, 16\n\n  Authors, list of, xiv\n\n\n  Babylonian civilization, 99-103\n\n  Backbone, origin of, 31\n\n  Baer, Carl Ernest von, 9\n\n  Balfour, Prof. Francis M., 59\n\n  Ballard, Prof. Frank, 118\n\n  Barrande, Joachim, 38\n\n  Barrows, Dr. John Henry, 62\n\n  Beaument, M., 16\n\n  Bee, cell of, 57\n\n  Bermuda lizards, 44\n\n  Bible account, 61\n\n  Bible interpretation, 121, 123\n\n  Bible theology, 131\n\n  Bonaparte, Napoleon, 111\n\n  Bowers, Prof. Stephen, 81\n\n  Brain, argument from, 84\n\n  Brewster, Sir David, 59\n\n  Brown, A., 4\n\n  Bruner, F. M., 104\n\n  Bunge, 9\n\n\n  Calavaras skull, 80\n\n  Carlyle, Thomas, 9\n\n  Chamberlain, Dr. Jacob, 103\n\n  Chance, 115\n\n  Chimpanzee, 74\n\n  Christ, 109\n\n  Christ and the Old Testament, 126\n\n  Christian experience, 107\n\n  Classification, 41\n\n  Clodd, Edward, 17, 29, 73, 75, 83, 84, 85\n\n  Colorado skeleton, 81\n\n  Conn, Prof. H. W., 5, 25, 27, 29, 30, 39, 42, 48, 50, 96, 115\n\n  Consensus of scholarship, 10\n\n  Congo languages, 87\n\n  Cook, Dr. Joseph, 13\n\n  Cope, E. D., 53\n\n  Coral theory, 13\n\n  Croatian skeleton, 81\n\n  Cross, test of evolution, 106\n\n  Crystallization, 57\n\n\n  Dana, Prof., 42, 64, 86, 89\n\n  Darwin, Chas., 5, 17, 29, 41, 55, 61, 87\n\n  Darwinism, 29\n\n  Dawson, Sir J. W., 9, 36, 95, 114, 116, 135\n\n  Degeneration, 53\n\n  De Rouge, 102\n\n  Distribution, 43\n\n  DuBois, Dr. Von Eugene, 82\n\n\n  Earth, age temperature, 15, 20, 23, 58\n\n  Egypt, mummied animals, 58, 85\n\n  Egyptian dynasties, 92\n\n  Egyptian civilization, 100\n\n  Embryology, 49\n\n  Eohippus, 46\n\n  Etheridge, Dr., 9, 59\n\n  Ethics, 105\n\n  Evolution--Meaning, 1\n    Definitions, 3\n    Unproven, 5\n    Scientists reject, 7\n    Cause of, 30\n    No case of, 26\n    Geology against, 38\n    Phantom tree, 42\n    Mental, 89\n    Unverified, 112\n    Chance, 115\n    Bible, 120\n    Conversion, 107\n\n  Eyes, origin of, 32\n\n\n  Fiske, Prof. John, 85\n\n  Force, origin of, 18\n\n  Fossils, 59\n\n  Foval, 8\n\n  French Institute, 12\n\n\n  Galileo, 12\n\n  Galton, 101\n\n  Geology, argument from, 37\n\n  Geologist, testimony of, 38\n\n  Germ, the, 50\n\n  Giraffe, origin of, 33\n\n  Gladstone, 117\n\n  Green frogs, 118\n\n  Great Pyramid, 100\n\n  Greeks, 101\n\n  Gregory, Dr. D. S., 8\n\n  Grote, Dr., 8\n\n\n  Haeckel, Ernst, xiv, 3, 5, 8, 9, 19, 23, 39, 41, 118\n\n  Haecke, Dr. W., 8\n\n  Harmann, Otto, 9\n\n  Harnack, Prof., 13\n\n  Harrison, Frederick, 14\n\n  Hartmann, 102\n\n  Heathen origin, 135\n\n  Heer, Oswald, 9\n\n  Herschell, 15\n\n  Hilyrecht, Prof., 19\n\n  Hindu Vedas, 103\n\n  History, 98\n\n  Higher Criticism, 13, 94\n\n  Hoffmann, 9\n\n  Home of primeval man, 72\n\n  Howison, Prof. Geo., xiv, 86\n\n  Human characteristics, 70\n\n  Humphrey, Gen., 16\n\n  Huxley, 6, 13, 25, 29, 30, 44, 45, 48, 69, 72\n\n\n  Ingersoll, Robt., 110\n\n\n  Jones, Prof. Wm., 116\n\n\n  Kelvin, Lord, 18, 24, 74, 86\n\n  Kangaroo, 43\n\n  Kent Cavern, 16\n\n  Kipling, 74\n\n  Koelliker, 8\n\n\n  Land, animals, origin of, 33\n\n  Lang, Andrew, 102\n\n  Lange, 99\n\n  Language, 86\n\n  Lecky, 101\n\n  Le Conte, Prof. Joseph, 3, 23, 24, 40\n\n  Legs, origin of, 32\n\n  Liebig, 24\n\n  Life, origin of, 23\n\n  Livingston, Dr., 91\n\n  Lyell, 16\n\n\n  Making of a man, 73\n\n  Mathematical adjustments, 56\n\n  Matter, origin of, 17\n\n  Mental changes, 90\n\n  Mentone skeleton, 89\n\n  Meyer, Dr., 81\n\n  Mind and consciousness, 85\n\n  Missing link, 78\n\n  Mississippi Delta, 16\n\n  Molecular creation, 50\n\n  Monier, Sir M., 104\n\n  Monkey language, 88\n\n  Moon, mountains of, 15\n\n  Morphological argument, 44\n\n  Mueller, Prof. Max, 86, 87, 97\n\n  Murchison, Sir Roderick, 38\n\n  McLaughlin, 57\n\n\n  Naegeli, 8\n\n  Natural selection, 29, 34\n\n  Neanderthal Skull, 80\n\n  Nebular Hypothesis, 21\n\n  New Orleans skeleton, 91\n\n  Newman Cardinal, 142\n\n\n  Origin of life, 23\n\n  Orion, Nebula, 21\n\n\n  Paine, Thomas, viii, 110\n\n  Parker, Theodore, 110\n\n  Patterson, Dr. Robert, 40, 70\n\n  Pattison, S. R., 95\n\n  Patton, Prest. Francis L., xiv\n\n  Paulsen, Prof., 8\n\n  Petrie, Prof. Flinders, 110\n\n  Pfaff, Dr. Frederick, 79, 85, 95\n\n  Pfliederer, Prof., 62\n\n  Pithecanthropus-Erectus, 82\n\n  Poetry, 121\n\n  Post, Dr. Geo. E., 9\n\n  Prehistoric man, 89\n\n  Protoplasm, 49\n\n\n  Quatrefages, 45\n\n\n  Religion, 102\n\n  Renan, 109\n\n  Renouf, 102\n\n  Reymond, DuBois, 9\n\n  Rhodes, Cecil, 136\n\n  Richter, Jean Paul, 109\n\n  Ridpath, J. Clark, 41\n\n  Rocks, origin of, 37\n\n  Romans, 103\n\n  Rousseau, 110\n\n  Rudimentary organs, 67\n\n  Ruskin, 9, 67\n\n\n  Savage Races, 96\n\n  St. Pierre, 13\n\n  Sayce, Prof. A. H., 93, 100\n\n  Schliemann, 13, 91\n\n  Schmidt, Dr. Rudolph, 5\n\n  Schults, D. Kerfoot, 41\n\n  Scientific theories, 15\n\n  Sedgwick, Adam, 40\n\n  See, Prof., 19\n\n  Simultaneousness, 42\n\n  Snell, 8\n\n  Solar System, 19\n\n  Species, evolution of, 26\n\n  Spencer, Herbert, xv, 2, 14, 17, 20, 31, 41, 105, 114\n\n  Spiritual effect, 137\n\n  Star, Prof. F., 101\n\n  Stone age, 91\n\n  Stuckenburg, Dr. J. H. W., 8\n\n  Succession, 2, 37\n\n  Sully, Prof. James, 62\n\n  Swim-Bladder, 48\n\n\n  Taj Mahal, 97\n\n  Terra Del Fuego, 87\n\n  Theistic Evolution, 4, 77\n\n  \"Theistic,\" Adam, 77\n\n  Theology of Evolution, 128\n\n  Thomas, Dr. Jessie B., 28\n\n  Thomson, Sir Wm., 13, 34\n\n  Thomson, Dr. J. Arthur, 30, 51\n\n  Thompson, Dr. James, 105\n\n  Troy, 13\n\n  Tyndall, 2, 5, 20, 24, 50, 52\n\n\n  Universe, evolution of, 17\n    order of, 19\n\n\n  Varieties, 28\n\n  Vedas, Hindu, 103\n\n  Virchow, Dr. Rudolph, 7, 9, 65, 82\n\n\n  Wagner, M., 8\n\n  Wallace, 66, 83\n\n  Whales origin, 33\n\n  White, Andrew, 12\n\n  Whitney, Prof., 5\n\n  Wiseman, Cardinal, 12\n\n  Wilson, Woodrow, 15\n\n  Wilson, on the cell, 25\n\n  Wilson, Andrew, 55\n\n  Winchell, 26, 94\n\n  Wright, Geo. Frederick, xv, 12, 21, 58, 95, 112\n\n\n  Zahm, Dr. J. A., 6, 12, 90, 94\n\n  Zoeckler, 9\n\n\n\n\nBooks by Rev. Alex. Patterson\n\n\nBIRD'S-EYE BIBLE STUDY\n\nWith Introduction by Dr. J. Wilbur Chapman\n\n     A synopsis of all the books of the Bible, with statement as\n     to their classification and interrelation; a summary of the\n     broad teachings of the Scriptures, with general view of the\n     development in the revelation of divine truth. Also suggestive\n     chapters on \"How to Study the Bible,\" \"The Way of Salvation,\"\n     \"How to Win Souls to Christ,\" \"Power in Prayer,\" \"The Work of\n     the Holy Spirit,\" etc.\n\n     Especially adapted for use by pastors, evangelists,\n     Sunday-school teachers, Bible class leaders, and Christian\n     workers generally.\n\n128 Pages. Paper, 15 cents, 8 for $1.00. Cloth, 30 cents net\n\n\nTHE GREATER WORK AND LIFE OF CHRIST\n\nAs Revealed in Scripture, Man and Nature\n\n     I. Christ in the Eternal Past. II. Christ in Creation. III.\n     Christ in the Old Testament Age. IV. Christ in His Earthly Life.\n     V. Christ in His Present State and Work. VI. Christ in the Day\n     of the Lord. VII. Christ in the Eternal Future.\n\n408 Pages. Cloth. $1.50\n\n\nTHE OTHER SIDE OF EVOLUTION\n\nAn Examination of Its Evidences\n\n     With an introduction by George Frederick Wright, D.D., LL.D.,\n     Oberlin College.\n\n     This book undertakes to show that Evolution is not accepted by\n     all scientists and gives names of many who oppose it; that it is\n     admittedly an unproven theory; that it has never been verified\n     and cannot be; that not a single case has ever been known, or\n     any cause by which such changes could take place. Its arguments\n     are fairly stated and considered one by one. Over a hundred\n     writers are cited, including all the great evolutionists.\n\n174 Pages. Cloth, 60 cents net.\n\n\nTHE BIBLE INSTITUTE COLPORTAGE ASSOCIATION\n\n826 North La Salle Street, Chicago\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nMinor typographical errors have been corrected without note.\nIrregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as\nprinted.\n\nMismatched quotes are not fixed if it's not sufficiently clear where\nthe missing quote should be placed.\n\nThe cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the\ntranscriber and is placed in the public domain.\n\nIn the index, the transcriber has changed the following names to\nmatch the text:\n\nBeaumont to Beaument\n\nChamerlain to Chamberlain\n\nKerfort changed to Kerfoot\n\nMuller to Mueller\n\nNaegali to Naegeli\n\nPflieder to Pfliederer\n\nQuatrafoges to Quatrefages","title":"The Other Side of Evolution: Its Effects and Fallacy","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":35032}