{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_53026/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_53026","id":"gutenberg_53026","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53026","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Creation"],"text":"[Illustration: Noble Smithson]\n\n\n\n\n                           Smithson\u2019s Theory\n                                 _of_\n                           Special Creation\n                                 _by_\n                            NOBLE SMITHSON\n\n                              KNOXVILLE:\n                      _Victor Publishing Company_\n                                _1911_\n\n                           _Copyright 1911_\n                           By NOBLE SMITHSON\n\n          _All rights reserved, including that of translation\n                        into foreign languages_\n\n                          PUBLISHER\u2019S NOTICE\n                 A copy of this book will be mailed,\n               postage prepaid, upon receipt of $1.00\n                         VICTOR PUBLISHING CO.\n                       KNOXVILLE.  ::  TENNESSEE\n\n\n\n\n                         _To the Memory of my\n                           Father and Mother\n                         John Greene Smithson\n                                  and\n                          Ann Ladd Smithson_\n\n\n\n\n_To the Reader:_ If you care to write me your view of my theory as set\nforth in the following pages, I shall be pleased to hear from you.\n\n                                                        NOBLE SMITHSON.\n\n\n\n\nPreface\n\n\nA critical reader of the works of Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, Haeckel,\nRomanes, Weismann, Mivart, Cope and other writers, on organic\nevolution, will find that there is much diversity in the views of\nthese writers. Darwin believes that the first one, or the first few,\nanimals and plants were directly and specially made by the Creator;\nHaeckel says the primordial forms arose \u201cby spontaneous generation from\ninorganic matter.\u201d Referring to the origin of life, Romanes says that\n\u201cscience is not in a position to furnish so much as suggestion upon the\nsubject.\u201d Neither Huxley, Weismann, Mivart nor Cape has anything to say\non the origin of life. No two of these writers agree as to the work of\nthe \u201cfactors\u201d of evolution. According to Darwin, Romanes and Weismann,\nnatural selection did substantially the entire work of evolving all the\nspecies of animal and plant. But Cope, and other evolutionists of the\nLamarckian school, hold that use, disuse, pressure, friction and motion\ndid it.\n\nWeismann argues that the inheritance of \u201cacquired characters\u201d is\nimpossible; while Spencer, Romanes and other evolutionists say that\nWeismann\u2019s views are highly absurd and would entirely destroy the\ntheory of evolution; and I think they are correct in this view. There\nare many evolutionists for and against Weismann\u2019s theory of heredity.\nWriters on evolution differ as widely on other important questions, as\non these.\n\nMany of the theories of the evolutionists are quite absurd. Among\nthese may be mentioned the theory of \u201cprotective mimicry\u201d and \u201csexual\nselection.\u201d So their belief that the blind \u201cfactors,\u201d working by chance\nand accident, have differentiated one part of a minute individual into\na set of male sexual organs, and another part of the same individual\ninto a set of female sexual organs, as in hermaphroditic animals and\nplants, appears to be quite preposterous. So it is impossible to\nbelieve these \u201cfactors\u201d have differentiated one-half of the individuals\nof each species of mammal into males and the other half into females,\nfor example into men and women. If time and space permitted me, I\ncould easily point out divers other absurdities in the views of the\nevolutionists.\n\nTo be consistent, every evolutionist must maintain that characters,\nacquired by the parent, are transmitted by heredity to their offspring;\nfor the whole theory of evolution is based on the hypothesis of\naccumulated \u201cadaptations and variations.\u201d Thus, suppose a pair of\nsnakes have ten vertebr\u00e6 (joints) in their spinal columns; that each\nof them acquires one, making eleven; that their offspring start with\neleven and acquire one, and so on until the ninetieth generation, which\nwould have a hundred vertebr\u00e6. Such a thing might happen, according to\nthe evolutionist; but I do not believe any such thing ever did happen.\n\nBut no evolutionist has ever shown how or why the offspring happen\nto resemble one or both of their parents. In brief, the mechanism of\nheredity is wholly unknown. The evolutionist tells us that \u201cheredity\nand adaptation\u201d have evolved all the species of animal and plant.\nHaving done this, he appears to think that he has explained all the\nphenomena of reproduction, heredity and life. But his solution of the\nvital equation contains an unknown quantity, namely: \u201cheredity;\u201d and it\nis, therefore, no solution at all.\n\nThe evolutionist and materialist maintain that the blind unthinking\natoms and cells, of which the embryo body is made, do, spontaneously\nand automatically, without the aid or guidance of any extraneous,\npsychic or creative force, group themselves into the chemical\ncombinations and mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to build\nup the embryo body with all its organs and parts--its brain, eyes,\nears, heart, lungs, etc. This is the most preposterous of all their\npropositions.\n\nI have worked out this proposition:\n\n\u201cIntellect, memory, will-power, force and motion are necessary to group\ntwo or more atoms into a prescribed chemical combination; or into a\nspecified mechanical arrangement.\u201d\n\nThus, if the reader were required to group ten silver dollars into a\ntriangle with three dollars in each side and one in the center, he must\nhave intellect to understand the nature and properties of a triangle;\nand to know how to construct it; and to know when it is completed; must\nhave memory to bear these things in mind while doing the work; must\nhave will-power to begin and continue the work until it is completed;\nmust generate such force and produce such motions as are necessary to\nassemble and group the coins into the prescribed figure.\n\nCan the reader discover any flaw in this proposition?\n\nThere is no trace of the coming embryo in the germ-cell (fertilized\novum); nor of any organ or part of it. It follows that each embryo and\nevery organ and part of it must be made, anew, of fresh materials; that\nthe atoms and cells of which it is composed must be selected, assembled\nand grouped into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements\nwhich are necessary to construct the embryo body and each organ and\npart of it; each organ and part of it being a new combination of its\ncomponent atoms and cells.\n\nIntellect, memory, will-power, force and motion--supernatural, psychic\nand creative force--are necessary to make each embryo body and every\norgan and part of it. Let us suppose that a hundred million silver\ndollars were coined last year, at the mint in Philadelphia. It is clear\nthat each of these coins was made, anew; that it was a new combination\nof the atoms of silver and copper contained in it; that it required the\nsame work to make each of them, that it did to make every other--the\nsame to make the last that it did to make the first. The same is true\nof each man and woman.\n\nThe purpose of this little work is to present some of the facts, and\nmake some of the arguments, which tend to prove that each human being\nis a new, direct and special creation by Almighty God!\n\n                                                        NOBLE SMITHSON.\n\n    Knoxville, Tennessee.\n        Nov. 1, 1911.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 1. Personal God\n\n\nI believe there is a personal God, the Creator and Ruler of the\nUniverse. If this is not true, matter, force and the motion of matter\nconstitute the Universe. There is no middle ground between these two\npropositions.\n\nThe first animal that ever lived on our earth was directly and\nspecially made by the Creator; or it arose by spontaneous generation\nfrom inorganic matter. How else could it come into existence? The\nsame is true of the first plant. Which of these two theories is most\nreasonable?\n\nEvery human being that ever lived was either directly and specially\nmade by the Creator; or the blind unthinking atoms and cells of which\nhis body was, and is, composed, spontaneously and automatically grouped\nthemselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements\nnecessary to build up his body. How else could a human body be made?\nWhich hypothesis is most plausible?\n\nCan we believe that intellect, memory and will are merely properties\nof matter, like length, breadth, thickness and weight; or are these\nfaculties the attributes of a spiritual entity?\n\nI believe that the Creator has been manifesting His knowledge, wisdom,\npower and goodness ever since the first man appeared on the earth;\nthat He has been performing miracles before the eyes of men during\nall this time; that He has been speaking to mankind through these\nmanifestations and miracles throughout the ages. But they have failed\nto read His messages.\n\nMost educated persons are familiar with the phenomena of life,\nreproduction and heredity. But the real question is: whether the\nCreator causes these phenomena, or whether the blind, unthinking atoms\nand cells, of which the body is composed, produce them, spontaneously\nand automatically, without the aid of any extraneous psychic or\ncreative force. The fact that these phenomena are manifested, and the\ncause of them, are two wholly different things. Everybody knows that a\nstone falls to the ground, but nobody knows why.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 2. Whence and Whither\n\n\nHas man descended from worms, fishes, lizards, opossums, hedgehogs and\napes as Haeckel says? Is he a son of an ape? No! A Son of God!\n\nDoes death annihilate both soul and body; or does the soul live after\nthe death of the body? Shall we see and know our children, fathers,\nmothers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, and friends after death?\nShall we enjoy forever, the society of the good, the true and the\nbeautiful? Shall we be free from want, pain and sorrow? Shall we be\nhappy throughout eternity? This is my belief and hope!\n\nDarwin (Origin of Species, vol. 1, p. 228) says: \u201cHave we any right\nto suppose that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those\nof man?\u201d On the same page he refers to \u201cthe works of the Creator\u201d as\nbeing superior to those of man. In the same work (vol. 2, p. 304) he\nrefers to \u201cthe laws impressed on matter by the Creator.\u201d Again (p. 306)\nhe refers to life as \u201chaving been originally breathed by the Creator\ninto a few forms or into one,\u201d animal, at the beginning of life on the\nearth. In his Descent of Man (p. 95) he says: \u201cThere is no evidence\nthat man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the\nexistence of the omnipotent God.\u201d Referring to the question: \u201cWhether\nthere exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe.\u201d On the same page\nhe says: \u201cAnd this has been answered in the affirmative by some of\nthe highest intellects that have ever existed.\u201d In the same work (p.\n627) he says: \u201cThe idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not\nseem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long\ncontinued culture.\u201d On the same page he says: \u201cFew persons feel any\nanxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period,\nin the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute\ngerminal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being.\u201d Again (pp. 627-628)\nhe says: \u201cThe birth, both of the species and of the individual are\nequally parts of that grand sequence of events which our minds refuse\nto accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts\nat such a conclusion.\u201d Thus it appears that Darwin believed in the\nexistence of a personal God and in the immortality of the human soul.\nBut he also believed \u201cthat the production and extinction of the past\nand present inhabitants of the world\u201d have been \u201cdue to secondary\ncauses, like these determining the birth and death of the individual.\u201d\n(Origin of Species, 2, p. 304.) In brief, Darwin maintained that the\nCreator directly and specially made one or a few primordial forms, and\nturned them loose upon the earth to shift for themselves, subject to\nthe \u201cfactors of evolution.\u201d\n\nAlthough Darwin appears to believe in the special creation of the first\none, or the first few, animals and plants, and in the immortality of\nthe human soul, yet his theory of evolution is highly materialistic;\nand the publication of this Origin of Species gave materialism an\nimmense impetus.\n\nThe Encyclopedia Britannica (9 ed., vol. 2, p. 109), referring to\n\u201cthinkers, who hold materialistic views,\u201d says:\n\n\u201cAccording to this school, man is a machine, no doubt the most complex\nand wonderfully adapted of all known machines, but still neither more\nnor loss than an instrument whose energy is provided by force from\nwithout, and which, when set in action performs the various operations,\nfor which its structure fits it, namely: to live, move, feel and think.\u201d\n\nThe materialist maintains that there is no substance in man, which is\nalone conscious, distinct and separable from the body; that matter\nis the only substance in existence; and that matter and its motions\nconstitute the universe. (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3658.) This work, on\nthe same page quotes J. Fisk (Evolutionist, p. 277) as saying that\n\u201cPhilosophical materialism holds that matter, and the motions of\nmatter, make up the sum total of existence; and that what we know as\npsychical phenomena in man and other animals, are to be interpreted, in\nan ultimate analysis as simply the peculiar aspect, which is assumed by\ncertain enormously complicated motions of matter.\u201d (Cent. Dic. 5, p.\n3658)\n\nAccording to this view, if one should meet a friend, the sight of him\nwould set certain atoms in his eyes and brain in motion; and these\natoms would inform the Ego that the man is his friend, Smith or Jones.\n\nSo, if one be required to find the square root of 3,600, his eyes\nor ears would see or hear the problem; and the sight or hearing of\nit would set certain atoms in motion; and by this motion they would\nascertain that 60 is the square root required. But the theory is too\nabsurd for discussion, in this place.\n\nI assume that every evolutionist is logically a materialist. Referring\nto \u201cMan and the rest of the living world,\u201d Huxley, (Man\u2019s Place, etc.,\np. 151), says:\n\n\u201cI can see no excuse for doubting that all are co-ordinated terms of\nnature\u2019s great progression, from the formless to the formed--from the\ninorganic to the organic--from the blind force to conscious intellect\nand will.\u201d\n\nSo far as I know he does not mention the Creator nor the human soul in\nany of his works; but he strenuously maintains that man is a son of\nan ape; and believes that all the phenomena of life are the result of\nchemical and mechanical forces.\n\nHerbert Spencer does not use the word \u201cGod,\u201d \u201cCreator\u201d nor \u201cSoul\u201d in\nthe index to his Principles of Biology; but after discussing the theory\nof special creation at length, he says:\n\n\u201cThe hypothesis of special creation turns out to be worthless by its\nderivation; worthless in its incoherence; absolutely without evidence;\nworthless as not supplying an intellectual need, worthless as not\nsupplying a moral want.\u201d (Principles of Biology 1, p. 430.)\n\nThis quotation is full of bosh and nonsense. For example: In the same\nbook (pp. 415-416), referring to the hypothesis of special creation and\nto that of evolution, Spencer says:\n\n\u201cBoth hypotheses imply a cause. The last, certainly as much as the\nfirst, recognizes this cause as _inscrutable_. The point at issue is,\nhow this inscrutable cause has worked, in the production of living\nforms. This point, if it is to be decided at all, is to be decided only\nby examination of evidence.\u201d\n\nThe word \u201cinscrutable\u201d is synonymous with \u201cimpenetrable,\u201d\n\u201cundiscoverable,\u201d \u201cincomprehensible,\u201d \u201cunsearchable,\u201d \u201cmysterious.\u201d\n(Cent. Dic. 4, p. 3114.)\n\nNow, if the Cause which produces animals and plants is impenetrable,\nincomprehensible, etc., Spencer could not possibly know whether each\nanimal and plant is directly and specially made by the Creator or not;\nnor could he say, logically, that there is no evidence of special\ncreation; for he admits that the Cause is \u201cinscrutable\u201d to him. But\nthere is abundant evidence that each animal and plant is a new direct\nand special creation, for the obvious reason that no other hypothesis\ncan explain and account for the admitted facts.\n\nHaeckel, (Evolution of Man, p. 26), says the first one, or the\nfirst few, animals that appeared on our earth arose \u201cby spontaneous\ngeneration from inorganic matter.\u201d On the same page he says:\n\n\u201cLife is only a physical phenomenon. All the plants and animals,\nwith man at their head, are to be explained in structure and life,\nby mechanical or efficient causes, without any appeal to final\ncauses, just as in the case of minerals and other inorganic bodies.\nThis applies equally to the origin of the various species. We must\nnot assume any original creation \u2026 to explain this, but a natural,\ncontinuous and necessary evolution.\u201d\n\nPrior to the publication of Darwin\u2019s Origin of Species in 1859, belief\nin the theory of special creation was well nigh universal among\nscientists as well as laymen. But immediately after the publication of\nthat work the scientific world accepted Darwin\u2019s theory as absolute\ntruth, not only as to animals and plants, but extended the Darwinian\nprinciple of materialism to all other branches of science. Materialism\npermeated all literature and became a fad. It fostered \u201chigher\ncriticism,\u201d agnosticism, infidelity and atheism. It destroyed human\nhope and enthroned despair. It shook and rent the church from the\ncorner stone to the spire.\n\nAccording to the materialist, there is no such thing as a personal\nGod, nor a human soul. He maintains that life, intellect, memory\nand will-power are mere properties of the human body as a physical\nstructure; and that death works the absolute annihilation of the body\nand the Ego. In his view, there is no life, punishment nor pleasure\nafter death. He, therefore, resolves to make the most of his life, and\nto get all the ease, comfort and pleasure that it affords, without\nregard to anything that may happen after death. He has no fear of any\nfinal judgment, nor of God. He is not restrained by any moral law, nor\nby any religious obligation. He fears nothing but publicity, public\nopinion, and the criminal statutes. Hence, lying, cheating, fraud,\nperjury, theft, robbery, murder, suicide.\n\nI admit that heredity, environment and other forces, which the\nevolutionist denominates, \u201cthe factors of organic evolution,\u201d may\naffect, modify, or differentiate an animal or a plant, or its organs\nand parts, to a certain extent. But I deny that heredity, environment\nor any, or all, the \u201cfactors\u201d combined, are adequate to evolve a new\nspecies of animal or plant; or even a new organ or part of one. On the\ncontrary I maintain that heredity, environment and all other factors of\nevolution combined, are inadequate to produce a single animal or plant,\nwithout the aid of the Creator; and that each animal and plant is a\nnew, direct and special creation by Almighty God.\n\nIn this little work, I shall make an humble effort to prove that there\nis a living personal God; that He directly and specially creates\neach human being; makes its body and endows it with life and with an\nimmortal soul. If the reader shall think that I have made a creditable\neffort to accomplish this purpose, I shall have done my fellow man a\ngood service by pointing the way to hope and happiness.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 3. Chemical Elements Composing the Human Body\n\n\n\u201cOf the elements known to chemists,\u201d says Professor Martin, \u201conly\nsixteen have been found to take part in the formation of the human\nbody. These are (1) calcium, (2) carbon, (3) chlorine, (4) fluorine,\n(5) hydrogen, (6) iron, (7) lithium, (8) magnesium, (9) manganese, (10)\nnitrogen, (11) oxygen, (12) phosphorus, (13) potassium, (14) silicon,\n(15) sodium, and (16) sulphur. Copper and lead have sometimes been\nfound in small quantities, but are probably accidental and occasional.\u201d\n(Martin, Human Body, p. 7.)\n\nIt is clear that neither the nature nor the properties of these\nelementary substances, are changed by the fact that such substance has\nbecome a part of the body. For example, iron is iron whether in or out\nof the body.\n\nIt is probable that the chemical composition of the human body is\nsubstantially the same as that of the body of every other mammal.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 4. Atoms\n\n\nThe words \u201catom\u201d and \u201catoms\u201d will be often used in the following pages.\nTherefore, it is deemed proper to state the nature and properties of an\natom, so far as known. It is defined as: \u201cAn extremely minute particle\nof matter; a hypothetical particle of matter, so minute as to admit of\nno division; an ultimate indivisible particle of matter. (Cent. Dic. 1,\np. 365.) The Encyclopedia Britannica says: \u201cAtom is a body which cannot\nbe cut in two. The Atomic theory is a theory of the constitution of\nbodies, which asserts that they are made up of atoms.\u201d (Encyc. Brit.\n3, p. 36.) A molecule is the smallest mass of any substance, which is\ncapable of existing in a separate form; that is the smallest part, into\nwhich the substance can be divided without destroying its chemical\nidentity. A molecule of any substance is conceived of as made up of two\nor more atoms. (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3822.)\n\nIn biology a cell is defined, first, as the fundamental form-element of\nevery organized body. Secondly, as a nucleated, capsulated form element\nof any structure or tissue; one of the protoplasmic bodies, which build\nup an animal fabric; a body consisting of cell-substance, cell-wall and\ncell-nucleus, as bone-cell, etc. (Cent. Dic. 1, p. 878.) The body of\nevery animal and plant is made of cells; and each cell is composed of\nmany atoms.\n\nFor a full discussion of \u201cThe Atomic Theory,\u201d see Encyc. Brit. 3, pp.\n36-49, (9th ed.); New Int. Encyc. 13, pp. 683-685.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 5. Cells and Cell Theory\n\n\nIn Biology, the word \u201ccell\u201d denotes the fundamental form-element of\nevery organized body. It is a bioplastic mass of protoplasm, varying\nin size and shape, generally of microscopic dimensions, capable, under\nproper conditions, of performing the functions of sensation, nutrition,\nreproduction and automatic or spontaneous motion, and constituting\nin itself an entire organism, or being capable of entering into the\nstructure of one.\n\nSuch a cell, as a rule, has a nucleus and is usually also provided with\na wall or definite boundary; but neither cell-nucleus nor cell-wall\nnecessarily enters into its structure. In ultimate morphological\nanalysis, all organized tissue is resolvable into cells or cell\nproducts. See \u201cProtoplasm,\u201d and \u201cCell Theory,\u201d infra.\n\nSpecifically, the word \u201ccell\u201d denotes a nucleated capsulated\nform-element of any structure or tissue one of the independent\nprotoplasmic bodies which build up an animal fabric. A body consisting\nof cell substances, cell-wall and cell-nucleus, as bone cells,\ncartilage-cells, muscle-cells, nerve-cells, fat-cells, cells of\nconnective tissue, of mucous and serous membrane, etc., of the blood,\nlymph, etc. This is the usual character of cells in animals, and is the\nordinary technical anatomical sense of the word.\n\n\u201cHowever complicated one of the higher animals or plants may be,\u201d says\nHuxley, \u201cit begins its separate existence under the form of a nucleated\ncell.\u201d--Huxley, _Anatomy Invert. An. p. 19_.\n\nSee Haeckel, Ev. Man, chap. 6. \u201c_Ovum and am\u0153ba_,\u201d pp. 36-50; Spencer,\n_Principles, Biology, Index, \u201cCell,\u201d_ 2 p. 630; Romanes, _Darwin,\netc._, 1, pp. 104-134; _Encyc. Brit. 12_, pp. 5-10, \u201c_Histology_;\u201d\n_New Int. Encyc. 4_, p. 400.\n\nProfessor McMurrich, of the University of Michigan, says:\n\n\u201cIt has been estimated that the number of cells entering into the\ncomposition of the body of an adult human being is about twenty-six\nmillion five hundred thousand million.\u201d (McMurrich, _Development, Human\nBody_, p. 18.) This number is equivalent to twenty-six and a half\ntrillions.\n\nThe \u201ccell theory\u201d is the doctrine that the bodies of all animals and\nplants consist, either of a cell, or of a number of cells, and their\nproducts; and that all cells proceed from cells, as expressed in the\nphrase _omnis cellula e cellula_: a doctrine foreshadowed by Kasper\nFreidrich Wolff, who died in 1794, and by Karl Ernst Von Baer (born\n1792.) It was established in botany by Schleiden in 1838, and in\nzoology by Theodor Schwann about 1839.\n\nIts complete form, including the ovum, as a simple cell, also, is the\nbasis of the present state of the biological sciences.--_Cent. Dic. 1,\np. 879, col. 1._\n\n\n\n\nSec. 6. Protoplasm\n\n\nProtoplasm is an albuminoid substance, ordinarily resembling the white\nof an egg, consisting of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen in\nextremely complex and unstable molecular combination, and capable,\nunder proper conditions, of manifesting certain vital phenomena, as\nspontaneous motion, sensation, assimilation, and reproduction, thus\nconstituting the physical basis of life of all plants and animals;\nsarcode. It is essential to the nature of protoplasm that the substance\nconsist chemically of the four elements named (with or without a trace\nof some other elements); but the molecule is so highly compounded\nthat these elements may be present in somewhat different proportions\nin different cases, so that the chemical formula is not always the\nsame. The name has also been somewhat loosely applied to albuminous\nsubstances widely different in some physical properties, as density\nor fluidity. Thus the hard material of so-called vegetable ivory and\nthe soft body of an am\u0153ba are both protoplasmic. The physiological\nactivities of protoplasm are manifested in its irritability, or\nready response to external stimuli, as well as its inherent capacity\nof spontaneous movement and other indications of life; so that the\nleast particle of this substance may be observed to go through the\nwhole cycle of vital functions. Protoplasm builds up every vegetable\nand animal fabric, it is itself devoid of discernible histological\nstructure. It is ordinarily colorless and transparent, or nearly\nso, and of glairy or viscid semi-fluid consistency, as is well seen\nin the bodies of foraminifers, am\u0153b\u00e6, and other of the lowest forms\nof animal life. Such protoplasm (originally named sarcode) when not\nconfined by an investing membrane, has the power of extension in\nany direction in the form of temporary processes capable of being\nwithdrawn again; and it has also the characteristic property of\nstreaming in minute masses through closed membranes without the loss\nof the identity of such masses. An individuated mass of protoplasm,\ngenerally of microscopic size with or without a nucleus and a wall,\nconstitutes a cell, which may be the whole body of an organism, or the\nstructural unit of aggregation of a multicellular animal or plant.\nThe ovum of any creature consists of protoplasm, and all the tissues\nof the most complex living organisms result from the multiplication,\ndifferentiation, and specialization of such protoplasmic cell-units.\nThe life of the organism, as a whole, consists in the continuous waste\nand repair of the protoplasmic material of its cells. No animal,\nhowever, can elaborate protoplasm directly from the chemical elements\nof that substance. The manufacture of protoplasm is a function of the\nvegetable kingdom. Plants make it directly from mineral compounds\nand from the atmosphere under the influence of the sun\u2019s light and\nheat, thus becoming the store-house of food-stuff for the animal\nkingdom.--(See Cent. Dic. 6, p. 4799.)\n\nHence this substance, known in Vegetable Physiology as protoplasm, but\noften referred to by zo\u00f6logists as sarcode, has been appropriately\ndesignated by Professor Huxley \u201cthe physical Basis of Life.\u201d--(W. B.\nCarpenter, _Micros_, _sec. 219_.)\n\nFor the whole living world, then, it results that the morphological\nunit--the primary and fundamental form of life--is merely an\nindividual mass of protoplasm, in which no further structure is\ndiscernible.--(Huxley, _Anat. Invert._, _p. 18_.)\n\nSee Spencer, _Principles Biology I_, _p. 63-67_. _Encyc. Brit. 19_, _p.\n828-830_; _New Int. Encyc. 16_, _p. 471-472_. Haeckel, _Ev. Man_, pp.\n36-50; \u201c_Ovum and Am\u0153ba_.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSec. 7. Human Body is a Compound Physical Structure Built of Cells\n\n\nThe human body and every organ, part and cell in it, has length,\nbreadth, thickness and weight, like a brick or stone. So, every such\nbody and every organ and part of it is built of material substances\nas completely as are the foundation, walls, roof and other parts of\na brick house. The body, as a whole, and every organ and part of it,\nhas every property and attribute of a physical structure; and all the\nmaterials of which the body is built up, except the germ-cell (or\nfertilized ovum), were dead matter before they were assimilated and\nincorporated into it. So, all the materials, of which such a body\nis built up, are selected, assembled, grouped together and put into\nposition in the body in the same manner that bricks, or blocks of stone\nare gathered up and put into position in a building, but by different\nforces and other means.\n\nBut there is a marked difference between the process of building a\nhouse, engine, or other inanimate structure, on the one hand, and the\nbody of the human embryo on the other. The wood, clay, iron and other\nmaterials used in the construction of the former are found ready to\nhand; and they are cut, sawed, burned, molded, or hammered, by man,\ninto the proper size, form and condition for use in the construction\nof the building or machine; and are carried, by him, to the place, at\nwhich the building or machine is to be constructed. He then places\nthese materials in such positions as to build up and complete the\nbuilding or machine.\n\nOn the other hand the materials of which the body of the human embryo\nis built, are carried by the blood of the mother to their proper places\nin the body; and different portions of the same raw material, namely:\nthe mother\u2019s blood, are then differentiated and specialized into bones,\nmuscles, nerves, arteries, veins, and other tissues, which go to make\nup the human body.\n\nThese bones, muscles, nerves, etc., are all new creations, independent\nof those of the mother, father or any other human being that ever\nlived. Except the tiny germ-cell, which is less than one-trillionth\npart of the infant, at birth, they are built of atoms that never\nformed any part of any other human body. The human body is not only a\ncompound physical structure, consisting of hundreds of bones, hundreds\nof muscles, arteries, veins, etc., and of trillions of cells; and of\nmany organs, as the brain, heart, lungs, etc., but each of its tissues\nand each of its organs and parts has its own chemical composition and\nits own mechanical arrangement, peculiar to itself. For example, all\nthe bones are composed of phosphate of lime, carbonate of lime and\nother elements peculiar to the bony tissue. Again, the atoms (cells) in\neach bone are mechanically arranged in a manner peculiar to that bone.\nThus, the atoms in the bones of the skull are so arranged as to make\nthem flat and curved, with an inner and outer plate; those in the other\nbones are so arranged as to make them long and cylindrical (arms and\nlegs); others short (hands and feet); others flat and curved (ribs);\nothers with complex forms (vertebr\u00e6), and so on. The muscular, vascular\nand nervous tissues are each composed of chemical elements peculiar to\nthemselves; and their atoms are so arranged, mechanically, as to form\nthe muscles, arteries, veins, nerves, etc.\n\nThe human body is not only a compound physical structure, with all\nthese tissues, organs, cells, etc., but life is added to all the other\nwonderful properties, which it possesses.\n\nNow, the chemical elements, which compose the bones, muscles, arteries,\nveins, nerves, etc., either assemble, automatically, and group\nthemselves, chemically, and at the same time, automatically, arrange\nthemselves, mechanically, in such a manner as to form the bones,\nmuscles, arteries, veins, nerves, brain, heart, lungs, stomach, etc.,\nwithout the aid of any extraneous psychic or creative force, or this\nwonderful work is done by the Creator, Himself. Which hypothesis is\nmost plausible?\n\nBut this is not all. Each organ and part of the body is adjusted to,\nand correlated with, every other organ and part of it. For example,\nthe heart and lungs are so arranged as to work together. What force or\nagency selected, assembled and grouped the chemical elements, which\ncompose the heart, then arranged these atoms in such a manner as to\nform the heart with chambers, valves, etc.? How did it happen that the\nelements, which compose the lungs, were assembled, grouped and arranged\nso as to form them with their complex machinery. Are these things the\nwork of blind unthinking cells or of the Creator?\n\nIt is inconceivable that the germ-cell (fertilized ovum), the mother\u2019s\nblood or any atom of it has intellect, memory or will-power. It would\nbe absurd nonsense to suppose that the atoms, of which bones, muscles,\nnerves, etc., are composed automatically, and of their own motion,\ndifferentiated themselves into bones, muscles, nerves, etc., and then\ngrouped themselves together, mechanically, in such manner as to form\nthe bones, muscles, nerves, etc., then fitted themselves together as we\nfind them in the body of the infant at birth.\n\nThe properties and characteristics of the human body, as a physical\nstructure, are not altered nor affected by the fact that it is composed\nof live tissues, such as bones, muscles, arteries, veins, nerves,\netc., and of live organs as the brain, heart, lungs, liver, stomach,\nkidneys, etc., for the body and every organ and part of it has the same\nlength, breadth, thickness, and weight, whether living or dead, at\nleast, until disintegration sets in. In brief, the living human body\nhas identically the same physical properties and characteristics that\nan inanimate body would have, if the latter were composed of the same\nchemical elements, combined in the same proportions and mechanically\narranged in the same manner and kept at the same temperature, as that\nof the human body; and the body merely has life, intellect, memory and\nwill-power added to its physical properties and characteristics.\n\nNor do the atoms and cells, nor the organs and parts, of which the\nbody is composed, except the brain, have any more intellect, memory\nand will-power than so many grains of sand, or so many bricks. For\nexample: Every man knows that neither his bones, muscles, arteries,\nveins, nerves, eyes, ears, nose, arms, hands, legs, feet, heart, lungs,\nstomach, liver, nor his kidneys have any intellectual powers whatever.\n\nEvery man knows that the infant, at birth, has no conscious intellect,\nmemory, nor will-power. It is, therefore, absurd to suppose that the\nembryo has any power or control over its own development and growth. It\nis equally clear that the mother has no direct power nor control over\nits growth.\n\nSo, every man knows that his I, ego, or self has no power, nor any\ncontrol over any part of his body except his brain and voluntary\nmuscles. For example, no man can determine his complexion; nor the\ncolor of his hair; nor of his eyes; nor the length of his nose, nor his\nfeet; nor the size of his head. These facts prove, conclusively, that\nthe Creator generates, guides and controls the forces which build up\nthe embryo body.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 8. Human Body is a Complex Animal Machine\n\n\nThe human soul knows, feels and wills. It resides in the brain and\ngoverns the body by means of the brain and nerves; the stomach digests\nthe food and makes nutriment for the body; the heart pumps the blood\nto and from the several parts of it, the arteries and veins carry the\nblood from the heart and back to it; the blood carries fresh building\nmaterials to every part of the body, and gathers up, and carries waste\nmatter back to the heart and lungs; the lungs purify and enliven the\nblood; the liver secretes bile and cleanses the blood; the muscles and\nbones move the body and every part of it; the nerves carry messages\nfrom the brain to every part of the body and from every other part\nto the brain; the kidneys and other organs perform their functions;\nthe work of all these organs being necessary to keep the body in good\nworking order. The brain, stomach, heart, arteries, veins, lungs,\nblood, muscles, bones, kidneys, etc., may each be considered as a\ncomplex animal machine, designed and constructed to perform its special\nfunctions.\n\nThe body, as a whole, is an animal machine, which does much work\npeculiar to itself.\n\nThe functions of all organs other than those of the brain and\nvoluntary muscles are performed by them, independently of the will.\nIn other words: all the organs of the body except the brain and the\nvoluntary muscles appear to act automatically as an automatic machine\ndoes. For example, the stomach, heart, lungs, liver and kidneys appear\nto do their work as automatic machines, independently of the will;\nnor has man any direct control, nor power over the work of any of his\norgans except that of the brain and voluntary muscles. Thus, he cannot\ndirectly compel his stomach to digest his food; nor has he any direct\ncontrol over the action of his heart, nor over that of his lungs; nor\ncan he directly compel his liver to secrete bile. All he can do is to\ntake medicine or some other substance into his stomach, and thence into\nhis blood to stimulate, reduce, or modify the action of his organs; or\nchange his environment.\n\nNo male has any direct control nor any voluntary agency in the\nformation of spermatozo\u00e4 in his genital organs; nor has any female\nany control over, nor any voluntary part in, the formation of eggs in\nher ovaries. In fact fully ninety-nine per cent of mankind are wholly\nignorant of the existence of spermatozo\u00e4 and ova (eggs), having no\nknowledge, whatever, of the mechanism by which their own offspring are\nbrought into being.\n\nWhat are we to infer from these facts? Can we believe that the\nfunctions of the heart and other involuntary muscles do their work,\nautomatically, without the aid of any extraneous psychic force? Can\nwe believe that the mysterious spermatozo\u00f6n, and ovum are produced in\nthe genital organs of the male and female, without their knowledge\nand without the aid of any psychic or creative force, whatever? Is\nit possible for the atoms of which each spermatozo\u00f6n is composed, to\nassemble and group themselves, automatically into it without the aid\nof a supernatural psychic and creative force? In another section of\nthis work, I have argued that each spermatozo\u00f6n is a new, direct and\nspecial creation. The same is true of each ovum. I believe that the\nsame psychic and creative force which generates, guides and controls the\nforces, that build up the body of the embryo, continues to generate,\nguide and control many of the forces which affect the human body during\nits whole life. I believe that the same force determines the growth and\nwaste of cells; and by this means fixes the size of each normal body.\nWhy does an elephant grow larger than a mouse; an ox larger than a man;\nan eagle larger than a humming bird? How does it happen that all men,\nelephants, mice, eagles, etc., are of substantially the same size?\n\nIt is clear that neither man nor an other animal, has any control over\nthe growth of cells in his body, nor over his own size. The cells\nof which these bodies are built up, have no intellect, memory nor\nwill-power. It would be impossible for them to know when a sufficient\nnumber of cells have been made to bring these bodies to their proper\nsizes. The cells have no power to control their production nor their\nwaste. It follows that the Creator must govern and control the forces,\nwhich produce the cells in each animal body; and that he fixes within\ncertain limits, the form and size of each body.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 9. Human Body is Constructed on a Definite and Specific Plan\n\n\nEvery bone, joint, process, muscle, nerve, artery, vein and part has\nits own chemical composition, form, size, structure and position in the\nbody. Each normal human body has the same tissues, organs and parts,\nthat every other such body has; the form, structure, organs and parts\nof all normal bodies being identically the same.\n\nIf the so-called factors of evolution were at work in every age and in\nevery part of the earth, as maintained by the evolutionist, we would\nsurely find variations and diversities in the form and structure of the\nbodies of men in different ages and countries; for we know that the\nenvironments of the different varieties of man differ very greatly in\ntime and space. For example, the eskimos live all their lives in the\nfrozen regions at the North, while the inhabitants of the tropics spend\ntheir lives under a blazing sun; yet there is no anatomical difference\nbetween the body of an Eskimo and that of a Cuban.\n\nWhat is the inference to be drawn from these facts? The evolutionist\nand the naturalist say that the facts imply that all men have descended\nfrom a common ancestor, that each individual inherits, from his\nparents, every organ and part of his body, that \u201clike begets like.\u201d\nThey maintain that the law of heredity has produced the uniformity\nof size, form, features, organs and parts, which we discover among\nall men, all over the world. No doubt this is the belief of more than\nninety-nine (99) per cent of mankind.\n\nBut this belief is manifestly erroneous for the following reasons:\n(1) Whatever passes from the parents to the child is transmitted by\nand through the fertilized ovum; (2) this ovum is short-lived; it has\nno brain, eyes, ears, nose, touch nor taste; no intellect, memory nor\nwill-power; nor inherent power to produce the embryo body; nor to endow\nsuch a body with life; nor to create a human soul; (3) each embryo\nbody grows, anew, for itself, without regard to the development and\ngrowth of its parents or any other ancestor; and it is a new chemical\ncombination and a new mechanical arrangement of the atoms of which\nit is composed; (4) each chemical combination of atoms in an embryo\nbody is made according to a prescribed chemical formula; and each\nmechanical arrangement of atoms in such a body is made according to a\nspecific plan; in other words the chemical combinations and mechanical\narrangements of atoms, in each embryo body, are identically the same\nas those in every other such body; (5) conscious intellect, memory,\nwill-power, force and motion are necessary to combine two or more atoms\nchemically, according to a prescribed formula and to group two or more\natoms, mechanically, according to a specific plan; (6) Hence, we are\ncompelled to believe that every human body is a new, direct and special\ncreation by Almighty God.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 10. Human Body is Unique and Peculiar\n\n\nEach normal human body resembles every other such body, in form, size,\nand structure; in chemical elements, organs and parts. But it differs\nfrom every other in these particulars: (1) The atoms of which it is\ncomposed are exclusively its own; (2) it is a new combination of these\natoms; (3) it grew anew, for itself, separately and apart from, and\nindependent of, every other such body; (4) the forces and motions,\nwhich produced it, were peculiar to it, in origin, time and space.\n\nSee Cent. Dic. Supplement, \u201cA-L,\u201d p. 582. \u201cHeredity;\u201d Encyc. Brit. (9\ned.) 24, p. 818, \u201cVariation.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSec. 11. Force and Motion\n\n\nSir Isaac Newton\u2019s first law of motion is written in these words:\n\n\u201cEvery body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a\nstraight line, except in so far as it is compelled, by force, to change\nthat state.\u201d--(Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) 15, p. 676, \u201cMechanics.\u201d)\n\n\u201cEnergy may be defined,\u201d says the Britannica, \u201cas the power of doing\nwork, or of overcoming resistance. A bent spring possesses energy,\nfor it is capable of doing work in returning to its natural form; a\ncharge of gun powder possesses energy for it is capable of doing work\nin exploding; a Leyden jar, charged with electricity possesses energy,\nfor it is capable of doing work in being discharged.\u201d--(Encyc. Brit. (9\ned.) 8, pp. 205-206, \u201cEnergy.\u201d)\n\n\u201cForce is that which affects the motion of matter.\u201d--(Encyc. Brit. (9\ned.) 7, p. 581, \u201cDynamics.\u201d)\n\n\u201cThe conclusion, which appears inevitable,\u201d it says on another page,\n\u201cis that whatever matter may be the other reality in the physical\nuniverse, energy, which is never found unassociated with matter,\ndepends, in all its widely varied forms upon motion of matter.\u201d (Encyc.\nBrit. (9 ed.) 15, p. 748, \u201cMechanics.\u201d)\n\nThe sense of the above quotation is this: There are two realities in\nthe physical universe: (1) matter, whatever it may be; (2) energy,\nwhich is always associated with matter. Energy \u201cdepends, in all its\nvaried forms, upon motion of matter.\u201d For example, let us suppose that\nwe have three balls, designated as A, B, C, resting on a table in a\nstraight line, one inch apart. Suppose that I strike A and drive it\nagainst B, that B strikes and moves C. In this case my arm moves and\ngenerates energy or force, which moves A against B, and B against C.\nThe motion of my arm is the force which moves A; the motion of A is the\nforce which moves B, and the motion of B is the force which moves C.\nThus, we have demonstrated that energy or force generates motion; and\nthat motions produces force; that is, that each is convertible into the\nother.\n\n\u201cMotion\u201d is defined as \u201cchange of place; transition from one point or\nposition in space to another; continuous variation of position.\u201d (Cent.\nDic. 5, p. 3872.)\n\nEvery human being begins life as a fertilized ovum, which is about as\nlarge as one-sixth of a pin\u2019s head. At birth, an infant weighs from\nfive to nine pounds, the average weight being six and one-half pounds.\n(New International Encyc. 7, p. 775.) It is then millions of times\nlarger than a fertilized ovum. In other words: millions of atoms have\nbeen selected, assembled, chemically combined and mechanically arranged\nand grouped in such a manner as to form the body of a living infant,\nwhich is a complete miniature model of the body of a man or woman.\n\nIt is obvious that the materials of which the embryo body is built up,\nexcept the fertilized ovum, are derived from the food eaten by the\nmother; that her heart and arteries generate the forces and produce the\nmotions which carry the materials to the building site of the embryo,\njust as the builder assembles the bricks, stones, sand, lime, lumber,\nnails and other materials to build a house.\n\nThe embryo body is a compound physical structure built of cells,\nas a house is built of bricks. The atoms and cells, of which it is\ncomposed, are subject to all the laws of force and motion, to the same\nextent, and in the same manner that bricks are. Nor have they any more\nintellect, memory nor will-power than a brick has.\n\nPerhaps the first thing that an infant does, after birth, is to\nbreathe. In order to do this, air must be forced into, and out of its\nlungs. To enable the heart to beat, its auricles must dilate and take\nthe blood into it; and its ventricles must contract and force the blood\nout of it, and into the arteries. So that every time one breathes,\nand every time one\u2019s heart beats, force is exerted and motion of air\nand blood is produced. Every time one takes a drink of water or a\nbite of bread he must exert sufficient force to raise it, and produce\nsufficient motion to bring it to his mouth. Every time one takes a step\nhe exerts sufficient force and produces sufficient motion to move his\nbody the distance that he steps. For example, suppose that A, weighing\ntwo hundred pounds, gets on an electric street car and rides a mile.\nIt is obvious that the electric motor has exerted sufficient force and\nproduced sufficient motion of A\u2019s body to move two hundred pounds, the\ndistance of a mile. Now, if A had walked along the same railway track\nthe same distance, it is clear that he would have exerted the same\nforce and produced the same motion of his body that the motor did.\n\nWe eat, drink, speak, move, act, work, live--do everything by force and\nmotion. When they cease, death comes.\n\nEverything that a man can do with a physical body is resolvable into\nforce and motion. He may move a body from one place to another; he may\ngroup two or more bodies together; or he may take two or more bodies\napart; or he may cut or break a body into two or more parts. But, at\nlast, all of these operations are equivalent to moving one or more\nbodies from one place to another, by force and motion.\n\nA sewing machine, adding machine, watch, steam engine, and every other\nmachine is constructed by force and motion. Every piece of music is\nsung or played by force and motion. Every painting is made by grouping\ntwo or more pigments (colors) together in a particular manner by force\nand motion.\n\nIntellect, memory and will-power are necessary to produce two or more\nforces and motions in a prescribed order and within a given time. For\nexample, each note in a piece of music requires, for its production,\na certain force and peculiar motion (vibration) of cord, pipe or\nstring within a certain time. It is obvious that intellect, memory\nand will-power are necessary to sing or play any piece of music.\nBefore anyone can speak any given word he must have intellect, memory\nand will-power: (1) he must know the word to be uttered, (2) he must\nremember it until it is uttered, (3) he must have the will-power\nnecessary to exert the force and produce the motion of air necessary\nto utter it. Let the reader speak the words: \u201cearth,\u201d \u201cair,\u201d \u201cfire,\u201d\n\u201cwater,\u201d and analyze the process.\n\nIntellect, memory and will-power are necessary to generate, guide, and\ncontrol the forces and motions required to make a watch or any other\ncompound machine or structure, within a given time. Suppose that a\nwatchmaker is required to make each spring, wheel and part of a watch\nby hand, to put every part in its place and start it to running on or\nabout the 280th day after he begins the work. (Haeckel Ev. Man, p.\n199.) To do this work he must have intellect, memory and will-power to\ngenerate, guide, and control and time the forces and motions which are\nnecessary to make each part of the watch and to fit and group them\ntogether when completed. He must know and remember every part of it;\nremember the material of which it is made; remember its form and size;\ncompare each piece with the pattern; remember the time in which he is\nto do the work. He must have the will-power to begin and continue the\nwork until it is done, doing such part of it each day as to complete it\non or about the day fixed.\n\nBut the forces and motions, which build up the body of the embryo,\nwork in the dark without brain or sense-organs. To put the watchmaker\non the same basis with the Creator, we will have to suppose that the\nwatchmaker is blind and has no sense of touch. Would it be possible for\nhim to make a watch under these conditions?\n\nThe mother\u2019s food is taken into her mouth, chewed and mixed with saliva\nand passes into her stomach. Here it is mixed with gastric juice\nand converted into chyme. It then passes into the small intestine\n(duodenum) where it is mixed with pancreatic secretion, bile and \u201cthe\nsecretion of the glands Brunner and the Crypts of Lieberk\u00fchn\u201d and thus\nconverted into chyle. Most of the \u201cnutritive constituents\u201d of the chyle\npass through the epithelium of the small intestines into the subjacent\nblood and lymphatic vessels and are carried off. Those passing into\nthe blood capillaries are taken by the portal vein to the liver; while\nthose entering the lacteals are carried into the left jugular vein by\nthe thoracic duct. (Martin, Human Body, pp. 361-377.)\n\nThis is a very brief outline of the processes, by which the food, one\neats is converted into blood and passes into the arteries and veins.\n\nThe embryo at first, has no heart, arteries, nor veins. After its body\nhas developed and grown to a certain extent, the mother\u2019s heart and\narteries carry arterial blood to it through the \u201cumbilical vein.\u201d This\nblood finally reaches the heart of the embryo, and is carried by its\nheart and arteries to every part of its body, then returned through\n\u201ctwo umbilical arteries\u201d and the placenta to the veins of the mother.\nIn this way, the embryo has a sort of circulation of its own. But it\nappears to have no independent circulation during the first three or\nfour months of its life; and the blood which circulates through it must\nbe aerated or oxygenated in the mother\u2019s lungs.\n\nWe may say, in general terms, that the mother\u2019s heart and arteries\nexert all the force and produce all the motion which build up the\nembryo. It is true that the work of her heart and arteries is\nsupplemented, after a time, by that of the heart and arteries of the\nembryo but the latter work is a small part of the whole.\n\nThe water in a stream runs from its head to its mouth because the\nlatter is nearer to the center of the earth than the former. In\nother words, the water in every stream is carried forward by the\nforce of gravitation. The water in a stream carries silt (mud, fine\nearth, etc.) which is deposited along its course and at its mouth. As\nalready stated, the mother\u2019s blood is carried to the embryo body by\nthe force of her heart and arteries. Her blood conveys to the embryo,\nthe materials of which it is built up, as the water in a stream\ncarries silt to its mouth. Her blood has no more intellect, memory nor\nwill-power than the water in a stream.\n\nIf a portion of the silt at the mouth of the Mississippi should be\ndeposited at its mouth in the form of a colossal man, showing his head,\nneck, body, arms, legs, hands, feet, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, etc., it\nwould be considered a great miracle. But the formation of the embryo\nbody in the womb of its mother, with all its organs and parts is far\nmore miraculous than the formation of the silt man of the Mississippi\nwould be.\n\nThe reader may reply that the atoms of which the embryo is built up\nare not merely deposited but they are absorbed by the fertilized ovum\nand its daughter-cells, and converted into new cells; that these cells\nare chemically combined and differentiated and mechanically arranged\nin such a manner as to form the embryo body, etc. True; but force\nand motion are necessary to produce new cells, to make the necessary\nchemical combinations and mechanical arrangements; and these forces and\nmotions must be generated, guided and controlled by a Being possessed\nof a conscious intellect, memory, will-power and creative force.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 12. Intellect, Memory and Will-power are Necessary, When\n\n\nConscious intellect, memory and will-power are necessary to generate,\nguide and control the force and motion employed in the construction of\na compound physical structure, whatever its form or size may be.\n\nEach spermatozo\u00f6n is composed of myriads of atoms. The atoms of each\nare chemically combined and mechanically arranged in the same manner\nthat those in every other are, all spermatozo\u00e4 being identical in\nchemical composition, mechanical arrangement, form and size. The same\nis true of each ovum and fertilized ovum, and of the atoms in them,\nrespectively, _vice versa_. So each embryo is composed of myriads\nof cells, the cells in each having identically the same chemical\ncomposition and mechanical arrangement that those in every other\nembryo of the same age and sex have; all embryos of the same age and\nsex having substantially the same chemical combinations and mechanical\narrangements of their cells, organs and parts. It follows that each\nhuman spermatozo\u00f6n, ovum, fertilized ovum and embryo, of the same age\nand sex is constructed according to certain prescribed \u201cplans and\nspecifications.\u201d\n\nWe are, therefore, compelled to assume that the force and motion\nnecessary to construct the spermatozo\u00f6n, ovum, fertilized ovum and\nembryo are generated, guided and controlled by a Being with full\nknowledge of the \u201cplans and specifications,\u201d of the chemical elements,\ntheir affinities and combinations, of mechanical arrangements,\netc. The Architect must know the \u201cplans and specifications;\u201d must\nbe able to compare the work of construction with them, as the work\nprogresses; must have memory to bear in mind and recall the plans and\nspecifications; and must have will-power to begin and continue the work\nuntil the \u201cstructure\u201d is completed. So He must see that each organ and\npart attains its proper form and size at the right time; that each\norgan and part is properly proportioned to and correlated with, every\nother on each day of its growth. In other words: He must see that the\nforces at work, and the motions produced in each organ and part of\nthe embryo body are proportioned to and in harmony with the forces at\nwork and the motions produced in every other; that the development and\ngrowth of each organ and part keeps pace with those of every other.\nThis knowledge, power and creative force belongs only to the Creator.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 13. Spermatozo\u00f6n\n\n\nA spermatozo\u00f6n is a microscopic body contained in the semen, to which\nthe seminal fluid owes its vitality; and which is the immediate means\nof impregnating or fertilizing the ovum of the female; a spermatic cell\nor filament; a spermatozoid. (Cent. Dic. 7, p. 5819.)\n\nThe spermatozo\u00f6n is composed of protoplasm and is one of the smallest\ncells in the animal body. The seminal fluid is called \u201csperm\u201d or\n\u201cthe male seed.\u201d Sperm, like saliva or blood, is not a simple fluid,\nbut is a thick agglomeration of innumerable cells swimming about in\na comparatively small quantity of fluid. It is not the fluid, but\nthe independent male cells, which swim in it, that cause conception.\nThey have, as a rule, \u201ca peculiarly lively motion.\u201d In most animals,\nthe spermatozo\u00e4 have a very small naked body, inclosing an elongated\nnucleus and a long thread like tail, hanging from it. It was long\nbefore we could recognize that these structures were simple cells. We\nnow know that the spermatozo\u00e4 are nothing but simple and real cells of\nthe kind we call \u201cciliated\u201d cells, equipped with cilia or \u201clashes.\u201d\n\nThe body of the spermatozo\u00f6n is divided into \u201chead,\u201d \u201ctrunk\u201d and\n\u201ctail.\u201d The head is merely the oval nucleus of the cell; the body\nor middle part is an accumulation of cell matter and the tail is\na thread-like prolongation of the trunk or body. The form of the\nspermatozo\u00f6n is not peculiar to it; cells with similar forms are found\nin various other parts of the body. Such forms as the spermatozo\u00f6n are\ncalled caudate or tailed cells. See Haeckel, _Evolution of Man_, p.\n52-53.\n\n\u201cThe spermatozo\u00e4,\u201d says Professor Martin, \u201care motile bodies about\n1/500th of an inch in length; they have a flattened, clear body or head\nand a long vibratile tail or cilium; the portion of the tail nearest\nthe head is thicker than the rest, and is known as the neck. The mode\nof development of a spermatozo\u00f6n shows that the head is a cell-nucleus\nand the neck and tail a modified cell-body.\u201d--(Martin, _Human Body_,\np. 651.)\n\nAccording to Haeckel, the spermatozo\u00f6n is about 1/10,000th of an inch\nin diameter. See _Evolution of Man_, p. 53, fig. 22.\n\n\u201cThe striking differences,\u201d says Haeckel, \u201cof [between] the respective\ncells, in size and shape \u2026 are easily explained on the principle of\ndivision of labor. The inert motionless ovum grows in size according to\nthe quantity of provision it stores up in the form of nutritive yelk\nfor the development of the germ. The active swimming sperm-cell is\nreduced in size in proportion to its need to seek the ovum and bore its\nway into its yelk.\u201d--Haeckel, _Evolution of Man_, p. 57.\n\nThese statements appear to be true; but the work described by Haeckel,\ncannot be done by man nor woman; nor by their sexual organs; nor by the\nblind unthinking atoms which go to build up the spermatozo\u00f6n and the\novum. The Creator only, can make them!\n\n\u201cThe phenomena we have described,\u201d he says, on another page, \u201ccan\nonly be understood and explained by ascribing a certain lower degree\nof psychic activity to the sexual principles. They feel each other\u2019s\nproximity and are drawn together by a sensitive impulse (probably\nrelated to smell); they move towards each other and do not rest until\nthey fuse together.\u201d (Haeckel, _Evolution of Man_, p. 58.)\n\nThere is no pretense that the spermatozo\u00f6n has any brain, eyes, ears,\nnose, taste or touch; nor that the ovum has any such organs. Then, how\ncan they have any \u201cdegree of psychic activity;\u201d how can \u201cthey feel each\nother\u2019s proximity;\u201d how can \u201cthey move towards each other?\u201d How could\neither know in what direction to go in order to reach the other?\n\nIt is absurd to suppose that the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum have any\nknowledge of each other, or of anything else; and the only reasonable\nhypothesis is that the Creator generates, guides, and controls the\nforces which bring them together and fuse them into the germ-cell.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 14. Ovum\n\n\nThe word ovum is defined as: \u201cAn egg in a broad biological sense;\nand the proper product of an ovary; the female germ or seed, which,\nwhen fertilized by the male sperm, is capable of developing into\nan individual like the parents.\u2026 An ovum consists of a quantity of\nprotoplasm or cell-substance called the vitellus or yolk inclosed in\na cell-wall or vitelline membrane, and provided with a nucleus and\nnucleolus.\u201d (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 4212.)\n\n\u201cThe ovum (egg) is extremely small,\u201d says Haeckel, \u201cbeing a tiny round\nvesicle about 1/120th of an inch in diameter; it can be seen under\nfavorable circumstances with the naked eye as a tiny particle, but is\notherwise quite invisible. This particle is formed in the ovary inside\na much larger globule, which takes the name of the Gra\u00e4fian follicle,\nfrom its discoverer, Gra\u00e4f, and [which] had been previously regarded as\nthe true ovum.\u201d (Evolution of Man, chap. 3, pp. 16-17.)\n\n\u201cMan is developed,\u201d says Darwin, \u201cfrom an ovule (little egg) about the\n1/125th of an inch in diameter, which differs in no respect from the\novules of other animals.\u201d (Descent of Man, chap. 1, p. 9.)\n\n\u201cIn man,\u201d says Romanes, \u201cas in most mammals, it (the ovum or egg-cell)\nis about 1/120th of an inch in diameter.\u201d (Romanes, _Darwin and After\nDarwin_, 1, p. 120.)\n\nSupposing the human egg to be 1/120th of an inch in diameter and an\nordinary pin\u2019s head to be 1/16th of an inch in diameter, which is about\nits size, the egg would be about 1/7th of the size of a pin\u2019s head.\n\nHaeckel says: \u201cIn the lower vertebrates the formation of ova (eggs) in\nthe germ-epithelium of the ovary continues throughout life; but in the\nhigher animals it is restricted to the earlier stages, or even to the\nperiod of embryonic development.\n\n\u201cIn man it seems to cease in the first year; in the second year we find\nno new-formed ova (eggs) or chains of ova (Pfluger\u2019s tubes.) However,\nthe number of ova (eggs) in the two ovaries is very large in the young\ngirl. There are calculated to be 72,000 in the sexually mature maiden.\u201d\n(_Evolution of Man_, chap. 29, p. 347.)\n\n\u201cThe human ovum,\u201d says Haeckel, \u201cwhether fertilized, or not, cannot be\ndistinguished from that of most other mammals. It is nearly the same\neverywhere, in form, size, and composition. When it is fully formed,\nit has a diameter of (on an average) about 1/120th of an inch. When\nthe mammal ovum (egg) has been carefully isolated and held against the\nlight on a glass-plate, it may be seen as a fine point even with the\nnaked eye. The ova (eggs) of most of the higher animals are about the\nsame size. The diameter of the ovum (egg) is almost always between\n1/250th and 1/125th of an inch. It has always the same globular shape;\nthe same characteristic membrane; the same transparent germinal vesicle\nwith its dark germinal spot.\n\n\u201cEven when we use the most powerful microscope,\u201d he continues, \u201cwith\nits highest power, we can detect no material difference between the\nova (eggs) of man, the ape, dog, and so on. I do not mean to say that\nthere are no differences between the ova (eggs) of these different\nmammals. On the contrary, we are bound to assume that there are such\n[differences] at least as regards chemical composition. Even the ova\n(eggs) of different men must differ from each other; otherwise we\nshould not have a different individual from each ovum (egg). It is\ntrue that our crude and imperfect apparatus cannot detect these subtle\nindividual differences which are probably in the molecular (atomic)\nstructure.\u201d--(_Evolution of Man_, _chap. 6_, p. 44.)\n\n\n\n\nSec. 15. Spermatozo\u00f6n and Ovum are Special Creations\n\n\nEach human spermatozo\u00f6n is formed in the genital organs of a particular\nman. So each human ovum is formed in the genital organs of a particular\nwoman. Each of them is a new chemical combination, and a new mechanical\narrangement, of the atoms of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen\n(protoplasm) of which they are composed; which atoms are now, combined\nand arranged, for the first and last time, into a spermatozo\u00f6n or an\novum. The atoms in a spermatozo\u00f6n are chemically combined according to\na prescribed formula, and mechanically arranged according to a specific\nplan; and the same is true of the atoms in an ovum. Each spermatozo\u00f6n\nhas the same chemical composition and the same mechanical arrangement,\nthe same form and size, that every other has. So each ovum has the same\ncombination and arrangement, the same form and size that every other\nhas.\n\nThe materials, forces and motions employed in making each spermatozo\u00f6n\nare similar to those employed in forming every other; but they are\nwholly different from, and independent of, those employed in making\nany other; and the same is true of the materials, forces and motions\nemployed in making each ovum.\n\nIn other words, each spermatozo\u00f6n is composed of its own atoms, and\nthese atoms are selected, assembled, combined and arranged by forces\nand motions, peculiar to itself, independently of and wholly different\nfrom, the forces and motions which build up every other. The same is\ntrue of each ovum, the necessary changes being made.\n\nIt is a well known fact that each human spermatozo\u00f6n is so adapted\nto, and correlated with, each human ovum that these two cells will,\nunder suitable conditions, fuse and produce a new human being. It is\nalso true that no other substance, on the earth, will fuse with such\nan ovum with the same result. The same is true of each ovum _vice\nversa_. These facts prove that each spermatozo\u00f6n, and each ovum, has\na specific composition, and definite arrangement of its atoms; that\neach spermatozo\u00f6n has the same composition, and, substantially the same\nform, size, and structure that every other has; and that each ovum has\nthe same composition, form, size and structure that every other has.\n\nWe cannot doubt that each spermatozo\u00f6n and each ovum is produced anew,\nseparately and apart from, and independently of every other, the\nproduction of each having no relation to the production nor to the\nexistence of any other.\n\nIntellect, memory, will-power, force and motion are necessary to group\ntwo or more atoms into a prescribed chemical combination, or into a\nspecified mechanical arrangement. So supernatural, psychic and creative\nforce are necessary to endow the human spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum, with the\nvital properties and potentialities which they are known to possess.\n\nThus it appears that each spermatozo\u00f6n and each ovum has mysterious\nand wonderful properties peculiar to itself. We cannot believe that\nthey are produced by accident, nor by chance; nor that the atoms, of\nwhich they are composed, assemble and group themselves, automatically,\ninto the form of a spermatozo\u00f6n or an ovum; nor that they are evolved\nby the factors of evolution. The man in whose genital organs the\nspermatozo\u00f6n is formed, has no conscious part nor voluntary agency in\nits production; nor has he any control, nor any power over it. His\nsexual organs \u201cgrind it out\u201d as a mill grinds out meal. Nor has the\nwoman, in whose ovary the ovum is formed, any part nor agency in its\nproduction; nor any control nor any power over it. No man, however\nwise, scientific and great he may be, can make any combination of atoms\nwith the properties and potentialities of the spermatozo\u00f6n; nor with\nthose of the ovum.\n\nThe atoms in each spermatozo\u00f6n are unique and peculiar to it, they\nbeing similar to, but differing from, those composing any other\nspermatozo\u00f6n; and the same is true of the atoms composing each ovum.\nSo, each spermatozo\u00f6n appears to be endowed with the power to produce\na child with a form, features, characteristics and traits resembling\nthose of its father. In like manner it appears that each ovum has the\npower to produce a child with a form, features, qualities and traits\nresembling those of its mother.\n\nBut the smallest ant is a giant, in comparison with the spermatozo\u00f6n or\nthe ovum. Neither of them has any brain, nor eyes, ears, nose, touch,\nnor taste--no brain nor sense-organs. It is impossible to believe that\nthe spermatozo\u00f6n knows the color of its father\u2019s hair and eyes; his\ncomplexion; the length of his nose; the size and form of his head; his\nfacial expression; his characteristics and traits. Nor can we even\nimagine that the ovum has any knowledge of its mother, nor of her\nanatomy, organs, form, features or characteristics.\n\nBut assuming for argument that the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum do know\nall these things, it would be absurd to suppose that they can,\nautomatically, combine, arrange and differentiate their atoms, and\nthe new daughter-cells, which are produced in the embryo body, in\nsuch manner and form as to reproduce the hair, eyes, complexion, form,\nfeatures, characteristics and traits of the father and mother. The\nwork, which the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum appear to do is, in fact, done by\nthe Creator, Himself, He employing them as instruments with which to do\nthe same.\n\nIn view of all the facts, we are compelled to infer that the Creator\nselects the atoms, which form the spermatozo\u00f6n and the ovum and that he\ngenerates, guides and controls the forces, which assemble, group and\narrange them into the form of a spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum.\n\nIt follows that each human spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum is a new, direct and\nspecial creation by Almighty God.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 16. Germ-Cell, Stem-Cell or Fertilized Ovum\n\n\nThe fertilized ovum is variously called, \u201cgerm-cell,\u201d \u201cstem-cell,\u201d\n\u201cfirst segmentation sphere,\u201d \u201cparent-cell,\u201d \u201cimpregnated ovum,\u201d\n\u201cfertilized egg cell,\u201d and other names of like import, all these\nphrases meaning the same thing.\n\nUnder the head, \u201cConception,\u201d Haeckel says, among other things:\n\n\u201cThe process of fertilization by sexual conception consists, therefore,\nessentially, in the co\u00e4lescence and fusing together of two different\ncells. The lively spermatozo\u00f6n travels toward the ovum by its\nserpentine movements and bores its way into the female cell. The\nnuclei of both sexual cells attracted by a certain affinity approach\neach other and melt into one.\u201d--(Haeckel, Ev. Man, p. 53.)\n\nHow do they acquire this \u201caffinity?\u201d How do they know each other? Have\nthey intellect, memory and will? Are they not driven toward each other\nby a supernatural, psychic force?\n\nContinuing he says:\n\n\u201cThe fertilized cell is quite another thing from the unfertilized cell.\nFor if we must regard the spermia [spermatozo\u00e4] as real cells, no less\nthan the ova, and the process of conception as the co\u00e4lescence of the\ntwo we must consider the resultant cell as a quite new and independent\norganism. It bears in the cell and nuclear matter of the penetrating\nspermatozo\u00f6n a part of the father\u2019s body, and in the protoplasm of the\novum a part of the mother\u2019s body. This is clear from the fact that the\nchild inherits many features from both parents. It inherits from the\nfather by means of the spermatozo\u00f6n and from the mother by means of\nthe ovum. The actual blending of the two cells produces a third cell,\nwhich is the germ of the child, or new organism conceived. One may\nalso say of this sexual co\u00e4lescence that _the stem cell is a simple\nhermaphrodite_, it unites both sexual substances in itself.\u201d (Ev. Man,\npp. 53-54.)\n\n\u201cThe individual development,\u201d he says, \u201cin man and the other animals,\ncommences with the formation of a simple \u2018stem-cell,\u2019 of this\ncharacter, and this then passes by repeated segmentation (or cleavage)\ninto a cluster of cells, known as \u2018the segmentation sphere,\u2019 or\n\u2018segmentation cell.\u2019\u201d (Haeckel, Ev. Man, p. 54.)\n\nOn another page (56) he says:\n\n\u201cHence the essential point in the process of sexual reproduction or\nimpregnation is the formation of a new cell, the stem-cell, by the\ncombination of two originally different cells, the female ovum and the\nmale spermatozo\u00f6n. The process is of the highest importance and merits\nour closest attention. All that happens in the later development of\nthis first cell, and in the life of the organism that comes of it, is\ndetermined from the first by the chemical and morphological composition\nof the stem-cell, its nucleus and its body.\u201d (Ev. Man, p. 56.)\n\n\u201cHertwig,\u201d he continues, \u201cputs his theory of conception thus:\n\n\u2018Conception consists in the copulation of two cell-nuclei, which comes\nfrom a male and a female cell.\u2026\u2019\n\n\u201cAs the phenomenon of heredity is inseparably connected with the\nreproductive process we may further conclude that these two copulating\nnuclei convey the characteristics which are transmitted from parents to\noffspring.\u201d (Ev. of Man, p. 56.)\n\n\u201cAs, moreover, there is a complete co\u00e4lescence (fusion) of the mutually\nattracted nuclear substances in conception, and the new nucleus formed\n(the stem nucleus) is the real starting point for the development of\nthe fresh organism, the further conclusion may be drawn that the male\nnucleus conveys to the child the qualities of the father, and the\nfemale nucleus the features of the mother.\n\n\u201cWe must not forget, however, that the protoplastic bodies of the\ncopulating cells also fuse together in the act of impregnation; the\ncell-body of the invading spermatozo\u00f6n (the trunk and tail of the\nciliated cell) is dissolved in the yelk of the female ovum. This\nco\u00e4lescence is not so important as that of the [two] nuclei, but it\nmust not be overlooked; and though the process is not so well known to\nus, we see clearly at least the formation of the star-like figure, (the\nradial arrangement of the particles in the plasma) in it.\u201d (Haeckel,\nEv. Man, p. 56.)\n\nIn another place (p. 57) he says:\n\n\u201cIt has been shown that the tiny sperm-cell (spermatozo\u00f6n) is not\nsubordinated to but co-ordinated with, the large ovum. The nuclei\nof the two cells, as the vehicle of the hereditary features of the\nparents, are of equal physiological importance. In some cases we have\nsucceeded in proving that the mass of the active nuclear substance,\nwhich combines in the copulation of the two sexual nuclei is originally\nthe same for both.\n\n\u201cThese morphological facts are in perfect harmony with the familiar\nphysiological truth that the child inherits from both parents; and that\non the average they are equally distributed. I say \u2018on the average\u2019\nbecause it is well known that a child may have a greater likeness to\nthe father, or to the mother; that goes without saying, as far as the\nprimary sexual characters (the sexual glands) are concerned. But it\nis also possible that the determination of the latter--the weighty\ndetermination whether the child is to be a boy or a girl--depends on\na slight qualitative or quantitative difference in nuclein or the\ncolored nuclear matter which comes from both parents in the act of\nconception.\u201d (Ev. Man, p. 57.)\n\nHaeckel continues, (p. 57):\n\n\u201cQuite in harmony with this new conception of the equivalence of\nthe two gonads (ovum and spermatozo\u00f6n) on the equal physiological\nimportance of the male and female sex-cells and their equal share in\nthe process of heredity, is the important fact established by Hertwig\nthat in normal impregnation only one single spermatozo\u00f6n copulates\nwith one ovum; the membrane which is raised on the surface of the yelk\nimmediately after one sperm-cell has penetrated, prevents any others\nfrom entering. All the rivals of the fortunate penetrator die without.\u201d\n(Ev. Man, pp. 57-58.)\n\n\n\n\nSec. 17. Germ-Cell Does Not Contain Any Skeleton, Model nor Performed\nOutline of the Coming Embryo\n\n\nAt this point it should be noted that the stem-cell does not contain\nany skeleton, model nor other preformed outline of the coming embryo\nfor the following reasons: (1) neither the ovum nor the spermatozo\u00f6n\ncontains any such skeleton, model nor outline; and if each of them\ncontain such a thing, both would be destroyed when these primary cells\nfuse and merge into the germ-cell. (2) The germ-cell first divides into\ntwo, four, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, and sixty-four daughter-cells,\nand so on into the millions; and this segmentation of the stem-cell and\ndaughter-cells would surely annihilate any skeleton, model or other\noutline that might exist in the germ-cell; (3) the germ-cell first\ndivides into two daughter-cells and so on, to infinity, as already\nstated; and these daughter-cells form what are called \u201cgerm-layers\u201d\nor sheets of cells from which the human body and all of its organs\nand parts are built up. (Haeckel, Ev. Man, pp. 14, 16, 59, 92; Encyc.\nBrit., (9th ed.) 3, p. 682; 8, pp. 165, 744; 24, p. 631; Cent. Dic. 3,\np. 2500, \u201cGerm-layer.\u201d)\n\nThis mode of growth, by the segmentation of cells and formation of\ngerm-layers, is called \u201cepigenesis\u201d which Huxley defines as \u201cthe\nsuccessive differentiation of a relatively homogeneous rudiment, into\nthe parts and structures, which characterize the adult.\u201d (Encyc. Brit.\n8, p. 744. Cent. Dic. 3, p. 1968, \u201cEpigenesis.\u201d)\n\nAccording to the theory of _epigenesis_, which is now held by all the\nscientific world, the human body grows anew from the germ-cell, without\nany skeleton model or any other kind of preformation.\n\n\u201cEvery living thing,\u201d says Huxley, \u201cis evolved from a particle of\nmatter, in which no trace of the distinctive characters of the adult\nform of that living thing is discernible. This particle is termed a\n_germ_.\u201d (Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) 8, p. 746.)\n\nHe defines a germ as \u201cmatter potentially alive, and having, within\nitself, the tendency to assume a definite living form;\u201d and says that\nthis definition \u201cappears to meet all the requirements of modern\nscience.\u201d (Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) 8, p. 746.)\n\n\u201cIn all cases,\u201d he says, \u201cthe process of evolution [growth] consists\nin a succession of changes of the form, structure and functions of\nthe germ [fertilized ovum], by which it passes, step by step, from an\nextreme simplicity, or relative homogeneity, of visible structure to a\ngreater or less degree of complexity or heterogeneity; and the course\nof progressive differentiation is usually accompanied by growth, which\nis effected by intussusception.\u201d (Encyc. Brit. 8, p. 746.)\n\nHuxley is surely mistaken in saying that \u201cthe process of evolution\n[development and growth] consists in a succession of changes in the\nform, structure and functions of the germ,\u201d for the germ (fertilized\novum) immediately divides into two daughter-cells, these into four,\nthese into eight, sixteen and so on to infinity. Thus, it appears that\ngerm (germ-cell) becomes \u201ca drop in the sea,\u201d its identity being wholly\nlost. Huxley states this fact, in substance, in the quotation below.\n\n\u201cThe substance,\u201d he says, \u201cby the addition of which the germ is\nenlarged is in no case, simply absorbed ready-made form the not-living\nworld, and packed between the elementary constituents of the germ.\u2026 The\nnew material is, in a great measure, not only absorbed but assimilated,\nso that it become part and parcel of the molecular structure of the\nliving body into which it enters. And so far from the fully developed\norganism\u2019s being simply the germ plus the nutriment which it has\nabsorbed, it is probable that the adult contains neither in form, nor\nin substance, more than an inappreciable fraction of the constituents\nof the germ; and that it is almost wholly made up of assimilated\nand metamorphosed nutriment. In the great majority of cases, at any\nrate, the full grown organism becomes what it is by the absorption of\nnot-living matter, and its conversion into living matter of a specific\ntype.\u201d (Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) 8, p. 746.)\n\nThe substance of these quotations is that the germ (fertilized ovum)\nhas, within itself, a tendency to assume the form of a man or woman.\nBut, as above remarked, this is not true. On the contrary the \u201cgerm\u201d\ndivides into two daughter-cells, and these continue to divide until\nmillions of them are produced. These daughter-cells are so distributed,\ncombined, differentiated, grouped and arranged as to produce the\nembryo body with all its organs and parts. According to Huxley and\nother materialists the \u201cgerm\u201d and its daughter-cells do all this work\nspontaneously without the aid or guidance of any extraneous psychic or\ncreative force. Is this possible?\n\n\n\n\nSec. 18. Germ-Cell Has No Inherent Power to Evolve, Spontaneously and\nAutomatically, the Body and Organs of the Embryo\n\n\nThe germ-cell (fertilized ovum) has no brain, no eyes, ears, nose,\ntouch, nor taste--no brain nor sense-organs--no organs whatever. It\nhas no knowledge of chemical elements; nor of their affinities; nor of\ntheir combinations. It has no knowledge of mechanical arrangement; no\nknowledge of the human body nor of its organs and parts; nor of their\nchemical constituents; nor of their mechanical arrangement. It has no\nidea of time nor space; nor of the adaption of a means to an end; nor\nof a contrivance.\n\nThe germ-cell has no memory of any of these things, for it is\nimpossible for any being to remember a thing that it never knew. This\nwould be a contradiction of terms--an absurdity. I know that Haeckel\nand other writers speak of \u201cunconscious memory,\u201d \u201corganic memory,\u201d etc.\nBut these are vagaries of the evolutionist and materialist, having no\nfoundation in fact.\n\nSo far as our experience goes, there is no such thing as intellect nor\nmemory without and apart from a living physical body. Before there\ncan be intellect or memory, there must be such body to serve as its\ndwelling place. It is absurd to suppose that the spermatozo\u00f6n, the\novum or the fertilized ovum has intellect or memory. But even if any\nof the three has either of these faculties, it would be preposterous\nto suppose that the spermatozo\u00f6n, ovum or fertilized ovum, remembers\nanything that happened before the atoms, of which it is composed, were\ngrouped together as such. In other words, we cannot even imagine that\nany living being remembers anything that happened before it came into\nexistence as such being. It is too clear for argument that no parent\never transmits to his or her child the memory of any thing that he\nor she ever saw, heard, felt or knew. Every man knows that he has no\nmemory of anything that happened to either of his parents. It follows\nthat the memory of each animal is limited to the period of his own\nexistence, as such; and that there is no such thing as \u201cunconscious\nmemory,\u201d or \u201corganic memory,\u201d in the sense in which these terms are\nused by the evolutionist.\n\nBut \u201cunconscious memory,\u201d \u201corganic memory,\u201d etc., if there were any\nsuch thing, have no constructive force. I might have a vivid memory\nof every spring, wheel, and part of a watch and yet have no power to\nmake one. So, an anatomist may know and remember every bone, muscle,\nartery, vein, nerve and part of the human body; but this knowledge and\nmemory would not enable him to form the chemical combinations and make\nthe mechanical arrangements necessary to construct the human body and\nimpart life to it.\n\nNor has the germ-cell any will-power to begin and continue the work\nof building up the embryo body until it is completed. We cannot even\nimagine that the germ-cell has the semblance of a will in any sense of\nthe term.\n\nTo construct the embryo body a sufficient number of atoms of the\nnecessary chemical elements, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,\noxygen, etc., must be selected, assembled at the proper places and\nthere combined, in certain proportions, to form the required chemical\ncombinations; next these combinations must be grouped and mechanically\narranged in such a manner as to form the embryo body, with all its\norgans and parts in their proper places.\n\nCan the germ-cell, and the millions of daughter-cells arising from it,\ndo this miraculous work, automatically, without the aid and guidance of\nthe Creator?\n\nLet us imagine that Edison or some other scientific man should build\na tank large enough to hold a brick house with six rooms; that he put\ninto the tank a \u201cmagic brick,\u201d composed of silica, aluminum, iron,\nlime, magnesia, manganese, soda and potash combined in the proper\nproportions, (Encyc. Brit. 4, p. 280); that he turned a stream of\nwater, charged with these elements, upon the brick; that it absorbed\nthese substances from the water and assimilated them into its own\nbody; that it afterward split into two \u201cdaughter-bricks,\u201d these two\ninto four, these into eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, one\nhundred and twenty-eight, and so on to infinity; that these bricks,\nautomatically, assumed such positions on top of each other as to build\nup the four walls of the house, without the aid of man or any other\npsychic force; that the bricks left spaces for doors, windows, etc.;\nthat they also built up the chimneys, fire places, etc.; that some of\nthe bricks, spontaneously, metamorphosed themselves into marble slabs\nfor window-sills, door-sills, hearth-stones, etc.; that other bricks\nwere converted into oaken mantels, with mirrors, etc.; that others were\nconverted into slabs of slate and assumed the proper form, size and\npositions to form a slate roof!\n\nIf any such thing should ever happen it would be justly considered a\ngreat miracle.\n\nBut the development and growth of the embryo are far more mysterious\nand wonderful than the building of a house in this manner would be; for\nthe embryo is a live miniature model of a man or woman--the work of a\nsupernatural creative force--Almighty God.\n\nHuxley says, in substance, that the germ-cell has \u201cwithin itself the\ntendency to assume a definite living form.\u201d He also says \u201cthat the\ngreat characteristic of the germ is, not so much what is, but what it\nmay, under suitable conditions, become.\u201d--(Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) 8, p.\n746.)\n\nThe common belief of mankind, in general, is that the germ-cell,\nspontaneously and automatically, develops and grows to be a man or\nwoman, without the aid of any extraneous psychic or creative force.\n\nBut it is clear that the germ-cell divides into two, four, eight,\nsixteen, thirty-two and sixty-four daughter-cells; and so on to\ninfinity. It follows that the germ-cell is annihilated within a few\nhours after it is formed; and that its identity, as the germ-cell is\nwholly lost in the myriads of daughter-cells which arise from it,\nand go to build up the embryo body; each daughter-cell containing,\ntheoretically, a portion of the germ-cell.\n\nIt follows that the germ-cell has no tendency \u201cwithin itself to assume\na definite living form;\u201d nor has it any power to become a living form,\nnor anything else.\n\nObviously, the microscopic germ-cell, when whole, would be powerless to\ndevelop and grow to be a man or woman; and for a much stronger reason\nthe infinitesimal fragments of it would be powerless to do these things.\n\nApparently, the Creator uses the germ-cell to inaugurate the growth of\ndaughter-cells in the embryo body, in the same manner that a grain of\nwheat is used to start the growth of a stalk of wheat.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 19. Reproduction, its Phenomena\n\n\nAll the phenomena of reproduction may be grouped under the following\nheads: (1) Production of the spermatozo\u00f6n, (2) production of the\novum, (3) their fusion into the fertilized ovum, (4) production of\ndaughter-cells, (5) distribution, mechanical arrangement and grouping\nof cells, (6) differentiation of cells into the different tissues, (7)\nwaste of cells.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 20. Spermatozo\u00f6n, its Production\n\n\nThe first step toward the reproduction of a man, woman, or any other\nmammal, (an individual of a species which suckles its young), is the\nformation of a spermatozo\u00f6n in the genital organs of a male. See\nindex, infra, \u201cSpermatozo\u00f6n.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSec. 21. Ovum, its Production\n\n\nThe production of an ovum in the genital organs of a female is the\nsecond step. It is immaterial which of them is produced first. The\nessential point is that they shall meet and fuse into the fertilized\novum.\n\nSee Sec. 14, supra; Index, infra, \u201covum.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSec. 22. Germ-Cell, its Production\n\n\nThe third step is the fusion of the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum into the\ngerm-cell, stem-cell or fertilized ovum. See index, infra, \u201cgerm-cell,\u201d\n\u201cstem-cell,\u201d \u201cfertilized ovum.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSec. 23. Daughter-Cells, Their Production\n\n\nThe fourth step is the production of daughter-cells. The germ-cell\n(fertilized ovum) is the primordial cell, from which every other cell\nin the human body is directly or indirectly, produced by fission or\nself-division. As already stated, the germ-cell divides into two\ndaughter-cells, these into four, these into eight, sixteen, and so\non to infinity. Every cell is composed of a vast number of atoms. A\nportion of these atoms is differentiated into \u201cthe inner nucleus\n(caryoplasm)\u201d and \u201cthe body of the cell (cytoplasm).\u201d (Haeckel, Ev.\nMan, p. 38.) Again he says: \u201cIn a mesh of the nuclear net-work \u2026 there\nis, as a rule, a dark, very opaque, solid body, called the nucleolus.\u201d\n(Ev. Man, p. 38.) On another page, he says: \u201cSome cells have a\n\u2018nucleolinus\u2019 in the center of the nucleolus.\u201d (Ev. Man, p. 40, fig. 9.)\n\nWe cannot believe that any microscopic cell in the human body has\nintellect, memory, will-power nor creative force. For a stronger\nreason, we cannot imagine that any of the atoms of which any cell is\ncomposed, has these faculties. Nor can we conceive that a portion of\nthese atoms, automatically, metamorphose themselves into a nucleolus,\nothers into a nucleolinus, while the remainder continue to be a simple\ncell-body.\n\nHow do the cells know when the time has come to divide into two\ndaughter-cells; where the dividing line should run in order to divide\nthe cell-body, nucleus and nucleolus into two equal parts? For further\ndiscussion of cells see Index, infra, \u201ccell.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSec. 24. Animals, Their Sizes are Determined, How?\n\n\nWhy does the elephant grow larger than the mouse. Both are mammals and\nare built of cells. The mouse has identically the same organs and parts\nthat the elephant has. The mode of reproducing each is the same as that\nof the other. The spermatozo\u00f6n, ovum and germ-cell are common to both.\n\nHow does it happen that all normal adult individuals of each species of\nanimal in a given region and of each sex, have substantially the same\nform and size, called: \u201cthe mode?\u201d\n\nThe reader may reply that nature fixes the size and form of every\nindividual of each species. The evolutionist will say that the law of\nheredity and environment determine the sizes and forms of animals and\nplants; that the mouse is small because his ancestors were small; that\nthe elephant is large because his were large.\n\nBut these replies do not explain the phenomena. Each animal grows\nanew, for itself. His body is a new combination of the atoms and\ncells of which it is composed. The forces and motions employed in its\nconstruction are new and peculiar to it. When the cells in an embryo\nbody begin to grow there is no apparent reason why they should not\ncontinue to grow and multiply, forever. Now, what psychic force or\nagency ascertains and determines when the work of building up the\nanimal body has been completed? What force or agency equalizes the\ngrowth and waste of cells in a mature animal body and keeps it of the\nsame form, size, and weight until the decay of old age comes on?\n\nThe size of every animal depends upon the size and number of cells in\nhis body; and its form is determined by the manner in which these cells\nare grouped together. For example there are more cells in the nose\n(trunk) and teeth (tusks) of the elephant, in proportion to the size of\nhis body, than there are in those of the mouse in proportion to his.\nIt is clear that a mouse would grow to be as large as an elephant if\nthe cells in his body continued to grow and multiply for a sufficient\nperiod of time. Why do the cells cease to multiply when the mouse has\nattained a certain size? Why do they stop work in the elephant\u2019s body\nwhen he gets his normal growth? Do the cells in the mouse and those in\nthe elephant know when their work is done? How do they know it?\n\nThe materialist denies the existence of a First Cause and maintains\nthat every animal and plant is the result of \u201ca natural continuous and\nnecessary evolution.\u201d (Haeckel, Evolution of Man, p. 26.) Huxley says,\nin effect, that \u201csecondary causes\u201d produce all the phenomena of the\nphysical universe; and that man and the rest of the living world \u201care\nall co-ordinated terms in nature\u2019s great progression.\u201d (Man\u2019s Place in\nNature, pp. 150-151.)\n\nBut it appears that the materialist maintains that the law of heredity\nis fixed and unchangeable, at all events it is proof against secondary\ncauses. For example, no sort of treatment, nor any kind nor quantity of\nfood will make a mouse grow to the size of an elephant nor any larger\nthan his ancestors were. Food and environment are \u201csecondary causes;\u201d\nbut they have no power to change the form nor the size of the animal\nbody.\n\nSince all normal adult individuals of each species of animals, all over\nthe earth, and in every age, have substantially the same form and size;\nand since each individual is built up, anew, of new cells (or atoms)\nby new forces and motions, we are compelled to assume that the same\npsychic force or agency determines the number of cells which shall go\ninto each normal body, and the manner in which these cells shall be\ngrouped together. In brief, the same supernatural psychic and creative\nforce, always, determines the form and size of each animal, all over\nthe earth.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 25. Distribution and Grouping of Cells in the Embryo Body\n\n\nAs already stated, every man and woman begins life as a germ-cell or\nfertilized ovum. This cell grows and divides into two daughter-cells;\nthese into four, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, and so on. At first these\ndaughter-cells are so distributed and grouped as to form a solid ball\ncalled \u201cthe morula;\u201d next they take the form of a hollow ball, called\n\u201cthe blastula\u201d with a single layer or sheet of cells and a fluid in the\ncenter; next a group of cells with two layers, called \u201cthe gastrula;\u201d\nthen they are so distributed or grouped as to form two germ-layers\nor sheets of cells, then into three layers, then into four. At this\npoint a portion of the cells is so grouped as to begin the formation\nof the spinal cord and brain; and in course of time, other cells are\nso distributed and grouped as to form the bones, muscles, nerves,\narteries, veins, heart, lungs, stomach, liver, kidneys, intestines,\narms, hands, legs, feet and other organs and parts of the body.\n\nThe form of any animal body and each organ and part of such a body,\ndepends upon the manner in which its cells are distributed and\ngrouped. Thus, the form of the whale, elephant, giraffe, camel,\nlion, tiger, hippopotamus, alligator, python, horse, cow, eagle and\nhumming-bird, is produced by the distribution of the cells or atoms in\ntheir bodies. If a man has a very large head, a long nose or big foot\nwe are compelled to infer that these peculiarities are the result of\ndepositing an unusual number of cells (\u201corganic bricks\u201d) in these parts\nof his body.\n\nSir Isaac Newton states his first law of motion in the words following:\n\n\u201cEverybody continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a\nstraight line, except in so far as it is compelled, by force, to change\nthat state.\u201d--(Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) 15, p. 676.)\n\nFor example, if one should lay a stone on the ground it would remain\nthere forever, unless moved by some sort of force. It would be absurd\nto suppose that the stone could, automatically, move itself.\n\nThere is no such thing as making _any thing_ out of _nothing_. Every\nthing is made of some other thing. The body of the horse is made of\ncorn, hay and other vegetable and mineral substances. So the human\nbody is made of bread, meat and other food-stuffs, eaten by the mother\nbefore birth and by the individual, himself, after birth. The germ-cell\nis deposited in the womb of its mother. It cannot develop nor grow,\nunless it receive nourishment from her body. She eats bread, meat and\nother things, these are converted into blood, and a portion of it is\ncarried, by the force of her heart and arteries, to the germ-cell; it\nabsorbs and assimilates a portion of the blood; produces cells; and\nthese are so distributed and grouped as to form the embryo body with\nall its organs and parts.\n\nIt is obvious that the father has nothing to do with the circulation\nof the mother\u2019s blood, which conveys nourishment to the embryo; it is\nequally clear that she has no conscious part in the circulation of her\nown blood, and that she has no power nor control over the development\nnor the growth of the embryo, except such as she may exert indirectly\nby the food which she eats.\n\nThe embryo begins life as a germ-cell. Atoms of building material must\nbe conveyed, by the blood of the mother, to this cell, otherwise,\nit cannot develop nor grow. As new cells are produced, they are so\ndistributed and grouped as to form the several organs and parts of the\nembryo body; or it may be said that new cells are produced and added to\nolder cells, at such points as to build up the embryo organs and parts.\nFor example, arm-buds and leg-buds appear on the surface of the trunk,\nas slight swellings or projections; new cells are added to these buds;\nthey grow, in length, by the addition of cells at the distal (outer)\nends, until they have attained the proper length, terminating in the\nfingers and toes. So the arms and legs grow to some extent in diameter\nby the addition of new cells; but the number of cells, which go to\nextend the length of the arms and legs, greatly exceeds the number\nwhich go to increase the diameter.\n\nEvery atom in a cell is a physical body, like a brick, and must be\nmoved by extraneous force, having no power to lift and move itself,\nautomatically. It may be said that the heart and arteries of the\nmother furnish the energy, which moves the atoms to the building site\nof the cells, in the first instance. But the atoms are not only moved;\nthey are carried at the proper time and deposited at the right place\nto build up the organ or part which is being constructed. We cannot\nbelieve that the mother has any knowledge of, nor power over, the\ndistribution of the atoms and cells, which go to build up the embryo\nbody; nor can we even imagine that the embryo itself distributes them.\nSo it would be absurd to suppose that the atoms and cells move and\ndistribute themselves, automatically, in such a manner as to build up\nthe embryo.\n\nHow do the cells know when to begin the formation of the morula? How do\nthey know when it has been completed and when to begin the construction\nof the blastula? How do they know when to take the form of the\ngastrula, and when to enter the next stage?\n\nThe forces and motions required to build up the morula (a solid ball)\nare different from those required to construct the blastula (a hollow\nball) and the gastrula (a two-layered hollow group of cells with an\naperture at one end of it); the morula, blastula and gastrula, each,\nrequiring forces and motions peculiar to itself. Now, what psychic\nforce stops the forces and motions, which build up the morula, and\nsets to work the forces which construct the blastula and afterward the\ngastrula?\n\nIt is obvious that these cells, (if there be enough of them), may be so\ngrouped as to form a sphere, cube, cylinder, plate or any other figure;\nand that any of these may be solid, hollow or porous. The head, brain,\nheart, kidneys and some other parts of the embryo, approximate the form\nof a sphere; the trunk, arms, legs and many bones are approximately\ncylindrical; other bones take the form of a plate, for example the\nbones of the skull. The form and shape of the embryo, and of every\norgan and part of it, depends entirely upon the manner in which its\ncomponent cells are grouped.\n\nHow is it possible for these unthinking microscopic cells to know at\nwhat point to begin, and in what direction to grow, and in what manner\nthey shall group themselves, in order to construct the skeleton, brain,\nspinal cord, heart, lungs, stomach, liver, kidneys, etc.?\n\nThe only reasonable hypothesis is that the production and placing of\ncells in the embryo body are directed and controlled by a supernatural\npsychic and creative force.\n\nAfter the formation of a rudimentary head and trunk, two \u201carm-buds\u201d\nand two \u201cleg-buds\u201d appear on the surface of the trunk. At first these\n\u201cbuds\u201d are slight swellings or projections, but they soon take the form\nof a cylinder and continue to grow mainly in length and slightly in\ndiameter, until the man or woman has finished his or her growth. Every\nembryo that ever existed, grew and behaved in this same manner, thus\nshowing that the same supernatural psychic and creative force directed\nand controlled the growth and deposit of cells in the body of every man\nand woman that ever lived.\n\nHow could the cells possibly know at what point, on the body of the\nembryo, to group themselves together in order to build up the arms and\nlegs? How could they contrive to give the arms and legs the form of\na cylinder, the length being several times as great as the diameter?\nHow could the cells possibly know that there should be only one bone\nin each arm above the elbow and two below the elbow and the wrist? How\ncould they know the number of bones that should be placed between the\nwrist and fingers? How could they know that there should be a thumb and\nfour fingers in each hand and the number of joints in each finger? How\ncould it be possible for the blind unthinking cells to build up the\ntwo legs and feet, with all their bones, processes, joints, muscles,\nnerves, arteries, veins, etc., without the aid and direction of a\nsupernatural psychic and creative force?\n\nWe are, therefore, compelled to assume that the Creator generates,\nguides, and controls the forces which distribute and group the atoms\nand cells in the body of the embryo.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 26. Distribution and Grouping of Cells in the Embryo Body,\nContinued\n\n\nThe atoms and cells of which the embryo body is built up, and those of\nwhich each organ and part is made, are carried to \u201cthe building site\u201d\nand there grouped by force. This force, whatever it may be, must be\nsufficient to overcome the force of gravity and the friction, which one\natom or cell encounters in moving on the surface of another. This force\nmust be guided and controlled by a Being with a conscious intellect,\nmemory and will-power in order to build up the embryo body, or one of\nits organs, and give it the proper form and size; for the right number\nof atoms or cells must be carried to \u201cthe building site\u201d of each organ\nand part, or it will be too large or too small, and out of proportion\nto the other parts of the body; and these atoms or cells must be so\ngrouped as to give the organ or part the correct form--not too long,\ntoo wide nor too thick; else it will not fit into its place, nor be\nin harmony with the other parts of the body. Intellect, memory and\njudgment are necessary to construct the body or any part of it with\natoms or cells, for the builder must know the anatomy of the body; must\nknow the time when each part of the work must be done; must know the\nrelation of each part to every other part; must know the proper form\nand size of each part, and the present form and size; must compare each\npart with every other in order to preserve harmony and due proportion\namong all the parts, in form, size and function.\n\nThe atoms of lime, phosphorus, carbon and oxygen, are assembled in\nthe body of the embryo and combined in such manner as to make the\nrudimentary bones rigid and stable; others are assembled, combined\nand so grouped as to form the muscles; others to form the brain,\nspinal cord and nerves; others to form the arteries, veins, etc.;\neach of these tissues has its own chemical composition and molecular\nstructure, radically different from the composition and structure of\nevery other tissue. Moreover, these chemical and molecular changes\n(specializations) are made side by side at the same time, all at once,\nthe muscles being attached to the bones, and the nerves, arteries and\nveins, ramifying through the muscles, bones, etc. Not only so, but\nthe atoms and cells, which form the bones, muscles, nerves, arteries,\nveins, etc., are assembled, grouped and specialized at the exact\npoints, at which these tissues are needed to build up the embryo body.\n\nWhat force or agency does this miraculous work? Surely, it is not the\nfather, nor the mother. It is not done by accident nor by chance, for\nthe same things happen in the development and growth of every normal\nembryo body in every age and country the world over. All this wonderful\nwork is done in every embryo body by the same psychic and creative\nforce, whose work is uniform, continuous and everlasting.\n\nThe evolutionist says the development and growth of an embryo results\nfrom \u201cheredity;\u201d that the child develops and grows as it does because\nits father and mother and all their ancestors, for thousands of\ngenerations developed and grew in the same manner; and that the\nembryo develops and grows by \u201ca natural continuous and necessary\nevolution.\u201d--(Haeckel, Ev. Man, p. 26.)\n\nThis is absurd, for the cells which build up the embryo, are new\ncombinations of the atoms of which they are composed; each embryo\ndevelops and grows anew for itself; neither the germ-cell nor any of\nits daughter-cells has any knowledge of the father, nor of the mother;\nnor of their mode of development and growth; nor of their organs\nand parts; nor has the embryo any power nor control over its own\ndevelopment and growth, nor to imitate the development and growth of\nits parents, even if it knew how they developed and grew.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 27. Differentiation (Metamorphosis) of Simple-Cells Into\nBone-Cells, Muscle-Cells, Nerve-Cells, Vascular-Cells, Gland-Cells, Etc.\n\n\nA cell is said to be \u201ca simple-cell,\u201d when it is composed of carbon,\nhydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, with a possible trace of phosphorus and\nsulphur,--when it consists of plain protoplasm--and before it has been\ndifferentiated into a bone-cell, muscle-cell, nerve-cell or the like.\nTo convert a simple-cell into one of these specialized cells certain\natoms must be added to it, or taken from it; or certain atoms must be\ntaken away and others added to it; or the chemical combination of atoms\nin it must be broken down and new ones formed. There is no change in\nthe properties of the chemical elements, which compose the human body.\nFor example, the nature and properties of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen\nand oxygen remain the same whether they are in or out of the body, and\nthe same is true of every other element.\n\nThe differentiation of simple-cells into bone-cells, muscle-cells,\nnerve-cells, vascular-cells, gland-cells, etc., is effected by\nchanging the chemical elements, which enter into their composition;\nor by changing the proportion of these elements to one another and\naltering their molecular structure. In fact, it appears that every\ndifferentiation and specialization of any animal, or of any organ or\npart of one, is accomplished by changing its chemical constituents;\nor by changing their relative proportions to one another and thereby\nmodifying its molecular structure, and by changing the mechanical\narrangement of its atoms and cells.\n\nThe entire work of building up the embryo body is done by making new\nchemical combinations and new mechanical arrangements of the atoms and\ncells of which it is composed.\n\nReferring to the residue of the dry bone, which remains after calcining\nit (burning away the soft parts of it), Professor Martin says:\n\n\u201cThe residue forms a white, very brittle mass, retaining, perfectly\nthe shape and structural details of the original bone. It consists\nof normal calcium (lime) phosphate or _bone-earth_ (CA\u2083, 2PO\u2084); but\nthere is also present a considerable proportion of calcium [lime]\ncarbonate (CaCO\u2083) and smaller quantities of other salts.\u201d (Martin,\nHuman Body, p. 90.)\n\nUnder the head: \u201cThe Chemistry of Muscular Tissue,\u201d he says:\n\n\u201cMuscle contains 75 per cent of water; and among other inorganic\nconstituents, phosphates and chlorides of potassium, sodium and\nmagnesium.\u201d (Human Body, p. 123.)\n\nAccording to this statement there is no lime in the muscles; and we\ncannot believe there is any of this substance in any tissue of the body\nexcept the bones; for every other tissue is soft and flexible. It is\nclear that the purpose of putting lime into the bones, is to make them\nrigid and stable in order to support the body and keep all its organs\nand parts in place.\n\nWhat force or agency assembles the atoms of lime, phosphorus, carbon\nand oxygen, and combines them into the phosphate of lime, and the\ncarbonate of lime, to make the bones rigid and stable? Surely, it is\nnot the father, nor the mother, nor the embryo itself. It would be\npreposterous to suppose that the atoms of lime, phosphorus, carbon and\noxygen, of their own motion, and automatically, assemble and combine\nthemselves, chemically, in such proportions as to form the phosphate of\nlime, and the carbonate of lime in the bones; and that these atoms of\nthe phosphate and carbonate of lime group themselves, automatically,\ninto such mechanical arrangements as to form the bones with all their\nprocesses, joints, cavities, perforations, etc., and fit them together\nin the form of the skeleton.\n\nThe formation of bones in the body of a single animal, might, possibly\nhappen by accident or chance. But when bones are formed in the bodies\nof all animals of the same species for thousands, or millions, of\nyears and when all of them, in the bodies of each species, have the\nsame chemical composition, the same structure, form and size; we\nare compelled to assume that the same cause, force or agency, which\nproduces bones in each body, also produces them in every other body;\nin brief that all bones are made by the same supernatural psychic and\ncreative force. The same is true of every other tissue.\n\nBut the evolutionist says that \u201cheredity\u201d works this miracle. In other\nwords, that this metamorphosis of simple-cells into bones, muscles,\nnerves, etc., happens because certain similar cells in the bodies of\nthe father and mother were changed in the same manner. He overlooks\nthe fact that the cells, bones, etc., in the embryo body are new and\naltogether different from those which were metamorphosed in the bodies\nof its parents and that the forces which did that work were exhausted\nin doing it. He forgets or ignores the fact that neither the germ-cell\nnor any of its daughter-cells has any intellect, memory, will-power or\ncreative force; that they have no knowledge of chemistry, nor of lime,\nphosphorus, carbon, oxygen, nor of their affinities; nor of bones; nor\nof their forms, sizes and functions.\n\nThe differentiation and specialization (metamorphosis) of cells and\ntissues; and their mechanical arrangement and grouping into the\nseveral organs and parts of the embryo body are not the work of blind\nmechanical forces; nor of chance; nor of accident; nor of unthinking\ncells; but of the Almighty Creator.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 28. Waste of Cells\n\n\nSo soon as the embryo begins to grow, the waste of cells begins; and\ncontinues until the death of the individual, however long he may live.\n\u201cThe knowledge is wanting,\u201d says the Britannica, \u201cwhich would tell\nus, when a certain limit has been attained, the process of income and\nexpenditure balance and growth ceases.\u201d--(Encyc. Brit. 17, p. 686.)\n\u201cDuring life,\u201d says Professor Martin, \u201call the formed elements of the\nbody are constantly being broken down and removed; either molecularly,\n(that is bit by bit, while the general size and form of the cell or\nfibre remains unaltered) or in mass, as when the hairs and the cuticle\nare shed.\u201d (Martin, Human Body, p. 670.)\n\nSee Encyc. Brit. 17, pp. 686-687; Martin, Human Body, pp. 451-476,\n670-671; New International Encyc. 9, pp. 312-315.\n\nThe waste of cells affects the growth of the body, only so far as\nit tends to neutralize and offset the increase of the body by the\nmultiplication of cells.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 29. Embryo Body is Built up of Inanimate Atoms Except the Germ-Cell\n\n\nThe germ-cell (fertilized ovum) is the physical basis of every human\nbody. Such an ovum is said to be potentially alive because it may, with\nthe aid of the Creator, develop into a living individual. Excepting\nthis tiny bit of flesh-like substance, which is barely visible to\nthe naked eye, and which is not one trillionth part of the infant at\nbirth, every part of the human embryo is built up of inanimate atoms,\nwhich are carried and distributed to the growing embryo by the blood\nof the mother. These dead atoms are then assimilated by the embryo and\nincorporated into its growing body.\n\nThe fertilized ovum is soon split and divided into millions of pieces,\nby the division of cells, and lost in the general mass of the embryo\nbody like a drop in the sea. It appears that the chief office of the\nfertilized ovum is to inaugurate the growth and multiplication of\ncells, which are, finally, differentiated and specialized into the\nseveral organs and parts of the embryo body.\n\nThese facts serve to show the extent of the supernatural creative work\ndone in the embryo body. It is a new living body, with all its organs\nand parts made of inanimate matter, except the germ-cell.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 30. Embryo Body; Each is Produced Anew\n\n\nThe embryo is built of certain chemical elements, namely: carbon,\nhydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. See sec. 3, supra, and index, infra,\n\u201cChemical elements.\u201d It derives its properties and potentialities from\ncertain chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements of these\nelements, and from life. All of these combinations and arrangements are\nmade after the formation of the fertilized ovum. Even if this ovum and\nits daughter-cells could build up the embryo body, automatically, yet\nit must grow anew for itself, independently of the growth of the bodies\nof its parents, or any other person; for it must have its own body, and\nnot that of its father, mother, nor of any other person. It is composed\nof new materials, except the fertilized ovum, which is too small to\nbe considered in comparison with the body of the embryo, as a whole.\nThese new materials are derived from the blood of the mother.\n\nNo embryo ever takes or uses any organ or part of the body of its\nfather, or mother, except the spermatozo\u00f6n and the ovum, which form the\ngerm-cell and serve as a germ to start the growth of the body. Each\nembryo is a new combination and a new arrangement of the atoms and\ncells of which it is composed. It is produced by new forces and motions\npeculiar to itself, which are similar to, but different from, those\nwhich produce every other embryo body. It is admitted on all sides,\nthat every human being begins life as a fertilized ovum. It is well\nknown that this infinitesimal cell has no organs, whatever, it being\na mere atom. In no sense can it be called an embryo body. Each person\nmust have his or her own body. No one ever takes or uses the body of\nany other person, nor any organ or part of such a body, such a thing\nbeing unthinkable. It follows, necessarily, that each embryo body and\nevery organ and part of it, is produced anew, independently of every\nother human body.\n\nDo the atoms and cells of which the embryo body is built up,\nspontaneously and automatically, form the chemical combinations and\nmake the mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to build up the\nembryo body; or is it made by a supernatural psychic and creative\nforce? Which hypothesis is most plausible?\n\n\n\n\nSec. 31. Heredity has no Power to Generate a New Human Being; nor to\nEvolve One from the Germ-Cell\n\n\nHeredity is defined as: \u201cThe influence of parents upon offspring;\ntransmission of qualities or characteristics, mental or physical, from\nparents to offspring.\u201d (Cent. Dic. 4, p. 2802.)\n\nIntellect, memory, will-power, force and motion are necessary to group\ntwo or more atoms into a prescribed chemical combination or into a\nspecified mechanical arrangement. It is a well-known fact that each\nnormal human body is composed of the same chemical elements; has\nthe same chemical combinations and the same mechanical arrangements\nthat are found in every other such body. Therefore, we may well say\nthat the atoms and cells in the body are grouped into prescribed\nchemical combinations and into specified mechanical arrangements; and\nthat intellect, memory and will-power are necessary to make these\ncombinations and arrangements.\n\nIt is also well-known that every human being, begins life as a\ngerm-cell, stem-cell, or fertilized ovum, all of these phrases meaning\nthe same thing; that every such body develops and grows anew for\nitself. Each body is a new combination of the atoms and cells, of\nwhich it is composed. The forces and motions, which assemble and group\nthese atoms and cells into the chemical combinations and mechanical\narrangements, which build up a body, are new, unique and peculiar to\nthat body.\n\nThe theory of heredity is based on these facts: The father contributes\nthe spermatozo\u00f6n and the mother the ovum, which form the germ-cell;\nthis cell and its daughter-cells develop and grow to be a man or a\nwoman, who has substantially the same form, size, structure, organs\nand parts that one of its parents has, and generally has some of their\nqualities, characteristics and traits.\n\nBut these facts do not prove that the child inherits anything from\neither parent; they do not prove that the parents, or either of them,\ncaused the child to develop, grow and resemble them in any of these\nparticulars. The existence of a fact and the cause of that fact are\ntwo different things. Thus, every body knows that a stone falls to the\nground; but nobody knows why. The child resembles its father--but why?\nDo the parents cause this resemblance? Can they, or either of them,\ncause their child to have blue eyes or black; a long or short nose; a\nlarge or small foot?\n\nNeither Darwin, nor any other man has ever shown how it is possible for\nthe bodies of the parents, or any part of either of them, to affect,\nmodify or determine the form, features, size, structure, qualities,\ncharacteristics or traits of their children. It is admitted on all\nsides that the parents have no voluntary control over these things.\nDarwin, (Origin of Species, 1, p. 15), says: \u201cThe laws governing\ninheritance are for the most part unknown.\u201d Haeckel is voluminous in\ndescribing the phenomena of reproduction, heredity, etc. But has\nnothing to say about the cause, nor the mechanism of heredity.\n\nIt is undoubtedly true that the human body is a compound physical\nstructure; that each organ and part of every such body has to be made,\nanew, of fresh materials, for that body; that the child does not \u201ctake\nover,\u201d bodily, any organ nor part of either parent, but has its own new\norgans, unique and peculiar to itself; that neither the father nor the\nmother has any voluntary power to select, assemble nor group the atoms\nand cells, of which the embryo body is made; nor to generate, guide,\nnor control the forces and motions by which this work is done. All this\nbeing true, how is it possible for the parents, or either of them, to\ntransmit any of their qualities, characteristics or traits to their\nchild?\n\nThe notion of mankind in general appears to be the body of the child\nis a sort of offshoot or branch of the bodies of the parents, as if\nthe child had budded out on the trunk of the mother; and finally\ndropped off and become a distinct individual. But this view is wholly\nerroneous. The embryo becomes a separate and distinct entity the moment\nthe germ-cell is formed; and it develops and grows, anew, for itself\nindependently of the bodies of its parents, which have no more to do\nwith its development and growth than the body of any other person has.\n\nIf we assume that each human being is a new direct and special creation\nby Almighty God, we can readily understand the mysterious phenomena\ncalled \u201cheredity.\u201d\n\nAt first, the germ-cell does not resemble either parent nor even a\nhuman being, it being too small, even to suggest a human body, at all.\nAn infant at birth, is too rudimentary to resemble either parent more\nclosely than it does any other person of the same sex.\n\nWhether the germ-cell and its daughter-cells are to develop and grow\nto be a man, resembling its father; or a woman resembling its mother,\nthe same forces and motions are required to assemble and group the\nnecessary atoms and cells into the proper chemical combinations and\nmechanical arrangements in order to construct its body. The fact that\nthe child may resemble its father or its mother or both of them, does\nnot dispense with the assembling of the atoms and cells; nor with the\ngrouping of them into the necessary combination and arrangements. It\nis clear that the same or similar forces and motions are necessary to\nconstruct any animal body, whatever its form, size or sex may be.\n\nAccording to the evolutionist and materialist, the fact that the child\nresembles its parents is adequate to account for, and explain all the\nphenomena of reproduction. But the existence of this resemblance, and,\nthe cause of it, are two wholly different things. The fact that the\nchild resembles its parents only deepens the mystery; for it would\nrequire less knowledge, skill and creative force to construct a body\nwith the qualities and characteristics of mankind in general, than it\nwould to group the atoms and cells of the body in such a manner as\nto produce a body in the image of a particular man or woman. Thus a\nportrait painter could make a fancy sketch of an imaginary person,\nwithout any striking features, more easily than he could paint a\nparticular man with all his peculiarities; as, for example, his bald\nhead, high forehead, blue eyes, long aquiline nose, wide mouth, massive\nlower jaw and tall, slender body. The closer the resemblance, between\nthe child and its parents, the greater the mystery.\n\nIt being a fact that the body of the child has identically the same\norgans and parts that are formed in the body of its father, or in that\nof the mother; and that the child closely resembles one or both of\nthem, we naturally inquire: \u201cWhat force or agency causes the germ-cell\nand its daughter-cells to develop and grow until they become a man,\nlike its father; or a woman like its mother?\u201d We cannot even imagine\nthat this sameness of organs and parts, of structure, form and size,\nand this close resemblance happens by chance or accident.\n\nEvery man has conscious knowledge that he had no voluntary part in the\nproduction of his child, except that he placed the spermatozo\u00f6n at a\npoint from which it could reach the ovum. The mother knows that she\nhad no voluntary part nor agency in the production of her child except\nthat she permitted the father to place the spermatozo\u00f6n in reach of the\novum. Neither of them has any voluntary power, nor any control over the\nformation of the spermatozo\u00f6n nor of the ovum; nor over the development\nand growth of the child, nor over its structure, form, size nor over\nits features.\n\nThe spermatozo\u00f6n is a microscopic cell, 1/500th of an inch in length,\n(Martin, Human Body, p. 651), the head, which is the largest part\nof it, being, apparently about 1/10,000th of an inch in diameter,\n(Haeckel, Evolution of Man, p. 53, fig. 22.) It consists of a\nhomogeneous mass of protoplasm, composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen\nand oxygen; and sometimes has a trace of phosphorus and sulphur. (Cent.\nDic. 6, p. 4799; Huxley, Anat. Invert. An., pp. 9, 14.) See index\ninfra, \u201cSpermatozo\u00f6n.\u201d Although the spermatozo\u00f6n is not visible to the\nnaked eye, and has certain vital properties and potentialities, yet it\nis a physical body with all the attributes of a brick or stone.\n\nIf any quality, characteristic or trait of the father passes from him\nto his child, it is transmitted by, and through the spermatozo\u00f6n, for\nthat is the only thing that passes from the one to the other. So, if\nany quality, characteristic or trait of the mother passes from her to\nher child, it is transmitted by and through the ovum, that being the\nonly thing that passes from her to it.\n\nWhatever power or influence the father\u2019s body, or any organ or part\nof it, may have to affect or modify the body of his child or any part\nof it, must be effected by and through the spermatozo\u00f6n before it\nleaves his genital organs; for it is clear that neither the father\u2019s\nbody, nor any organ nor part of it, has any power to affect, modify or\ndifferentiate the spermatozo\u00f6n, nor any part of it, after it leaves his\nbody.\n\nIt is absurd to suppose that the father\u2019s body, or any organ or part\nof it, can affect, modify or differentiate the spermatozo\u00f6n, or any\npart of it, in such a manner that it shall cause the child to have\nqualities, characteristics and traits resembling those of the father.\nIn fact he could not possibly know whether there is one, many, or none\nin his genital organs, at any given time, for a stronger reason no\nsingle organ nor any part of his body could possibly affect, modify nor\ndifferentiate the spermatozo\u00f6n in such a manner as to cause the child,\nwhich arises from it to have organs and parts resembling those of the\nfather. Thus, suppose the father has blue eyes. How could the father,\nor his eyes, possibly affect the spermatozo\u00f6n in such a way as to\ncause the child\u2019s eyes to be blue? How could the father, or his nose,\nmodify the spermatozo\u00f6n in such a manner as to cause the child\u2019s nose\nto resemble the father\u2019s nose. It would be absurd to suppose that the\nfather\u2019s brain and his vocal organs can affect the spermatozo\u00f6n in such\na manner as to cause the child to be a notable singer.\n\nProfessor Weismann says:\n\n\u201cIt is well known that many mental and physical qualities of parents\nare transmitted to their children, such as the color of the eyes and\nhair, the shape and size of the finger nails; and not only these, but\nas everyone knows, even such minute and indefinable physical and mental\ncharacteristics as likeness of features, bearing, gait, handwriting, a\nmild and equable or passionate and irritable temperament.\u201d--(Weismann\non Heredity, 2, p. 14.)\n\nThe color of the eyes depends on the coloring matter or pigment in the\nirises. How could the father\u2019s eyes possibly affect the spermatozo\u00f6n in\nsuch a manner as to make the child\u2019s eyes blue? How could the father\u2019s\nred hair differentiate the spermatozo\u00f6n so as to give the child red\nhair? Can we imagine that the father\u2019s finger nails can affect the\nspermatozo\u00f6n in such a way as to make the child\u2019s nails of the same\n\u201cshape and size\u201d as those of the father? How could such a thing be?\nCan we believe that a man\u2019s brain, nerves and muscles, can so affect\nthe spermatozo\u00f6n that the child\u2019s handwriting shall be like that of\nthe father? How could this be? How could the father\u2019s brain modify\nthe spermatozo\u00f6n in such sort that the child shall have the same\ntemperament that the father has?\n\nMost of the resemblances between the child and its parents result from\neducation, association and environment. If a child\u2019s parents die when\nit is six months old; and it be placed in the hands of a stranger\nand his wife; it is easy to see that many of the child\u2019s qualities,\ncharacteristics and traits would be borrowed from the man and his wife\nwith whom the orphan lives.\n\nThe infant, at birth, is merely a living creature without any physical\nqualities, characteristics or traits peculiar to itself; nor has it\nany mental qualities, characteristics nor traits, whatever. In fact,\nit has scarcely any intellect, at all. It follows that most of the\nphysical qualities and characteristics of each person are acquired; and\nthat all of the mental qualities, characteristics and traits of every\none are acquired, they being the result of education, association and\nenvironment. No doubt most of the resemblance between a child and its\nparents are caused by education, imitation and association.\n\nThe evolutionist has invented divers theories to account for, and\nexplain the phenomena of reproduction on material and mechanical\nprinciples, without the aid of any supernatural psychic or creative\nforce. For example, Darwin invented the theory of \u201cgemmules\u201d and\n\u201cpangenesis;\u201d Spencer advanced the hypothesis of \u201cphysiological\nunits\u201d or \u201cconstitutional units,\u201d \u201cstructural proclivity,\u201d or\n\u201cproclivity towards the organic form of the species;\u201d Cope suggested\n\u201cbathmism (go-ism)\u201d \u201csimple growth-force,\u201d \u201cgrade-growth-force\u201d and\n\u201cexcess-growth;\u201d Weismann invented the \u201ccontinuity of germ-plasm,\u201d\n\u201cids,\u201d \u201ciddants\u201d and \u201cdeterminants.\u201d But none of these words or phrases\nexplain anything. If there is anything in nature corresponding to\nthese words none of these writers ever saw them, nor did they know\nanything about them. These \u201cgemmules,\u201d \u201cunits,\u201d \u201cproclivities,\u201d \u201cids,\u201d\n\u201cbathmisms,\u201d etc., are purely hypothetical--mere figments of the\nimagination. Every body has rejected Darwin\u2019s theory of \u201cgemmules,\u201d\nand \u201cpangenesis;\u201d no one but Spencer ever adopted his hypothesis of\n\u201cphysiological units\u201d and \u201cproclivities;\u201d Cope was the only man that\nover used \u201cbathmism,\u201d etc.; Spencer, Romanes and others gave many\nreasons why Weismann\u2019s \u201ccontinuity of germ-plasm,\u201d \u201cids,\u201d \u201ciddants\u201d\nand \u201cdeterminants\u201d were absurd and impossible. No two of them agreed\non anything, except the supposed fact of organic evolution. Spencer,\nsomewhere says, in substance, that there is a general belief that\norganic evolution has occurred; but great diversity of opinion as to\nthe manner in which it has been effected.\n\nThe theory of the evolutionist is that the genital organs of a man\ngenerate spermatozo\u00e4, with all their properties and potentialities,\nspontaneously and automatically, without the aid of any extraneous,\npsychic or creative force, and that those of a woman produce ova in\nthe same manner. He maintains that a spermatozo\u00f6n and an ovum unite\nand fuse into a germ-cell (fertilized ovum) and that this cell (germ)\nthen becomes, automatically, a living being; that it develops and grows\nspontaneously and automatically, to be a man or a woman, without the\naid or guidance of any extraneous psychic or creative force, whatever.\n\nAs a fact the fertilized ovum does not develop into a man or woman at\nall, but a vast number of daughter-cells are produced from it, which\nare metamorphosed and molded by the Creator into a man or woman. The\nevolutionist holds that the fertilized ovum inherits all its properties\nand potentialities from its parents. In other words, he contends that\nthe germ-cell develops and grows as it does because its father and\nmother developed and grew in the same manner. Is there any apparent\nreason why the germ-cell should develop and grow at all? Why should\nit develop and grow, spontaneously and automatically, as its father\nand mother grew? The germ-cell is a new combination of the atoms of\nwhich it is composed; the embryo is built up of new materials; wholly\ndifferent from those which compose the bodies of its parents; and by\nnew forces and motions, altogether different from those which built\nup the bodies of its parents. How could the mode, in which the bodies\nof the father and mother developed and grew, possibly affect the\ndevelopment and growth of the child?\n\nThe fact that each normal body develops and grows in the same manner\nthat the bodies of its parents grew, and as every other normal body\ngrows, is conclusive evidence that the development and growth of\neach human body is caused, guided and controlled by an extraneous\nsupernatural psychic and creative force, which is ubiquitous, all\nover the earth. No other hypothesis can explain the uniform mode of\ndevelopment and growth, which we observe, among all the mammals in\nevery age and country.\n\nThe fact that the child resembles its father or mother, or both of\nthem, is strong evidence that the same creative force made all three of\nthem. We cannot believe that the blind, unthinking cells, which build\nup the body of the child, automatically, group themselves in such a\nmanner as to make the child in the image of the father or mother.\n\nEveryone knows that each human body is built of atoms and cells, which\nare assembled and grouped into certain chemical combinations and\nmechanical arrangements by force and motion, and that there cannot\nbe any such thing as force and motion without, at least two physical\nbodies, the one to transmit the force and the other to move. The word,\n\u201cheredity,\u201d does not denote a physical body nor a physical force. It is\na mere name for a group of vital phenomena. How could heredity bring\ntwo or more atoms or cells together? Such a suggestion is too absurd\neven for the imagination.\n\nPerhaps the orthodox churchman would maintain that the Creator endowed\nAdam\u2019s genital organs with the power to generate spermatozo\u00e4; and also\nendowed those of Eve with the power to produce ova; that He endowed\nthese spermatozo\u00e4 and ova with the power to produce new men and woman,\nautomatically; and that He ordained that they should have the power\nto produce new spermatozo\u00e4 and new ova, with the same properties and\npotentialities that were possessed by the original spermatozo\u00e4 and ova,\nthat were generated in the bodies of Adam and Eve and so on forever.\n\nThis brings us back to the proposition that every human body is a\ncompound physical structure, composed of atoms and cells, which\nare grouped into certain chemical combinations and mechanical\narrangements; and that intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion\nare necessary to make these combinations and arrangements. To do\nthis work, automatically, these atoms and cells must be endowed with\ndivine intellect, memory, will-power and creative force; and this is\nequivalent to a special creation. So if it be said that each fertilized\novum is endowed with the power to produce a new man or woman, the\nanswer is that this endowment is equivalent to a special creation.\n\nThe reader may argue that the Creator endowed Adam\u2019s spermatozo\u00e4 and\nEve\u2019s ova with the power to develop men and women, who were endowed\nwith the power to produce new spermatozo\u00e4 and new ova, with the same\nproperties and potentialities that were possessed by those of Adam and\nEve and so on forever to the nth. generation.\n\nThere are several insuperable objections to this theory:\n\n_First._--It is inconceivable that a man could be endowed with the\npower to produce spermatozo\u00e4 before he is born; nor could a woman\nproduce ova before her birth; nor is it possible to endow a fertilized\novum with the power to produce a man or woman before it is formed.\nWhen Adam\u2019s spermatozo\u00e4 and Eve\u2019s ova were made the men and women to\nbe produced from them had not come into being; and it was impossible\nfor even the Creator to endow them, at that time, with the power to\nproduce spermatozo\u00e4 and ova. Intellect, memory, will-power, force and\nmotion were necessary to group the atoms and cells of which the bodies\nof these new men and women were to be composed, into the necessary\nchemical combinations and mechanical arrangements in order to construct\ntheir bodies. Neither the spermatozo\u00e4, the ova nor the germ-cells\nproduced from them, had intellect, memory, will-power nor the necessary\nforce. Therefore it was impossible for Adam\u2019s spermatozo\u00e4 and Eve\u2019s\nova, or germ-cell, resulting from their fusion, to produce Adam and\nEve\u2019s children, automatically.\n\n_Secondly._--Neither the children of Adam and Eve nor of any other\nman or woman ever had the power to generate spermatozo\u00e4 and ova,\nvoluntarily. It is inconceivable that the blind unthinking genital\norgans of Adam\u2019s children or of any other man or woman ever produced\nspermatozo\u00e4 and ova spontaneously and automatically. We are compelled\nto believe that the Creator always generates, guides and controls the\nforces and motions which assemble and group the atoms into the form of\nthe spermatozo\u00e4 and ova; and that he directly and specially endows\neach spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum with such properties and potentialities as\nit may possess.\n\n_Thirdly._--Life is not a property of matter. If it were, there would\nbe no such thing as death; for matter and all its attributes and\nproperties are eternal. The atoms, of which a man\u2019s body is composed,\nare as old as the earth. But during his life, they are grouped\ntogether; and this group of atoms is endowed with the properties and\npotentials of a living being. The human body has identically the same\nphysical properties, whether it be living or dead. Thus, it has the\nsame weight, length, breadth and thickness after death that it had\nwhile living, until disintegration sets in. Apparently, the living\nhuman body is similar to a piece of iron, when charged with electricity\nor magnetism. Neither of these adds anything to the weight of the iron;\nnor do they change its structure, form, size, nor its appearance. When\nthey leave the iron it remains as it was before it was charged with\nthem. So it is with the human body for a time after life leaves it.\n\nLife not being a property of matter, it must be directly and specially\nconferred, by a supernatural creative force, upon the body in which it\nresides.\n\nIt is agreed by all biologists that there is no such thing as\nspontaneous generation of animals, nor of plants at this time. As\nHuxley puts it: \u201c_Omne vivum ex vivo_,\u201d \u201call life comes of life.\u201d\n(Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) 8, p. 746.)\n\nNow, if there be no such thing as spontaneous generation of animals,\nnor of plants, why should there be spontaneous generation of life?\nNeither the spermatozo\u00f6n, nor the ovum can live alone. But when united\nand fused together, under proper conditions, this combination takes on\nthe manifestations of life; and these manifestations continue until\ndeath.\n\nAny good chemist can analyze a fertilized ovum and learn, exactly, the\nchemical elements of which it is composed, and the proportions in which\nthey are combined. He could then make a new combination of carbon,\nhydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen in the same proportions, in which these\nsubstances were combined in the fertilized ovum; and if life were a\nproperty of that combination of atoms, this new chemical compound,\nought to become a living creature. But no such thing could ever happen.\n\nAs already remarked, neither the spermatozo\u00f6n nor the ovum can live\nalone. But when fused together, the combination becomes a living\ncreature. The atoms in the combination are identically the same that\nwere in the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum before the fusion occurred. Why\nshould the combination live when the two component parts of it could\nnot?\n\nIt is clear that no man can, voluntarily nor involuntarily endow a\nspermatozo\u00f6n with the power to develop, alone, into a human being;\nfor every one of them dies in a day, or within a few days, after it\nmatures; unless it be so fortunate as to unite and fuse with an ovum.\nIt is equally clear that no woman can endow an ovum with the power to\nbecome a human being. Every ovum soon dies, unless it unite and fuse\nwith a spermatozo\u00f6n under conditions favorable to growth. Haeckel\nsays: \u201cthere are calculated to be 72,000 [ova] in the sexually mature\nmaiden.\u201d (Evolution of Man, p. 347.) The number of spermatozo\u00e4,\ngenerated in the sexual organs of a man greatly exceeds the number\nof ova produced by a woman. It follows that countless trillions of\nspermatozo\u00e4 and ova die daily, and disintegrate.\n\nNow, if no man can endow a spermatozo\u00f6n with the power to develop into\na new human being; and if no woman can endow an ovum with power to do\nso; how is it possible for either parent to endow the fertilized ovum\nwith that power, when it is no part of the body of either of them?\n\nBut the evolutionist maintains that the child has in fact, many of the\nqualities, characteristics and traits, both physical and mental, of its\nparents; that the parents transmit these qualities, characteristics\nand traits, to their child, by and through the spermatozo\u00f6n and the\novum; that this is the only means by which the child could acquire\nthe qualities, characteristics and traits of its parents. Hence, the\nevolutionist infers that heredity is based on the physical qualities\nand properties of the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum.\n\nBut, as I have already argued (Sec. 15) the spermatozo\u00f6n and the ovum\nare, themselves, new, direct and special creations, and so is the\nembryo body. While the physical qualities and characteristics of the\nspermatozo\u00f6n may affect the body and mind of the child, to some extent;\nyet the child remains a new, direct and special creation.\n\nNeither Darwin, nor any other man, has ever shown how it is possible\nfor the father, his body or any part of it, to impress, modify or\naffect the spermatozo\u00f6n, or any part of it, in such a manner as to\ncause the child to resemble him in any particular; nor has it been\nshown how it is possible for the mother, her body or any part of it,\nto impress, modify or affect the ovum, or any part of it, in such a\nmanner as to cause the child to resemble her. When we consider the\ngreat number of spermatozo\u00e4 and ova that are produced; their small\nsizes and short lives; their location in the genital organs; and the\nlack of intellect, memory and will-power in every organ and part of\nthe bodies of the parents, and the fact that the \u201cgemmules\u201d must reach\nthe spermatozo\u00f6n and the ovum through the blood, we are compelled\nto believe that it is impossible for the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum to\ntransmit, unaided and alone, any quality, characteristic or trait of\na parent to the child; and we are forced to infer that the Creator,\ndirectly and specially, endows the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum with power to\nconvey to the child such qualities, characteristics, and traits of its\nparents as they do, in fact, carry to it.\n\nAssuming for argument that certain qualities, characteristics and\ntraits of the father and mother are transmitted to the child by and\nthrough the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum; this fact does not militate against\nmy theory of special Creation; for it seems reasonable to suppose\nthat the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum are specially endowed by the Creator,\nwith such powers and potentialities as they possess. Moreover, the\nevolutionist and materialist are in this attitude; they cannot show\nhow it is possible for the germ-cell (composed of the spermatozo\u00f6n\nand ovum) to produce, unaided and alone, a child with the qualities,\ncharacteristics and traits of its parents; nor can they prove that the\ngerm-cell and its daughter-cells do, in fact, automatically, produce\nthe child without the aid of the Creator.\n\nAssuming for argument that the spermatozo\u00f6n, ovum, germ-cell and its\ndaughter-cells appear to do automatically all the wonderful things that\nthe evolutionist and materialist say they do, the question remains:\ndo these senseless, unthinking atoms and cells, spontaneously and\nautomatically build up the embryo body with all its organs and parts,\nor does the Creator, in fact, generate, guide and control the forces\nand motions, which group these cells into the embryo body? In other\nwords: when the atoms and cells, which go to build up the embryo body,\nappear to act spontaneously and automatically, are they, in fact,\nmoved, guided, controlled and grouped into the form of the embryo body\nby the Creator?\n\nThe facts in relation to the development and growth of the embryo are\neasily described and understood. But the real question is this: \u201cWhat\nforce or agency causes this development and growth?\u201d\n\nWhat force or agency causes the child to resemble its parents? Do the\ngerm-cell and its daughter-cells spontaneously and automatically cause\nthis resemblance; or does the Creator cause it?\n\nReferring to the origin of life in the individual, Professor Martin\nsays:\n\n\u201cAt present we know nothing in physiology answering to the match which\nlights the furnace; those manifestations of energy we call life are\nhanded down from generation to generation, as sacred fire in the\ntemple of vesta from one watcher to another. Science may at some time\nteach us how to bring the chemical constituents of protoplasm into\nthat combination in which they possess the faculty of starting the\noxidations under those conditions which characterize life; then we\nshall have learnt to strike the vital match.\u201d (Martin, Human Body, p.\n312.)\n\nI do not believe that life is handed down from generation to\ngeneration. On the contrary the Creator strikes \u201cthe vital match\u201d when\neach fertilized ovum is formed; and every such human ovum is directly\nand specially endowed by the Creator, with the power to develop into a\nman or woman.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 32. Nature has no Power to Generate a New Human Being; nor to\nEvolve one from the Germ-Cell\n\n\nNature is defined as: \u201cThe forces or processes of the material world\nconceived of as an agency intermediate between the Creator and the\nworld, producing all organisms and preserving the regular order of\nthings; as in the old dictum, \u2018nature abhors a vacuum.\u2019 In this sense,\n_nature_ is often personified.\u201d (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3943.) It follows\nthat \u201cnature\u201d is not a substantial nor a material entity or thing,\nlike a man, a tree, or a stone; but is only a name for certain real\nor imaginary \u201cforces or processes.\u201d The word does not indicate by\nwhat agency these \u201cforces or processes\u201d are generated, guided nor\ncontrolled. But we use the word to indicate or describe certain\nphenomena, which we do not understand, in the same manner that we use\nthe word \u201cgravitation.\u201d\n\nThe naturalist or materialist would say that nature generates the\nspermatozo\u00f6n and ovum; that it unites and fuses them into the\ngerm-cell; and that it develops this cell into a man or woman. One\nmight as well say, historically, that the spermatozo\u00f6n and ovum are\ngenerated and fused; and that a man or woman is produced from it. But\nthis statement does not explain anything. It does not tell us what\nforce selects, assembles and groups the atoms into the spermatozo\u00f6n\nand ovum; nor what endows it with life; nor who nor what creates its\nsoul; nor what force or agency causes the embryo to develop and grow to\nmanhood or womanhood.\n\nTo say that \u201cnature\u201d generates and evolves new men and women, is no\nexplanation of the phenomena of reproduction. Nature has no physical\nbody, no weight, length, breadth, nor thickness, no intellect, memory\nnor will-power; nor can it voluntarily generate force nor motion. It\nfollows that \u201cnature\u201d cannot form the spermatozo\u00f6n nor the ovum; cannot\ncause them to unite and fuse into a germ-cell; nor cause the necessary\natoms and cells to assemble and group themselves into the chemical\ncombinations and mechanical arrangements required to build up the\nembryo body, its organs and parts.\n\nIn other words, \u201cnature\u201d works by and through the spermatozo\u00f6n, the\novum and germ-cell or fertilized ovum. It has identically the same\npowers and potentialities that they have--no more nor less. It follows\nthat nature cannot, automatically, generate nor evolve, a new man, nor\na new woman.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 33. Every Human Being is a New, Direct and Special Creation by\nAlmighty God; this Question to be Determined, How\n\n\nTo determine this question it is necessary: _first_, to ascertain\nwhat work has to be done in order to create a new human being;\n_secondly_, to consider whether this work can be done, spontaneously\nand automatically, by the germ-cell or fertilized ovum and its\ndaughter-cells, or whether a supernatural psychic and creative force is\nnecessary to do it.\n\nDarwin ought to be accepted by the evolutionist and materialist as high\nauthority on any biological question, and specially on the subject of\nspecial creation. I call him as my first witness. In his Origin of\nSpecies, last edition, 1872, (vol. 2, p. 298) he says:\n\n\u201cI believe that [all] animals are descended from at most only four or\nfive progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy\nwould lead one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and\nplants are descended from some one prototype.\u201d\n\nAgain, on page 299, he says:\n\n\u201cIf we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organic beings,\nwhich have ever lived on this earth may have descended from one\nprimordial form.\u201d\n\nThe last ten lines in his Origin of Species (vol. 2, pp. 305-306) are\nin these words:\n\n\u201cThus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted\nobject which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of\nthe higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of\nlife, with its several powers having been originally breathed by the\nCreator into a few forms, or into one, and that whilst this planet has\ngone cycling on, according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple\na beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful, have been\nand are being evolved.\u201d\n\nThus, the reader will see that Darwin, himself believed that the first\none, or the first few, animals and plants were directly and specially\ncreated by Almighty God.\n\nI base the theory that every Human being is a new, direct and special\ncreation by Almighty God, on the following propositions:\n\n\n\n\nSec. 34. Proposition 1. Animals and Plants First Appeared on the Earth\nat a Certain Time\n\n\nThere was a time when there were no animals, nor plants on our planet.\nTherefore, they must have appeared at a definite period.\n\nThe rocks tell us that animals and plants first appeared on the earth\nin the arch\u00e6ozoic or primordial geological age, which, according to\nHaeckel, began 100,300,000 years ago. (Last words on Evolution, p.\n165.) He also says that \u201clife began to exist at a definite period,\u201d \u201con\nour planet;\u201d that \u201cno organism can exist or discharge its functions\nwithout water. No water, no life!\u201d and that the surface of the earth\nhad to cool down so as to convert \u201cthe envelope of steam into water\u201d\nbefore animals and plants could live. (Evolution of Man, p. 200.)\n\n\n\n\nSec. 35. Proposition 2. First Animal and Plant were Either Specially\nCreated; or Arose by Spontaneous Generation from Inorganic Matter\n\n\nMysterious and miraculous as it may seem, animals and plants have lived\non the earth during this eternity of time. The earth is now covered\nwith countless millions of them. We know that we, ourselves, are here.\nHow did they happen to be here? How did we get here? How did life\noriginate on the earth?\n\nIt is obvious that the first animal or plant that appeared on the earth\nwas either directly and specially made, by a supernatural psychic and\ncreative force, of inorganic matter; or that it arose, by spontaneous\ngeneration, from such matter; for it must necessarily have originated\nin the one manner or in the other. How else could it have come into\nexistence?\n\nSo far as I know, there are only two theories, among educated and\nscientific men, as to the origin of animals and plants. The one is that\nthey were directly and specially made by the Creator; the other is that\nthey arose by spontaneous generation, from inorganic matter. Which of\nthese is most plausible? (Spencer, Principles of Biology, vol. 1, pp.\n415-416.)\n\nThe evolutionist and materialist maintain that the course of nature is\n\u201cuniform, continuous and everlasting;\u201d that the earth is now behaving\nidentically, as it has been ever since it came into existence; that\nanimals and plants are now being evolved, as in the past, while others\nare becoming extinct, and that every animal and plant is merely a\nco-ordinated term in natures \u201cgreat progression.\u201d (Huxley, Man\u2019s Place\nin Nature, p. 151.)\n\nAccording to this view, if an animal or a plant was ever spontaneously\ngenerated from inorganic matter, we would naturally expect to find them\narising in the same manner today, for there is no reason to suppose\nthat the nature of the \u201cinorganic matter,\u201d which they say produced the\nfirst animal or plant, has been exhausted; nor that it has changed;\nnor that the conditions have changed, nor that the forces which are\nsupposed to have caused the spontaneous generation of the first animal\nand plant have ceased to exist.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 36. Proposition 3. No Spontaneous Generation of Animals; nor of\nPlants\n\n\nProfessor Huxley (1825-1905) was a scientist and philosopher of the\nfirst magnitude. He was an intimate friend to Darwin; an evolutionist\nand materialist of the strictest sect and fully competent to speak for\nthese schools of philosophy. Among other works on evolution, he wrote,\n\u201cMan\u2019s Place in Nature\u201d (1863), in which he argued at great length that\nman is a descendant of an ape. Hence the following quotations from\nhis works may be taken as authoritative admissions on the part of the\nevolutionist and materialist.\n\nHe says:\n\n\u201cThe fact is that at the present moment there is not a shadow of\ntrustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis [spontaneous generation]\ndoes take place, or has taken place, within the period during which the\nexistence of life on the globe is recorded.\u201d (Huxley, Anat. Invert.\nAn., pp. 40-41.)\n\nWriting in the Encyclopedia Britannica (9 ed., vol. 8, p. 746) he says,\nin substance, that the aphorism: \u201comne vivum ex vivo\u201d (\u201call life comes\nof life\u201d) is a \u201cwell established law of the existing course of nature.\u201d\n\nThe theory of spontaneous generation assumes that certain inorganic\nelements, spontaneously and automatically grouped themselves together\nin such proportions and in such a manner, chemically and mechanically,\nas to produce one or a very few animals or plants; and that all\nother animals and plants have descended from this one, or these few\nprimordial forms. No one pretends to say that there is any direct\nevidence that any such thing ever happened. On the contrary every\nfact within our knowledge tends to negative the theory of spontaneous\ngeneration. But, in order to dispense with the theory of special\ncreation, the evolutionist and materialist invented the theory of\nspontaneous generation. There is not only no evidence to support the\ntheory of spontaneous generation, but after many trials scientific men\nhave wholly failed to produce any living substance, whatever. On this\npoint Professor Huxley says:\n\n\u201cTo enable us to say that we know anything about the experimental\norigination of organization and life, the investigator ought to be able\nto take inorganic matters, such as carbonic acid, ammonia, water and\nsalines, in any sort of inorganic combination, and be able to build\nthem up into protein matter [nitrogenous or albuminoid bodies] and\nthat protein matter ought to begin to live in an organic form. That,\nnobody has done as yet; and I suspect it will be a long while before\nanybody does it.\u201d (Huxley, Origin of Species, p. 69.) After discussing\nthe theory of spontaneous generation at length, and describing the\nexperiments which are supposed to have destroyed that theory, he says:\n\n\u201cFor my part, I conceive that with the particulars of M. Pasteur\u2019s\nexperiments before us, we cannot fail to arrive at his conclusions; and\nthat the doctrine of spontaneous generation has received a final _coup\nde grace_\u201d [stroke of mercy or death blow.]\n\nAfter describing the experiments of a number of scientists the New\nInternational Encyclopedia, published in 1905, (vol. 1, p. 463) says:\n\n\u201cThe result of these experiments and conclusions is that the view\nthat spontaneous generation takes place at the present day, has been\nentirely discarded.\u201d\n\nIf there was ever any such thing as spontaneous generation of animals\nand plants, from inorganic matter, why should it not continue to\nhappen, down to the present time?\n\nWe are therefore compelled to believe that there never was any such\nthing as spontaneous generation from inorganic matters; and we know\nthat all the men of the earth, acting in concert, could not produce a\nsingle live worm!\n\n\n\n\nSec. 37. Proposition 4. Creator Could Have Made a Million Animals or\nPlants as Well as One\n\n\nIf it be admitted, as Darwin does, that the Creator made \u201cone or a few\u201d\nanimals and plants, in the beginning, we may well suppose that He could\nhave made a million, or a million of millions, as easily as one.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 38. Proposition 5. If the Creator Made the First Animal and the\nFirst Plant He Made All Others\n\n\nIf it be admitted that He created the first one, or the first few,\nanimals and plants, why should we doubt that He created all of them? If\nHe began to create them, why should He cease to do so? His works are\nuniform, continuous and everlasting.\n\nBut in his \u201cOrigin of Species\u201d (vol. 2, p. 304-305) Darwin says:\n\n\u201cAuthors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the\nview that each species has been independently created. To my mind it\naccords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the\nCreator, that the production and extinction of the past and present\ninhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like\nthose determining the birth and death of the individual.\u201d\n\nWhat are \u201cthe laws impressed on matter by the Creator,\u201d that have\nanything to do with the reproduction of animals and plants? What\nlaws \u201cimpressed on matter\u201d have any bearing on the question whether\nanimals and plants have arisen from inorganic matter, by spontaneous\ngeneration or by special creation? Perhaps Darwin means to say that\nhe supposes the Creator would naturally make one or a few primordial\nforms of animal and plant and turn them loose upon the earth to shift\nfor themselves subject to \u201csecondary causes,\u201d namely, the factors of\nevolution. But he does not profess to have any special knowledge of the\nDivine Mind; nor does he pretend to know more of it than any other man\ndoes.\n\nPerhaps Lamarck (1744-1829) was the first to suggest the theory of\nspontaneous generation, in the sense in which these words are now used,\nand the evolution of species. (Encyclopedia Britannica 14, p. 232.)\nDown to his time, no one doubted the Mosaic story of the creation.\nBelief in the theory of special creation was well nigh universal down\nto the publication of Darwin\u2019s Origin of Species, in 1859. This belief\nwas shared alike by both scientists and laymen. But shortly after the\npublication of that work, belief in the theory of organic evolution\nbecame a fad among educated people; and that belief was supposed to\nindicate intellectual power and independence of thought.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 39. Proposition 6. Human Body is Either Specially Created or\nSpontaneously Generated, Which?\n\n\nAccording to the evolutionist and materialist, the reproduction of the\nhuman body from a fertilized ovum is, in substance and effect, the same\nthing as spontaneous generation of such a body from inorganic matter.\nThe work to be done in the one case is identically the same as that to\nbe done in the other. In fact the spermatozo\u00f6n and the ovum are made\nof dead matter; and if we consider the making of the spermatozo\u00f6n and\nthe ovum as the first steps in the process of reproduction as they\nare; and also assume that the Creator takes no part in that process,\nwe would then have to say that the human body arises by spontaneous\ngeneration from inorganic matter; for it is undoubtedly true that the\nspermatozo\u00f6n and ovum are made of inorganic substances, namely: carbon,\nhydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. It is equally true that the fertilized\novum has no more intellect, memory nor will-power than its component\natoms of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen had; nor has it any more\npower to generate, guide and control forces and motions than they had.\nIt follows that the same psychic and creative force is necessary to\nproduce a new human being whether it be made from a germ of inorganic\nmatter or from a fertilized ovum; the ovum being only one remove from\ninorganic matter. Moreover, the entire human body is made of dead\nmatter except the infinitesimal fertilized ovum.\n\nThere is no middle ground between special creation on the one side and\nspontaneous generation on the other; either the Creator generates,\nguides and controls the forces and motions which build up the embryo\nbody, its organs and parts; or the atoms and cells, of which they\nare made, do, spontaneously and automatically, assemble and group\nthemselves into the chemical combinations, and into the mechanical\narrangements, which are necessary to make them.\n\nThe reader may argue that \u201cnature,\u201d \u201cheredity\u201d or the germ-cell\n(fertilized ovum) does this wonderful work of building up the embryo\nbody; and, therefore, that neither the Creator nor spontaneous\ngeneration does it. But \u201cnature\u201d and \u201cheredity\u201d do all their work by\nand through the germ-cell; so their powers are identical with those\nof the germ-cell. This germ is a tiny bit of protoplasm composed of\ncarbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, with a possible trace of sulphur\nand phosphorus. It has no brain, eyes, ears, nose, touch, nor taste; no\nintellect, memory, nor will-power; no knowledge of anatomy, chemical\nelements, chemical affinity, form, size, time, nor space; nor any\nconstructive power nor force; has no power to generate forces nor to\nguide and control motions.\n\nTherefore, it is impossible for the germ-cell, or its daughter-cells,\nto build up, automatically, the embryo body, with all its organs and\nparts. It follows that this body must be directly and specially created\nby Almighty God.\n\nAgain, every embryo body is made of cells (organic bricks) and\nthese are made of dead atoms. In order to construct this body it\nis necessary to group a certain number of these atoms into certain\nchemical combinations; next these combinations must be grouped into\ncertain mechanical arrangements. Thus, the skeleton is made of bones;\nthey are made of cells, which in turn are made of dead atoms of lime,\ncarbon, phosphorus, etc.; these cells must be grouped into phosphate\nof lime, carbonate of lime, gelatin, etc. These combinations must then\nbe grouped into the two hundred and seventy-eight bones of the embryo\nskeleton, giving each bone its proper form, size, structure and place\nin the skeleton. It is clear that neither the father nor the mother\ntakes any part in making these chemical combinations nor in making the\nmechanical arrangements. It is equally clear that they are not made by\nchance nor by accident; nor by the \u201cfactors\u201d of evolution.\n\nIt follows that the atoms and cells of which the embryo body is made,\ndo, spontaneously and automatically group themselves into the chemical\ncombinations and mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to\nconstruct the several organs and parts of the embryo body without the\naid or guidance of any extraneous psychic or creative force; or that\nevery organ and part of the embryo body is directly and specially made\nby the Creator.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 40. Proposition 7. Human Skeleton is a Special Creation\n\n\nHuman bones are composed of ten chemical elements, namely: carbon,\nchlorin, hydrogen, lime, magnesium, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus,\nsodium and sulphur. As found in the bones, these elements are grouped\ninto the five chemical combinations, following: phosphate of lime,\ncarbonate of lime, carbonate of soda, chloride of soda, and gelatin.\n\nThere are eight bones in the cranium, fourteen in the face and six in\nthe ears, making twenty-eight in the skull, besides the thirty-two\nteeth. (Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) vol. 1, p. 822.) In the infant there are\nthirty-three vertebr\u00e6 (joints) in the spinal column, namely: seven\ncervical, in the neck; twelve dorsal, in the back; five lumbar, in the\nsmall of the back; five sacral, in the sacrum; and four coccygeal,\nin the coccyx. But in the adult, there are only twenty-six, the five\nsacral joints having fused into one bone, and the four in the coccyx\nhaving fused into another; these two and the twenty-four regular\nvertebr\u00e6 (joints) making twenty-six. (Same book, p. 820.) In the chest\nthere are twelve pairs of ribs, the sternum or breast bone and the\nhyoid or tongue bone, twenty-six in all. (Same book, p. 822.) Each\narm and hand, including the scapula or shoulder blade, consists of\nthirty-two bones, making sixty-four in the two arms and hands. In each\nleg and foot, including the bones of the pelvis, there are thirty-one\nbones, making sixty-two in the pelvis, legs and feet. So that the adult\nhuman skeleton consists of two hundred and six bones, besides the\nthirty-two teeth. (Johnson\u2019s Universal Cyclopedia, 7, p. 553.)\n\nThe same book, (p. 533) says:\n\n\u201cAt birth their number is 278; at the age of twenty-five, 224; in\nadvanced old age, 194. About 660 segments are needed in the formation\nof the 206 bones.\u201d\n\nIn another place it says:\n\n\u201cThus, the thigh bone or femur represents the fusion of at least five\ndistinct segments, the union not being fully completed until about the\ntwentieth year.\u201d (Same book, p. 553, column 1.)\n\nThere is no bone in the fertilized ovum; therefore each skeleton and\neach bone is produced anew; that is, it grows anew for itself. No two\nbones are exactly alike. In the case of pairs similar bones are on\nopposite sides of the body, thus half the ribs, one arm, hand, leg,\nand foot are on each side of the body. Each of the twenty-four regular\njoints in the spinal column is similar to every other joint except the\natlas. But, beginning at the top and going downward, each joint is\nsmaller than the one next below it.\n\nThe bones of the skeleton have pores, foramin\u00e6 (holes), cavities,\nprocesses, joints and sutures. Some of them are long, others short,\nbroad and irregular. Each is attached to one or more other bones by\na joint or a suture. Each is adjusted to, and correlated with every\nother, in structure, form, size and function. The bones in the infant\nbody grow inside of it and while in the mother\u2019s womb. There is no\nmodel present by which to make it.\n\nWho determines at what points in the embryo body these two hundred and\nseventy-eight bones shall be built up? Who ordains that there shall\nbe twenty-two in the skull, thirty-three in the spinal column, etc.?\nWho fixes the structure, form, and size of each bone? Who adjusts\nand correlates each bone in the skeleton to every other? Who counts\nthem? Who guides and controls the forces and motions that build up the\nskeleton, in such a manner that the bones on the right side have the\nsame structure, form and size as those on the left? How does it happen\nthat the bones on the right side are the reverse of those on the left?\nHow does it happen that each human skeleton is exactly like every\nother. Who fixes nine months as the time in which the infant skeleton\nshall mature sufficiently for birth?\n\nThe father contributes the spermatozo\u00f6n and the mother the ovum; these\ntwo cells fuse into the germ-cell (fertilized ovum), which is composed\nof carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen, with a possible trace of\nphosphorus and sulphur. Whatever qualities, characteristics, traits\nand potentialities pass from the parents to the child must necessarily\nbe transmitted by and through the germ-cell (or fertilized ovum), for\nnothing else passes from the parents to the child. This cell is about\nthe size of one-sixth of a common pin\u2019s head; and is barely visible to\nthe naked eye under the most favorable conditions. It has no intellect,\nmemory nor will-power; no knowledge of anatomy, nor of the human body.\n\nIt is immediately divided into two daughter-cells, these into four,\neight, sixteen, thirty-two and so on to infinity. Thus, it appears that\nthe infinitesimal fertilized ovum is soon disintegrated, divided into\nmillions of pieces and distributed among the new cells which are made\nfrom the food of the mother.\n\nIt is impossible to believe that the minute fertilized ovum when\ndivided into a million pieces, selects the atoms, generates, guides\nand controls the forces and motions which build up the two hundred and\nseventy-eight bones in the infant body. It is preposterous to suppose\nthat the millionth part of the germ-cell can determine the point in\nthe embryo body, in which the skull bones, the ear bones, the spinal\ncolumn, the arm-buds, leg-buds, etc., shall appear. Nor can we believe\nthat this little cell or any of its daughter-cells can spontaneously\nand automatically produce any of the vital phenomena, manifested by the\nhuman skeleton.\n\nEvery one knows that neither the father nor the mother has any\nvoluntary power, nor any control over the development and growth of the\nembryo.\n\nDoes the embryo develop and grow by accident or chance? Surely not; for\neach embryo develops and grows precisely as every other does, in every\nage and country, thus showing that the same ubiquitous creative force\nmakes all of them.\n\n\u201cWe must not assume any original creation, nor repeated creations,\u201d\nsays Haeckel, \u201cto explain this, but a natural, continuous and necessary\nevolution.\u201d (Evolution of Man, p. 26.) He argues that there is no\npersonal God.\n\nWriting in the Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 8, p. 746, 9 ed.)\nProfessor Huxley says:\n\n\u201cNo exception is, at this time, known to the general law, established\nupon an immense multitude of direct observations, that every living\nthing is evolved from a particle of matter, in which no trace of the\ndistinctive characters of the adult form of that living thing is\ndiscernible. This particle is termed a _germ_.\u2026\n\n\u201cThe definition of a germ as \u2018matter potentially alive, and having,\n_within itself_, the tendency to assume a definite living form,\u2019\nappears to meet all the requirements of modern science \u2026 And the\nqualification of \u2018potential\u2019 has the advantage of reminding us that the\ngreat characteristic of the germ is not so much _what it is_, but _what\nit may, under suitable conditions, become_.\u2026\n\n\u201cIn all cases, the process of evolution consists in a succession\nof changes of the form, structure and functions of the germ by\nwhich it passes, step by step, from an extreme simplicity, or\nrelative homogeneity, of visible structure to a greater or less\ndegree of complexity or heterogeneity; and the course of progressive\ndifferentiation is generally accompanied by growth, which is effected\nby intussusception,\u201d [interstitial deposit.]\n\n\u201c\u2026 And so far from the fully developed organism\u2019s being simply the\ngerm _plus_ the nutriment, which it has absorbed, it is probable that\nthe adult contains neither in form, nor in substance, more than an\ninappreciable fraction of the constituents of the germ, and that it is\nalmost wholly made up of assimilated and metamorphosed nutriment.\u201d\n\nThis being true, it cannot be said that the germ (fertilized ovum) ever\ndevelops into a man or woman. On the contrary it is annihilated; and\nits identity is wholly lost among the daughter-cells which are made of\nthe mother\u2019s food.\n\nHerbert Spencer invented what he calls \u201cphysiological units\u201d or\n\u201cconstitutional units,\u201d and \u201cstructural proclivity.\u201d But neither he\nnor any other man ever saw one of these \u201cunits,\u201d they being wholly\nimaginary. In his Principles of Biology (vol. 1, p. 368) under\n\u201cGenesis, heredity and variation,\u201d he says:\n\n\u201cSo that though all parts are composed of physiological units of the\nsame nature, yet everywhere, in virtue of local conditions and the\ninfluence of its neighbors, each unit joins in forming a particular\nstructure appropriate to its place.\u201d\n\nCould anything be more absurd?\n\nFor Spencer\u2019s view of \u201cphysiological units\u201d and \u201cstructural proclivity\u201d\nsee Principles of Biology 1, pp. 226, 361, 362, 365, 368, 372, and vol.\n2, pp. 612-618.\n\nThe effect of the above quotations is that the atoms and cells of\nwhich the embryo body is composed, do spontaneously and automatically\nassemble and group themselves into the chemical combinations and\nmechanical arrangements, which are necessary to build up the human\nbody, without the aid of any extraneous psychic or creative force\nwhatever. This is necessarily the theory of the evolutionist and\nmaterialist; for they deny that there was ever any such thing as\nspecial creation. Besides, every one knows that neither the father nor\nthe mother has any power, nor any control over the development and\ngrowth of the embryo.\n\nIt follows that the blind, unthinking, fertilized ovum and\ndaughter-cells arising from it, spontaneously and automatically\nassemble themselves together in the form of the two hundred and\nseventy-eight bones of the embryo skeleton; or that the Creator\ngenerates, guides, and controls the forces and motions which build up\nthe embryo body. Which theory is most plausible?\n\nWe cannot even imagine the dead atoms of carbon, chlorine, hydrogen,\nlime, etc., which compose the bones, assemble and group themselves into\nthe twenty-two bones of the skull; nor into the thirty-three joints of\nthe spinal column; nor into the bones of the arms, hands, legs and feet\nwith all their pores, foramin\u00e6, cavities, processes, joints and sutures.\n\nBut the evolutionist says that \u201cheredity\u201d produces the embryo; and\nanother says \u201cnature\u201d does this wonderful work. I reply that whatever\n\u201cheredity\u201d and \u201cnature\u201d may do toward the production of the embryo must\nnecessarily be done by and through the fertilized ovum, and I have\nalready argued that this little atom is powerless to do any such thing.\nSee index, infra, \u201cHeredity.\u201d\n\nEach bone in the skeleton, and all of them as a whole, testify that\nthey were designed and made by the Creator!\n\n\n\n\nSec. 41. Proposition 8. Each Human Eye is a New, Direct and Special\nCreation\n\n\nTwo new eyes must be made, out and out, for each embryo.\n\nThe eye is formed before birth. This fact makes it clear that the\nalleged factors of evolution have nothing to do with its production.\n\nIt is obvious that the father takes no part in the construction of\nthe child\u2019s eyes; for he contributes the spermatozo\u00f6n, only; and the\nformation of the eye begins a considerable time after the spermatozo\u00f6n\nfuses with the ovum. It is equally clear that the mother has no\nvoluntary agency in the production of the child\u2019s eyes. In brief, the\nchild develops and grows in the mother\u2019s womb, as a parasite, she being\nmerely its host. Moreover, the reader will readily admit that all the\nscientists on the earth, acting in concert, could not make a living eye\nfor a toad.\n\nEach human eye has the same parts, the same construction, form, and\nsubstantially the same size that every other such eye has; and performs\nthe same functions. So all human eyes occupy the same relative position\nin the face. We are, therefore, compelled to believe that human eyes\nare not produced by accident nor by chance; but they develop and grow\nby force of a universal law; or that they are made by the Creator.\n\nBut the almost universal belief is that \u201cheredity\u201d or \u201cnature\u201d causes\nthe child\u2019s eyes to grow, as those of the parents grew.\n\nA cause is described as: \u201cAn antecedent, upon which an effect follows\naccording to the law of nature.\u201d (Cent. Dic. 1, p. 868.)\n\nOrdinarily, the word \u201ccause\u201d is understood to mean a force or agency\nwhich produces a given effect or result, which could not happen without\nthat force or agency. Such a force or agency is termed an efficient\ncause. (Cent. Dic. 3, p. 1849.)\n\nIt would be absurd to suppose that the eyes of the father and mother\ncause or produce the eyes of the child. It follows that there is no\ncausative relation between the eyes of the parents and those of the\nchild. The most that could be said in this direction is that the same\nforce or agency which produced the eyes of the parents, namely: the\nCreator, also caused and produced those of the child.\n\nThe fact that the father and mother have eyes is no reason why the\nchild should have them; for the forces and motions which made the\neyes of the parents ceased to exist long before the formation of the\ngerm-cell from which the child is produced.\n\nEach human eye is a new combination of the atoms and cells of which\nit is composed. No atom, in it, was ever a part of an eye of either\nparent. The atoms and cells, of which it is made, are grouped into new\nchemical combinations; and these are mechanically arranged in such a\nmanner as to construct the human eye for the first and last time. The\nforces and motions, which build up each eye are peculiar to it. The\nwork done in making the eyes of the parents, has nothing to do with\nthe making of the eyes of the child; for the atoms and cells which are\nemployed in constructing the child\u2019s eyes must be assembled and grouped\ninto the necessary chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements as\nif the father and mother had no eyes. In other words, each eye must be\nmade anew, without regard to the eyes of the father and mother or any\nother person. If a man make a million bricks, it requires the same work\nto make the last one that it did to make the first one; so if a hundred\nmillion silver dollars are coined at a mint it requires, identically,\nthe same work to coin each of them that it did to make every other; and\nso of the eyes.\n\nWhile discussing \u201corgans of extreme perfection,\u201d and referring to the\nimaginary evolution of the human eye, in his Origin of Species (vol. 1,\np. 228), Darwin says:\n\n\u201cLet this process go on for millions of years, and during each year on\nmillions of individuals of many kinds, and may we not believe that a\nliving optical instrument might be thus formed, as superior to one of\nglass as the works of the Creator are to those of man?\u201d\n\nIn brief, Darwin\u2019s theory is that the eyes of each individual are\nbetter than those of his parents; and that he transmits to his child\nall the improvements made on his eyes during his life and so on to the\nlatest generation. In other words, according to Darwin, the eyes of\ntoday are the \u201caccumulated improvements\u201d of millions of years.\n\nApparently Darwin thinks that each individual gets the benefit of all\nimprovements made in the eyes of every other individual of all other\nspecies without regard to genetic relations, for he says, \u201con millions\nof individuals of many kinds,\u201d etc. According to this view, a man would\navail himself of any improvement that might be made in the eye of a\nfly, which is preposterous.\n\nThere would be some force in Darwin\u2019s argument if it were possible to\ntransfer the father\u2019s or the mother\u2019s eyes, bodily, to the child. But\nsuch a thing is too absurd to be dreamed of.\n\nEvery one knows that each eye, and every part of it, grows anew, as\nif the parents of the embryo had no eyes. Neither Darwin, nor any\nother man has ever shown how it is possible for the eyes of the father\nor mother to modify or affect the development, growth, form, size,\ncolor, qualities or characteristics of the child\u2019s eyes. According\nto Darwin\u2019s theory of \u201cgemmules\u201d the eyes of the father and mother\ngive off gemmules which get into his or her blood and thence into the\nspermatozo\u00f6n and the ovum and thence into the fertilized ovum and these\nproduce eyes, in the child, like those of its parents. But everybody\nsaw that these \u201cgemmules\u201d would have great difficulty in finding the\nspermatozo\u00f6n and ovum, and in getting into them when found; and that\nafter they reached the fertilized ovum, which divides into two, four,\neight, sixteen or a million daughter-cells, these gemmules would have\ngreat difficulty in finding the orbit where the new eye is to grow; and\nthat they were as apt to land in the back, heel or toe of the embryo as\nin the orbit.\n\nBesides, if there were any such thing as Darwin\u2019s gemmules there would\nhave to be at least one for each coat, muscle, artery, vein, nerve\nand part of the eye; and it would be impossible for them to arrange\nthemselves in the proper order in the embryo eye. Moreover, there\nmight be too many or too few gemmules; some of them might get lost and\nleave the embryo eye without one or more of its coats or parts; then\nthe gemmules from the father\u2019s ayes might clash with those from the\nmother\u2019s.\n\nNo other man has ever suggested any more plausible theory, than\nDarwin\u2019s \u201cgemmules,\u201d of the manner in which the organs and parts of\nthe parents\u2019 bodies may be supposed to modify and affect those of the\nchild. But this theory was rejected by every one, but Darwin, as absurd\nand impossible.\n\nEvery human being begins life as fertilized ovum, in which there is no\neye. No part of the eyes of the father is transferred, bodily, to those\nof the child; nor is any part of the eyes of the mother. Every part of\neach eye must be made anew; each part must have the proper structure,\nform, and size; must be adjusted to and correlated with every other;\nfinally, the several parts must be arranged in the proper order in the\neye. In other words, two entirely new eyes must be made for each child.\n\nEither the blind unthinking atoms and cells, of which the several parts\nof the eye, namely: the several coats, the aqueous humor, the lens,\nthe vitreous body, the optic nerve, the muscles, arteries, veins,\nnerves, etc., are built up, do, spontaneously and automatically, and\nwithout the aid of any extraneous, supernatural, psychic and creative\nforce, assemble and group themselves into the chemical combinations and\nmechanical arrangements necessary to construct the embryo eye; or the\nCreator, directly and specially, makes it. Which hypothesis is most\nplausible?\n\n\n\n\nSec. 42. Proposition 9. Each Human Ear is a New, Direct and Special\nCreation\n\n\nTwo new ears must be made, out and out, for each embryo.\n\nThe ear is a complex acoustic apparatus; is more complex, and has more\nparts, than the eye; and every part of it is well fitted to perform the\nfunction assigned to it. What was said in the two preceding sections,\nof skeleton and eye, as tending to establish the theory of special\ncreation, applies equally to the construction of the ear.\n\nIntellect, memory, will-power, force and motion are required to\nform the chemical combinations and make the mechanical arrangements\nnecessary to construct the ear; and every part of it testifies that it\nwas contrived and made by the Creator!\n\n\n\n\nSec. 43. Proposition 10. Each Human Brain is a New, Direct and Special\nCreation\n\n\nAn entirely new brain must be made for each embryo. What has been said\nof the several parts of the skeleton and of the eye, (section 40 and\n41, supra), applies equally to the size, form, structure, position and\nnumber of the several parts of the brain.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 44. Proposition 11. The Sexual Organs of Each Individual are New,\nDirect and Special Creations\n\n\nEvery human being begins life as a fertilized ovum, in which there are\nno sexual organs whatever. It follows that a new set of such organs\nmust be made, out and out, for each individual embryo.\n\nWho or what determines whether the child shall be a male or female?\nFor several weeks after the formation of the fertilized ovum there is\nnothing to indicate whether the child is to be a boy or girl. If it\nis finally decided that it shall be a male, a full set of male sexual\norgans is made for him. On the other hand, if it is to be a female,\na set of female organs is made for her. But the production of male\norgans for the one, or female organs for the other is not the only\nthing to be done; for every organ and part of the body is modified,\nadjusted to and correlated with, the sexual characters whether male or\nfemale. The reader will readily recall all the distinctive differences\nbetween a man and woman, including the secondary sexual characters. In\nother words, if it is determined that the child shall be a male, every\nnon-sexual organ and part of his body must be so differentiated and\nmodified as to make a man of him, in both mind and body. On the other\nhand, if the child is to be a female, all of her non-sexual organs and\nparts must be so differentiated and modified as to make a woman of her,\nwith all of the qualities, characteristics and traits that belong to\nwoman.\n\nIntellect, memory, will-power, force and motion--creative force--are\nnecessary to convert a sexless embryo body into a male or female\nchild. This cannot be done by accident nor by blind chance; nor by the\nalleged \u201cfactors\u201d of evolution; for this work is done before the birth\nof the child and before the \u201cfactors\u201d have had an opportunity to do\ntheir \u201cwork;\u201d besides, we cannot believe that the blind \u201cfactors\u201d can\nmetamorphose a sexless embryo into a male or female child.\n\nNeither the father nor the mother has any power to determine the sex of\ntheir child; nor has the fertilized ovum any such power; for it has no\nintellect, memory nor will-power, nor any knowledge of sexual organs\nnor of anything else. Moreover, before the sex of the child has been\ndetermined this ovum has been annihilated by division among a million\nof daughter-cells, which are made of animal and vegetable food eaten\nby the mother, which was never a part of any other human body.\n\nCan we believe that the blind, unthinking atoms and cells of which\nthe embryo body is built up, do, spontaneously, automatically and\nwithout the aid of any extraneous psychic force, group themselves into\nthe chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements, necessary to\nconstruct the sexual organs of a male or female child? How can these\natoms and cells elect whether it shall be a boy or a girl? If they do\nso elect, how can they differentiate and modify all the non-sexual\norgans and parts of the body so as to correlate them with the sexual\norgans?\n\nThe evolutionist and materialist will say that \u201cheredity\u201d or \u201cnature\u201d\ndetermines the sex of the embryo. I reply that the force and power of\n\u201cheredity\u201d and of \u201cnature\u201d are identical with those the fertilized\novum because they can act, only, by and through it; and it has no\nintellect, memory nor will-power to determine the sex of the child;\nnor to construct the male nor the female sexual organs after electing\nbetween them, even if such a thing were possible; nor any power to\ncorrelate the non-sexual organs and parts, with the male or female\nsexual organs so as to produce a man or a woman. In fact the germ-cell\nhas no knowledge of sexual organs, nor of their form, size, structure\nnor functions. It follows that neither \u201cheredity,\u201d nor \u201cnature\u201d has\nany power to determine the sex of the child, nor to correlate its\nnon-sexual organs with its sexual ones.\n\nWe are, therefore, compelled to believe that the sex of every human\nbeing is determined by the Creator; and that all sexual organs are\ndirectly and specially made by him.\n\nFor like reasons, we are compelled to believe that the heart, lungs,\nstomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, arteries, veins, nerves, and other\norgans and parts of the body are directly and specially made by the\nCreator.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 45. Proposition 12. Form, Size, Structure and Position of the\nSeveral Organs and Parts of the Body and Their Number are Conclusive\nEvidence that Each Human Body is a New, Direct and Special Creation\n\n\nFor example, the form, size, structure and position of the several\nbones in each skeleton, and the number of them, are proof that they are\nall made by the Creator.\n\nSo, the form, size, structure, and position of the several parts of the\nbrain, eye, ear, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc.; and their number\ncannot be explained on any hypothesis, other than that of special\ncreation. The same is true of the muscles, arteries, veins, etc.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 46. Proposition 13. Universal Sameness of all Human Bodies, is\nConclusive Evidence that Each of Them was Directly and Specially Made\nby the Creator\n\n\nEvery human body that ever lived in any age or country was composed\nof identically the same chemical elements that were or are found in\nevery other such body, in whatever age or country such other body may\nhave lived. So, each normal body, in whatever age or country it may\nhave lived, had the same chemical combinations; the same mechanical\narrangements; the same structure, the same organs and parts, and\nsubstantially the same form and size, that every other such body, of\nthe same sex, had, whenever, and wherever such other body may have\nlived.\n\nHow could this universal sameness of chemical elements, chemical\ncombinations, mechanical arrangements, etc., in all human bodies have\nhappened? Could it have happened by accident or chance; or by force\nof the blind factors of evolution; or did the blind, unthinking atoms\nand cells, of which each human body was built up, spontaneously, and\nautomatically, group themselves into identically the same chemical\ncombinations, and mechanical arrangements that the atoms and cells in\nevery other human body had grouped themselves; thus making chemical\nelements, chemical combinations, the mechanical arrangements, the\norgans and parts in each human body, identically the same as those in\nevery other such body, whenever and wherever it may have lived? Such\na thing is impossible; specially when we consider that each body grew\nanew, for itself.\n\nBut the evolutionist may say that this universal sameness in all human\nbodies is caused by \u201cheredity.\u201d\n\nI reply that each human body begins life as a fertilized ovum; that it\ndevelops and grows anew for itself, independently of the development\nand growth of any other body; it is a new combination of the atoms and\ncells--\u201corganic bricks\u201d--of which it is composed; it was made by new\nforces and motions of new materials, peculiar to itself. In order to\nbuild each body the atoms and cells, of which it was composed, must\nhave been selected, assembled at the building site and there grouped\ninto the necessary chemical combinations and mechanical arrangement.\nIntellect, memory, will-power, force and motion were necessary to do\nthis work, in each instance.\n\nHeredity is only a name for certain vital phenomena. It it not a\nmaterial entity; it has no weight, length, breadth nor thickness; no\nconstructive force; no intellect, memory nor will-power; nor any power\nto generate force nor motion. Nor has it any power to assemble the\natoms and cells; nor to group and arrange them in such a manner as to\nform the body, its organs and parts. Nor can \u201cheredity\u201d \u201cbreathe the\nbreath of life\u201d into the fertilized ovum nor create a soul for the\nembryo body.\n\n\u201cHeredity\u201d does all its work by and through the fertilized ovum. It\nhas identically the same properties and potentialities that this ovum\nhas, no more nor less. Surely this ovum has no knowledge of the bodies\nof its parents, nor of their organs and parts; nor can it have any\nmemory of a thing that it never knew; nor has it any inherent power to\nreproduce the bodies of its parents or either of them.\n\nIt is impossible to explain and account for this universal sameness of\nall human bodies without assuming that each of them was made by one and\nthe same hand, namely: Almighty God. We cannot doubt that He directly\nand specially created every human being that ever lived on our planet.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 47. Proposition 14. Creator\u2019s Supervision of the Development and\nGrowth of the Embryo is Necessary to Produce the Human Body\n\n\nThe watchmaker makes one piece of a watch at a time; but every organ\nand part of the embryo body grows all the time. Thus the body and all\nits internal organs and parts; and both arms, hands, legs and feet are\ngrowing continuously until it is grown. If the growth of each organ and\npart of the body were not so regulated as to keep pace with every other\norgan and part, there would be no proper proportion among them. One arm\nand hand would be larger and longer than the other; one leg larger and\nlonger than the other; the five segments in the femur would not meet\nand unite to form the complete bone. (Johnson\u2019s Cyclopedia 7, p. 553.)\n\nIf there were no extraneous supervising architect to adjust and\ncorrelate each organ and part to every other, there would be no\nharmony of form, size, nor structure in the edifice. Surely, the atoms\nand cells in the right leg would have no knowledge of the form, size,\nnor structure of the left; and no organ, nor any part of the body,\nwould have any power to adjust itself, automatically, to any other.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 48. Proposition 15. Each Human Body is Specially Endowed with Life\n\n\nNeither the spermatozo\u00f6n nor the ovum is a living creature, for neither\nof them has the power to take and assimilate food; nor to develop and\ngrow, alone. But when they unite and fuse, this combination begins\nto live, it absorbs and assimilates food or nourishment, develops,\ndivides and produces an infinite number of daughter-cells. The atoms\nin the fertilized ovum are identically the same that were in the\nspermatozo\u00f6n and ovum before the fusion occurred. Perhaps these atoms\nform new chemical combinations. But we cannot believe that any possible\ncombination of atoms could automatically take on the energies and\nphenomena of life. Any good chemist can make the same combination of\natoms that is found in the fertilized ovum; but his combination would\nnot absorb and assimilate food, it would not live, develop nor grow.\n\nLife is not a property of matter but something wholly different from\nit. Matter may exist without life; but apparently, life cannot exist\nwithout matter. It is evident that the atoms of which the human body\nis composed did not manifest the phenomena nor the energies of life\nuntil they were grouped into that body; on the other hand the body\ndoes not manifest vital energies after its death. Life begins at a\nparticular moment and ceases at another specific instant.\n\nIf a piece of iron be charged with electricity, it will manifest\nelectrical energy so long as it remains charged. But when the\nelectricity passes from it, the iron ceases to exhibit such phenomena.\nSo, when the human body is charged or endowed with life, it continues\nto manifest vital phenomena until life passes out of it.\n\nLife is bestowed on the several species of animal under divers\nconditions. Thus, it is bestowed on the fertilized human ovum in the\ngenital organs of the mother, for the reason that this is the best, if\nnot the only, place for it to develop and grow. It is bestowed on the\neggs of fishes in the water; and upon the eggs of birds, after they\nhave passed out of the bodies of the mother bird. Let us consider the\nhen\u2019s egg for a moment. When laid it contains a fertilized ovum and\n\u201cthe white and the yellow\u201d of the egg. It is a complete and finished\negg. But it has no life. Unless it be placed under a sitting hen or in\nan incubator, it will decay and disintegrate.\n\nThe hen or incubator merely keeps it warm during the period of\nincubation. By the end of the twenty-first day, the contents of the\negg-shell have been converted into a live bird, with a skeleton,\nmuscles, arteries, veins, nerves, brain, eyes, ears, heart, lungs,\nliver, wings, legs, feet, etc. There is no skeleton, model, nor any\nother performed outline of the coming chick, in the egg; for the\ncontents of the egg-shell are a homogeneous mass of protoplasm. There\nis no reason to suppose that the warmth of the hen\u2019s body, nor that\nthe heat of the incubator, is, alone, adequate to impart life to the\negg. Each part of the egg is necessarily kept at the same temperature\nas that of every other part. For this reason we cannot believe that\nmere heat differentiates one part of the white and yellow into bones,\nanother part into muscles, arteries, veins, nerves, etc.\n\nIn his Principles of Biology, (vol. 1, p. 116), Spencer says:\n\n\u201cThere is experimental proof that seeds may, under conditions\nunfavorable to germination, retain for ten, twenty, and some even\nthirty years, the power to germinate when due moisture and warmth are\nsupplied.\u201d\n\nNow if these seeds are alive, what becomes of the life in them during\nthese long periods of quiescence? There are untold millions of grains\nof wheat and of corn. None of these grains will germinate until they\nare supplied with \u201cmoisture and warmth.\u201d Can we believe that heat and\nmoisture alone have any creative forces? If so, all the sands of the\nsea shore ought to be living creatures.\n\nLet us consider the acorn. When mature, it falls to the ground. If\nit be supplied with a proper degree of heat and moisture, it will\ngerminate in a short time. But it will never germinate, so long as it\nis kept in a cool, dry place. Suppose an acorn is deprived of heat\nand moisture for five years; that it is then supplied with them and\nimmediately germinates. When did the life of the acorn begin? Did\nit begin when the acorn ripened and dropped to the ground or when it\ngerminated? If it was alive when it first matured, and germinated five\nyears afterward, what became of its life between its maturity and its\ngermination? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the Creator endowed\nit with life when it germinated?\n\nCan we believe that the heat of the mother\u2019s body is, alone, adequate\nto generate life in the fertilized ovum? Can we believe that the\nheat of the sun, and the moisture of the earth are, of themselves,\nsufficient to generate life in a grain of wheat, a grain of corn or an\nacorn?\n\nIt follows that the fertilized human ovum must be directly and\nspecially endowed by the Creator with the power to absorb and\nassimilate food, to develop, grow and live! The Creator in every\ninstance strikes the vital match!\n\n\n\n\nSec. 49. Proposition 16. Every Human Soul is a New, Direct and Special\nCreation\n\n\nThe soul is defined as: \u201cA substantial entity, believed to be that, in\neach person, which lives, feels, thinks and wills.\u201d (Cent. Dic. 7, p.\n5781.)\n\nI hope and believe that every human being has an immortal soul; and\nif this be true it must be his or her own, for we cannot imagine that\nthe same soul ever occupied more than one body; unless we believe in\nthe transmigration, metempsychosis or reincarnation of souls; and this\nbelief is too absurd for serious consideration. The child does not take\nhis father\u2019s soul nor his mother\u2019s, nor is there any reason to suppose\nthat either parent transmits to the child, any part of his or her soul;\nnor that either of them transmits any germ of a new soul for it. No man\ncan even imagine a division of himself--his ego or self--into two or\nmore parts. It follows that each human body has its own soul; which is\nseparate from and independent of every other soul.\n\nWe cannot believe that the spermatozo\u00f6n nor the ovum has any soul prior\nto their fusion into the fertilized ovum. We are therefore compelled\nto infer that the soul comes into existence at the moment this fusion\noccurs, or shortly afterward. We cannot even imagine that the soul is\ncreated by the father, nor by the mother, nor by the body in which it\nresides; nor by accident nor chance.\n\nIt follows that a new soul must be directly and specially created for\neach embryo body, if it ever gets one.\n\nIt may be that life is an attribute or property of the soul. If this be\ntrue, the creation of the soul would include the creation of life.\n\nIf one believes that he has a soul, separate and apart from his body,\nas most of us do, he is compelled to assume, that it was directly and\nspecially created by Almighty God.\n\nIf we believe that the soul is a special creation, we may well assume\nthat the body is also a special creation.\n\n\n\n\nSec. 50. Objection to this Theory of Special Creation\n\n\nI admit that there are serious objections to my theory of special\ncreation. But like objections may be brought against any other theory.\nFor example, many serious objections have been brought against Darwin\u2019s\ntheory of organic evolution. Yet a majority of all the scientists\nbelieve it is true.\n\nIn his \u201cMan\u2019s Place in Nature\u201d (p. 149), Huxley says:\n\n\u201cOur acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so\nlong as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting: and so long as\nall animals and plants certainly produced by selective breeding from\na common stock are fertile, and their progeny are fertile with one\nanother, that link will be wanting.\u201d\n\nThis link is still missing and probably will be forever.\n\nAlthough there are serious objections to my theory, yet there is none\nso serious as there are to the alternative theory that dead atoms\nand blind, unthinking cells do spontaneously and automatically group\nthemselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements,\nwhich are necessary to produce the human body; and that this body\nbecomes, spontaneously and automatically, a live human being with\nintellect, memory and will.\n\n\n\n\nIndex\n\nFigures refer to pages.\n\n\n  =Animals=, their sizes determined how, 66\n    first appeared at a certain time, 106\n    first were specially created or arose by spontaneous generation, 107\n    none produced by spontaneous generation, 109\n\n  =Atoms=, defined and discussed, 20\n\n\n  =Body.= See Human body; Embryo body.\n\n  =Brain=, is a special creation, 129\n\n\n  =Cell=, defined and discussed, 21\n    their distribution and grouping, 69\n    their differentiation or metamorphosis, 77\n    their waste, discussed, 80\n    See Germ-cell; Daughter-cell.\n\n  =Chemical elements=, Composing the body, 19\n\n  =Creator=, could have made a million animals or plants as easily as\n        one, 111\n    if He made the first animal and the first plant he made all others,\n        112\n    His supervision is necessary to produce the embryo body, 135\n    bestows life on each individual, 136\n\n\n  =Daughter-cells=, their production, etc., 65\n\n  =Differentiation of Cells= (metamorphosis), 77\n\n  =Distribution and grouping= of cells, 69\n\n\n  =Ear= is a special creation, 128\n\n  =Elephant= grows larger than a mouse, why?, 66\n\n  =Embryo body=, distribution and grouping of cells in, 69\n    differentiation (metamorphosis) of cells in, 77\n    is built of inanimate matter, 81\n    each is produced anew, 82\n\n  =Eye= is a special creation, 123\n\n\n  =Fertilized ovum=. See Germ-cell.\n\n  =Force and motion=, defined and discussed, 35\n\n\n  =Generation, spontaneous=. See spontaneous generation.\n\n  =Germ-cell= defined and discussed, 53\n    does not contain any skeleton or model of the coming embryo, 57\n    has no power to evolve the embryo automatically, 61\n\n  =God.= See Personal God, 11\n\n  =Grouping of cells=, in embryo body, 69\n\n\n  =Heredity=, has no power to generate a new human being, 85\n    has no power to evolve one from the germ-cell, 85\n    and environment are inadequate, etc., 18\n\n  =Human being=, each is a special creation, 105\n\n  =Human body=, chemical elements in it, 19\n    is a compound physical structure, 25\n    is built of cells, \u201corganic bricks\u201d, 25\n    is a complex animal machine, 30\n    is constructed on a definite plan, 33\n    each is unique and peculiar, 35\n    is either specially created or spontaneously generated, 113\n    is specially endowed with life, 136\n\n\n  =Intellect, etc.=, are necessary when, 9, 43, 51\n\n\n  =Life= is specially bestowed on each individual, 136\n\n\n  =Memory, etc.=, are necessary, when, 9, 43, 51\n\n  =Metamorphosis of cells=, discussed, 77\n\n  =Model of embryo=, none in germ-cell, 57\n\n  =Motion and force.= See Force and Motion, 35\n\n  =Mouse= is smaller than the elephant, why?, 66\n\n  =Materialist=, his theory of the universe, 14-15\n\n\n  =Nature=, has no power to generate a new human being, 103\n    has no power to evolve one from the germ-cell, 103\n\n  =Newton\u2019s first law= of motion, stated, 35\n\n\n  =Objections= to this theory of special creation, 141\n\n  =Organs, Sexual.= See Sexual Organs, 129\n\n  =Organs=, their form, size, structure, position and number are proof\n        that the human body is a special creation 132\n\n  =Ovum=, defined and discussed, 47\n    is a special creation 49\n    its production, 65\n    fertilized, see Germ-cell, 53\n\n\n  =Personal God=, belief in His existence, 11\n\n  =Plant=, first was specially created or arose by spontaneous generation,\n        which?, 107\n    none produced by spontaneous generation, 109\n\n  =Protoplasm=, defined and discussed, 23\n\n\n  =Question=, the real stated, 12, 102\n\n\n  =Real question= stated, 12, 102\n\n  =Reproduction=, its phenomena stated, 64\n\n\n  =Sameness of human bodies= is evidence, etc., 133\n\n  =Sexual Organs= are special creations, 129\n\n  =Sizes of animals= are determined, how?, 66\n\n  =Skeleton= is a special creation, 116\n    of embryo none in the germ-cell, 57\n\n  =Soul= is a special creation, 139\n\n  =Spermatozo\u00f6n=, defined and discussed, 44\n    is a special creation, 49\n    its production, 64\n\n  =Spontaneous generation=, none of animals and plants, 109\n\n  =Stem-cell.= See Germ-cell, 53\n\n  =Supervision= by the creator is necessary to produce the embryo\n        body, 135\n\n\n  =Universal sameness= of human bodies, proof of their special creation,\n        133\n\n\n  =Waste of cells=, discussed, 80\n\n  =Whence and whither=, 12\n\n  =Will power.= See Intellect, etc., 9, 43, 51","title":"Smithson's Theory of Special Creation","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":34680}