initial commit of ebook 19321HEADmain

5 files changed, 4447 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/19321.txt b/19321.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7b0e16b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19321.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,4431 @@
+The Project Gutenberg eBook, Evolution, by Theodore Graebner
+
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+
+
+
+Title: Evolution
+       An Investigation and a Critique
+
+
+Author: Theodore Graebner
+
+
+
+Release Date: September 18, 2006  [eBook #19321]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII)
+
+
+***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EVOLUTION***
+
+
+E-text prepared by Kurt A. T. Bodling, formerly Director of Library
+Services at Concordia College, Bronxville, New York, USA
+
+
+
+EVOLUTION.
+
+An Investigation and a Criticism
+
+by
+
+TH. GRAEBNER,
+Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Milwaukee, Wis.
+Northwestern Publishing House,
+1921.
+
+
+
+_Species tot sunt, quot diversas formas ab initio produxit Infinitum
+Ens. Linne._
+
+
+
+To the Memory of my teacher (New Ulm, 1892) John Schaller Educator,
+Theologian, Student of Science these chapters are dedicated by The
+Author
+
+
+
+
+TABLE OF CONTENTS.
+
+Chapter 1. An Outline of the Theory...11
+Definition--Historical Review--The Darwinian Hypothesis--Lines of
+Evidence--The Descent of Man--The Nebular Hypothesis--The Origin of
+Life--The Bearing of Evolution on Christianity.
+
+Chapter 2. Unexplained Origins...29
+The Origin of the Universe--The Origin of Life--Biological Barriers--
+Man.
+
+Chapter 3. The Testimony of the Rocks...47
+
+Chapter 4. The Fixity of Species...62
+
+Chapter 5. Rudimentary Organs...70
+
+Chapter 6. Instinct...74
+
+Chapter 7. Heredity...80
+
+Chapter 8. A Scientific Creed Outworn...87
+
+Chapter 9. Man...94
+
+Chapter 10. The Verdict of History...113
+
+Chapter 11. Evidences of Design...124
+
+Chapter 12. The Fatal Bias...141
+
+
+
+PREFATORY.
+
+I first read Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" in the library of my
+sainted uncle, John Schaller, at New Ulm, Minnesota, in 1892. I did not
+comprehend all of it then, a cause, to me, of considerable chagrin, for
+which I later found some consolation in the opinion of Dr. Frederick
+Lynch, who pronounces Darwin's epochal work "one of the two most
+difficult books in the English language." But like many others, I
+understood enough of Darwin's book to catch glimpses of the grandeur of
+the conception which underlies its argumentation. It was then that my
+beloved uncle, out of that wide and accurate reading which so
+frequently astonished his friends, and with that penetrating dialectic
+of his, opened my eyes to certain fallacies in Darwin's argument,
+especially to the fatal weakness of the chapter on Instinct. The
+reading of St. George Mivart's book "The Genesis of Species" later
+convinced me of the accuracy of my uncle's judgment. But the fascination
+of the subject persisted, and for a time Herbert Spencer's "Synthetic
+Philosophy," by the comprehensiveness of its induction and its vast
+array of data, exercised its thrall. Alfred Russel Wallace's
+"Darwinism," Huxley's "Lectures on Evolution," Tyndall's "The Beginning
+of Things," Grant Allen's "The Evolutionist at Large," Eimer's
+"Orthogenesis," Clodd's "Story of Creation," occupied me in turn, until
+the apodictic presentation of John Fiske's Essays on Darwinism, no less
+than the open and haggard opposition to Christianity which prevails in
+Huxley's "Science and Hebrew Tradition" and in Spencer's chapters on
+"The Unknowable" (so the Synthetic Philosophy denominates God), caused
+a revulsion of sentiment,--the anti-religious bias of evolution
+standing forth the clearer to my mind, the longer I occupied myself with
+the subject.
+
+I determined to investigate for myself the data on which the
+speculations whose mazes I had trod these years were built up. The
+leisure hours of three years were devoted to the study of first-hand
+sources of Comparative Religion. The result of this research was
+deposited in two articles contributed to the _Theological Quarterly_ in
+1906 and 1907. I fear that the forbidding character of the foot-notes
+served as an effective deterrent to the reading of these articles. I
+have now given, in several chapters of this little volume, in popular
+language the argument against evolution to be derived from the study of
+Religion. The reading of Le Conte's and Dana's text-books of geology
+and various other treatises supplied the data on palaeontology embodied
+in the first chapters of the book. The notable circulus in concludendo
+("begging the question") of which evolutionists here are guilty was
+first pointed out to me by Prof. Tingelstad of Decorah, Iowa, who was
+in 1908 taking a course in Evolution at Chicago University, and who
+called on me for discussion of the doctrine as he received it from
+"head-quarters."
+
+An an excursus in the subject of Pedagogy, I have treated in my
+Seminary lectures the past years, under the head of natural sciences,
+the argument against evolution, and the outlines of these lectures have
+furnished the framework for the present volume. It is hoped that
+especially our young men and women who take courses at our universities
+will examine the case against the fascinating and in some respects
+magnificent conception of evolution as this case is presented in the
+following chapters. I realize that they, as well as intelligent readers
+generally, may not meet with confidence the statements of a theologian
+on a scientific question, least of all when he essays to treat such a
+question from the standpoint of science. He is presumed to be at home
+in theology, but a stranger in the domain of geology, astronomy, and
+biology. It is for the purpose of obtaining a hearing at all that these
+introductory remarks are written. But the argument must stand on its own
+merits. The writer will now retire to the background. The facts shall
+speak.
+
+TH. G.
+
+
+
+EVOLUTION.
+
+CHAPTER ONE.
+An Outline of the Theory.
+Definition.
+
+Evolution is a name comprehending certain theories which seek to account
+for all operations of nature as carried on according to fixed laws by
+means of forces resident in nature. Prof. J. LeConte of the University
+of California defines evolution as: "Continuous progressive change
+according to certain laws and by means of resident forces." Evolution is
+a theory, a philosophy, it is not a science. The theory is called
+_organic_ evolution in its relation to living forms (plant and animal
+life), _cosmic_ evolution, inasmuch as attempts have been made to
+account by certain laws and the working of resident forces for the
+development of the universe,--the earth, the sun, and the starry
+heavens. Also the development of society, of religion, morals, politics,
+art, and mechanical inventions is accounted for on the theory that there
+are forces which, acting according to certain laws, have through many
+changes made human life and institutions as we see them today.
+
+The doctrine of Evolution briefly stated, is as follows: That in some
+infinitely remote period in the past, how or from whence science does
+not affirm, there appeared matter and force; that within matter and in
+association with force there also appeared a primordial cell, how or
+from whence no man knoweth, in which there was a spark of life; and that
+from this cell all things animate have emerged, being controlled by
+certain laws variously stated by various evolutionists; that these laws
+in connection with the modifying influences of environment
+(surroundings,--soil, climate, etc.) account for and explain the various
+species that have existed in the past and now exist upon earth, man
+included. That there are no gaps in the process but that there is
+demonstrable a steady ascent from lower to higher (simple to more
+complex) forms of life, until man is reached, the acknowledged highest
+product of evolution.
+
+The extreme evolutionists hold that all the power and potency of the
+universe was stored up in that primordial cell, and that all things have
+been worked out without any superintending agency other than the forces
+resident in matter. Every operation of God is ruled out, or deemed
+unnecessary. This is sometimes called atheistic evolution.
+
+The theistic evolutionist ("theistic" from "theism," the belief in a
+personal God) makes place for God in the beginning and all along the
+line of development, as overlooking the process, perhaps reinforcing and
+to a certain extent directing the energy, but not interfering with the
+fixed law or rule of evolution. According to theistic evolution, God did
+not create plants and animals as separate species (as related in Genesis
+1) but created matter as a crude form and placed it under certain laws,
+by which this matter was, during untold ages, gradually evolved into
+worlds. That out of this matter, called inorganic, plants came into
+existence, from some germ or property existing in matter. The origin of
+animal life is explained in various ways by the so-called theistic
+evolutionists. Some hold that the primordial plant life contained
+potentially the lowest and simplest principles of animal life, and from
+it the simplest animal forms were evolved; that from these latter were
+evolved forms a little higher, until, after long ages, all the
+gradations were passed through until man, the highest form, was the
+result. Others believe that there is such an essential difference
+between plants and animals that the latter could not have come from the
+former, that there must be a new start on the animal side of life.
+Therefore they claim that when the evolutionary development of matter
+reached a certain stage, God appeared on the scene and endowed certain
+forms with the principle of animal life, in its lowest elements. These
+lowest forms of animal life then entered upon a series of evolutionary
+growth, each lower form evolving one a little more complex, each series
+gaining the use of and developing organs which existed essentially in
+the lower form but were small, imperfect, and useless, because not
+needed. Thus the hand and arm in man are structurally or essentially the
+same as the leg of the brute, the wing of the bird, the flipper of the
+whale, and the fin of the fish; and the endeavor to adapt itself to the
+water caused the bird to develop a fin, as by a similar process the
+fore-leg of brutes developed into the human arm and hand.
+
+For our present consideration, we need not distinguish between atheistic
+and theistic evolution, as the latter is subject to the fundamental
+objections urged against evolution in general, and is, like atheistic
+evolution, without a single fact to support it and in direct
+contradiction of all that is known of the laws in operation now, and as
+far back as knowledge penetrates. Moreover, so-called "theistic"
+evolution is universally approved by infidels and skeptics and is used
+by them as a favorite means of assault on revealed Truth.
+
+Historical Review.
+
+While in our own day the names of certain English and German scientists
+(Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Tyndall, Romanes, Buechner, Vogt, Haeckel) are
+inseparably connected with a history of this hypothesis, its roots are
+found far back in the early ages of Greek philosophy. A theory of
+evolutionary development was first propounded by Greek thinkers living
+about 600 years B. C. The human mind is ever on the search for unifying
+principles, principles which account for entire groups of natural
+phenomena, and not for isolated phenomena only. The Greek mind sought a
+principle by which to account for the manifold and diverse forms of life
+in nature. Whence do all things come? How have they come to be what they
+are? Questions about the nature of the universe in which we live have
+been asked from the very beginning. The moment the human mind began to
+reflect the notion that the vegetation which covers the earth, the
+animals which inhabit it, the rocks and hills, the mountains and valleys
+which constitute its physical features, may have undergone changes in
+past time, and that all the phenomena which constitute the animal,
+vegetable and mineral worlds as they now exist, are but modifications of
+other forms which have had their day and their philosophy, the idea of
+development became prominent. The early Greek philosophers were the first
+to attempt answers to these problems. Many of them held that all things
+natural sprang from what they called the original elements--fire, air,
+earth, water. Anaximander held that animals were begotten from the earth
+by means of heat and moisture; and that man was developed from other
+beings different in form. Empedocles had a fantastic theory, viz., that
+the various parts of man and animals at first existed independently, and
+that these--for instance, arms, legs, feet, eyes, etc., gradually
+combined--perhaps after the manner in which automobiles are assembled;
+and that these combinations became capable of existing and even of
+propagating and reproducing themselves. Anaxagoras was of opinion that
+animals and plants sprang from the earth by means of germs carried in
+the atmosphere which gave fecundity to the earth. Aristotle held opinions
+not very unlike those of our own day. All of which goes to show that
+speculation about the origin of the universe and the why and wherefore of
+living things did not come into existence with the Darwinian hypothesis
+and that the doctrine of descent with modification as an explanation of
+all biological phenomena antedates by over two thousand years the
+publication of the "Origin of Species."
+
+In modern times a theory of development was first suggested by Goethe in
+his _"Italienische Reise."_ Acting under the same mental urge for seeing
+diverse forms under a unifying principle, Goethe looked for the original
+form of plant life, the _Urpflanze_, the plant which would be at once
+simple enough to stand for a type of all plants and yet susceptible to
+variation in so many directions that all plants might derive from it
+their origin. Goethe has also clothed this conception in poetic form.
+
+The first philosophic statement of the hypothesis is found in Immanuel
+Kant's _"Kritik der Urteilskraft,"_ 1790. In paragraph 80 we find a
+discussion of the similarity between so many species of animals, not
+only in their bony structure, but also in the arrangement of their other
+parts, a similarity which, says Kant, "casts a ray of hope," that all
+forms may be traced back to original simple forms, to "a generation from
+a common ancestor," rising from the lowest forms to man, "according to
+mechanical laws." Kant assumes that, for instance, certain aquatic
+animals by and by formed into amphibia, and from these after some
+generations were produced land animals. A treatise of the same
+philosopher entitled _"Presumable Origin of Humanity"_ suggests that man
+in the early age of the world was developed from "mere animal creatures."
+Even a universal law of world-formation (cosmic evolution) was set forth
+by Kant in a work which he published anonymously in 1775.
+
+In its relations to animal life a development theory was first
+clearly set forth by Karl Ernst von Baer (died 1876). In his
+_"Entwickelungsgeschichte der Tiere"_ (1828), the author explains
+"Entwickelung" as a progress from simple to complex forms. He believes
+that in evolution there is a fundamental idea that "goes through all the
+forms of cosmic and animal development." A predecessor of von Baer had
+been the Frenchman, Lamarck. From von Baer, Herbert Spencer, about 1850,
+adopted the definition of evolution.
+
+The hypothesis entered a new phase through Charles Darwin's epochmaking
+work: _"The Origin of Species."_ The keynote of Darwin's theory is
+Natural Selection, by which term the development of all living forms is
+referred to the working of certain laws which in the reproduction of
+plants and animals preserved those individuals which were best fitted to
+survive the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory may be
+summarized thus:
+
+The Darwinian Hypothesis.
+
+1. Every kind of animal and plant tends to increase in numbers in a
+geometrical progression.
+
+2. Every kind of animal and plant transmits a general likeness, with
+individual differences, to its offspring.
+
+3. Past time has been practically infinite.
+
+4. Every individual has to endure a very severe struggle for existence,
+owing to the tendency to geometrical increase of all kinds of animals
+and plants, while the total animal and vegetable population (man and his
+agency excepted) remains almost stationary.
+
+5. Thus, every variation of a kind tending to save the life of the
+individual possessing it, or to enable it more surely to propagate its
+kind, will in the long run be preserved and will transmit its favorable
+peculiarity to some of its offspring, which peculiarity will thus become
+intensified till it reaches the maximum degree of utility. On the other
+hand, individuals presenting unfavorable peculiarities will be
+ruthlessly destroyed (_Survival of the Fittest_), [tr. note: sic
+punctuation]
+
+The basis of the theory then is that animals and plants multiply very
+rapidly and, second, that the offspring always vary slightly from the
+parents, though generally very closely resembling them. Mr. Alfred
+Russel Wallace says: "From the first fact or law there follows,
+necessarily, a constant struggle for existence; because while the
+offspring always exceeds the parents in number, generally to an
+enormous extent, yet the total number of living organisms in the world
+docs not, and can not, increase year by year. Consequently every year,
+on the average, as many die as are born, plants as well as animals;
+and the majority die premature deaths. They kill each other in a
+thousand different ways; they starve each other by some consuming the
+food that others want; they are destroyed largely by the powers of
+Nature--by cold and heat, by rain and storm, by flood and fire. There is
+thus a perpetual struggle among them which shall live and which shall
+die; and this struggle is tremendously severe, because so few can
+possibly remain alive--one in five, one in ten, often only one in a
+hundred or even in a thousand.
+
+"Then comes the question, Why do some live rather than others? If all
+the individuals of each species were exactly alike in every respect, we
+could only say it is a matter of chance. But they are not alike. We find
+that they vary in many different ways. Some are stronger, some swifter,
+some hardier in constitution, some more cunning. An obscure color may
+render concealment more easy for some, keener sight may enable others to
+discover prey or escape from an enemy better than their fellows. Among
+plants the smallest differences may be useful or the reverse. The
+earliest and strongest shoots may escape the slug; their greater vigor
+may enable them to flower and seed earlier in a wet autumn; plants best
+armed with spines or hairs may escape being devoured; those whose
+flowers are most conspicuous may be soonest fertilized by insects. We
+can not doubt that, on the whole, any beneficial variations will give
+the possessors of it a greater probability of living through the
+tremendous ordeal they have to undergo. There may be something left to
+chance, but on the whole _the fittest will survive." (_"Darwinism"_
+p. 7)_.
+
+The same writer gives a probable instance of the working of _Natural
+Selection_ in the origin of certain aquatic birds called dippers. He
+says: "An excellent example of how a limited group of species has been
+able to maintain itself by adaptation to one of these 'vacant places' in
+Nature, is afforded by the curious little birds called dippers or
+water-ouzels, forming the genus _Cinclus_ and the family _Cindidae_ of
+naturalists. These birds are something like small thrushes, with very
+short wings and tail, and very dense plumage. They frequent, exclusively,
+mountain torrents in the northern hemisphere, and obtain their food
+entirely in the water, consisting, as it does, of water-beetles,
+caddis-worms, and other insect-larvae, as well as numerous small
+fresh-water shells. These birds, although not far removed in structure
+from thrushes and wrens, have the extraordinary power of flying under
+water; for such, according to the best observers, is their process of
+diving in search of their prey; their dense and somewhat fibrous
+plumage retaining so much air that the water is prevented from touching
+their bodies or even from wetting their feathers to any great extent.
+Their powerful feet and long curved claws enable them to hold on to
+stones at the bottom, and thus to retain their position while picking
+up insects, shells, etc. As they frequent chiefly the most rapid and
+boisterous torrents, among rocks, waterfalls, and huge boulders, the
+water is never frozen over, and they are thus able to live during the
+severest winters. Only a very few species of dipper are known, all those
+of the old world being so closely allied to our British bird that some
+ornithologists consider them to be merely local races of one species;
+while in North America and the northern Andes there are two other
+species.
+
+"Here, then, we have a bird, which, in its whole structure, shows a
+close affinity to the smaller typical perching birds, but which has
+departed from all its allies in its habits and mode of life, and has
+secured for itself a place in Nature where it has few competitors and
+few enemies. We may well suppose,* [[*Note characteristic phrase "We may
+suppose that,--." G.]] that, at some remote period, a bird which was
+perhaps the common and more generalized ancestor of our thrushes,
+warblers, wrens, etc., had spread widely over the great northern
+continent, and had given rise to numerous varieties adapted to special
+conditions of life. Among these some took to feeding on the borders of
+clear streams, picking out such larvae and mollusks as they could reach
+in shallow water. When food becomes scarce they would attempt to pick
+them out of deeper and deeper water, and while doing this in cold
+weather many would become frozen and starved. But any which possessed
+denser and more hairy plumage than usual, which was able to keep out the
+water, would survive; and thus a race would be formed which would depend
+more and more on this kind of food. Then, following up the frozen
+streams into the mountains, they would be able to live there during the
+winter; and as such places afforded them much protection from enemies
+and ample shelter for their nests and young, further adaptations would
+occur, till the wonderful power of diving and flying under water was
+acquired by a true land-bird." (_"Darwinism,"_ p. 81-82.)
+
+Lines of Evidence.
+
+The evolutionary hypothesis (both in its atheistic and theistic or
+"Christian" form) is understood to rest on the following lines of proof:
+
+i. _Primary:_ The evidence of palaeontology (the study of fossil remains
+in the rocks). The surface of the earth underneath the top soil consists
+of layers of rock. Some of them are made up of lime deposits, others of
+the shells of shell-fish, others of sand-stone, others of dead trees of
+the forest (coal), all of them turned hard by the pressure of the weight
+lying on top of them. Besides these sedimentary rock there are
+formations like granite, showing the influence of heat. Digging among
+the sedimentary rock (limestone, sand-stone, principally) we come across
+preserved remains of all sorts of animals; some just like those which
+live to-day, some similar but somewhat different, others quite
+dissimilar from living animals of our day. These are the fossils. Now,
+evolutionists assert that the oldest and simplest animal and plant
+remains are found in the oldest layers of rock. This is said to prove
+that in the history of plants and animals on earth, the simplest forms
+are the oldest and that later the more complex forms were developed
+from these. LeConte states the matter thus: "The farther back in time
+we go, the simpler the forms of animal and plant life become, and these
+forms occur in the order of their origination, just as if they were
+developed one from another."
+
+2. _Corroborative:_ a) The Argument from Morphology (Structure). The
+resemblance of the structure of various animal types is asserted to
+imply a community of descent. "Large groups of species, whose habits are
+widely different, present certain fundamental likenesses of structure.
+The arms of men and apes, the fore-legs of quadrupeds, the paddles of
+whales, the wings of birds, the breast-fins of fishes, are constructed
+on the same pattern, but altered to suit their several functions. Nearly
+all mammals, from the long-necked giraffe to the short-necked elephant,
+have seven neck-bones; the eyes of the lamprey are moved by six muscles
+which correspond exactly to the six which work the human eye; all
+insects and Crustacea--moth and lobster, bettle [tr. note: sic] and
+cray-fish---are alike composed of twenty segments; the sepals, petals,
+stamens, and pistils of a flower are all modified leaves arranged in a
+spire." (Clodd, _"The Story of Creation,"_ p. 102.) These _resemblances_
+are looked upon as evidence of a common origin.
+
+b) The Argument from Embryology. The individual animal in embryonic
+development passes through temporary stages which are similar to
+permanent conditions in some of the lower forms in the same group.
+Evolutionists believe that these forms were actually possessed by the
+ancestors of these animals in the course of their evolution. They hold
+that the changes which take place in the embryos epitomize the series of
+changes through which the ancestral forms passed. Because the embryos of
+some four-footed animals have gill-slits, this is pointed out as
+evidence that land animals are evolved from fishes.
+
+c) Geographical Distribution. In geological time, natural barriers have
+sprung up which separated the species which have since developed. In
+this way the existence of marsupials (pouched animals--kangaroo,
+oppossum) [tr. note: sic] on certain limited areas, the limitation of
+certain plants to certain islands, etc., are explained.
+
+d) Classification. The so-called Tree of Life. All living forms can be
+arranged in a diagram called the Tree of Life. The Tree has a short
+trunk, indicating common origin of the living from the non-living, and
+is divided into two large trunks representing plants and animals
+respectively. "From each of these start large branches representing
+classes, the larger branches giving off smaller branches representing
+families, and so on with smaller and smaller branches representing
+orders and genera, until we come to leaves as representing species, the
+height of the branch from which they are hanging indicating their place
+in the growth of the great life-tree." (Clodd, _"Story of Creation,"_
+p. 103.) There is an exact gradation from the lowest life forms to the
+highest. First such simple forms as the sponges and corals, then,
+through the worms, crabs, oysters, and snail to the fish, and thence
+through amphibia, reptiles, beasts of prey, ungulates (hoofed animals)
+and apes to man. Evolutionists say that in this gradation of life we
+see illustrated the evolution of complex from simple forms.
+
+The Descent of Man.
+
+According to the evolutionary hypothesis man is related to the animal
+kingdom by descent from a brute ancestor, who, apelike in appearance,
+is the common ancestor of ape and man. The evidence of such derivation
+is believed to be:
+
+i. Rudiments of structure which were useful in some brute ancestor.
+There remain in man a few elementary muscles for twitching the skin, as
+in the forehead; and it is pointed out that many animals have such
+muscles at the present time, and it is argued that the ability of some
+men to move the whole scalp points to the existence of muscles with such
+function in our brute ancestors. The vermiform appendix in man is
+termed rudimentary, being but a remnant of the much longer and more
+complex appendix of the same nature in living animals today.
+
+2. Embryonic Development. Because the young of all animals resemble one
+another while in the embryo stage, and since such resemblances are
+found in man, it is concluded that the evolution of man from some
+related animal form must be accepted as the most reasonable explanation.
+
+3. Some diseases are common to animals and man (tuberculosis, cholera,
+hydrophobia, etc.).
+
+4. The similarity in structure of man and the apes.
+
+5. The fossil remains of man. Certain skulls and leg bones have been
+found which are said to represent forms higher than the ape and lower
+than man. On the strength of such finds it is said that the "missing
+link" has now been supplied.
+
+The Nebular Hypothesis.
+
+The Frenchman de La Place (1827) first promulgated in modern terminology
+the theory once held by Greek philosophers, that the earth and the
+system in which it is a member originated from a primitive cosmic-vapor
+or universal fire-mist filling all space with infinitely small atoms.
+In this homogeneous mass _motion_ originated, resulting in a
+concentration at one point. This condensation resulted in heat and
+light. The planetary system at first consisted of a huge gas-ball which
+gradually cooled, contracting into a molten mass which under the
+influence of centrifugal force began to rotate. This rotation became
+more rapid as the mass condensed, throwing off the planets, in which
+the process was repeated (the moons being cast off), until the earth
+became sufficiently cool to sustain life.
+
+The Origin of Life.
+
+When asked about the origin of life on earth, the evolutionists
+generally reply that this is not a question for science but for
+philosophy to answer. However, the question comes with such insistent
+force that the biologist finds himself constrained to offer some
+explanation of the origin of the simplest plant and animal life after
+the globe had, according to the hypothesis, sufficiently cooled to
+present areas in which life might arise. Necessarily, the assumption
+must be that life was generated out of lifeless matter. Huxley says:
+"If the hypothesis of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen
+from not-living matter, for by the hypothesis, the condition of the
+globe was at one time such that living matter could not have existed on
+it, life being entirely incompatible with a gaseous state." (The earth
+having been a ball of gases at the time.) Tyndall is a little more
+specific; he says that the combination of electrical and chemical
+forces acting on the primal ooze caused germs of life to originate in
+small bubble-like forms, (vesicles). His words are: "The first step in
+the creation of life upon this planet was a chemico-electric operation
+by which simple germinal vesicles were produced." The vesicles
+consisted of protoplasm, the simple substance (white-of-egg) which
+exists in the cells of animal and vegetable tissues, and which is
+composed of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and traces of other
+elements. From this original protoplasm the great variety of living
+things has been developed.
+
+The Bearing of Evolution on Christianity.
+
+It is evident that the evolutionary theory not only contradicts the
+Bible story of creation but, if true, deprives Christianity of every
+claim of being the true religion. If all things have come into being
+through the action of forces residing in matter then the world did not
+come into being through a divine fiat or command. As Haeckel says:
+_"Every supernatural creation is completely excluded."_ (Quoted by John
+Fiske in _"A Century of Science,"_ 1899, p. 51.) Thomas Huxley is quite
+as definite: "Not only do I hold it to be proven that the story of the
+Deluge is a pure fiction; but I have no hesitation in affirming the same
+thing of the story of the Creation." (_"Science and Hebrew Tradition,"_
+1896, p. 230.) Furthermore, the theory, by its implications, disposes
+summarily of the _immortality of the soul_. The belief in an immortal
+soul is termed by Haeckel as "quite excluded" by the bearing of
+evolution on the origin of man. The _fall of man_ becomes a myth, since
+man has not fallen from a high estate but has through many ages of slow
+development arrived at the use of reason and the dominion over nature;
+not a perfect man, made in the image of God, but a cousin to the
+tail-less apes, newly accustomed to walking on two feet, is the ancestor
+of our race. Without a fall of man there is no possibility nor even a
+necessity of _redemption;_ our entire Christian theology would be
+dealing with shadowy abstractions, unreasonable fears and hopes, and
+purposeless strivings. The belief of the Christian is to the
+evolutionist of some value as a phenomenon in the history of the mind,
+but not the slightest intrinsic value is recognized in any of the
+doctrines of Christian faith, not even in the belief in a _personal
+God_. God is, according to Spencer, _the Unknowable_. Naturally, there
+can not be _miracles,_ since all processes in nature are conceived as
+governed by laws not directed by a Divine Intelligence but by forces
+resident in nature. Hence, too, there can be no inspired _revelation_ of
+God, since that would presume not only the existence of a personal God
+but an intervention in natural processes of thought (miracle). John
+Fiske wrote: The hypothesis of inspiration "conveys most certainly a
+conception of Divine action as local, special, and transitory; and in
+so far as it does this, it bears the marks of that heathen mode of
+philosophy which was current when Christian monotheism arose."
+(_"Darwinism and Other Essays,"_ 1895.) Evolution says: If there is a
+God we have no means of knowing Him; and what we know of nature
+certainly precludes the idea that God, if He exists, will concern
+Himself about man or break down the laws of nature even for an instant
+in his behalf. The conclusion is, that there is no inspired Bible. Nor
+indeed an absolute religion. All religious truths are considered
+relative, with no such distinction as true religion and false religion,
+since there is no criterion revealed (according to the theory) by
+which we can test a religion whether it be true or false. Finally,
+there is no absolute _standard of morals_. Moral truths, like the
+religious, are relative only. In other words, the teaching that "Christ
+has atoned for sin," is as little to be accepted as an absolute truth,
+as the command: "Thou shalt not steal" must be accepted as embodying an
+absolute rule of conduct. Clodd says in _"The Story of Creation"_: "Man
+by himself is not only unprogressive, he is also not so much immoral as
+unmoral. For where there is no society there is no sin! Therefore the
+bases of right and wrong lie in conduct towards one's fellow; the moral
+sense or conscience is the outcome of social relations, themselves the
+outcome of the need of living..... While the lower instincts, as hunger,
+passion, and thirst for vengeance, are strong, they are not so enduring
+or satisfying as the higher feelings which crave for society and
+sympathy. And the yielding to the lower, however gratifying for the
+moment, would be followed by the feeling of regret that he had thus
+given way, and by resolve to act differently for the future. Thus at
+last man comes to feel, through acquired and perhaps inherited habit,
+that it is best for him to obey his more persistent impulses..... Morals
+are relative, not absolute; _there is no fixed standard of right and
+wrong_ by which the actions of all men throughout all time are
+measured..... That which man calls sin is shown to be more often due to
+his imperfect sense of the true proportion of things, and to his lack
+of imagination, than to his willfulness." Clodd adds that if conduct has
+been made to rest on _"supposed divine commands_ (!) as to what man
+shall and shall not do," that is an assumption which at best serves to
+restrain the "brutal and ignorant."
+
+J. B. Warren, of the University of California, has well stated the
+effects of the evolutionary theory on religion and morals:
+
+"Its legitimate tendency is to degrade mankind from that mental and
+moral dignity that is always recognized as belonging to them, and to
+place them on an essential level with the brute creation--even with the
+lowest forms of vegetable and animal existence. According to that
+theory, man differs from the lower organisms not in kind so much as in
+the degree of development. Mr. Darwin himself was troubled about the
+value of his own convictions, on the ground that his mind was evolved
+from that of lower animals. That is to say, he reckoned his own mental
+actions as valueless and untrustworthy, because of the essential
+identity between his mind and that of the lowest creatures that live in
+the mud of our swamps. Thus we see the legitimate tendency of this
+theory to degrade the mental dignity of man. And it also degrades the
+moral nature and faculties of man, and undermines the very foundations
+of moral and religious principle, in that it teaches that man is only a
+better developed brute--the natural result being that man is no more
+under moral obligation than the brute, or has no different basis of
+moral obligation from the brute, but only a better idea of right and
+wrong, because on a higher plane in the process of evolution. It
+strikes at the root of the doctrine that men are, by their origin and
+nature, under peculiar and special obligations to God. In the words of
+the late Dr. Robert Patterson, such a theory tends to 'obliterate a
+belief in the divine origin and sanction of morality, and in the
+existence of a future life of rewards and punishments, and to promote
+the disorganization of society, and the degradation of man to the level
+of the brutes, living only under the laws of their brutal instincts.'
+Such a theory is dishonoring to man and offensive to God."
+
+When these discrepancies between a world-view governed by the
+Christian's faith in Revelation and one governed by the theory of
+evolution are once clearly understood, there will be no need to inquire,
+why, on the one hand, enemies of the Bible in all ranks of life greeted
+with such joyous acclaim the principle announced by Darwin and, why, on
+the other hand, a chief purpose of Christian apologetics has become the
+demonstration that Christianity _is justified even by reason_ in the
+world-view which it inculcates, and that, on the other hand, _the
+evolutionary hypothesis is contradicted by the facts of religion, of
+history, and of natural science_.
+
+
+CHAPTER TWO.
+Unexplained Origins.
+
+The evolutionary scheme of development is, by its originators and
+defenders, accepted as a working hypothesis by which it is believed that
+the origin of all forms which matter has taken, and of the activities of
+living things, including man and human society, can be accounted for. It
+is an attempt to answer the old question, suggested to the thinking mind
+by a contemplation of nature: _Whence_ these things? It it a theory of
+origins.
+
+Now, a hypothesis, being "a theory, or supposition, provisionally
+employed as an explanation of phenomena," must be verified before it can
+be accepted as truth. Moreover, it can stand _even as a hypothesis_ only
+if it meets the test of observation and experiment. It it can
+demonstrate its adaption to explain all the facts, it may, until another
+and better theory is propounded, be accepted as a theory. When it does
+not explain the facts, it must be modified or abandoned.
+
+Since the evolutionary hypothesis is employed as an explanation of
+certain origins, a legitimate test of the theory is its adaptation to
+explain these origins. This test we now shall apply. We shall try to
+answer the question: Is the evolutionary theory entitled to the name of
+a working hypothesis? Is it able to account for those things which it is
+set forth by its spokesmen to account for? Does it account for the
+origin of the universe, of life, and of the various forms of life?
+
+Scientists as a rule disclaim any intention to account, on the basis of
+their hypothesis, for the origin of matter. When it is suggested to them
+that any theory of origins should also account for the FIRST ORIGIN, the
+beginning of things, they direct us to philosophy: "Evolution is not
+concerned with the origin of matter; it takes matter for granted; the
+origin of matter is properly a philosophical and not a scientific
+problem."
+
+Let us note the fallacies of this position. In the first place it is not
+proper to introduce the word "science" into this plea. Science is,
+indeed, only concerned with things that can be demonstrated by
+observation and from experience; and since no one has seen the beginning
+of matter, science is very properly not concerned with it. But evolution
+is not a science. It is a hypothesis, a theory. It is an explanation
+proposed for certain phenomena. 'And we have a right to demand that, if
+it wants recognition even as a theory, it must explain those phenomena.
+Now the principle of evolution is: All things have developed through
+certain forces which inhere in matter. In other words, without being
+acted upon from the outside, (without a creative word of God, for
+instance,) the unvierse [tr. note: sic] has come to be what it is
+to-day. In matter there are from the beginning certain forces
+inseparable from matter. These acted in such a way that very simple
+plants and animals became very complex; and this without any directing
+Intelligence. This is the evolutionary theory. Now, we hold that a
+theory which claims to account for the beginning of all animal life
+(and every species of animal life), for the beginning of plant life
+(and of every species of plant life), for the beginning of life germs,
+of the globe, of the sun and stars, cannot stop short when we press
+our questions still farther and ask: Whence is matter? Whence is force?
+
+Nor, indeed, do evolutionists hesitate to express an opinion concerning
+the origin of matter and force. The universe, as it exists to-day, is
+made up of matter disposed in various forms,--stars, rock, plants,
+animals,--and endowed with energy in various forms; and from the
+earliest age of speculation, as we have seen, the human mind conceived
+of a time in which there was _unorganized_ matter, substance without
+form. Like the ancient Greek philosophers, evolutionists to-day try to
+formulate a working hypothesis to account for the origin of the
+universe. It is believed that, in a broad way, the _Nebular Hypothesis_
+put forth by La Place indicated the manner in which the earth and the
+system to which it belongs have been evolved. We have outlined, briefly,
+in our first chapter, the main features of this theory. We shall now
+indicate the difficulties which stand in the way of its acceptance even
+as a working hypothesis.
+
+1. The Nebular Hypothesis assumes that during a past endless time there
+has existed an incalculable number of original atoms. Let us understand
+that according to the so-called atomic theory, matter is composed of
+indivisible particles, called _atoms_. Since the discovery of radium
+this theory has been considerably modified, each atom now being
+understood to consist of many thousands of smaller particles, called
+electrons. However, whether we call them atoms or electrons, the
+smallest, indivisible particles of matter are assumed to have existed
+during infinite past time. Now, the origin of these simplest component
+parts of matter _remains an unsolved mystery_. The mind is unable even
+to formulate a guess with reference to their organization.
+
+2. A second postulate of the Nebular Hypothesis is the _origin of force
+and motion_ in the huge gas ball which existed in the beginning. La
+Place says that "at some point concentration took place in the
+homogeneous mass, this contraction produced radiation of heat and light,
+and through the differences in temperature, _motion_ and dynamic
+reaction were produced." The difficulty which inheres in this postulate
+is the unquestioned fact that all motion in nature follows certain
+immutable _laws_*, [*These laws, so far as known, form the basis of what
+we call physics and chemistry.] and _the origin of these laws_ is not
+accounted for by the theory. Laws never make themselves, and their
+complexity,--immeasurably beyond our power of exploration--yet
+everywhere adjusted to a definite end, is so intricate that their origin
+can by no means be accounted for by chance.
+
+3. According to the theory matter was first in _"nebular" (gas) form,_
+and that the gases existing diffused through space were, through the
+motion which originated, changed from a huge ball of fire-mist to a
+semi-solid sphere, which threw off smaller spheres (the planets) that
+gradually became solid. Now, this is contrary to our knowledge of gases.
+Gases may be produced from solids, but an incandescent gas will not,
+through simple motion, become a solid substance. Gases may be solidified,
+but only in two ways, by pressure or when greatly cooled,--when they
+become ice. But they do not retain this form when the pressure or the
+cooling agency is removed. Gases, as we know them, all have a tendency
+to expand indefinitely. They have no tendency to solidify, as the
+hypothesis presumes.
+
+4. La Place assumed that the solar system when still in gaseous state,
+began to revolve upon its axis, and that, as the gas ball continued to
+revolve, it condensed. As condensation went on, the rotation became
+faster, and a ring of matter was thrown off from the hardening core.
+This ring again resolved itself into a rotating globe which, still in a
+fluid state, threw off other balls, which revolved around their mother,
+the first planet, even as the latter continued to follow an orbit around
+the central body, the sun. In this way the planets of the solar system,
+including the earth, (according to the theory), were evolved together
+with their satellites or moons. The difficulty attending this view of
+planetary evolution is found in the difference _between the movements of
+a number of satellites_ around the planets. While the satellites of the
+earth, of Jupiter and of Saturn revolve _from west to east,_ the moons
+of Uranus and Neptune have an orbital movement _from east to west_. This
+is regarded also by the friends of the Nebular Hypothesis as one of the
+gravest difficulties, since no mechanical law will explain the reverse
+movement of the satellites of the remotest planets when they, as well as
+Jupiter, Saturn, and the rest are supposed to have been cast off by the
+same central body.
+
+5. According to the theory, the original atoms during the process of
+world-making united into _molecules_. The laws according to which atoms
+unite,--so that, for instance, the hydrogen atom each unites with two
+atoms of oxygen, and so down the list of all known existences,--these
+laws are among the assured results of scientific study. Now, the entire
+science of chemistry in all its branches is built upon the axiom that
+molecules are _absolutely unalterable_ and that molecules of the same
+kind are always absolutely identical. A molecule of water is always and
+invariably composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. A
+molecule of sulphuric acid invariably contains two atoms of hydrogen,
+one of sulphur, and four of oxygen. A molecule of potassium chlorate is
+always composed of just one atom of potassium chloride and three atoms
+of oxygen. Never is there any variation of these proportions in the same
+element, and a chemist will, without handling the elements, merely by
+mathematical calculation, unerringly produce new combinations, relying
+on the absolute constancy of the relations of atoms and molecules. Now,
+the theory that in the beginning of things, out of a mass of atoms
+diffused without form through space, molecules came into being, each
+kind or type composed of atoms according to a proportion peculiarly its
+own, cannot be accepted unless it is shown in what manner the laws came
+into existence according to which these combinations take place. Clerk
+Maxwell concludes a masterly statement of this aspect of the hypothesis
+by asking: "Who can restrain the ulterior question, Whence then these
+myriad types of the same letter imprinted on the earth, the sun, the
+stars, as if the very mould used here had been lent to Sirius, and
+passed on through the constellations? No theory of evolution can be
+formed to account for the similarity of the molecules throughout all
+time, and throughout the whole region of the stellar universe; for
+evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule (as
+known to science) is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or
+destruction."
+
+The Origin of Life.
+
+The origin of life on our globe is not accounted for on the basis of the
+evolutionary hypothesis. At some time in the remote past, there must,
+according to the theory, have been a development of living substance
+from a mineral base. But if scientific experiment has shown anything it
+has shown the unreality of what was called "spontaneous generation."
+This term was very popular with the scientists of a century or two ago.
+It was believed that certain animal and vegetable forms gave birth, in
+the process of decay, to insect life. Putrefying meat gives rise to
+maggots. The origin of these grubs was referred to the power of
+"spontaneous generation." When the Italian naturalist Redi discovered
+that an exclusion of flies from meat was all that was necessary to
+prevent the production of grubs, the doctrine of spontaneous generation
+was thoroughly upset, for his time at least. But the microscope revealed
+in "pure" water the presence of thousands of small creatures, the
+infusoria. Again spontaneous generation was appealed to in order to
+explain their presence. But the famous experiments of Pasteur (related
+by Huxley in his lectures on The Origin of Species, Lecture III), proved
+conclusively that sterilized water will not produce living forms when
+the germs floating everywhere about in the air are excluded. Since that
+time all men of science agree that there is no such thing demonstrable
+as spontaneous generation. It has become an axiom that "Life only comes
+from life." But how the first germs of life originated, is a question
+for which there is no answer. Huxley admits: "Of the causes which led to
+the origination of living matter it may be said that we know absolutely
+nothing." "The present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link
+between the living and the not living."
+
+However, while spontaneous generation is "absolutely inconceivable"
+(Darwin), and while no experiments made on dead matter have ever
+produced living (plant and animal) matter, life must have originated at
+some time from non-life according to the evolutionary hypothesis. The
+theory assumes that at some time the globe was in an incandescent stage.
+At that time there could not have been any life on our earth. But as the
+earth cooled, it is held that by some chemico-electric action (electric
+force acting upon elements in favorable combinations), inert, lifeless
+matter became endowed with the property which we call life, and this
+original living substance is called protoplasm. From it, by successive
+modifications, slow in their operation, the teeming variety of living
+things is believed to have developed. Now it is a notable fact, that
+many evolutionists (among them Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-discoverer
+of the theory which goes under Darwin's name) frankly admit the
+inability to account for the origin of protoplasm. From mineral
+substances, protoplasm differs in that it possesses the power of growth,
+development, and reproduction. The very first vegetable cell "must have
+possessed altogether new powers," says Mr. Wallace, "that of extracting
+carbon from the air and that of indefinite reproduction. Here,"--note
+this admission,--"we have indications of _a new power_ at work." In
+other words, forces resident in matter no longer suffice. The
+evolutionistic principle breaks down.
+
+Some fifty years ago it was thought that experimental proof had been
+found for the presence on earth of the original, simple, unorganized
+protoplasm; that the basis of all life on earth had been discovered,--in
+the depths of the ocean. The story of this "discovery" is entertainingly
+told by the Duke of Argyle in the _"Nineteenth Century"_ magazine. We
+quote from his article.
+
+"Along with the earlier specimens of deep sea deposits sent home by
+naturalists during the first soundings in connection with the Atlantic
+telegraph cable, there was very often a sort of enveloping slimy mucus
+in the containing bottles which arrested the attention and excited the
+curiosity of the specialists to whom they were consigned. It was
+structureless to all miscroscopic examination. But so is all the
+protoplasmic matter of which the lowest animals are found. Could it be a
+widely diffused medium of this protoplasmic material, not yet
+specialized or individualized into organic forms, nor itself yet in a
+condition to build up inorganic skeletons for a habitation? Here was a
+grand idea. It would be well to find missing links; but it would be
+better to find the primordial substance out of which all living things
+had come. The ultra-Darwinian enthusiasts were enchanted. Haeckel
+clapped his hands and shouted _Eureka!_ loudly. Even the cautious and
+discriminating mind of Professor Huxley was caught by this new and grand
+generalization of the 'physical basis of life;' It was announced by him
+to the British Association in 1868. Dr. Will Carpenter took up the
+chorus. He spoke of 'a living expanse of protoplasmic substance,'
+penetrating with its living substance the 'whole mass' of the oceanic
+mud. A fine new Greek name was devised for this mother slime, and it was
+christened 'Bathybius,'" (from two Greek words meaning "depth" and
+"life,"), "from the consecrated deeps in which it lay. The conception
+ran like wildfire through the popular literature of science. Expectant
+imagination soon played its part. Wonderful movements were soon seen in
+this mysterious slime. It became an 'irregular network,' and it could be
+seen gradually 'altering its form,' so that 'entangled granules changed
+their relative positions."
+
+Such was Bathybius, which once raised such a commotion in the world of
+science, but which is never heard of or even alluded to in scientific
+circles today. And now for the issue of this discovery of such mighty
+promise. In the year 1872, the "Challenger," commanded by John Murray,
+set out on a voyage of deep-sea exploration. "The naturalists of the
+'Challenger' began their voyage in full Bathybian faith. But the sturdy
+mind of Mr. John Murray kept its balance--all the more easily since he
+never could himself find or see any trace of this protoplasm _when the
+dredges of the 'Challenger' came fresh from the ocean bottom_. Again and
+again he looked for it, but never could he discover it. It always hailed
+from England. The bottles sent there were reported to yield it in
+abundance, but somehow it seemed to be hatched in them. The laboratory
+in London was its unfailing source. The ocean never yielded it until it
+had been bottled. At last, one day on board the 'Challenger,' an
+accident revealed the mystery. One of Mr. Murray's assistants poured a
+large quantity of spirits of wine into a bottle containing some pure
+sea-water, when lo! the wonderful protoplasm Bathybius appeared! It was
+_the chemical precipitate of sulphate of lime_ produced by the mixture
+of alcohol and sea-water! Thereafter 'Bathybius' disappeared from
+science."
+
+The term "protoplasm" has, indeed, been retained by writers on biology.
+The whole body of an animal, and the structure of plants, are understood
+to consist of cells. The cells consist of a colorless substance, and
+this is called "protoplasm." It is a substance of very complex chemical
+and physical make-up, in fact, no chemist has yet been able to analyze
+it and a famous biologist says that very probably it may never be
+analyzed (David Starr Jordan.) Protoplasm, like the white of egg, is the
+basic substance of life, yet in the variety of forms which it takes it
+is of _"almost unlimited complexity"_ (Jordan). Now, a new difficulty
+develops when this complex character of protoplasm as it is now found in
+animals and plants is considered. Clear (unmodified) protoplasm, as
+found in white of egg and in the white cells of the blood, is the
+structureless substance called albumen. However, protoplasm varies
+almost infinitely in consistency, in shape, in structure, and in
+function. It is sometimes so fluid as to be capable of forming in drops,
+sometimes semifluid, sometimes almost solid. In shape the cells may be
+club shaped, globe shaped, threaded, flat, conical. Some protoplasm
+produces fat, others produce nerve substances, others brain substances,
+bone, muscle, etc., each producing only its own kind, uninterchangeable
+with the rest. Lastly, there is the overwhelming fact that there is an
+infinite difference of protoplasm in the infinitely different plants and
+animals, in each of which _its own protoplasm but produces its own kind_.
+"Here are several thousand pieces of protoplasm; analysis can detect no
+difference in them. They are to us, let us say, as they are to Mr.
+Huxley, identical in power, in form, and in substance; and yet on all
+these several thousand little bits of apparently indistinguishable matter
+an element of difference so pervading and so persistent has been
+impressed, that of them all, not one is interchangeable with another!
+Each seed feeds its own kind. The protoplasm of the gnat will no more
+grow into the fly than it will grow into an elephant. Protoplasm is
+protoplasm; yes, but man's protoplasm is man's protoplasm, and the
+mushroom's the mushroom's." (Dr. Sterling, _"As Regards Protoplasm."_)
+Hence we are compelled to acknowledge not an identity of protoplasm in
+all substances, but an infinite diversity. It follows that the
+derivation of all plant and animal forms from an original speck or germ
+of living matter is not only un-proven, but is contradicted by
+biological science.
+
+Darwin himself, like his co-laborer Wallace, was constrained to admit
+that the origin of life constitutes an unsolved problem. Matter and
+force do not account for it. Darwin accepted a divine fiat somewhere in
+the beginning. He says. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with
+its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into
+the first forms or into one." In other words, the creation of the first
+living being was an exceptional kind of power. But if, as Mr. Darwin
+says, life was breathed by the Creator into the first forms, this
+constitutes a break in the sufficiency of natural causes alone to
+produce life. If a special fiat was necessary at this point, why may it
+not have been at others? If by divine omnipotence, life is believed to
+have been originated, why shall we not believe that by divine
+omnipotence the various species of plants and animals were brought forth
+as related in the first chapter of the Bible? "If the Creator could
+breathe life into a few forms or into one, as Darwin thinks he did,
+without violating the law of his own being, and in accordance with the
+laws which he has established, it seems evident that he might at other
+times breathe life into other forms in accordance with his laws. I see
+no necessity for a logic that would compel the Creator to confine the
+number of his creative fiats to a few, or to one, nor which would limit
+the fiats to one time." (Fairhurst, _"Organic Evolution Considered."_)
+
+Biological Barriers.
+
+The atom, the molecule, the life-germ,--these are the barriers which
+stand against the evolutionistic conception of origins on the physical
+side. We proceed to investigate the points at which _biology_ touches
+our problem, and again three barriers call for notice and investigation:
+The difference between plants and animals; the difference between
+vertebrates and invertebrates; and the difference between mammals and
+all other vertebrates.
+
+1. _Whence the animal kingdom?_ This stage in the scale of life, the
+advance from vegetable to the animal kingdom, is, to quote Mr. Wallace,
+again "completely beyond all possibility of explanation by _matter,_ its
+laws and forces. It is the introduction of _sensation or consciousness,_
+constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and
+vegetable kingdoms." Plants live, animals live _and feel;_ and they have
+consciousness. At this point again, only a thorough-going materialist
+will deny the working of an outside power, a power not resident in
+matter, but altering and molding matter from without and endowing it
+with new abilities. Only an act of this Power Without could endow living
+substance with feeling and consciousness. No one can here any longer
+appeal to that undefined chemico-electric action by which some attempt
+to account for protoplasm. Mr. Wallace says: "Here all idea of mere
+complication of structure producing the result is out of the question.
+We feel it to be altogether preposterous to assume that at a certain
+stage of complexity of atomic constitution, and as a necessary result of
+that complexity alone, an _ego_ should start into existence,--a thing
+that _feels,_ that is _conscious_ of its own existence. Here we have the
+certainty that something new has arisen,--a being whose nascent
+consciousness has gone on increasing in power and definiteness till it
+has culminated in the higher animals. No verbal explanation or attempt
+at explanation--such as the statement that life is 'the result of the
+molecular forces of the protoplasm,' or that the whole existing organic
+universe from the amoeba up to man was latent in the fire-mist from
+which the solar system was developed--can afford any mental satisfaction,
+or help us in any way to a solution of the mystery."
+
+2. _Whence the backbone?_ All animals are divided into vertebrates and
+invertebrates, the animals with a backbone and animals without. Between
+these two groups the barrier of backbone stands impassable till it is
+explained how a butterfly could become a bird, or a snail a serpent, or
+a star fish acquire the skeleton of the shark. These two groups, the
+vertebrate animals and the invertebrate, must be regarded as
+fundamentally distinct.
+
+3. _Whence the breast?_ Vertebrates are either mammals or submammals.
+The breastless tribes are brids, [tr. note: sic] reptiles, and fishes.
+These are far beneath in the scale, while the mammal, by its peculiar
+endowment in that it gives suck to its young, stands elect, aloft, and
+apart. Till it is shown how an animal that never got milk from its
+mother stumbled on the capacity of giving what was never given it, _the
+breast_ will stand, against all dreams of development, companion-barrier
+to the backbone. Nor is there an animal that can be regarded as a
+connecting link between these two master groups.
+
+The "theistic" evolutionist, who believes that God at various times
+"helped out" the forces residing in matter, by creating something new,
+is inclined to say that at each of these points,--the origin of the
+first sentient animal, the origin of the first vertebrate, and of the
+first mammal,--God by his omnipotence caused a new type to originate.
+Aside from the fact that "forces resident in matter," the basic idea of
+the evolutionistic theory, here begins to become somewhat faint as a
+background even for a "theistic" conception of development, it is
+evident that we have already reached a point far down the scale of
+organic evolution in which the admission must be made that no possible
+working of forces within matter can account for the change. Again we
+say, if we already admit that the various great types of animal life
+could not originate without a special creative act of God, then why
+should we not accept the record of Genesis which says that the various
+species of plants and the various species of animals were created, each
+a separate species, in the beginning? Once admit special creative acts,
+and there is no longer any need for a hypothesis of evolution.
+
+Man.
+
+The difficulty which stands in the way of accepting, on purely
+scientific grounds, the descent of man from a brute ancestor, is, first
+of all a biological (physiological) difficulty. Among all the mammalia
+(to accept the classification of man with that group), man alone has a
+perfect brain. By this we mean the physiologically and structurally
+perfect brain. It is present even in the lowest man--present in the
+negro or the Australian Bushman as in the civilized American; and absent
+in all living beings below man--absent in the ape or the elephant as
+truly as in the lowest mammals, the kangaroo or the duckbill. Its sign
+is _language,_ capacity of _progress, culture_. All healthy human
+brains are structurally perfect; the highest brute brains are
+structurally imperfect. The least cultivated human being is susceptible
+of culture; a savage not only possesses the endowment of language but
+may be educated to appreciate the art of a Raphael or a Shakespeare. The
+brains of all other living beings are circumscribed by instinct, which
+never progresses. The perfect brain thus introduces another impassable
+biological barrier dividing the world of life.
+
+However, the derivation of man from brute ancestry is attended by
+another and even greater difficulty. The brain, after all, is but an
+organ, it is the organ of _Mind_. Man possesses faculties of intellect
+(reason, imagination, the artistic faculties, etc.) and, above all, a
+moral nature, which raises him far above the brute. These faculties
+could not possibly have been developed by means of forces resident in
+matter or by means of the laws which are made to account for the
+physical universe.
+
+The very term "evolution" implies the development of something that was
+at first involved, or essentially infolded, in that in which evolution
+began. In man there are attributes and faculties not shown by lower
+orders. Evolution, seeking to be consistent, answers: "It is true that
+faculties cannot be evolved out of a thing unless they exist in a crude
+and undeveloped state in that thing, but these higher faculties _do
+exist_ in the lower orders, potentially, or in a germ form and are
+developed and become operative only in the higher forms of life."
+
+Evolutionists do not shrink from this application of their theory to the
+human mind. The attributes of a Shakespeare and the moral nature of a
+Paul were, essentially or potentially (capable of development), in the
+star fish and the jelly fish. The difference is not one of kind but of
+development and degree. Man has these faculties developed, the animals
+have them undeveloped. In the _"Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,"_
+published by his son, is a letter from Mr. Darwin to W. Graham, written
+in 1881, from which I quote the following: "I have no practice in
+abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless, you have
+expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly
+than I could have done. But then, with me, the horrid doubt always
+arises _whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed
+from the lower animals, are of any value, or are at all trustworthy."_
+Again he says (p. 528), in another letter written to Sir C. Lyell:
+"Grant a simple archetypal creature, like the mud-fish or lepidosiren
+(mud eel) with five senses and some vestige of mind, and I believe
+natural selection will account for the production of every vertebrate
+animal, including, of course, man."
+
+Observe that this language is very definite. It says that the mind of
+man, with all its wonderful attributes and faculties, was evolved from
+the mind of the lower animals--and he goes as low as the mud-fish and
+the eel that live in the slime of the swamps. Now, whoever wishes to
+believe such a preposterous assumption can do so. He is able to believe
+almost anything, and to disbelieve everything. Mr. Darwin himself says
+he looks upon man's convictions as of no value, because they are the
+convictions of a mind derived from the mind of lower animals; nor can
+one blame him for being skeptical. Our point, however, is that there is
+such a tremendous difference between the intellectual and moral
+faculties of man and the barely instinctive impulses of the lower
+creatures, that no one can see any connection between the two, unless
+there is some serious defect in his own mental or moral perceptions.
+Every instinct and conviction of the human mind rises in indignant
+repudiation of the theory of man's descent.
+
+There are even among thoroughgoing Darwinians some who draw the line at
+this (necessary) application of the development idea. Wallace says, at
+the conclusion of his defense of Darwinism: "The faculties of man could
+not possibly have been developed by means of the same laws which have
+determined the progressive development of the world in general, and
+also of man's physical organism"--the human body. He finds in the origin
+of Mind clear indications of "an unseen universe--a world of spirit, to
+which the world of matter is altogether subordinate." (_"Darwinism,"_ p.
+320.) Yet the development of mind through merely physical forces is
+upheld to the present day by the majority of evolutionists. The doctrine
+is even found in public school texts. In Davis' _"Physical Geography,"_
+a high-school text, we read page 341:
+
+"The greater intelligence of many land animals than of sea animals
+should also be regarded as a result of the development of land animals
+amid a greater variety of geographical conditions than is found in the
+seas. . . . The wonderful intelligence of man has been developed on the
+lands, because only on the lands is to be found the great variety of
+form, climate and products which can stimulate the development of high
+intelligence. It would have been as impossible for man to develop as an
+inhabitant of the dark and monotonous ocean floor as it has been for
+civilization to arise out of the frozen and lonesome lands of the
+Antarctic regions."
+
+Thus even the children of our generation are taught a doctrine which is
+not only unproven but so far falls short of explaining that which it was
+invented to explain that it cannot, by any correct definition, even be
+dignified with the name of a "working hypothesis." It is a theory of
+origins which fails to account for one thing precisely--Origins.
+
+
+CHAPTER THREE.
+The Testimony of the Rocks.
+
+We have seen that the principal argument for a development of the higher
+types of life from lower organisms is based upon a study of fossil
+remains (paleontology). The older the strata in the earth's surface, the
+simpler the animal forms imbedded therein; the more recent the strata,
+the more complex and highly developed the fossil remains. Popular
+scientific works, and books of refence [tr. note: sic] generally, quote
+it as an axiom: In the oldest rocks the simplest fossils are found,
+hence the higher animals are developed from the lower. Davis "Physical
+Geograhy" [tr. note: sic] says (page 17):
+
+"Age of the Earth.--It is impossible to say what the age of the earth
+and the solar system is, but it certainly should be reckoned in millions
+and millions of years. There is every reason to believe that the sun and
+the planets existed for an indefinitely long period before the condition
+of the earth's surface was such as to allow the habitation of the planet
+by plants and animals. It is well proved by the prints or fossils of
+various plants and animals in ancient rock layers that these lower forms
+of life existed upon the earth for a vast length of time, millions and
+millions of years before man appeared."
+
+Here, then, we are squarely confronted by the issue. Either the rocks
+testify to a slow evolution of plant and animal life, or they supply no
+such testimony. Professor Downing of Chicago University, says that this
+is indeed, the one primary argument for evolution, the rest being simply
+corroborative. On this _rock_ evolutionists build their scientific
+Faith. Let us investigate.
+
+We shall note, to begin with, that there are, indeed, a larger number of
+species, both of animals and plants, preserved in the rocks,--thousands,
+in fact. There are lowly organisms, of the crab and cuttle fish variety,
+and more highly organized forms, fishes and birds, and there are the
+prints and fossilized bones of great monsters, huge lizards and sloths
+and other mammalia. It is possible to establish a gradation in this great
+catalog of fossils, beginning with the largest or most perfectly
+developed, and ending with the animals lower in the scale of life; or
+vice versa. The evolutionists say, _vice versa,_ the simplest first, the
+most complex last, and then they add: _So_ they have developed.
+
+At this point we shall first quote one of the earliest palaeontologists,
+and one of the most famous, Hugh Miller, whose _"Old Red Sandstone,"_
+first published in 1841, has now been republished in the _"Everyman
+Library."_ In this brilliant work, Miller pays his respects to the
+evolutionists of his age. He refers to Lamarck and says: "The ingenious
+foreigner, on the strength of a few striking facts which prove that to a
+certain extent the instincts of species may be improved and heightened,
+and their forms changed from a lower to a higher degree of adaptation to
+their circumstances, has concluded that there is a natural progress from
+the inferior order of being towards the superior, and that the off-spring
+of creatures low in the scale in the present time may hold a much higher
+place in it, and belong to different and nobler species, a few thousand
+years hence. . . . He has argued on this principle of improvement and
+adaptation,--which, carry it as far as we rationally may, still leaves
+the vegetable a vegetable, and the dog a dog,--that in the vast course
+of ages, inferior have risen into superior natures, and lower into higher
+races; that molluscs and zoophytes have passed into fish and reptiles,
+and fish and reptiles into birds and quadrupeds; that unformed gelatinous
+bodies, with an organisation scarcely traceable, have been metamorphosed
+into oaks and cedars; and that monkeys and apes have been transformed
+into human creatures, capable of understanding and admiring the theories
+of Lamarck.
+
+"It is a law of nature," continues Mr. Miller, "that the chain of being,
+from the lowest to the highest form of life, should be, in some degree,
+a continuous chain; that the various classes of existence should shade
+into one another, so that it often proves a matter of no little
+difficulty to point out the exact line of demarcation where one class or
+family ends and another class or family begins. The naturalist passes
+from the vegetable to the animal tribes, scarcely aware, amid the
+perplexing forms of intermediate existence, at what point he quits the
+precincts of the one, to enter on those of the other. All the animal
+families have, in like manner, their connecting links; and it is chiefly
+out of these that writers such as Lamarck and Maillet construct their
+system. _They confound gradation with progress_. Geoffrey Hudson was a
+very short man, and Goliath of Gath a very tall one; and the gradations
+of the human stature lie between. But gradation is not progress; and
+though we find full-grown men of five feet, five feet six inches, and
+six feet and a half, the fact gives us no earnest whatever that the race
+is rising in stature, and that at some future period the average height
+of the human family will be somewhat between ten and eleven feet. And
+equally unsolid is the argument that from a principle of gradation in
+races would reduce a principle of progress in races. The tall man of six
+feet need entertain quite as little hope of rising into eleven feet as
+the short man of five; nor has the fish that occasionally flies any
+better chance of passing into a bird than the fish that only swims.
+Geology abounds with creatures of the intermediate class. _But it
+furnishes no genealogical link to show that the existences of one race
+derive their lineage from the existences of another_. The scene shifts
+as we pass from formation to formation; we are introduced in each to a
+new dramatis personae. Of all the vertebrata, fishes rank lowest, and in
+geological history appear first. Now, fishes differ very much among
+themselves: some rank nearly as low as worms,--some nearly as high as
+reptiles; and if fish could have risen into reptiles, and reptiles into
+mammalia, we would necessarily expect to find lower orders of fish
+passing into higher, and taking precedence of the higher in their
+appearance in point of time. If such be not the case,--if fish made
+their first appearance, not in their least perfect, but in their most
+perfect state,--not in their nearest approximation to the worm, but in
+their nearest approximation to the reptile,--there is no room for
+progression, and the argument falls. Now, it is a geological fact, that
+_it is fish of the higher orders that appear first on the stage,_ and
+that they are found to occupy exactly the same level during the vast
+period represented by five succeeding formations. There is no
+progression. If fish rose into reptiles, it must have been by sudden
+transformation. There is no getting rid of miracle in the case,--there
+is no alternative between creation and metamorphosis. The infidel
+substitutes progression for Deiety;--Geology robs him of his God."
+
+Mr. Miller then relates his discovery of the winged fish (Pterichtys):
+"Of all the organisms of the Old Red Sandstone, one of the most
+extraordinary, and the one in which Lamarck would have most delighted,
+is the Pterichtys, or winged fish. Had Lamarck been the discoverer, he
+would unquestionably have held that he had caught a fish almost in the
+act of wishing itself into a bird. Here are wings which lack only
+feathers, a body which seems to have been as well adapted for passing
+through the air as the water and a tail by which to steer. I fain wish
+I could communicate to the reader the feeling with which I contemplated
+my first-found specimen. It opened with a single blow of the hammer;
+and there on a ground of light-colored limestone, lay the effigy of a
+creature fashioned apparently out of jet, with a body covered with
+plates, two powerful-looking arms articulated at the shoulders, a head
+as entirely lost in the trunk as that of the ray or the sun-fish, and
+long angular tail." Miller says that he at first thought he had
+discovered a kind of turtle that partook of the characteristics of a
+fish. But he continues: "I had inferred somewhat too hurriedly, though
+perhaps naturally enough, that these wings or arms, with their strong
+sharp points and oar-like blades, had been at once paddles and spears,
+--instrument of motion and weapons of defence; and hence the mistake of
+connecting the creature with the Chelonia (turtles). I am informed by
+Agassiz, however, that they were weapons of defence only, which, like
+the spines of the river bull-head, were erected in moments of danger or
+alarm, and at other times lay close by the creature's side; and that
+the sole instrument of motion was in the tail. The river bull-head, when
+attacked by an enemy, or immediately as it feels the hook in its jaws,
+erects its two spines at nearly right angles with the plates of the head,
+as if to render itself as difficult of being swallowed as possible. The
+attitude is one of danger and alarm; and it is a curious fact, that in
+this attitude nine-tenth of the Pterichthyes of the Lower Old Red
+Sandstone are to be found."
+
+A century has passed since Miller thought he had discovered a turtle
+which was so modified in structure as to be a link between the turtles
+and the fish. But to the present day geology has failed to furnish
+evidence that such a link at one time existed.
+
+This _absence, in the geological record, of transitional forms,_ is one
+of the greatest difficulties of the evolutionistic theory. According to
+the theory, the fossils found in the various layers of rock ought to
+show gradual modifications, linking the various species of animals and
+plants in a finely graduated system, with thousands of forms showing in
+rudimentary structure those organs which in the more advanced forms
+have become fully developed. However, no such progress from more to
+less generalized types has been demonstrated, although many trained
+investigators have searched the fossiliferous rocks for such evidence
+of evolution. Professor Huxley in his _"Lay Sermons"_ admits that an
+impartial survey of the positively ascertained truths of paleontology
+"Either shows us no evidence of such modification, or demonstrates
+such modification as has occurred to have been very slight; and as to
+the nature of that modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that
+the earlier members of any long-continued group were more generalized in
+structure than the later ones." LeConte says: "Although the species
+change greatly, and perhaps many times, in passing from the lowest to
+the highest strata, we do not usually, it must be acknowledged, find the
+gradual transitions we would naturally expect, if the change were
+effected by gradual transitions." He further speaks of the absence of
+connecting links as "the greatest of all objections" against the theory
+of evolution. (_"Evolution,"_ p. 234.) This absence of transitional
+forms between different species has always been recognized as a serious
+difficulty; and Mr. Darwin, in the attempt to obviate it, succeeds only
+in showing how very serious it is. These are his words: "Geology
+assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
+this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
+urged against my theory."
+
+Alfred Fairhurst says, in his _"Organic Evolution Considered"_ (p. 93):
+
+"According to the theory of evolution, and especially of natural
+selection, if we start with any organism and trace its history backward,
+we would find that through an endless number of generations it had been
+very slightly changing, so that any individual is always a transitional
+form between its immediate ancestors and its own offspring. This being
+true, one would expect, if the theory of evolution is true, to find vast
+numbers of transitional forms connecting earlier and later species in
+the various periods where fossils are well preserved. This, however, is
+not true. Species, when they first appear, stand sharply defined. Darwin
+expresses his disappointment at the absence of transitional forms as
+follows: 'But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how
+poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not
+the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which
+lived at the commencement and close of each formation pressed so hardly
+on my theory.'"
+
+Even a cursory study of such texts as Dana's _"Manual of Geology"_ will
+reveal that the development of the plants and animals through the "ages"
+of speculative geology does not move forward like a steadily rising
+flood. There is rather a series of great waves, each rising abruptly,
+new forms often appearing suddenly and together. The very simplest known
+fossils, the trilobites, of which nearly a hundred species are known in
+America alone, and certain cephalopods (sea snails) are animals highly
+complex in structure and regarded by Le Conte as "hardly lower than the
+middle of the animal scale." The trilobites possess well developed
+compound eyes and the cephalopods have simple eyes, almost as complex as
+the eyes of man, possess a well defined stomach, a systemic heart, a
+liver, and a highly developed nervous system [tr. note: no period in
+original] Observe, that these two highly organized forms of animals,
+"hardly to be regarded as lower than the middle of the animal scale,"
+are the very "oldest" animals found in fossil form! In other words, of
+at least one half of the total progress of the animal kingdom every
+vestige is lost. If we turn a few pages in Dana's _"Manual"_ we find in
+the sandstone of the "Devonian Era" gigantic species of fish. The entire
+record of evolution from the mollusk to the fish is lost! There is not a
+single transitional form. These fishes have organs as complex and
+perfect as the fishes of to-day. Suddenly, in the "carbonic age"
+amphibia and reptiles appear, and then come, in the "Triassic" the huge
+reptiles known as dinosaurs. Insects and scorpions have been found in
+the "Silurian." [tr. note: sic on punctuation] They stand among the
+highest of even _living_ articulates, and they are the "oldest" known
+airbreathing animals. "We seek in vain for the progenitors of these
+highly organized articulates or for some conceivable method by which
+their wings and special breathing apparatus could have evolved. We do
+not know that these first insects and scorpions have made any material
+progress through all the ages." (Fairhurst.)
+
+Professor Huxley in delivering the anniversary address to the Geological
+Society for 1870, quotes the following from an address before the same
+society in 1862: "If we confine ourselves to positively ascertained
+facts, the total amount of change in the forms of animal and vegetable
+life since the existence of such forms is recorded, is small. When
+compared with the lapse of time since the first appearance of these
+forms, the amount of change is wonderfully small. Moreover, in each great
+group of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, there are certain forms which
+I termed Persistent Types, which have remained, with but very little
+apparent change, from their first appearance to the present time. In
+answer to the question, 'What then does an impartial survey of the
+positively ascertained truths of paleontology testify in relation to the
+common doctrines of progressive modification, which suppose that
+modification to have taken place by necessary progress from more to less
+embryonic forms, from more to less generalized types within the limits of
+the period represented by the fossiliferous rocks?' I reply, It negatives
+these doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of such
+modifications, or demonstrates such modification as has occurred to have
+been very slight. The significance of persistent types and of the small
+amount of change which has taken place even in those forms which can be
+shown to have been modified, becomes greater and greater in my eyes, the
+longer I occupy myself with the Biology of the past."
+
+From the fact that the trilobites, so highly organized, appeared in the
+"primordial," or "oldest" strata, it would seem that they were specially
+adapted to make progress. They lived through "Paleozoic" time, which,
+according to Dana, represents twelve of the sixteen parts of all
+geological time, beginning with the Primordial; or, calling the whole
+geological time 48 millions of years, the trilobites lived 36 million of
+years, or three-fourths of all geological time. From their great
+persistence in time (accepting, for the sake of argument, the "ages" of
+speculative geology) it would seem that they had a remarkably good
+opportunity to make wonderful progress in structure. During that time
+there were thousands of species, yet they made no progress. We do not
+know that in all those "millions of years" a single higher form was
+evolved from any one of the great multitude of species of trilobites. As
+Darwin says of the goose, so one may say of the trilobite; it "had a
+singularly inflexible organization." The remarkable thing about this,
+however, is that previous to the "Primordial," while it was becoming a
+trilobite, it must have had a singularly flexible organization, otherwise
+it could not have obtained its complex structure; but when it reached the
+"Primordial" it became very conservative.
+
+Fairhurst says, in the work already quoted:
+
+"It is a most remarkable fact that in the first geological period in
+which undoubted fossils occur, all the sub-kingdoms except that of the
+vertebrates are well represented, and that there is no evidence from
+fossils that one sub-kingdom, or even that different classes of the same
+sub-kingdom were evolved from each other. The great gulfs that separate
+the animal kingdom into sub-kingdoms and classes existed then, and have
+continued till the present time.... If we rely on known fossils as
+evidence, we would be obliged to conclude that highly organized fishes
+were suddenly introduced. The break in the supposed chain of evolution
+between the invertebrates and the highly organized vertebrates of the
+Lower Silurian is one of the greatest in the whole geological record. The
+vast gulf between these structures must, I think, remain unbridged except
+by the imagination."
+
+The late Prof. Joseph LeConte, of the University of California, writes
+in his book, "Religion and Science:" "The evidence of geology to-day is
+that species seem to come in suddenly and in full perfection, remain
+substantially unchanged during the term of their existence, and pass
+away in full perfection. Other species take their places apparently by
+substitution, not by transmutation."
+
+Dr. Robert Watts uses these emphatic words: "The record of the rocks
+know nothing of the evolution of a higher form from a lower form.
+Neither the paleozoic age nor the living organisms of our world reveal
+an authentic instance of such evolution. Both nature and revelation
+proclaim it as an inviolable law that like produces like."
+
+And Hugh Miller went one step further when he testified: "I would ask
+such of the gentlemen whom I now address as have studied the subject
+most thoroughly, whether, at those grand lines of division between the
+Palaeozoic and Secondary, and again between the Secondary and Tertiary
+periods, at which the entire type of organic being alters, so that all
+on the one side of the gap belongs to one fashion, and all on the other
+to another and wholly different fashion,--whether they have not been as
+thoroughly impressed with the conviction that there existed a Creative
+Agent, to whom the sudden change was owing, as if they themselves had
+witnessed the miracle of creation?" (Presidential address before the
+Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh, 1852.)
+
+But we have not yet done with this part of our investigation. The
+argument from geology is based on the assumption that the chronological
+order of the earth's layers _has been determined_ at least with great
+approximation to certainty, so that we may say with some assurance that
+this layer of limestone or sandstone is of earlier, that, of later
+origin. As a matter of fact, the textbooks do treat the various "ages"
+of geology as if they corresponded to certain strata of the earth's
+crust. _But by what method is the age of the various layers determined?_
+James D. Dana in his "Manual of Geology" (Fourth edition, p. 398 f.)
+says that there are four methods by which we may decide the relation of
+one layer to another. The first is, naturally, the order in which the
+layers rest upon one another; the lower strata, are, of course, older
+than the upper. However, he points out in four "precautions" the
+inability of the investigator to depend on this method, since "for the
+comparing of rocks of disconnected regions, this criterion must fail."
+Also the color and mineral composition can be used only "with distrust"
+and must be "usually disregarded." Then the _Manual_ proceeds: "4
+ _Fossils_.--The criterion for determining the chronological order of
+strata dependent on kinds of fossils takes direct hold upon time, and
+therefore, _is the best;_ and, moreover, it serves for the correlation
+of rocks all over the world." Now observe how, in the following, the
+geologist leans upon the evolutionist: _"The life of the globe has
+changed with the progress of time. Each epoch has had its peculiar
+species, or peculiar groups of species._ Moreover, the succession of
+life has followed a grand law of progress, involving under a single
+system a closer and closer approximation in the species, as time moved
+on, to those which now exist. It follows, therefore, that _identity of
+species of fossils proves approximate identity of age."_ Let us bear
+this in mind. Dana _takes for granted_ the evolutionary process. The
+simpler forms of animal life indicate the older strata, the complex
+forms, the more recent. We do not misunderstand Mr. Dana. Such
+expressions as the following abound: "Where direct paleontological
+observation has ascertained in particular cases the steps of progress in
+the development of organs, as, for example, those of the teeth in
+Mammals, the facts become a basis for further use in the same
+direction." (p. 402.) "The grander divisions of geological time should
+be based, in a comprehensive way, on organic progress" (from simple to
+more complex structures) (p. 404.) "When the relations of the beds to
+those recognized in other regions have been ascertained through
+fossils..." (p. 405.)
+
+The principle announced by Dana is accepted by geologists generally.
+Angelo Heilprin in _"The Earth and its Story,"_ p. 153 ff. has the
+following: "There has been a steady and progressive advance in the
+general type of organization from the oldest to the newest periods; more
+highly developed or more complicated forms have successively replaced
+forms of simpler construction; and this advance is still continuing
+to-day. Once more, the correctness of the evolutionary hypothesis is
+taken for granted. In the oldest rocks, for example, no trace of
+backboned animals has yet been detected; when such do appear for the
+first time, they show themselves in their lowest types, the fishes;
+these are succeeded later by the amphibians (frogs, newts, salamanders),
+and these again by reptiles. And if we take the fishes by themselves, we
+find that they, too, begin with their lower, if not absolutely the
+lowest types, and progressively develop their higher ones. This history
+is repeated in the cases of the reptiles and quadrupeds--in fact, with
+every class of animals that is known to us. _Naturalists_ (evolutionists)
+are to-day well agreed among themselves that all animal and vegetable
+forms are derivatives from forms that preceded them..... Hence it is,
+that, in following the geological record, we speak of progressive
+evolution, the evolving of higher or more complicated types of organisms
+from those simpler and more general in structure." Now read carefully
+the following: _"This fact_ has permitted geologists to mark off
+distinct eras or periods in the life-history of the planet, each of them
+determined by certain characteristic animal or vegetable forms, which
+either do not appear before or after such period, or else are by numbers
+so distinctive of it as to typify it clearly." Evidently, the
+Philadelphia professor, too, _assumes_ "progressive evolution" _as an
+ascertained fact_ and in accordance therewith classifies the layers of
+the earth's surface. "Almost every species of fossil has a definite
+position in the geological scale, and would by itself serve to locate a
+formation; but oftentimes the determination of species, owing to
+insufficiency of knowledge of the obliteration of characters, is a most
+difficult task, and then recourse is had to the aspect of the entire
+group 'of fossils which a given rockmass contains. This generally _gives
+the age_ or position without difficulty." Edward Clodd, in _"The Story
+of Creation, a Plain Account of Evolution,"_ says, page 18. "The
+relative _age and place of each stratum .... are fixed by the fossils."_
+
+Now, is not this a most extraordinary situation? The evolutionist says:
+The science of paleontology furnishes the basic argument for our
+hypothesis,--the older the strata of the earths surface, the simpler the
+fossils found therein. This sounds impressive. But we ask him: How do
+you know the age of the strata,--and the answer is, that, of course, is
+the business of the geologist to determine. We now turn to the geologist
+and ask: How do you determine the age of the strata? And the geologist
+answers: Why, evolutionary science has proven that the simplest animals
+and plants appeared first; hence, where I find simple fossils, I know
+that I have a more ancient bed of lime-stone or sand-stone than the
+strata which contain more complex forms,--which appeared later. Note
+well, the geologists which we have quoted assert that this is the best
+and final proof for the position of a stratum in the scale of geological
+history. The geologist depends on the fossils. But he believes these to
+belong to an earlier or more recent age because he accepts _the
+evolutionist's_ word for it. And the evolutionist says: the _geologist_
+says these rocks are oldest; but in them I find the simplest forms;
+hence the evolutionary theory is proven.
+
+We repeat it,--is not this a very, very extraordinary situation? Have we
+not here a perfect case of what logicians call "reasoning in a circle,"
+or "begging the question?" How can the evolutionist quote the geologist
+when the geologist asserts that he classifies his layers of rock
+according to the fossils,--and that he accepts what the evolutionists
+asserts [tr. note: sic] regarding these?
+
+What, in view of this situation, becomes of the evolutionist's argument
+from fossils? And what becomes of the "ages" of speculative geology?
+
+
+CHAPTER FOUR.
+The Fixity of Species.
+
+A writer in the _"Lutheran Companion"_ recently said that his seven year
+old boy brought home a text book some months ago, called _"Home
+Geography for Primary Grades."_ On page 143 is found this statement
+about birds: "Ever so long ago, their grandfathers were not birds at
+all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings nor feathers.
+These grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long tail and jaws with
+teeth. After a time feathers grew upon their bodies and their front legs
+become changed for flying. These were strange looking creatures. There
+are none living like them now."
+
+One is tempted to disgress, [tr. note: sic] for a moment, from the
+subject at hand in order to draw, from this incident, an argument for
+the Christian Day School; but we shall desist. The quotation is here
+adduced to illustrate the vogue which evolution, specifically Darwinism,
+still maintains in the literature, even in the school-texts of our day.
+Babes and sucklings are introduced to the theory of evolutionary
+development, and the theory is presented with an assurance as if it were
+scientific truth. The words of Agassiz, prince of naturalists, apply
+to-day. "The manner in which the evolution theory in zoology is treated
+would lead those who are not special zoologists to suppose that
+observations have been made by which it can be inferred that there is
+in nature such a thing as change among organized beings actually taking
+place." He adds: "There is no such thing on record. It is shifting the
+ground from one field of observation to another to make this statement,
+and when the assertions go so far as to exclude from the domain of
+science those who will not be dragged into this mire of mere assertion,
+then it is time to protest."
+
+Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, more recently said:
+"If the theory of evolution be true, during the many thousands of years
+covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there would
+certainly be known at least a few instances, or at least one instance,
+of the evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known.
+Abstract arguments sound learned and appear imposing, so that many are
+deceived by them. But in this matter we remove the question from the
+abstract to the concrete. We are told that facts warrant the
+evolutionary theory. But do they? Where is one single fact?"
+
+The hypothesis assumes that through environment, certain varieties of
+species (both of plants and animals) arose, and that the varieties best
+fitted, through their habits, structure, or color, to maintain
+themselves in the struggle for existence, survived the species less
+favorably endowed, and hence persisted. (We have quoted in our initial
+chapter the classical illustration of the dipper-birds from Wallace's
+_"Darwinism."_)
+
+Now, as a matter of fact, we cannot prove that a single species has
+changed. These are the words of Darwin himself, quoted from _"Life and
+Letters,"_ Vol. III, p. 25: "There are two or three million of species
+on earth, sufficient field, one might think, for observation. But it
+must be said to-day that in spite of all the efforts of trained
+observers, not one change of a species into another is on record." Dr.
+N. S. Shaler, Professor of Geology in Harvard, asserts that "it has not
+been proved that a single species has been established solely or even
+mainly by the operation of Natural Selection." Professor Fleischmann, of
+Erlangen, has gone so far as to say that "the Darwinian theory of
+descent has, in the realms of nature, not a single fact to confirm it."
+Dr. Ethridge of the British Museum says: "In all this great museum there
+is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species. Nine-tenths
+of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on
+observation and wholly unsupported by facts." Prof. Owen declares that
+"no instance of change of one species into another has ever been
+recorded by man." Dr. Martin, Sanitaetsrat, of Germany, who has
+conducted some highly technical experiments in the blood reactions of
+various animals and man, on which he bases his conclusions, says: "Since
+Darwin we have been accustomed to consider the concept 'species' as
+something insecure and unstable. The whole organic world must be thought
+of as fluid if the evolution theory is to find room for action. It
+required, indeed, all the great investigator's keenness to fence his
+theory against the difficulty which the lack of transitional forms
+occasioned, and against the fact that the rise of a new species has
+never been observed, much more against the fact that all processes in
+artificial breeding have not sufficed to fix permanently the changes
+which have been attained. We admire the clever structure of the theory,
+but there is no doubt that the obstinacy with which the organism clings
+to its species-characteristics is the point on which it is mortal. One
+is, [tr. note: sic] in fact, as much justified in speaking of a struggle
+to retain these characteristics as to speak of a struggle for existence."
+
+Man has been able greatly to modify many vegetable productions. Witness
+the comparatively recent changes in the potato plant. The small, almost
+worthless tubers of the wild potato have changed, under the force of
+intelligent cultivation, to the large, starchy, nutritious vegetables,
+which furnish so many people a large portion of their food. Mind has
+been at work; mind and nature have changed the size, the quality, the
+productiveness of the _solatium tubcrosum;_ but neither mind nor nature,
+nor both combined, have, so far as we know, ever in the slightest degree
+changed the species. Potatoes are potatoes still, and always will be.
+The present law of vegetation is that intelligent cultivation of almost
+any plant will either change the original in one way or another, or,
+what is more likely, will produce several distinct varieties; but that
+all these changed forms are but mere modifications of the original
+species, and that, when deprived of intelligent cultivation, they all
+tend to revert to the original form. It is true that we see many and
+very diverse varieties of certain species, especially those that have
+received the most attention from the hands of man. The dog, for
+instance, exists as the great, shaggy Newfoundland or St. Bernard, or as
+the tight girted greyhound, as the petted poodle or the despised "yellow
+dog;" but in every case he is a dog, and not a wolf, and his fellow dogs
+recognize him as such, too. Hens differ amazingly; new breeds
+periodically come into existence and into fashion; but turn them loose,
+and they will all seek the barnyard, and soon your fancy breeds will
+become corrupt. They "revert to type." By the exercise of intelligent
+selection and training, man is able to emphasize certain points and to
+produce new breeds, but not to change the essential structure nor to
+alter the specific characteristics. The species are _fixed_. Huxley says:
+
+"If you breed from the male and female of the same race, you of course
+have offspring of the like kind, and if you make the offspring breed
+together, you obtain the same result, and if you breed from these again,
+you will still have the same kind of offspring; there is no check. But
+if you take members of two distinct species, however similar they may be
+to each other, and make them breed together, _you will find a check_. If
+you cross two such species with each other, then--although you may get
+offspring in the case of the first cross, yet, if you attempt to breed
+from the products of that crossing, which are what are called hybrids--
+that is, if you couple a male and a female hybrid--then the result is
+that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at
+all; there will be no result whatsoever.
+
+"The reason of this is quite obvious in some cases; the female hybrids,
+although possessing all the external appearances and characteristics of
+perfect animals, are physiologically imperfect and deficient in the
+structural parts of the reproductive elements necessary to generation.
+It is said to be invariably the case with the male mule, the cross
+between the ass and the mare; and hence it is that although crossing
+the horse with the ass is easy enough, and is constantly done as far as
+I am aware, if you take two mules, a male and a female, and endeavor to
+breed from them, you get no offspring whatever; no generation will take
+place. This is what is called the sterility of the hybrids between two
+distinct species." (Huxley, _"On the Origin of Species."_ p. 212.) He
+continues:
+
+"Thus you see that there is a great difference between 'mongrels,' which
+are crosses between distinct races, and 'hybrids,' which are crosses
+between distinct species. The mongrels are, so far as we know, fertile
+with one another. But between species, in many cases, you cannot succeed
+in obtaining even the first cross; at any rate it is quite certain
+that the hybrids are often absolutely infertile one with another.
+
+"Here is a feature, then, great or small as it may be, which
+distinguishes natural species of animals. Can we find any approximation
+to this in the different races known to be produced by selective
+breeding from a common stock? Up to the present time the answer to that
+question is absolutely a negative one. As far as we know at present,
+there is nothing approximating to this check. In crossing the breeds,
+between the fantail and the pouter, the carrier and the tumbler, or any
+other variety or race you may name--so far as we know at present--there
+is no difficulty in breeding together the mongrels." However, he
+continues, as soon as you remove the conditions which produced the new
+variety,--as when you permit pigeons to mate promiscuously,--no matter
+how different the varieties may have been, you will have, in a few
+generations of pigeons, the same blue rock pigeon with the black bars
+across the wings. No new species has originated. All varieties, in a
+free state, revert to type. "This," says Huxley, "is certainly a very
+remarkable circumstance."
+
+Fairhurst points out the difficulties in which the evolutionist becomes
+involved through the fixity of species. He writes: "It is well known
+that as a rule distinct species will not cross, and that if they do
+cross the offspring are not fertile. On the other hand, it is true that
+all _varieties_ of a species readily cross, producing fertile offspring.
+This has commonly been regarded as a well-defined distinction between
+varieties and species. If the varieties of pigeons which are so
+different from each other did not freely cross, and if the mongrel
+offspring were not fertile, Darwin's argument as to the production of
+new _species_ under domestication would be complete. The fact is, we do
+not know of the origin of any two species of animals that do not cross
+and whose offspring are not fertile; in other words, we do not know of
+the origin of _species,_ but only of _varieties_. The origin of species
+that will not cross and produce fertile offspring is _assumed_ from the
+origin of varieties that do cross and produce fertile offspring. This
+leaves the evolutionists to account for one of the most difficult things
+in connection with this theory, namely, how did varieties of animals of
+the same species become cross-sterile?* [[*So that they were unable to
+interbreed. Only if such cross-sterility exists, could they exist
+thereafter as independent new species.--G.]] Several things must occur
+simultaneously before cross-sterility between parent and offspring
+could occur and become effective, namely, a number of individuals must
+be born at the same time possessing the same variation, the variation
+must be useful, these individuals must be fertile with each other, they
+must be cross-sterile with the parent form," as, otherwise, the
+offspring would revert to type, "and, finally, the few, if any,
+individuals thus produced and being widely scattered through the
+species, must find each other before they could propagate. I regard it
+impossible that these things could all occur simultaneously." (_"Organic
+Evolution,"_ p. 333.)
+
+Mr. Huxley is forced to this admission: "After much consideration, and
+with assuredly no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear
+conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven
+that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species
+in nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or
+natural." And again. "Our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be
+provisional so long as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting; and
+so long as all the animals and plants certainly produced by selective
+breeding from a common stock are fertile with one another, that link
+will be wanting."
+
+In a recent book, _"Creation or Evolution? A Philosophical Inquiry,"_
+George Ticknor Curtis says: "The whole doctrine of the development of
+distinct species out of other species makes demands upon our credulity
+which the [tr. note: sic] irreconcilable with the principles of belief
+by which we regulate, or ought to regulate, our acceptance of new
+matter of belief."
+
+
+CHAPTER FIVE.
+Rudimentary Organs.
+
+Darwinism does not account for the fact that the various organs of
+animals while in process of evolution, must have through many
+generations, been in a rudimentary, incomplete state. Since it is a
+basic doctrine of evolution that useful variations were transmitted from
+parent to offspring _because they were useful_; and since furthermore,
+only the fully developed eye, the hearing ear, the actively functioning
+poison glands of insects and reptiles, etc., as well as the fully
+developed means of defense, were useful, it is not possible to
+understand how these organs in their rudimentary state (the half
+developed eye, not yet capable of vision; the rudimentary spinneret of
+the spider, not yet capable of producing a thread, etc.) could serve
+any purpose which would make their transmission advantageous to the
+species.
+
+Conversely, the existence of rudimentary organs in living species (the
+rudimentary spurs of female birds, the rudimentary legs of skeleton of
+serpents) proves that organs do not change by use or disuse, otherwise
+they would long ago have disappeared.
+
+With regard to this difficulty, Darwin says: "If it could be
+demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly
+have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
+theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case." Let
+us see.
+
+A difficult organ to account for is the electric organ of the skates. In
+these fishes it has been shown to be a true electric battery, but the
+discharges from this battery, even in the adults, are so feeble that
+they are of no practical use so far as has been ascertained. It is well
+known that the electric eel and the torpedo use their batteries for
+stunning other animals. It is evident that, according to the theory of
+natural selection, these batteries could not have been preserved through
+their long functionless and useless stages, for that theory assumes that
+they were preserved because they were useful.
+
+It is asserted by evolutionists that wings as organs of flight have been
+independently evolved in at least four different lines--namely, in
+insects, the fossil pterodactyls, birds and bats. That an organ so
+highly specialized as any one of these wings could be evolved seems
+improbable; while the evolution of the four different kinds,
+independently of each other, only increases the improbability. The
+difficulty, however, is to account for the evolution of any known kind
+of wing. In each case there exists the insuperable difficulty of
+preserving the organ through the rudimentary stages. The wings of an
+insect in the first generation of its evolution would be almost
+imperceptible and entirely useless for any purpose whatever, and so it
+would continue to be for a great number of generations. It is evident,
+therefore, that they could not have been preserved through their long
+rudimentary stage on the ground that they were useful, nor do we know of
+any theory that will account for their evolution. To say that they were
+evolved is easy, but to account for their evolution seems impossible.
+Fairhurst refers to the delicate and complex organs of spiders. "The
+organs which spiders possess for secreting material and for making a web
+could not have been gradually evolved. The whole apparatus involved in
+making the web would be useless until sufficiently developed to make a
+web. The same is true," he continues, "of the sting of the scorpion, the
+stings of bees, the mandibles of spiders with the gland of poisonous
+fluid at the base, and the poison apparatus of serpents. All of these
+glands for secreting poison would be useless until they could secrete a
+harmful fluid. The spurs of birds present further difficulties to the
+theory of evolution. Most birds have no spurs. When they possess them,
+as a rule the males alone have them well-developed, while they are
+rudimentary in the females. In some cases, however, both sexes possess
+them in a well-developed form. But how could a spur be evolved in either
+sex? As a rudiment, it would for many generations be entirely useless
+for any purpose, and consequently it would not be preserved by natural
+selection, nor in any other possible way, so far as I can see. The spurs
+are in the best possible position on the legs for combat. Why did they
+appear in the best place and nowhere else? As useless rudiments they
+would be quite as likely to survive in one place as in another. If spurs
+could not have been preserved by natural selection through their
+rudimentary stage, why assume that they have been evolved according to
+this law? If they could survive through the critical rudimentary period
+till they became of use, why not assume that their evolution was
+continued according to the same law? The fact is, however, that we know
+of no law according to which they could have been evolved." The bat is
+another highly specialized animal. In many respects it resembles the
+mole, but its hands are, enormously expanded, and the exceedingly long
+fingers are connected by a soft membrane, making a most serviceable wing.
+It is not extremely likely, assuming the development theory to be true,
+that both the mole and the bat sprang from a common ancestor? And was
+not that ancestor probably a wingless, though not a legless mammal? Now,
+how came the bat to acquire his wings? Did he attempt to spring into the
+air and seize a passing insect, and reach out his paws to catch it? And
+did those paws gradually become enlarged, till, after some generations,
+they were real wings? But what happened in the meantime to those
+connecting links whose wings were but partly developed? A bat with wings
+only half grown would be a helpless creature, and would surely perish. A
+mole with hands terminating in long, slender fingers, would be helpless,
+and would perish. There is no middle ground. If the ancestor of the bat
+was a terrestrial creature, with limbs fitted for walking, then it must
+have given birth to a full-fledged bat, fitted for flying. There could
+have been no middle stage, for such a creature would have been helpless,
+and must have perished.
+
+All this applies with equal force to the diversified and often highly
+complex structure of plants. As the organs of the various plants are now
+constituted, they most admirably serve their purpose. Given a slight
+change, an underdevelopment, and the individual would perish. But such
+underdeveloped stages must have occurred in the history of every
+life-form on earth, if a change through slow adaptations is to be
+accepted as a hypothesis to account for their present form. To our mind,
+this matter of rudimentary structures presents an insuperable obstacle
+to acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis even on scientific grounds.
+
+
+CHAPTER SIX.
+Instinct.
+
+How the various instincts of animals, the homing instinct of birds and
+insects, the building instincts, the migrating instinct, etc., could
+have been developed though forces working by natural selection or any
+other law, is a question which has called forth much discussion. It
+cannot be said that the explanations contained in the pages of Darwin,
+Romanes, and Spencer are satisfying. The difficulty that remains
+unsolved is similar to that (already considered) of rudimentary
+structures. On instinct depends the existence of most animals.
+According to the theory these instincts have been developed by slow
+degrees. Hence there must have been a time when these instincts,
+because not yet completely developed, were useless to the animal. But
+if useless, the animal must have perished. The strength of this
+objection to the evolutionary hypothesis will become clear from a brief
+study of the manner in which animal life is bound up with the proper
+functioning of instinct.
+
+Consider, for instance, the dependence of the honey bee and her hive on
+the functions, every one instinctive, of queen, workers, and drones.
+There is the queen, whose sole work is to lay eggs; the drones, or
+males, whose function it is to fertilize the queen; and the workers,
+which are females undeveloped sexually. In these three kinds of
+individuals we see a combination of many most remarkable instincts and
+peculiarities of structure which look to the good of the community. How
+could they have been produced by evolution? The workers are sterile and
+leave no offspring, consequently their instincts cannot be inherited
+from bees of their own class. Each generation of workers is isolated
+from all succeeding generations. A colony of bees is not like a
+community of civilized human beings in whom many of the wants are
+artificial, and which may remain unsupplied, with simply a certain
+amount of discomfort, but the wants which the instincts of bees supply
+are imperative, and, therefore, the instincts themselves, as a whole,
+are necessary to the existence of the bees. Their instincts are all
+linked together as a necessary chain, so that if one should fail the
+community would perish. Each kind of work is perfectly done, and yet the
+workers are totally unconscious as to what will be the result of their
+labors. For the most part they work for future generations of their
+colony, and not for themselves, and yet they are as careful and diligent
+as if they were guided by the highest intelligence and the most selfish
+motives [tr. note: sic no punctuation]. Fairhurst, whom we are quoting,
+adds: "There is nothing more wonderful and mysterious in nature than the
+instincts of bees. What can be more remarkable than that instinct of the
+workers which causes them to prevent the queen from stinging to death
+the young queens in their cells? Here we see the instinct of the workers
+opposing that of the queen, and thus saving the colony and insuring the
+propagation of the species. And yet at other but proper times the
+workers permit the old queen to kill the young ones in their cells. How
+could these instincts in the workers, which act in exactly opposite ways
+by just the right times for the welfare of the community, have ever been
+evolved? Or how could that instinct have arisen which causes two queens
+when engaged in combat to refrain from inflicting the mortal sting if
+they would mutually destroy each other, and thus leave the hive without
+a queen?--acting as if they knew that the life of one of them was
+necessary for the welfare of the community."
+
+Concerning the modifications of structure and the instincts necessary to
+produce the web of the spider, Fairhurst quotes the following from
+Orton's _"Zoology."_ "Spiders are provided at the posterior end with two
+or three pairs of appendages called spinnerets, which are homologous
+(correspond structually) [tr. note: sic] with legs. The office of the
+spinnerets is to reel out the silk from the silk-glands, the tip being
+perforated by a myriad of little tubes through which the silk escapes in
+excessively fine threads. An ordinary thread, just visible to the naked
+eye, is the union of a thousand or more of these delicate streams of
+silk. These primary threads are drawn out and united by the hind legs."
+From this we see that two special glands, capable of secreting a soft
+material that can be readily drawn into the finest threads of the
+greatest strength, requiring no perceptible time for drying, and two to
+four spinnerets perforated by more than a thousand of the smallest
+apertures, and hind legs modified so that they can be used to draw out
+the web through the spinnerets, and also the instincts which enable the
+spider to use its web to advantage, must all have been evolved. To
+evolve the silk glands would have required, as for most other organs, a
+long period of incipiency, during which they would have been useless.
+We can not assume that a substance so exceptional in its character as
+the web of the spider could have been suddenly produced by evolution.
+But the glands would be useless without spinnerets. The hypothesis asks
+us to assume that two or three pairs of legs that were probably at one
+time useful for locomotion became so modified that they could perform
+the function of spinnerets. But in what conceivable way could
+locomotive legs have become so modified and pierced with more than a
+thousand apertures through which the web is drawn? And how could these
+organs serve their purpose while the complex instincts required for
+their functioning were only in course of development?
+
+From a German monthly devoted to aquaria, we quote the following: "But
+now, dear readers, we come to a fish which shows an exceptionally
+peculiar and touching care for its young--the mouth-brooder,
+_Haplochromis Strigigena_ (formerly _Paratilapia Multicolor_). This
+fish is so much concerned about the safety of its young, that it knows
+no better and no more secure place than its own mouth in which to
+preserve them. In no other division of the animal kingdom can we find
+such an interesting example of fostering care for the young as we find
+in this species of fish. Immediately after emitting the spawn the female
+again gathers up the eggs and packs them away in her mouth like herring
+in a barrel. She naturally must employ the organs of the throat and also
+the organs between the gills and thus the appearance of the animal is
+greatly changed even to the extent that it looks very much like as if
+she had a craw. Furthermore, during ths [tr. note: sic] entire period,
+which is about fourteen days, the little animal cannot take food and is
+hampered very much in her movements. Therefore in case of imminent
+danger it becomes necessary for her to cast out the entire brood which
+then wretchedly perish, and for this reason it is to be recommended to
+disturb or disquiet these animals during this period as little as
+possible. Even after the young leave the mother of their own accord,
+they always flee to her protecting mouth, and thus they present an
+exciting aspect, when they are first seen peacefully and contentedly
+playing about the mother fish, until a shadow or a sudden thrust warns
+them of danger and quick as lightning they dart into her mouth.
+
+"If the fostering care of this mouth-brooding fish is regarded as
+wonderful and singular, what should one then say, if another fish is
+spoken of which does not regard this kind of protection as sufficient,
+and which therefore causes its eggs to hatch outside the surface of the
+water.  The exceedingly adorned and elegant _Phyrrhylima Filamentosa_
+performs this masterpiece of truest love. With great dexerity [tr. note:
+sic] this fish darts from 5 to 7 cm. above the surface of the water and
+there fastens its eggs on the walls of the aquarium--usually in one
+corner. Even though one must and can preserve damp air by covering the
+aquarium, the spawn would nevertheless surely dry up, if the fish itself
+were not constantly concerned to keep the spawn damp by an extended
+bombardment of little drops of water. In the performance of this act the
+fish remains near the surface of the water and then by a quick upward
+movement of the fins of the tail it throws a drop of water upon the
+spawn in such an expert manner as is truly admirable. One must also
+keep in mind here that the spawn require from three to five days for
+hatching, and now one can understand what a huge task this little fish
+performs and what efforts are required. Later on the young hatch and
+then slide down the slick wall of the aquarium into their native
+element."  (V. Schloemp in _"Blaetter fuer Aquarien und Terrarienkunde,"_
+Stuttgart, Sept. 1913.)
+
+In all the domain of natural science there are no wonders more amazing
+than those of instinct. The subject is simply inexhaustible. Moreover,
+every animal is absolutely dependent on instinctively performed actions
+and habits. The life-story of many wasps, of the various ants,--someone
+has called the brain of the ant the most wonderful speck of protoplasm
+in the world,--and of the insects generally, is bound up with instincts
+that partly interlock marvellously with the life-story of plants, and
+which are, even viewed in themselves, the greatest wonders of creation.
+The questions insistently call for an answer: How could these instincts
+preserve the animal when they were still in an incipient, undeveloped
+state? How could they arise through natural selection (which is simply
+_accident,_ of course), at all? Darwin says that there are instincts
+"almost identically the same in animals so remote in the scale of
+Nature, that we cannot account for their similarity by inheritance from
+a common progenitor, and consequently must believe that they were
+independently acquired through natural selection." Again he says "Many
+instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear
+to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overcome my whole theory."
+
+And here, in the vernacular of the day, we would depose that Mr. Darwin
+_"said something."_
+
+
+CHAPTER SEVEN.
+Heredity.
+
+The subject of heredity is intimately bound up with the evolutionary
+hypothesis and, it must be admitted, creates a new difficulty for the
+acceptance of the theory. Indeed, the laws of heredity, so far as
+understood, appear to contradict the theory of Lamarck and Darwin at a
+vital point, if not at _the_ vital point of the entire structure raised
+in the _"Origin of Species."_ It is necessary in order to appreciate the
+strength of this objection, to recall once more the outstanding features
+of the hypothesis by which scientists have attempted to account for the
+variety of living forms. The various theories of organic evolution,
+whether Lamarckian, neo-Lamarckian, or Darwinian, are based upon the
+assumption that animals and plants have a tendency to perpetuate by
+transmission to offspring a variation which has proven useful as an aid
+to the particular species in its struggle for existence. We have just
+discussed, in the chapters on the Fixity of Species and on Rudimentary
+Organs, certain difficulties which loom up when the question is raised,
+How did varieties become distinct species? However, even if it were to
+be assumed that some satisfying answer might be found to this question
+so far as the stages of incomplete organs are concerned, there is one
+fact in heredity which, it would seem to me, strikes at the very heart
+of the theory.
+
+In his _"Philosophic Zoologique"_ (1809), Lamarck first explicitly
+formulated his ideas as to the transmutation of species, though he had
+outlined them as early as 1801. The changes in the species have been
+wrought, he said, through the unceasing efforts of each organism to meet
+the needs imposed upon it by its environment. Constant striving means
+the constant use of certain organs, and such use leads to the
+development of those organs. Thus a bird running by the sea-shore is
+constantly tempted to wade deeper and deeper in pursuit of food; its
+incessant efforts tend to develop its legs, in accordance with the
+observed principle that the use of any organ tends to strengthen and
+develop it. But such slightly increased development of the legs is
+_transmitted to the offspring_ of the bird, which in turn develops its
+already improved legs by its individual efforts, and transmits the
+improved tendency. Generation after generation this is repeated, until
+the sum of the infinitesimal variations, all in the same direction,
+results in the production of the long-legged wading-bird. In a similar
+way, through individual effort and _transmitted tendency,_ all the
+diversified organs of all creatures have been developed--the fin of the
+fish, the wings of the bird, the hand of man; nay, more, the fish
+itself, the bird, the man, even.
+
+Note well, the fundamental assumption is that such acquired
+characteristics,--greater length of leg, or of neck, a coating of hair,
+a protective coloring, etc.,--however acquired, can be transmitted
+from the parent animal possessing them, to its offspring. The question
+arises: Can such characteristics be transmitted? And the students of
+heredity answer: They _cannot!_
+
+I find in G. Archibald Reid _"Alcoholism, a Study in Heredity,"_ a
+lucid exposition of this subject. (Reid is a F. R. S. E. His book was
+published by T. Fisher Unwin, London, a few yars [tr. note: sic] ago.)
+
+"All the characters of a living being, every physical structure and
+every mental trait, may be placed in one of two categories. Either
+they are inborn or they are acquired. An inborn or innate character is
+one which, in common parlance, arises in the individual 'by nature.'
+Thus arms, legs, eyes, ears, head, etc., and all inborn characters.
+The child inherits them from his parent. But, if during its
+development, or after the completion of the development any one of the
+inborn characters of an individual is modified by some occurrence, the
+change thus produced is known as an acquired character, or, shortly,
+as an acquirement.
+
+"Thus all the effects of exercise are acquirements; for example the
+enlargement which exercise causes in muscles. The effects of lack of
+exercise are also acquirements; for example, the wasting of a disused
+muscle.
+
+"The effects of injury are acquirements; for example, the changes in a
+diseased lung or injured arm. Every modification of the mind is also an
+acquirement; for example, everything stored within the memory.
+
+"If a man be blinded by accident or disease, his blindness is acquired.
+But if he comes into the world blind, if he be blind by nature, his
+blindness is inborn. If a son be naturally smaller than his father, then
+his inferiority of size is inborn; but if his growth be stunted by ill
+health or lack of nourishment or exercise, his inferiority is acquired.
+
+"Lamarck held, as people in all ages have held, that characters acquired
+by parents are also transmissible to some extent, and that evolution
+results from their accentuation during succeeding generations. _Lamarck's
+theory is rejected totally by the modern followers of Darwin_.
+
+"Ten thousand men might break their fingers, yet among their offspring
+not one might have a crooked finger. Consider on the other hand for how
+many generations women have bored their ears and noses in India. Yet
+when is a girl born with ears and nose already pierced? For how many
+generations have we amputated the tails of terriers, and yet their
+tails are no shorter. It will then be perceived how overwhelming is the
+case against the doctrine of the transmission of acquirements.
+
+"The general question of the transmission of acquirements is too big
+and too abstruse to be treated adequately here. Two arguments more I
+may use, however, partly because they have not been developed, to my
+knowledge, by other writers, and partly because they seem to me
+well-nigh decisive. The more than normal development of the
+blacksmith's arm is rightfully called an acquired trait, since it
+arises from exercise, from use, not from germinal conditions. But no
+infant's arm develops into an ordinary adult arm without exercise
+similar in kind to that which develops the blacksmith's arm, though
+less in degree.
+
+"Every single thing contained within the memory of man, every single
+word of a language, for instance, is an acquirement. But when are the
+contents of a parent's mind transmitted to the child?
+
+"Again, a man is capable of becoming a parent at any time between
+extreme youth and extreme old age; a woman from the age of thirteen to
+fourteen till nearly fifty. Between the birth of the first child and the
+last such an individual changes vastly. Under stress and fear of
+circumstances, under the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, all
+sorts of acquirements are made. The body becomes vigorous and then
+feeble, the mind grows mature, and then senile. He or she grows
+wrinkled and bowed and perhaps very wise, or perhaps much the reverse.
+Yet no one viewing a baby show, a children's party, or an assembly of
+adults, of whom he has no previous knowledge, can say which is the
+child of the youthful and which of aged parents.
+
+"Apparently, therefore, the whole of the parent's acquirements have no
+effect on the child. _Surely no evidence could be stronger."_* [[* The
+undoubted transmission of siphilis [tr. note: sic] to off-spring might
+be regarded as a case of transmission of an acquired characteristic. But
+the case is not in point since congenital siphilis [tr. note: sic] is,
+properly, due to a prenatal infection, the bacillus entering the very
+germ-plasm of the human ovum (egg). Medical science, generally, has
+become very cautious in the use of the word "hereditary." There is
+almost unanimity among medical men in the denial of heredity as a factor
+in tuberculosis and cancer. Most physicians are honest enough to say
+that they know considerably less about these things than was "known" ten
+and twenty years ago.]]
+
+Herbert Spencer claims that "the inheritance of acquired characters" is
+a necessary supplement to natural selection. "Close contemplation of
+the facts impresses me more strongly than ever with the two
+alternatives--either there has been inheritance of acquired characters,
+or there has been no evolution." Again, "the inheritance of acquired
+characters, which it is now the fashion of the biological world to deny,
+was by Mr. Darwin fully recognized and often insisted on." "The
+neo-Darwinists, however, do not admit this cause at all." He admits that
+known facts which show that acquired characters are inherited are few,
+but he thinks that they are "as large a number as can be expected,
+considering the difficulty of observing them and the absence of search."
+From the above, we see that the biological world is against Mr.
+Spencer's view; that he would abandon the theory of evolution unless
+acquired characters had been inherited, but that facts in support of
+this theory are meager. "Biologists in the above instance, as well as in
+others, differ in theory as to fundamental principles of evolution. He
+who imagines that the theory of organic evolution has been proved to the
+point of demonstration, has but to read the contentions of evolutionists
+themselves with regard to the most important things involved in the
+theory, in order to satisfy his mind that there is great diversity of
+opinion." (Fairhurst.)
+
+The general abandonment of the Darwinian hypothesis by biologists,
+adverted to in our next chapter, is mainly due to the failure of
+heredity to account for the gradual modification of organs and of
+habits.
+
+Various expedients are resorted to by Haeckel and a few others in their
+attempts to bolster up a theory which has broken so signally on the
+rock of heredity. Principal among these is the reference to unlimited
+time. It is asserted that, after all, such minute differences might, in
+the course of many ages, result in new and more perfect organs. However,
+here a new and unexpected difficulty presents itself. The physicist, who
+has measured the heat of the sun, rises up and says that the age of the
+earth, as estimated by specialists like Lord Kelvin, is not nearly so
+great as is demanded by the Darwinian. The period which the physicists,
+in their mercy, appear to be willing to grant the inhabitable globe is
+from twenty to forty million years. But the evolutionists maintain with
+great fervor that this period is far too short for the production of
+such complicated types of organism as now live on the earth; they demand
+from two hundred to a thousand million years! And so these two groups of
+scientists, the evolutionistic biologist and the physicists are
+hopelessly at odds.
+
+A new generation of evolutionists has within the past twenty years
+arisen which holds that the changes in the organizations of plants and
+animals do not come by slow growth of favorable characteristics, but
+arise suddenly. Such is the "Mutation" theory of Hugo de Vries. But
+science has failed to receive this and similar theories with the same
+acclaim which once greeted Darwin's _"Origin of Species."_ Naturalists
+have become cautious. They remember the inglorious collapse of the
+Darwinian regime and they are slow to hail another "Abraham of
+scientific thought." They are, in a general way, believers in some kind
+of evolution; but they prefer not to specify exactly the laws which
+have been operative in past "geological time." It is only in high-school
+texts in physical geography, zoology, and botany, that the evolutionary
+theory as propounded by Darwin is still treated as if it enjoyed among
+scientific men the same respect as the multiplication table. Speaking in
+the Darwinian dialect we should say that the authors of these
+school-texts constitute a case of "arrested development."
+
+
+CHAPTER EIGHT.
+A Scientific Creed Outworn.
+
+The preceding chapter concludes our investigation of that stage of
+evolutionistic thought which owes its origin and name to Charles Darwin.
+The question suggests itself, do scientists to-day believe as Darwin did?
+A great many do. Darwin remains to many scientists what Huxley, I think,
+called him, the "Abraham of scientific thought." But if we examine the
+roster of these, we find that they belong, with a single exception
+(Haeckel), to those whose departments of investigation have nothing to do
+with the study of life forms (biology, zoology, botany), and who
+consequently do not speak from first hand knowledge of the facts.
+Anthropologists (students of the races of man), sociologists,
+psychologists, and many educated persons generally, accept the Darwinian
+scheme of evolution as a fact and build their theories on it in turn.
+They accept the theory and ask no question. The vogue which Darwinism
+still enjoys among writers of school-texts has already been noted.
+
+However, the specifically Darwinian phase of evolutionistic thought, as
+laid down in Spencer's interminable volumes, for instance, is given up
+by reputable biologists the world over. There is pretty much of a Babel
+among them, when it comes to a definition of evolution. There are dozens
+of theories,--mutation, orthogenesis, Weismanism, Mendelianism, etc.,--
+and each has its adherents,--but they agree in one thing, that "Natural
+Selection" does not account for the forms of life on earth to-day.
+
+The revolt against "Natural Selection" came some forty years ago. It was
+announced in two famous declarations by Spencer and Huxley. This
+constitutes one of the most remarkable and important, as well as one of
+the most significant episodes, in the history of evolution. In two of
+the most remarkable essays which ever appeared in the _"Nineteenth
+Century"_ magazine, now over thirty years ago, Herbert Spencer stepped
+on to the stool of repentance and read his recantation and renunciation
+of the doctrine of natural selection and the survival of the fittest;
+first doing vicarious penance (unauthorized, however) for Darwin, and
+then, in no uncertain terms, for himself. There was no mistaking
+Spencer's meaning. His language was explicit. "The phrases (natural
+selection and survival of the fittest) employed in discussing organic
+evolution," he told his readers, "though convenient and needful, are
+liable to mislead by veiling the actual agencies." "The words 'natural
+selection,' do not express a cause in the physical sense." "Kindred
+objections," he continues, "may be urged against the expression into
+which I was led when seeking to present the phenomena in literal terms
+rather than metaphorical terms--'the survival of the fittest.' In the
+working together of those many actions, internal and external, which
+determine the lives and deaths of organisms, we see nothing to which the
+words 'fitness' and 'unfitness' are applicable in the physical sense."
+And he continues: "Evidently, the word 'fittest' as thus used _is a
+figure of speech."_ Had the sun fallen from the heavens the shock to the
+followers of Darwin could not have been more stunning than this open
+apostasy from the Darwinian faith.
+
+Nor was this all. New surprises were still in store for the faithful who
+still clung to the cherished dogma. Now they find their faith itself
+assailed, and this, too, by these very selfsame leaders, who had been at
+such pains to make them proselytes. There can be little doubt that
+misgivings regarding the truth of their claims began to haunt the
+champions of the Darwinian hypothesis. They were just then masters of
+the whole field of scientific thought. They had brought all science to
+the feet of Darwin. The few benighted dissenters who still held out
+against the doctrine were looked upon as not worthy even of contempt.
+The whole world had adopted the creed of evolution. Was it wantonness
+then, or was it conscience, that prompted Huxley in what is now a
+historically famous speech, delivered at the unveiling of a statue to
+Darwin in the Museum at South Kensington, to openly declare that it
+would be wrong to suppose "that an authoritative sanction was given by
+the ceremony to the current ideas concerning evolution?" Well might his
+hearers be astonished! But they must have held their breath, when they
+heard him add boldly and bluntly, in no uncertain tones, that "science
+commits suicide when it adopts a creed." A creed, indeed! What had
+science been doing in the field of evolution ever since Darwin has given
+his doctrine to the world, but proclaiming its faith in the Darwinian
+creed?
+
+There was no blinking the inevitable conclusions. Both Huxley on the
+platform and Spencer in the _"Nineteenth Century"_ had acknowledged
+before the whole world that they had lost faith in the idol which for
+thirty years they had so vociferously worshipped. It is true that both
+Spencer and Huxley might have intended to warn biologists merely against
+a too implicit faith in natural selection or the survival of the
+fittest. But even so, the position of their followers was little to be
+envied. Their leaders had confidently assured them that Darwin had given
+to the world coveted knowledge never known until he had discovered it.
+This had been loudly and confidently proclaimed from the housetops of
+science; and now--strange reversal--those same leaders tell them that
+their preachments were of a faith without foundation.
+
+The words of Professor Osborn may be adduced: "Between the appearance of
+_'The Origin of Species'_ in 1859 and the present time there have been
+great waves of faith in one explanation and then in another; each of
+these waves of confidence has ended in disappointment, until finally we
+have reached a stage of very general scepticism. Thus the long period of
+observation, experiment and reasoning which began with the French
+philosopher Buffon, one hundred and fifty years ago, ends in 1916 with
+the general feeling that our search for causes, far from being near
+completion, has only just begun."
+
+Sir William Dawson, of Montreal, the eminent geologist, said that the
+evolution doctrine is "one of the strangest phenomena of humanity, a
+system destitute of any shadow of proof," (_"Story of the Earth and
+Man,"_ p. 317). Even Professor Tyndall in an article in the
+_"Fortnightly Review"_ said: "There ought to be a clear distinction made
+between science in the state of hypothesis and science in the state of
+fact. And inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage the ban of
+exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of Evolution. I agree with
+Virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting, that the failures have
+been lamentable, that the doctrine is utterly discredited."
+
+One of the ablest evolutionists today is Professor Henslow, formerly
+President of the British Association. In his book, _"Modern Rationalism
+Critically Examined,"_ he shows that Darwinian natural selection is
+absolutely inadequate to account for existing facts.
+
+Professor Bateson, who gave the Presidential Address at the Meeting of
+the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1914, bore
+striking testimony to the modifications made by recent science in
+connection with the Darwinian theory. This is what he said among other
+things: "The principle of natural selection cannot have been the chief
+factor in delimiting the species of animals and plants. We go to Darwin
+for his incomparable collection of facts. We would fain emulate his
+scholarship, his width and his power of exposition, but to us he speaks
+no more with philosophical authority. We have done with the notion that
+Darwin came latterly to favor, that large differences can arise by
+accumulation of small differences."
+
+St. George Mivart as long as thirty years ago wrote an exhaustive
+treatise entitled, _"The Genesis of Species,"_ in which he subjects the
+Darwinian hypothesis to a searching examination, and discards it as
+unproven in every particular and contradicted by the facts of nature in
+many points. He called it "a puerile (childish) hypothesis."
+
+Professor H. H. Gran of Christiana University, an expert in biology,
+says he believes in evolution, but declares Darwin's explanation of it
+to be inadequate. His words are: "Darwin collected a great mass of stuff
+both from the animal as well as from the vegetable kingdom, but these
+collections were not thoroughly sifted and cannot be used as the basis
+of theoretical conclusions as Darwin did."
+
+Prof. Fleischman, of Erlangen, says: "There is not a single fact to
+confirm Darwinism in the realm of Nature." Drs. E. Dennert, Hoppe and
+von Hartmann; Profs. Paulson and Rutemeyer, and the talented scientists
+Zoeckler and Max Wundt, have given Darwinism up. Men like our own H. F.
+Osborn may still cling to the beloved theory and furnish imaginary
+pictures of ape-men as proof, in recent books; but hear Prof. Ernest
+Haeckel himself: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the
+conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism,
+is an error, and cannot be maintained." This was said some years before
+the Great War. Other names (Friedmann, de Cyon) might be added.
+
+The present attitude of naturalists toward the theory may be learned
+from a symposium by a number of eminent writers in a recent number of
+the "Biblical World" (February, 1913), on the theme, "Has Evolution
+Collapsed?"
+
+Prof. Moulton, of Chicago, says: "The essence of evolution is that the
+order which exists one day changes into the order which will exist on
+succeeding days, in a systematic manner, rather than in an irregular
+and chaotic one." This states the theory, but adds a mere platitude,
+for all believe that the universe is orderly and not chaotic. The real
+question is, What is the nature and the cause of the prevailing order?
+This question he does not attempt to answer.
+
+Prof. Lillie, of Chicago, tells us that there are "differences in
+opinion among recent investigators concerning the method of evolution,"
+and says: "Opinion in reference to this matter is in a state of flux."
+
+Prof. Mathews, of Chicago, says: "While the fact of evolution is
+universally admitted, the means by which evolution is brought to pass
+are uncertain."
+
+Prof. Patten, of Darmouth, says: "As for biologists, they are now
+farther from agreement as to what constitutes the processes and
+conditions essential to organic evolution, * * * [tr. note: sic] than
+they were a generation ago."
+
+Prof. Mall, of Johns Hopkins, says: "It is true that gradual evolution,
+as advocated by Darwin, is seriously questioned by those who believe
+that it takes place by 'rapid jumps.'"
+
+Prof. Williston, of Chicago, says: "The causes of organic evolution are
+still an unsolved problem; and he will be a greater man than Darwin, who
+finally demonstrates them."
+
+Thus these recognized authorities, while accepting the theory, add many
+limitations and admit that the "method," the "manner," the "process,"
+the "conditions" and the "causes" of the movement are still unknown.
+What, then, remains of the theory? Not much but the name.
+
+
+CHAPTER NINE.
+Man.
+
+"There is no longer any doubt among scientists that man descended from
+the animals." This sweeping statement was made in 1920 by Edwin Grant
+Conklin professor of biology in Princeton University. And so
+evolutionists generally, while giving up geology as hopeless in regard
+to the evolution of plants and animals, cling to the doctrine that man
+has ascended, through long ages of development, from the brute. We have
+seen that Wallace and other profound students of the subject recognize
+the essential difference between the faculties of man and the instincts
+of animals. They admit that forces resident in matter do not account for
+the origin of Thought. They believe that Spirit,--God,--created
+something new when intelligence first entered the brain of man. But even
+Wallace holds that the human body is a product of evolution; that there
+was a common brute ancestor, both for apes and the men. The search for
+the missing link between man and his animal ancestor is still going on.
+As soon as any human remains are dug up in the earth, evolutionists
+begin to measure the skull and bones, and to find how many points of
+resemblance they have to the apes. If the brain-pan is a bit shallow, or
+small, or the eyebrows prominent, or the slope of the face acute, or the
+teeth and jaws large, they announce with much confidence that the
+"missing link" has been found. But after a while they begin to grow more
+modest and end in finding other points which show that the specimen was
+an unmistakable ape, or an unmistakable man, and not something between
+the two. One could fill a museum with discarded missing links; and yet
+men refuse to learn caution, and repeat their shoutings every time a new
+find is announced. It will be instructive to pass in review a few of the
+more famous prehistoric remains of man which have at one time and
+another been declared undeniable proof of a development, through
+intermediate stages, of the human body from the body of a brute.
+
+_Pithecanthropus Erectus_ is the name invented by Haeckel for the
+"missing link," and given by Dr. Eugene Du Bois, a Dutch physician, to
+certain remains discovered by him on the island of Java in 1891. The
+remains consist of "an imperfect cranium, a femur bearing evidence of
+prolonged disease, and a molar tooth." (Dana, _"Manual of Geology,"_ p.
+1036.) The discoverer of these bones believed that they are the remains
+of a being between the man-apes and man. Prof. Virchow and other
+specialists in anatomy examined this find. It was established that the
+femur was found a year after the cranium. Some regard the remains as
+belonging to a low-grade man or to an idiot. (Dana, _I c_.) The cubic
+measurement of the skull is 60 cubic inches, about that of an idiot,
+that of a normal man being 90 cubic inches and that of an ape 30. These
+specimens were found in separate places. The skull is too small for the
+thigh-bone. The age of the strata in which they were found is uncertain.
+An authority of the first rank, Prof. Klaatsch, of Heidelberg University,
+says that the creature "does not supply the missing link."
+
+Dr. Smith Woodward and Dr. Charles Dawson, in reconstructing a man from
+the _Piltdown skull_, discovered in 1912 on Piltdown Common, near
+Ucksfield, Sussex, England, built up something essentially monkey-like,
+with receding forehead, projecting brows, and a gorilla-like lower jaw.
+Prof. Keith, a renowned specialist, checking up on this reconstruction,
+comes to an entirely different conclusion. He finds that the work of Drs.
+Dawson and Woodward was done "in open defiance of all that scientists
+know about skulls, whether ancient or modern." His words are: "I soon saw
+that the parts of the reconstructed Piltdown skull had been apposed in a
+manner which was in open defiance of all that was known of skulls,
+ancient and modern, human and anthropoid. Articulating the bones in a
+manner which has been accepted by all anatomists in all times, I found
+that the brain-chamber, instead of measuring 1,070 cubic cm., as in Dr.
+Smith Woodward's reconstruction, measured 1,500 cubic cm.,--a large brain
+chamber for even modern man."
+
+The _Neanderthal skull_ was found in 1856 in the neighborhood of
+Duesseldorf by Dr. Fuhlrott, of Elberfeld. When the skull and other parts
+of the skeleton were exhibited at a scientific meeting held at Bonn the
+same year, a wide divergence of opinion at once developed among the
+specialists. By some, doubts were expressed as to the human character of
+the remains. Others held that the remains indicate a person of much the
+same stature as a European of the present day, but with such an unusual
+thickness in some of them as betokened a being of very extraordinary
+strength. Dr. Meyer, of Bonn, regarded the skull as the remains of a
+Cossack killed in 1814. Other scientists agreed with him. Modern science
+accepts the antiquity of the Neanderthal man, but the controversy has
+never ceased. The great Virchow declared the peculiarities of the bones
+to be the result of disease.
+
+Near Liege, in Belgium, not more than seventy miles from the Neanderthal,
+the _Engis skull_ was found. After careful measurement it was proved not
+to differ materially from the skulls of modern Europeans.
+
+Such experiences should prevent us from making any assertions respecting
+the primitive character, in race or physical conformation, of these
+cave-dwellers. Indeed. Prof. Huxley, in a very careful and elaborate
+paper upon the Neanderthal and Engis skulls, places an average skull of
+a modern native of Australia about half-way between those of the
+Neanderthal and Engis caves. Yes, he says that, after going through a
+large collection of Australian skulls, he "found it possible to select
+from these crania two (connected by all sorts of intermediate
+gradations), the one of which should very nearly resemble the Engis
+skull, while the other would somewhat less closely approximate to the
+Neanderthal skull in size, form, and proportions." "The Engis skull,
+perhaps the oldest known, is," according to Prof. Huxley, "a fair
+average skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might have
+contained the thoughtless brain of a savage." In this opinion Mr. Huxley
+is supported by one of the greatest anthropologists of his time, Daniel
+G. Brinton, who says concerning the cave-man of France and Belgium:
+"Neither in stature, cranial capacity, nor in muscular development did
+these earliest members of the species differ more from those now living
+than do these among themselves. We have no grounds for assigning to
+these earliest known men an inferior brain or a lower intelligence than
+is seen among various savage tribes still in existence."
+
+Every new find, upon investigation, proves the truth of Virchow's words:
+"We must really acknowledge that there is a complete absence of any
+fossil type of a lower stage in the development of man. Nay, if we gather
+together all the fossil men hitherto found, and put them parallel with
+those of the present time, we can decidedly pronounce that there are
+among living men a much greater proportion of individuals which show a
+relatively inferior type than there are among the fossils known up to
+this time. . . . Every positive progress which we haw made in the region
+of prehistoric anthropology has removed us farther from the demonstration
+of this theory!"
+
+Quite recently (in 1913) a remarkable fossil was found in the Oldoway
+gulch in northern German East Africa, by an expedition of the Geological
+Institute of the University of Berlin. The remains consist of a complete
+skeleton, which was found deeply imbedded in firm soil. Unquestionably
+ancient as these remains are,--the bones are completely fossilized,--they
+contained lamentably few "primitive characteristics," and hence have not
+been exploited in the interest of the evolutionary theory. A fragment of
+skull, a tooth, a thigh-bone, offer much more inviting fields to the
+evolutionists, since they permit his imagination to range without the
+restraint of fact. The Oldoway fossil, which is in every essential
+respect a normal human skeleton, possesses no special attractions for
+those who would represent man as a descendant of brutish ancestors.
+
+Says Prof. Virchow: "We seek in vain for the missing link; there exists
+a definite barrier separating man from the animal which has not yet been
+effaced--heredity, which transmits to children the faculties of the
+parents. We have never seen a monkey bring a man into the world, nor a
+man produce a monkey. All men having a Simian (monkey-like) appearance
+are simply pathological variants, (abnormal varieties, due to some
+diseased condition). It was generally believed a few years ago that
+there existed a few human races which still remained in the primitive
+inferior condition of their organization. But all these races have been
+objects of minute investigation, and we know that they have an
+organization like ours, often, indeed, superior to that of the supposed
+higher races. Thus the Eskimo head and the head of the Terra del
+Fuegians belong to the perfected types. All the researches undertaken
+with the aim of finding continuity in progressive development have been
+without result. There exists no proanthrope, no man-monkey, and the
+'connecting link' remains a phantom."
+
+Dr. Berndt, of Berlin, recently said in the _"Naturwissenschaftliche
+Rundschau der Chemikerseitung"_ (April, 1914): "Max Weber, one of the
+best authorities on mammals, regards the anthropoid apes of to-day as a
+branch _parallel_ to the human branch. Scholars like Cope, Adloeff,
+Klaatsch, prefer to push the origin of man back to the earliest age of
+terrestrial life, whence he went his way _from the very outset_ separate
+from the apes." This is a highly significant utterance. It means nothing
+more than this: there is not one recognizable link which unites man with
+the animal kingdom. All the intermediate forms between man and the
+original jelly-fish, which according to Haeckel and Vogt was his
+ancestor, have disappeared. For their existence we have nothing but the
+word of speculative scientists.
+
+Concerning the Neanderthaler, the Cro-Magnon man. etc., Dr. Dawson has
+said: "Geological evidence resolves itself into a calculation of the
+rate of erosion of river valleys, of deposition of gravel and
+cave-earths, and of formation of stalagmite crusts, all of which are so
+variable and uncertain that, though it may be said that an impression
+of great antiquity beyond the time of received history has been left on
+the minds of geologists, no absolute antiquity has been proved; and
+while some, on such evidence, would stretch the antiquity of man to
+even half a million years, the oldest of these remains may, after all,
+not exceed our traditional six thousand. These skeletons tell us that
+primitive man had the same high cerebral organization which he
+possesses now, and we may infer the same high intellectual and moral
+nature, fitting him for communication with God and headship over the
+lower world." Similarly Figuier held that "we know of no archaeological
+find (stone hatchets, etc.) that could not be pronounced only five
+thousand years old as well as fifty thousand."
+
+Lionel S. Beale, the famous microscopist, testifies: "In support of all
+naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not at this
+time the shadow of scientific evidence."
+
+William Hanna Thomson, M.D., LL.D., Physician to the Roosevelt Hospital;
+Consulting Physician to New York State Manhattan Hospital for the
+Insane, who has held a professorship in New York University Medical
+College; been president of the New York Academy of Medicine, etc, in
+his recent book. _"What is Physical Life?"_ says concerning the doctrine
+of evolution: "No contradiction could be greater than that between this
+doctrine and the greatest truth which underlies this human world."
+
+The Russo-French physiologist, M. Elie DeCyon, for many years professor
+in the Faculty of Sciences and in the Academic Medico-chirurgicale at
+the University of Petrograd, has lately published a book of essays in
+which he says that the theory of evolution, especially in its relation
+to the ancestry of man, is a "pure assumption." He quotes Prof. Fraas,
+who devoted his long life to the study of fossil animals: "The idea that
+mankind has descended from any Simian (ape) species whatsoever, is
+certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the
+history of man. It should be handed down to posterity in a new edition
+of the Memorial of Human Follies. No proof of this baroque theory can
+ever be given from discovered fossils." And to quote from another
+address by Virchow, delivered at Vienna: "I have never found a single
+ape skull which approaches at all the human one. Between men and apes
+there exists a line of sharp demarcation."
+
+One of the most recent authoritative publications by a German
+anthropologist urges that "the apes are to be regarded as degenerate
+branches of the pre-human stock." This means, in a word, that man is not
+descended from the ape, but the ape from man. This is almost what may be
+called _reductio ad absurdum,_ and yet it is one of the latest
+pronouncements of scientific thought (Editorial in _"New York Herald,"_
+December 30, 1916). To the same effect are the words of Professor
+Wood-Jones, Professor of Anatomy in the University of London, England,
+who recently pointed out that so far from man having descended from
+anthropoid apes, it would be more accurate to say that these have been
+descended from man. This was claimed not only by reason of the best
+anatomical research, but to be "deducible from the whole trend of
+geological and anthropological discovery." On this account Professor
+Wood-Jones appealed for "an entire reconsideration of the post-Darwinian
+conceptions of man's comparatively recent emergence from the brute
+kingdom." (Quoted by W. H. Griffith Thomas in _"What about Evolution?"_
+p. 10.)
+
+It is refreshing to turn aside from speculation to revelation, from
+conjectures and theories to proven facts, and no one has stated
+ascertained facts, touching the origin of man, more succinctly and more
+clearly than Prof. Dr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of Natural Science in
+the University of Erlangen. He shows conclusively that the age of man is
+comparatively brief, extending only to a few thousand years; that man
+appeared suddenly; that the most ancient man known to us is not
+essentially different from the now living man, and that transitions
+from the ape to the man, or from the man to the ape, are nowhere found.
+The conclusion he reaches is that the Scriptural account of man, which
+is one and selfconsistent, is true; that God made man in his own image,
+fitted for fellowship with himself and favored with it--a state from
+which man has fallen, but to which restoration is possible through Him
+who is the brightness of his Father's glory, and "the express image of
+his Person."
+
+We cannot refrain from reverting, in this connection, to the essential
+difference between the animal instincts and the intellect of man, and
+would quote, on this subject, the forceful statement of the case by Paul
+Haffner in his _"Materialismus"_ (Mainz, 1865). We translate: "If the
+hypothesis of materialism were acceptable, if we were to believe that a
+merely animal form of consciousness might develop into spiritual and
+intellectual perceptions, we ought to be able to observe such capacities
+of change and growth also in the animal world of to-day. Yet this is not
+the case. For thousands of years we have observed the domestic animals,
+and still we can see no trace of a dawn of intellect. We expend much
+training upon them; we make them our confidants and treat them with
+inexhaustible tenderness, and still we never see them rise out of their
+narrow sphere and out of the bonds of their primitive desires and
+instincts. We note external imitation of human activities, such as the
+ludicrous virtuosity of the apes, and that superficial adaptation which
+we call 'animal training' and which is nothing but a development of
+sense stimuli; the animal does not know what it is doing, it is duped by
+man who knows how to employ its instincts and make them serviceable to
+his purposes. We cannot fail to note that never, not even under the most
+favorable conditions, do the animals step out of their original sphere;
+that neither by their own efforts nor through the aid of man are they
+able to rise into ideas of a spiritual or suprasensual nature; that
+they remain forever what they were in the beginning. Hence it cannot be
+denied that also men would have remained what they once were according
+to the notions of materialists. Only if from the beginning the light of
+spiritual life was enkindled in them, could they become, what they are
+to-day." (_"Materialismus,"_ p. 59 f.)
+
+It will be noted that when we hear the specialists in anatomy and
+biology, their expressions on the subject of man's ancestry are, as a
+rule, characterized by a strong dissent from the development theory,
+while the belief in a development of man from an ape-like ancestor,
+uttered with a note of cocksureness, is found mainly among amateurs in
+these sciences. Moreover, even among the believers in a rise of our race
+from brute origins, many, and the most distinguished among them, assert
+that the faculties of the human mind are indeed to be accounted for only
+on the basis of a special creative act of God. They cling, however, to
+the notion that the body of man is evolved from the lower animals--a
+view which has been very ably met by Prof. Orr of Glasgow, one of the
+foremost Biblical scholars of our time. He writes:
+
+"It is well known that certain distinguished evolutionists, while
+handing over man's body to be accounted for by the ordinary processes of
+evolution, yet hold that man's mind cannot be wholly accounted for in a
+similar manner. The rational mind of man, they urge--I agree with the
+view, but am not called upon here to discuss it--has qualities and
+powers which separate it, not only in degree, but in kind, from the
+animal mind, and put an unbridgeable gulf, on the spiritual side,
+between man and the highest of the creatures below him. In other words,
+there is, in man's case, a rise on the spiritual side--the constitution
+of a new order or kingdom of existence--which requires for its
+explanation a distinct supernatural cause. Now the weakness of this
+theory, I have always felt, lies in its assumption that, while man's
+mind needs a supernatural cause to account for it, his body may be left
+to the ordinary processes of development. The difficulty of such a view
+is obvious. I have stated the point in this way. 'It is a corollary from
+the known laws of the connection of mind and body that every mind needs
+an organism fitted to it. If the mind of man is the product of a new
+cause, the brain, which is the instrument of that mind, must share in
+its peculiar origin. You cannot put a human mind into a Simian brain.'
+In other words, if there is a sudden rise on the spiritual side, there
+must be a rise on the physical--the organic--side to correspond."
+(_"Virgin Birth of Christ,"_ p. 199.)
+
+Can anything be more cogent, more conclusive?
+
+The strongest _direct_ proof against the "ascent of man," however, has
+so far only been touched upon. I refer to the evidences derived from the
+history of Religion. To this I now invite the reader's close attention.
+
+If man was developed from a lower order of creatures, or from any member
+of the animal kingdom, religion must have been a late development. That
+this "tailless, catarrhine, anthropoid ape" should have had anything
+resembling a religion, is, of course, not to be thought of. To imagine
+that he had a knowledge of the one, true God, his nature and his
+attributes, would be preposterous. How then explain the origin and rise
+of religion? The evolutionists do not agree on this subject. Herbert
+Spencer maintains that _Animism_ was the most primitive form of faith.
+Man reverenced spirits, the ghosts of the departed, then raised them to
+the eminence of divinities and finally developed the idea of _one_
+absolute being, God. Others suggest, that primitive man first adored the
+terrible powers and awful phenomena of nature, was thus led to
+Polytheism (a religion of many Gods) and finally evolved Monotheism (a
+belief in one God). But all agree in this, that Religion in its earliest
+form was of a very crude and elementary character, and only in the
+course of many thousands of years, attained to the conception of one
+Supreme Being. There was at first a faith in gods,--Polytheism, and much
+later a faith in God--Monotheism.
+
+Now, let is [tr. note: sic] be observed that this is the only _possible_
+view from the standpoint of Evolution. Remember that this doctrine is
+not only conceived as bearing on the development of the animal kingdom.
+The principle is assumed to operate in the development of the earth, of
+man, of society, of government, of manufactures, of language, of
+literature, science, art, and religion. According to the theory, there
+must have been progress from a crude form of spirit-worship to a
+worship of gods, and thence to a worship of one God. But what are the
+facts? Has religion so developed? It has not.
+
+_Not only has history failed to show a single form of belief which has
+advanced in the manner demonstrated, but every religion, no matter how
+pure and exalted, has gone through a process of degeneration, of
+devolution_.
+
+The founders of the comparative study (or Science) of Religion, and the
+greatest authorities in its various departments, are practically
+unanimous in their opinion, that all pagan systems of mythology and
+religion contain remnants of a more exalted form of belief, of a higher,
+clearer knowledge of the Divinity, which gradually became dimmed and
+corrupted.
+
+From Max Mueller's Lecture on the _Vedas_ (the ancient hymns of India)
+we quote the following: As a result "to which a comparative study of
+religion is sure to lead, we shall learn that religions in their most
+ancient form, or in the minds of their authors, are generally free from
+many of the blemishes that attach to them in later times."
+
+Le Page Renouf expresses his entire agreement with the "matured
+judgment" of Emmanuel Rouge: "The first characteristic of the Egyptian
+religion is the Unity of God most energetically expressed: God, One,
+Sole and Only--no others with Him.... the Only Being .... The belief in
+the Unity of the Supreme God and in His attributes as Creator and
+Lawgiver of man, whom He has endowed with an immortal soul, .... _these
+are the primitive notions,_ enchased in the midst of mythological
+superfetations accumulated in the centuries." Franz Lenormant reached
+the same conclusion. Elsewhere, Renouf says: "It is incontestably true,
+that the sublimer portions of the Egyptian religions are not the
+comparatively late result of a process of development. The sublimer
+portions are demonstrably ancient; and the last stage of the Egyptian
+religion .... was by far the grossest and most corrupt." (_"Religion of
+Ancient Egypt,"_ p. 95.) This opinion is supported by the testimony of
+the Egyptian inscriptions. In the very oldest inscriptions reference is
+had to a Supreme God and Lord of all, to whom no shrines were raised,
+whose abode was unknown, who was not graven in stone, while the Egptian
+[tr. note: sic] of a later day adored the crocodile, the ichneumon,
+serpents, bulls, cats, and ibises.
+
+The history of Hindu belief presents testimony of a still more startling
+nature. In the Vedas we find statements and prayers which are clear
+proof of an early Monotheism. Thus the IX book of the Rig Veda contains
+the following prayer. "Who is the God to whom we shall offer our
+sacrifice? The one-born Lord of all that is; he established the heaven
+and sky; he is the one king of the breathing and awakening world; he
+through whom the heaven was established; he who measured out the light
+in the air--he who alone is God above all gods." Here the belief in one
+Supreme Being is clearly set forth. And yet this faith in one God in the
+course of time degenerated into a worship of 33,000 divinities--until
+Gautama the Buddha evolved a system that denied the very existence of
+God.
+
+Turning to Greece we have the testimony of Prof. Max Mueller to this
+effect: "When we ascend to the distant heights of Greek history the idea
+of God, as the Supreme Being, stands before us as a simple fact."
+(_"Essays,"_ II, p. 146.) Carl Boettcher, in his great work on the
+Treeworship of the Greeks, maintains: "As far as the legends of the
+Greeks can be traced into prehistoric ages, the entire nation worshipped
+a single God, nameless, without statues, without a temple, invisible and
+omnipresent." This he regards as a tradition of "irrefutable inner
+truthfulness.... The beginning of Polytheism therefore represents the
+_second_ phase of Greek religion, which was preceded by a Monotheism."
+Every student of Greek literature knows that this original belief at an
+early age gave place to a worship of the gods on Olympus, a worship
+which in turn gave way to openly avowed atheism. The Greeks were aware
+of this decay. Plato, in his Phaidros (274 B) quotes Socrates as saying:
+"I know of an old saying, that our ancestors knew what constituted the
+true worship of God; if we could but discover what it was, would we then
+have need of _human_ theories and opinions on the matter?" Certainly a
+startling statement from the lips of a pagan. Undoubtedly Welcker was
+right when he asserted, as the ultimate result of his researches: "This
+(Greek) polytheism has settled before the eyes of men like a high and
+continuous mountain range, beyond which it is the privilege only of
+general historical study to recognize, as from a higher point of view,
+the natural primitive monotheism." Concerning the monotheistic ideas of
+later Greek thought, the same author says that they are to be regarded
+not as a result of an ascending line of evolution ("aufsteigende Linie
+der Entwickelung"), but as "a _return_ of the profound wisdom of old
+age to the feeling of primitive simplicity."
+
+Of the Phoenicians the greatest student of their history and religion,
+F. K. Movers, says: "Nature worship gradually obscured the purer God-idea
+of a more ancient stage of belief, but has never entirely obliterated
+it." He refers to an evident "adulteration of a purer and more ancient
+God-idea."
+
+Regarding the Zoroastrians of ancient Persia, M. Haug, the famous Zend
+scholar, asserts that "Monotheism was the leading idea of Zoroaster's
+theology;" he called God Ahura-mazda, i. e., "the Living Creator."
+Zoroaster did not teach a theological Dualism. He arrived "at the idea
+of the unity and indivisibility of the Supreme Being," and only as "in
+course of time this doctrine was changed and _corrupted_ ... the dualism
+of God and the devil arose." "Monotheism was _superseded_ by Dualism."
+
+Both Dr. F. Hommel and Friedrich Delitzsch agree on the question of an
+early Arabian and Sumerian monotheism. Dr. Hommel demonstrates from the
+personal surnames contained in the inscriptions the existence of a "very
+exalted monotheism" in the most ancient times of the Arabian nation,
+about 2500 B. C., and among the Semitic tribes of northern Babylonia.
+This "monotheistic religion" degenerated under the influence of
+Babylonian polytheism. The same opinion was held years ago by Julius
+Oppert, the Assyriologist, who was led to a belief in "a universal
+primitive monotheism as the basis of all religions."
+
+Expressions similar to the above might be adduced from Rawlinson, Legge
+(_"Religions of China"_), Doellinger, Victor v. Strauss-Torney (the
+Egyptologist), Jacob Grimm, and others. In short, the majority of
+independent and unprejudiced students of heathen beliefs, from the days
+of A. W. v. Schlegel to our own, have reached the conclusion, that all
+religions in their later stages exhibit a much lower conception of the
+Divinity than in their earlier form. It is only the hopelessly
+prejudiced who can say, as does John Fiske, that "to regard classic
+paganism as one of the degraded remnants of a primeval monotheism, is to
+sin against the canons of a sound inductive philosophy." Sinning against
+the consonant testimony of universal history is a venial offense, it
+would seem, when the integrity of this "sound inductive philosophy"--that
+is, of the Spencerian theory--is at stake. It needs but a glance at the
+well-known facts of religious history to show the working of this _Law
+of Decay_ as influencing the development of every system of ethnic belief
+which has a recorded history or a literature.
+
+The workings of this law can be traced even in the case of the savage
+tribes of our own day. Of the African negroes, P. Bandin says that "their
+traditions and religious doctrines ... show clearly that they are a
+people in decadence.... They have an obscure and confused idea of the
+only God, .... who no longer receives worship." (_"Fetichism,"_ p. 7-10.)
+Winwood Reade testifies: "The negroes possess the remnants of a noble and
+sublime religion, though they have forgotten its precepts and debased its
+ceremonies." They still retain a recollection "of God, the Supreme, the
+Creator." Concerning the Zulus, Bastian records that they informed him
+that "their ancestors possessed the knowledge of .... that _source of
+being_ which is above, which gives life to men." (_"Vorgeschichtliche
+Schoepfungslieder."_) A missionary of the Lutheran General Synod, Rev. J.
+C. Pedersen, wrote in _"Lutheran Observer,"_ August, 1910, concerning the
+African natives that they still have a considerable display of religion,
+but "ask him, who is the God in whom you trust? what do you mean by
+trusting? how can he help you? and he will answer, 'I don't know, but the
+old people used to say so, and taught us to say so.'" John Hanning
+Speke, in his _"Journal of the Discovery of the Sources of the Nile"_
+records reminiscences among the degraded savages among whom he dwelt, of
+a supreme God who dwells in heaven, but who no longer received worship.
+Mungo Park, in the diary of his _"Travels in the Interior of Africa,"_
+says that the Mandingoes, a degenerate race of fetish worshippers, still
+possessed the knowledge of one God, but do not offer up prayers and
+supplications to him.
+
+In the record of his famous circumnavigation of the globe, Captain Cook
+says that the cannibals of New Zealand still acknowledged a superior
+being, although their religion was a crude system of spiritualistic
+practices.
+
+Concerning the Koreans Mrs. L. H. Underwood, medical missionary, says
+that a thousand unworthy deities now crowd the temples, although the
+great universal Ruler is still worshipped at times, and the "ancient
+purity of faith and worship has become sadly darkened."
+
+The foremost student of modern missions, Johann Warneck, in _"The Living
+Christ and Dying Heathenism"_ (F. H. Revell Co.,) comes to the
+conclusion that the Christian religion and its monotheism are not only
+not a development from lower origins, but that the heathen religions,
+historically considered, are a degeneracy from a higher knowledge of
+God. In other words, the application of the doctrine of evolution to the
+field of comparative religion is a mistake. "Any form of Animism known
+to me has no lines leading to perfection, but only incontestable marks
+of degeneration," says the author. "In heathenism the gold of the divine
+thought becomes dross."
+
+Says he, "I have been counselled to recognize that the idea of evolution
+at present ruling the scientific world must also rule in the
+investigation of religion. I am not unacquainted with the literature of
+the subject, I have described animistic heathenism as concretely as I
+could; I confined myself strictly to that. I began with the facts of
+experience; then I drew inferences from them. If these do not agree with
+the dominant hypothesis of evolution, that is due to the brutal facts,
+and not to the prepossessions of the observer.
+
+"I do not deny that something can be said for the idea of evolution in
+the religions of mankind, but the study of Animism, with which I have
+long been familiar as an eyewitness, did not lead me to that idea.
+Rather the conviction which I arrived at is, that animistic heathenism
+is not a transition stage to a higher religion. There are no facts to
+prove that animistic heathenism somewhere and somehow evolved upwards
+towards a purer knowledge of God. I have worked as a missionary for
+many years in contact with thousands of the adherents of animistic
+heathenism and I have been convinced that the force of that heathenism
+is hostile to God."
+
+In the same work Dr. Warneck says that among the Battaks of Sumatra
+there are "remains of a pure idea of God." but there is also a host of
+spirits, born of fear, which thrust themselves between God and man. "The
+idea of God which is found in the religions of the Indian Archipelago,
+and probably also of Africa, cannot have been distilled from the motley
+jumble of gods and of nature, for it exists in direct opposition to the
+latter. The idea of God is preserved, but His worship is lost." In
+reviewing this book the late Dr. Schmauk said in 1910: "A dispassionate
+study of heathen religions confirms the view of Paul that heathenism is
+a fall from a better knowledge of God. The idols come between God and
+man."
+
+W. St. Clair Tisdale, concludes an exhaustive study of _"Christianity
+and Other Faiths"_ with the statement: "It follows that Monotheism
+historically preceded Polytheism, and that the latter is a corruption of
+the former. It is impossible to explain the facts away. Taken together
+they show that, as the Bible asserts, man at the very beginning of
+history knew the One True God. This implies a Revelation of some sort
+and traces of that Revelation are still found in many ancient faiths."
+
+We conclude that the history of religion does not only fail to support
+the evolutionistic postulate of a slow upward development of religions
+from crude original beliefs, but quite the reverse. It is true that the
+popular handbooks of comparative religion quite generally teach a
+development of religious belief through animism, fetishism, and
+polytheism to monotheism. But the consonant testimony of specialists in
+the field of historical study and of those who have had first-hand
+acquaintance with the aborigines of heathen lands, is a strong dissent
+from this position. Here again we find confident assertion of an
+evolutionistic process mainly among those who lack the qualifications
+of original research. Even as it is not the specialist in biology that
+still maintains the Darwinian theory of Natural Selection, but the
+non-professional and the amateur, even so the specialist acquainted
+with the original sources, and the explorer, possessing first hand
+knowledge, asserts a decline, through history, from purer to less
+spiritual faiths, while the bias of the evolutionist, who has no first
+hand knowledge of the sources constrains him to begin his scheme of
+religion with animism and fetish-worship. The theory which holds him in
+thrall demands such a construction. But the theory is contradicted by
+the facts, which point unmistakably to a degeneration of the race, to a
+Fall of Man.
+
+
+CHAPTER TEN.
+The Verdict of History.
+
+John Fiske, who, in the seventies of the last century, popularized
+Darwinism in the United States, asserts that the scope of evolution is
+much wider than the organic field. "There is no subject great or small"
+he wrote in _"A Century of Science,"_ "that has not come to be affected
+by this doctrine." A development has been recognized in plants,
+mountains, oysters, subjunctive moods, and the confederacies of savage
+tribes (p. 35). Fiske is one of those defenders of the evolutionistic
+philosophy who irritate by reason of their cocksureness. Hear him, in
+_"Darwinism and Other Essays_:" "One could count on one's fingers the
+number of eminent naturalists who still decline to adopt it"--the
+Darwinian hypothesis. That was in 1876. To-day we know that one cannot
+on one finger the eminent naturalists of the present century who still
+accept it--Haeckel. It is possible that Fiske's extension of the
+development theory, along lines laid down by Herbert Spencer, to all
+human history, even to "tribal confederacies," is likewise subject to a
+revision. Indeed, it would seem that even without special or detailed
+knowledge, the failure of human history to conform with this universal
+law would be apparent. Consider once more the basic concepts of
+Evolution. They are two in number, 1. Everything that is, has been
+evolved, having been involved (potentially, as a possibility) in that
+which preceded it. Potentially, the feather of the blue-bird was in the
+speck of original protoplasm, potentially the flights of Dante's and
+Goethe's genius were in the primordial cell. All that has occurred in
+history has _developed_ out of antecedents. Furthermore: 2. All that
+exists has developed _according to natural laws_. Scientists have given
+up the law which Darwin called "Natural Selection," and Spencer himself
+cashiered the law which he had called "Survival of the Fittest." But
+evolutionists continue to assert that somehow, by the action of certain
+laws, that which exists has naturally--there is no need of divine
+Providence, overruling the affairs of men,--has naturally been developed
+out of its antecedents. And so history is read by the evolutionist. He
+sees in all the institutions of civilization, in every department of
+culture, in the rise and fall of nations, the progress and decay of
+literatures, a result of natural laws, working out the evolution of
+human society as it exists to-day.
+
+What, then, is the verdict of history? Does it conform to this scheme?
+Is there a demonstrable development, by inherent forces, of human
+society, from lower to higher ranges of culture? Civilization [tr note:
+sic] have risen, civilizations have perished: is there in this traceable
+the working of natural law?
+
+Dr. Emil Reich, in the _"Contemporary Review,"_ 1889. p. 45 ff. pointed
+out the failure of the development theory as applied to human culture.
+Hebrew religion as well as the Hebrew state were not derived from
+Babylonian, Egyptian, Arabic or Hittite culture; Greek art is not a
+derivative product of Egyptian, Assyrian, or Phoenician art; Greek
+religion and mythology are not derived from other pagan systems; Roman
+law has not been developed out of Greek, Aryan, or Egyptian law; the
+English constitutional form of government has no antecedents in German
+or Norman-French history; German music is not a result of development
+out of Dutch, French, or Italian music. Dr. Reich sums up the matter:
+"Institutions do not 'evolve,' nor are they 'derived,' they step into
+existence by fulguration"--sudden flashes--, "by a process that is
+technically identical with the theological idea of creation. The whole
+concept of evolution does not at all apply to history."
+
+In this argument there is considerable force. For, indeed, what natural
+law can account for the rise of human institutions, so infinitely
+diversified in their structure? Every age is divided into epochs, and at
+the center of each epoch there is some personage of force and genius.
+But how did Cromwell, Lincoln, Bismarck arise? What force produced them?
+Whence did they evolve? Yet without these three names, three great
+periods in the world's history would be meaningless.
+
+By what combination of forces shall we say that the various geniuses
+have developed which, in a manner almost spectacular, rise before us as
+we study the literatures of the past? The youthful years of Shakespeare
+were spent under circumstances which might have produced in him one dull
+and unaspiring British country lout, like, as one egg to another, to a
+hundred thousand others who lived in his age. What made this one country
+boy the most astonishing genius in all the history of literature? Study
+the youth of Robert Burns, of Heinrich Heine, or Coleridge, and then
+tell me why the first two should become the greatest lyric poets of
+their time, and the third, one of England's deepest thinkers? Why did
+they not develop, one into a satisfied Scottish farmer, the other into
+a peddler of notions, and the third into a fat and comfortable English
+banker?
+
+We quote from an article which appeared in _"Theological Quarterly"_
+some twenty years ago:
+
+"What process of evolution resulted in the lives and deeds of such men
+as Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, [tr. note: sic] Constantine the
+Great, Luther, Napoleon I, and Bismarck? All these great makers of
+history were what they were far less in consequence and by the
+continuation of the course of previous events or developments, than
+largely in spite of the past and in direct opposition to forces which
+had worked together in shaping the condition of things with which they
+had to deal. The Macedonian empire would never have sprung into being
+but for an Alexander, in whose mind the chief facts for its realization
+were united. The Rome which Julius Ceasar [tr. note: sic] left behind
+him was not that which he had found, only carried forward to a new stage
+of development, but the embodiment of ideas conceived in his mind, a
+quantity which under God the greatest Roman had _made_ out of a quantity
+which he had found. The distinctive features of the Constantinian empire
+as compared with that of Diocletian, or of the tetrarchy of which he was
+the head, were not evolved from earlier political principles, but stood
+out in bold contrast and even in direct opposition to the very
+fundamentals of antique statesmanship, and so new in politics that even
+Constantine permitted them to slip away from his grasp long before the
+sunset of his life had come. Luther was not a more fully developed Hus
+or Savonarola, and the Reformation was not the more advanced stage or
+completion of a movement inaugurated by the Humanists, but a work of God
+the actuating spirit of which was as diametrically contrary to the
+rationalistic spirit which animated Erasmus and, in a measure, Zwingli
+and his abettors, as it was to anti-christian Rome,--which was in 1517
+essentially what it had been in 1302, when Boniface VIII issued his bull
+_Unam sanctum_ as a definition of the rights and powers of Popery.
+Napoleon did not carry onward but broke away from the tumult of French
+politics when he laid the greater part of western Europe at his feet,
+and the battle of Austerlitz and the rule of the Hundred Days were no
+more evolved from the French Revolution as by intrinsic necessity than
+the burning of Moscow and the Russian snows which turned to naught the
+campaign of 1812." (A. L. Graebner.)
+
+According to the theory we would expect that in the various departments
+of _art,_ perfection would be a late blossom, burgeoning forth only after
+ages of feeble experiment and attempt. But what are the facts? As we
+study the history of any art,--be it literature or any department of
+literature; be it architecture, sculpture, the domestic arts, or even
+the art of war,--we find the highest culmination either at points which
+specifically exclude the idea of a development or, indeed, perfection
+shines forth in the very beginning, all subsequent art being decay and
+apostasy from that primal perfection.
+
+In epic poetry, the greatest work does not stand at the end of a long
+period of development, but the first and oldest is the greatest. Nothing
+has ever been produced to equal the Iliad and Odyssey, written 900 B. C.
+We have epics that will always hold a prominent place in literature,
+Virgil's Aeneid, Milton's Paradise Lost, but neither these nor the many
+flights attempted into epic poetry before or since will be seriously
+considered as rivalling the rhapsodies of Homer.
+
+The first novel ever written, Cervantes' Don Quijote, [tr. note: sic]
+remains one of the greatest.
+
+The oldest dramatists, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, have never been
+surpassed.
+
+And so in every department of art, the earliest stage of development
+seems to be the very most perfect. Pyramid building was a pastime of the
+earliest Pharaos; [tr. note: sic] the later did not attempt to rival
+these structures with any of their own. No finer jewelry can be produced
+to-day than the gold ornaments found in the oldest tombs of Egypt. The
+finest examples of East Indian architecture are the oldest. Gothic art
+was not a slow development but came to utter perfection in its earliest
+examples,--as in the Cathedral of Amiens.
+
+Evolution represents the history of our race as a constant climb, from
+brute or near-brute beginnings, to ever higher forms of civilization,
+until the heights which our race has reached in the present century were
+attained. In reality, the reverse process, a constant and invariable
+process of degeneration characterizes the history of nations and peoples.
+Where Christianity entered as a factor, as in the history of Western
+Europe and in the results of Christian missions in heathen lands, we can
+indeed observe a rise out of barbaric or savage conditions to refinement
+and culture. But only where the Christian gospel is preached, was the
+natural process of decay, of degeneration, interfered with. Elsewhere,
+that is to say, where purely natural forces were given free play,
+mankind has declined physically, mentally, spiritually. All
+civilizations illustrate this law of decay. Wilhelm F. Griewe, in his
+_"Primitives Suedamerika"_ (Cincinnati, 1893), summarizes his
+observations on the South American continent as follows: "The Malaysian
+aborigines of South America, in a period of 3,000 years, failed to
+advance in development. The Japanese discoverers of Peru testify that
+they found the natives in a condition of extreme decay; within a period
+of 1,500 years they had made no progress but had retrogressed. When the
+Spaniards came, they described the natives of Chile and Argentina in
+such a manner that it is quite evident how little these tribes had
+progressed in 3,000 years. The Araucanians of Chile have, even in
+historic times, greatly degenerated; they have lost the very meaning of
+many words; retaining the shell, they have lost the kernel. In Peru,
+the age of heroic deeds and wonderful architecture was followed by decay,
+--religious, moral, intellectual decay. The population was all but
+destroyed by vices and cruelty. Their neighbors, the Chibchas, likewise
+described an arc which ended in devil-worship. Similarly, the history of
+the Botokudes is degeneration, vice, atrocities. The negro tribes in the
+north and east of South America record no progress, but, on the other
+hand, sank into abominations, slavery, cannibalism. Where, then, is
+there support for the evolutionary theory, with its assumption of an
+upward trend from a brute condition to civilized and cultured life?
+Everywhere in primitive South America we see before our very eyes the
+process of decline and decay. Also the religious idea became obscured.
+Some of these tribes had an original monotheism. They recognized a
+supreme creator of all things and gave him various names. But the
+spiritual character of their knowledge of God was gradually obscured,
+God was dragged into the sphere of sense and lower divinities were
+associated with Him,--a downward development which absolutely contradicts
+the Darwinian hypothesis. From an original, pure, spiritual worship to
+gross idolatry,--that is the religious decay which in the world outside
+the Bible meets us everywhere, also among the original races of South
+America."
+
+Thus in the history of human society, we observe, unless the divine power
+of the gospel supplies the sole preserving and regenerating element, a
+universal law of decay in human affairs. Innumerable times, and at the
+most crucial moments of human history, not the fittest but the unfittest
+survived. Dr. A. L. Graebner said: "The principle of the 'survival of the
+fittest' is so far from accounting for the phenomena of history, that the
+principle itself is flatly contradicted and utterly exploded by a sober
+investigation of historical facts. That there are in nature numerous
+instances of a survival of the _un_fittest, is not only conceded by our
+evolutionists, but has been deliberately forged into an argument against
+teleology (divine purpose) and divine providence! And, we ask, was it by
+the survival of the fittest that Julius Ceasar, [tr. note: sic] one of the
+grandest rulers of all ages, should succumb under the daggers of Brutus
+and Cassius: that Paul and Seneca should die by authority of their
+inferior, Nero; that Popery, rotten to the core and represented by men
+who would have brought on the ignominous [tr. note: sic] collapse or
+extinction of every other dynasty in the days of the Roman pornocracy,
+should survive, while the illustrious house of Henry I. sank away to
+ruin in the third and fourth generation; that John Hus should die at the
+stake and Jean Charlier de Gerson in timid monastic retirement, while
+Balthasar Cossa, by far their inferior in talents and learning, and
+every inch an infamous scoundrel, having for a time disgraced even the
+Roman see as John XXIII, ended his days as a Cardinal and Bishop of
+Tusculum and Dean of the Sacred College; that Girolamo Savonarola, one
+of the most remarkable and pure-minded leaders of his day and of all
+times, should be fought down and crushed in a struggle with men not one
+of whom was worthy of unloosing his shoe's latchet, among them Alexander
+VI, one of the most scandalous wretches of all history? Survival of the
+fittest!"
+
+The article from which we have quoted points out the relevancy, to the
+question at issue, of the principle of degeneration and gradual decay in
+historical organisms or institutions. "Our scientists who bother
+themselves and others about the descent of man have favored with a keen
+interest the Bushmen of Australia and other types of savage humanity,
+with receding skulls, flat noses, thin legs, little or no clothing, and
+not much of morals or religion. The lower in the scale and the farther
+remote from the civilized Caucasian a newly discovered or investigated
+tribe or specimen, living or dead, would appear to be, the greater was
+the value set on the discovery, because the nearer science was supposed
+to have come to the missing link, the transition from brute to man. Of
+course, the missing link will never be discovered, because it never
+existed. There is no transition from brute to man, and never was. But if
+there were a species of beings which might be classed either with man or
+with brutes, a transitional species, even that would not necessarily
+represent a transition in the direction from brute to man. We do not say
+that a transition from man to brute is possible; for it is not; but we
+do say that the evolutionist who sees in Bushmen and other savages
+specimens of humanity representing the earlier stages of development,
+through which the more highly developed species had long since passed on
+the way from the primitive state of man to their present state, makes a
+great, fundamental mistake, the same mistake which one would make in
+supposing that the pale and decrepit inmates of a city hospital or a
+country poorhouse represented the lower stage of development from which
+the strong and healthy men and women in the surrounding country had been
+evolved. Our evolutionists are in very much the same plight with Mark
+Twain and his friend, who, having slept all day, rushed from the hotel
+in scanty clothing, climbed the observatory and to the amusement of the
+guests loudly admired what they took to be the famous Rigi sunrise,
+while in fact they were vociferating and gesticulating at the setting
+sun. But while our tourists had soon found out their mistake, our
+evolutionists have not; which does not make it any less a mistake. St.
+Paul has drawn a vivid picture of the degenerating influence of sin upon
+the nations under the righteous wrath of God,* [[* Rom. 1, 18-32.]] and
+the course which the Greek nation and the Roman would have run from
+their pristine vigor exhibited in the days of Thermopylae and Cannae
+down to the state of _marasmus senilis_ pictured by Juvenal, a state of
+rottenness which even the transfusion of German blood into the putrid
+veins of that degenerate and decaying race could not remedy, is a
+fearful corroboration of the apostle's testimony."
+
+We cannot leave this subject without briefly adverting to a great
+historic fact, indeed, the most massive and significant fact in all
+history, which, in its remoter bearings, not only strikes at the very
+heart of the evolutionistic philosophy, but at the same time wounds it
+mortally in all its parts. I refer to the Resurrection of our Lord. The
+resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central fact of our Christian belief
+and it is, rightly understood, the all-sufficient answer to the theory
+of evolution. Christ's resurrection is an historical fact fully as much
+as the defeat of Xerxes at Salamis in 480 B. C., the discovery of
+America by Columbus in 1492, and the peace of Versailles of 1919 are
+historical facts, proven by the word and record of contemporary
+witnesses. But if Christ was raised then we have proof for the following
+tenets, all contradicting evolutionary speculation at so many vital
+points: 1) The existence of a personal God who is concerned with human
+affairs; 2) The reality of miraculous interference with natural forces;
+3) The truth of atonement and the redemption, and 4) The inspiration of
+the Old Testament Scriptures (hence also of the creation account in
+Genesis). The details of the argument are beyond the scope of this paper,
+but a little patient study will bring to light the fact that each of
+these four basic ideas is dove-tailed, mortised and anchored so firmly
+in the fact of Christ's resurrection, that you can get rid of them all
+only by denying that fact. Hence it is, aside from any investigation of
+proofs of evolutionism, clear to the Christian student that there must
+be some fault either in reason or in observation that vitiates the whole
+theory. The resurrection of Christ is a fact, a fact to which the entire
+history of Christianity testifies, the most tremendous fact in the
+history of the world. And it stands fore-square against a theory which
+says that there is no personal God, that there is no sin, no redemption;
+that there are no miracles, no revelation, no inspiration; that there is
+no absolute religion nor an absolute standard of right and wrong.
+
+
+CHAPTER ELEVEN.
+Evidence of Design.
+
+Compare all that has been said by scientists themselves about the
+evolutionary theory, and what remains? This, only, that some how, we do
+not know when, life arose, and some how, we do not know by what laws,
+one form evolved from another, until we and the world about us have
+become what we are now. Now, the fact that no _laws_ have so far been
+discovered by scientists to account for this presumed development of all
+things by inherent forces, is very significant and the conclusions which
+logically follow from it deserve our attention. Since Darwin's solution,
+Natural Selection, was discarded, twenty or thirty years ago, many other
+solutions have been propounded, but none has received the assent of even
+a respectable group of scientists, let alone by all. These solutions,
+--such as the theories of de Vries and Mendel, are frankly no more than
+guesses based on certain observation in plant life and insect life and
+their originators by no means assert that they have found a law by which
+the universe can be accounted for. But if there is no universal law,
+there is only _chance_. Hence it is clear that what we are asked to
+believe is that ancient Greek speculation was after all not far from the
+truth, that through a fortuitous (accidental) concourse of atoms the
+world came into being, and that by chance combinations of elements the
+great variety of living things arose.
+
+Such is the condition of evolutionistic thought to-day. That there is no
+_direct_ evidence for organic evolution is generally admitted. That
+geology cannot be quoted for it is also quite generally conceded, since
+the sudden rise of perfect (not half-developed) insects, of perfect
+fish, of perfect mammals, is clear even to the man who merely turns the
+leaves of Geikie's, Le Conte's, and Dana's text books, or visits Field's
+Museum. Yet _some-how_ things must have gotten to be what they are by
+development from earlier forms,--this about sums up what is really
+contained in the concept of evolution as it appears in most recent
+scientific literature, so far as scientists at all touch upon the
+subject. However, they by no means urge the evolutionary principle as
+they used to do. Bacteriologists especially, so I am informed by a
+chemist of international repute, Dr. P. A. Kober, of New York, as a
+class are inclined to give up the theory as a "bad guess." Why, they
+find in fossil fish diseased portions which bear unmistakable traces of
+the action of bacteria which live to-day, in other words, which in
+"countless millions of years" have not progressed enough to show any
+change recognizable under the most powerful miscroscope! [tr. note: sic]
+Anthropologists shake their head when they are told by evolutionists
+that the animal which shows clearest "resemblance" in a structural way,
+to certain points in human anatomy, is a small fossil ape, about the
+size of a house cat, with a skull one inch in diameter! There remains no
+proof, direct or indirect, of any _principle_ working the changes which
+are believed to have occurred. All things have evolved, if they have
+evolved at all, _by chance_.
+
+Now, over against this doctrine of chance there stands the monumental
+fact that throughout nature, living and non-living, there runs a
+principle of _design_. The minerals, the plants, the animals, all
+exhibit, as even the superficial observer knows or might know, a plan.
+There is design in the crystals in which elements exist when they pass
+from a liquid into a solid state; there is design in the leaf and flower
+of every plant; there is plan, design, in the structure and physiology
+of animals. We would add, there is an evident plan in the history of the
+Chosen Race, the Jews, as we possess it in the Old and New Testaments;
+there is a plan in the moral sphere, laws producing unvaried results;
+there is an ordered scheme even in the life of the individual. But let
+us limit our investigation to the domain of nature. Let us note how
+little necessity there is for assuming that by mere chance things have
+come to be what they are.
+
+As a rule each chemical substance has an individual crystal by which it
+can be distinguished. It is possible to classify the thousands of
+different crystals, since all belong to one of six classes, according as
+their surfaces are grouped symmetrically around the axes of the crystal.
+The salt crystal has one form, the topaz another, quartz and beryl
+another, borax another, and these forms are absolutely unvaried wherever
+these substances are found in nature or in the chemist's retort. It is
+not here our intention to point out how impossible it is to assume that
+there has been an evoluton [tr. note: sic] of one of these forms out of
+another. The point is that there is not chance, but orderly arrangement,
+symmetrical shape, in a word, most evident design.
+
+Turning to plant life, even the amateur student cannot fail to observe
+that the entire world of plants is built on a beautiful system which
+argues most powerfully not for accidental arrangement but for plan. The
+place of every leaf on every plant is fixed beforehand by unerring
+mathematical rule. As the stems grow on, leaf after leaf appears exactly
+in its predestined place, producing a perfect symmetry;--a symnetry [tr.
+note: sic] which manifests itself not in one single monotonous pattern
+for all plants, but in a definite number of forms exhibited by different
+species, and arithmetically expressed by the series of fractions, 1/2,
+1/3, 2/5, 3/8, 5/13, 8/21, etc., according as the formative energy in
+its spiral course up the developing stem lays down at corresponding
+intervals 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, or 21 ranks of alternative leaves.
+
+The position of each blossom is determined beforehand by that of the
+leaves; so that the shape of every flower-cluster in a boquet [tr. note:
+sic] is given by the same simple mathematical law which arranges the
+foliage. Every flower has a "Numerical Plan." Although not easy to make
+out in all cases, yet generally it is plain to see that each blossom is
+based upon a particular number, which runs through all or most of its
+parts. And a principal thing which a botanist notices when examining a
+flower is its numerical plan. It is upon this that the symmetry of the
+blossom depends. Thus the stonecrop and the flax are based upon the
+number five, which is exhibited in all their parts. Some flowers of this
+same stonecrop have their parts in fours, and then that number runs
+throughout; namely, there are four sepals, four petals, eight stamens
+(two sets), and four pistils.
+
+Next let us touch upon the plan which connects the plant with the animal
+world. The wonderful adaptations of many flowers and insects to each
+other, as to the fertilization of the former, and as to the life of the
+individual insect and the propagation of its kind, are evidence of
+design. For example, there are certain species of plants that are
+dependent for their fertilization on certain species of moths which
+live in the flowers, and the moths, in turn, are dependent on the
+plants. They deposit their eggs in the ovaries of the flowers where the
+young are hatched and nourished. The moths in some cases carry the
+pollen and place it on the stigmas of the flowers, as if guided by
+intelligence. So marvellous are the provisions which are made to ensure
+the fertilization of plants that the dean of Amercan [tr. note: sic]
+botanists, Professor Asa Gray, exclaims: "If these structures and their
+operations do not argue intention, what stronger evidence of intention
+in nature can there possibly be? If they do, such evidences are
+countless, and almost every blossom brings distinct testimony to the
+existence and providence of a Designer and Ordainer, without whom, we
+may well believe, not merely a sparrow, not even a grain of pollen, may
+fall." (On this entire subject read Selina Gaye's _"The Great World's
+Farm,"_ published by the MacMillan Co., New York.)
+
+We can only lightly touch on the wonders of design in the structure and
+functions of animals. Here is a feather, any feather, say, the feather
+of an eagle. We quote the following on "One of Nature's Wonders--the
+Feather'' from an article in a popular magazine:
+
+"To most people a feather is just a feather, either pretty or plain
+according to how the coloring strikes their individual fancy. Yet when
+a feather is examined critically, it becomes a wonder and yet more
+wonderful--it is amazing when its details are understood. Never was
+there a thing better planned and builded for the uses intended.
+
+"Take, for instance, a plain feather--say the tail feather of an eagle.
+The long quill is made of feather-bone, that wonderfully light, yet
+strong material that forms the rigid part of all feathers, so tough that
+it is almost impossible to break it, yet so flexible it will bend into a
+circle and then spring back like a bit of whalebone! Nothing that man
+has ever been able to make can equal it.
+
+"There is no blood, no nerves, no circulation and apparently no life in
+a full grown feather, yet it does not decompose; indeed, it is one of
+the hardest things in the world to destroy by any process of
+decomposition. It retains its resiliency and all its flexibility for
+years--all that is necessary is to keep it dry. It is finished all along
+the rib (or quill) with a hard, glossy enamel on the outside and this
+enamel keeps its polish as long as the feather lasts.
+
+"From [tr. note: sic on punctuation] an engineering standpoint, or the
+standpoint of the mechanic or artisan, there is absolutely no suggestion
+of betterment to be made, for the feather is an exact, perfectly
+finished product. Its long central quill tapers from base to point with
+geometric precision, thereby giving perfect resistance to bending force,
+and this is one of the combination of secrets that enables the bird to
+fly as easily as man can walk. Also this long quill is hollow, thereby
+all extra weight is done away with and added strength gained because of
+the tube contraction; and to make it perfect from a mechanical
+standpoint, the under side of the quill is reinforced by a doublerolled
+thickening of the shell of the quill itself so that strains are
+equalized.
+
+"This long quill is also curved slightly, to meet air resistance again
+and overcome it when the whole tail is spread, fan-like, to suddenly
+alter a direction or check speed in flight.
+
+"The long, soft side masses are formed of a multitude of tiny feathers,
+each one perfectly equipped, perfectly made, mechanically and
+geometrically without fault. Each of these tiny side feathers has its
+own midrib that tapers from base to tip, and each of these midribs
+carries its own equipment of side 'hairs' so beautifully constructed
+that it locks automatically into the one on each side of it in such a
+way that it makes a solid yet flexible mass of the whole surface,
+against which the air flows as the bird flies.
+
+"If these side feathers be split apart they will come back into place
+so exactly that the split cannot be detected. Nothing else in nature
+repairs itself with such precision. Many things, for instance the claw
+leg of the crawfish, will replace itself exactly when destroyed, but
+the feather alone _repairs_ its own breaks precisely and automatically.
+
+"Taken as a whole, the feather is one of the most perfect products of
+nature because the material used is the one best thing throughout, the
+engineering principles involved are without fault, the mathematical
+plan is precise, the construction is perfect, the coloring and artistry
+are flawless, and there is not one single point about it that can be
+constructively criticized.
+
+"This short article can only hint at the wonderful things one may find
+in a single feather, and it is something well worth not an hour, but
+weeks or months of the most painstaking and careful study, for it covers
+an amazing field."
+
+The electric battery in certain fishes is so palpable a case of design
+that Charles Darwin admitted his inability to account for it by Natural
+Selection. The electric ray, or torpedo, for instance, has been provided
+with a battery which, while it closely resembles, yet in the beauty and
+compactness of its structure, it greatly exceeds the batteries by which
+man has now learned to make the laws of electricity subservient to his
+will. In this battery there are no less than 940 hexagonal columns, like
+those of a bee's comb, and each of these is subdivided by a series of
+horizontal plates, which appear to be analogous to the plates of the
+batteries used in automobiles. The whole is supplied with an enormous
+amount of nervous matter, four great branches of which are as large as
+the animal's spinal cord, and these spread out in a multitude of
+thread-like filaments round the prismatic columns, and finally pass into
+all the cells. "A complete knowledge of all the mysteries which have
+been gradually unfolded from the days of Galvani to those of Faraday,
+and of many others which are still inscrutable to us, is exhibited in
+this structure." Well may Mr. Darwin say, "It is impossible to conceive
+by what steps these wondrous organs have been produced. We see the
+purpose--that a special apparatus should be prepared; but we have not
+the remotest notion of the means employed. Yet we can see so much as
+this, that here again, other laws, belonging altogether to another
+department of nature--laws of organic growth--are made subservient to a
+very definite and very peculiar purpose.' [tr. note: sic on punctuation]
+
+"The new-born kangaroo," says Professor Owen, "is an inch in length,
+naked, blind, with very rudimental limbs and tail; in one which I
+examined the morning after the birth, I could discern no act of sucking;
+it hung, like a germ, from the end of the long nipple, and seemed unable
+to draw sustenance therefrom by its own efforts. The mother accordingly
+is provided with a peculiar adaptation of a muscle (_cremaster_) to the
+mammary gland, by which she can inject the milk from the nipple into the
+mouth of the pendulous embryo. Were the larynx of the creature like that
+of the parent, the milk might, probably would, enter the windpipe and
+cause suffocation: but the larynx is cone-shaped, with the opening at
+the apex, which projects, as in the whaletribe, into the back aperture
+of the nostrils, where it is closely embraced by the muscles of the
+'soft palate.' The air-passage is thus completely separated from the
+fauces (mouth), and the injected milk passes in a divided stream, on
+either side the base of the larynx, into the oesophagus. These
+correlated modifications of maternal and foetal structures, _designed_
+with especial reference to the peculiar conditions of both mother and
+off-spring, afford, as it seems to me, irrefragable evidence of
+_creative forsight_. The parts of this apparatus cannot have produced
+one another; one part is in the mother, another part in the young one;
+without their harmony they could not be effective; but nothing except
+design can operate to make them harmonious. They are intended to work
+together; and we cannot resist the conviction of this intention when
+the facts first come before us."
+
+We cannot stop to pass in review the structural marvels of the human eye
+and ear, of the digestive organs, and circulatory system of animals, of
+adaptations of fishes to the watery element. But we must mention an
+outstanding feature of all animal life, the evident likeness of plan
+upon which the _entire kingdom_ of sentient life is constructed. From
+amoeba and other infusorial animals of simplest structure, through coral
+and oyster, bird, reptile, to mammals, there is an evident gradation,
+many structures being represented in entire great groups of living
+beings, such as the air-breathing lung. Here is a grand plan of animal
+life, which permits us to classify all living things into a system.
+There are classes and subclasses, orders or families, suborders, tribes,
+sub-tribes, genera, species, and varieties, just as in the world of
+plants and even, according to their atomic weight, among the elements.
+We see in all this, Creative Design. The evolutionist believes that he
+can percive [tr. note: sic] stages of progress. Similarity of plan is
+interpreted as proof that there is a common origin. Are we to admit, in
+the face of all that has been said about the fixity of species (to
+mention only this), the reasonableness of such an assumption? Does
+orderliness and plan argue for development? The steam-engine is a
+machine of remarkable structure. It has had, in one sense of the term,
+a wonderful "evolution." It is based on certain principles, the
+foundation one of which is the expansibility of steam, and its ability,
+when confined in a cylinder, to give motion to a piston. The
+steam-engine was first used for pumping, then for turning machinery,
+then for propelling boats, and now its crowning department is seen in
+the locomotive. There is a plan, a likeness, a similarity, which runs
+through all steam-engines, whether they be found in the mine, in the
+mill, beneath the deck of the steamship, or on the railroad track. But
+the locomotive is not formed from the mine engine; it is made new, and
+is a distinct type. And yet, the same principles are seen in both. Even
+so it is with the genera of animals. The whale and the elephant both
+have backbones, jointed limbs, warm blood, and a hundred homologous
+organs. They are both mammals, both are sagacious, and are gifted with
+acute senses. But otherwise they are unlike as the monster locomotive
+that pulls the heavy train over the Sierras, and the compound engines of
+the _Vaterland_. Similarity of structures argues powerfully for unity of
+plan, but by no means proves identity of origin.
+
+The evidence of design in nature conflicts with the idea that all things
+in the organic domain have come to be what they are by chance. But it
+agrees perfectly with the Christian view of animal nature. What is that?
+It is that God created the different classes of existences in the strict
+sense; that is, that he created them separate classes and species, each
+with its own peculiarities and habits, while, at the same time, they
+rise one above the other in general and steady order, with certain
+general organs and functions, which run through nearly all except the
+lowest classes, each higher class having also some distinct and
+additional peculiarities not found in those below it. In other words, to
+the Christian the steadily ascending scale in the work of creation is
+only the unfolding or development of the great plan of creation that was
+in the mind of God. He believes that God did not create one or more
+simple cells or germs, and cause all higher forms to be evolved from
+them, interfering only once or twice (when the backbone appeared, the
+nourishing breast, the mind of man, etc.), but that he, in the execution
+of his plan, created successively as distinct orders and species those
+things and beings which now exist as distinct orders and species, and
+many of which have become extinct. This is the Story of Creation as
+given in Genesis: Each plant, each animal, created in its own place in
+the scale of living thing, but each created as a species,--"after their
+kind," the phrase repeated after each creative act of the third, fifth,
+and sixth day, except with reference to man, who was not created as a
+"species" but after the image of God.
+
+But the evidences of design are yet of a higher nature than we have so
+far considered. There is not only Creative Intelligence at work in the
+pollen of flowers, the breathing of sponges, and the eagle's orb of
+vision; Mind dominates _the universe as a whole_. Everywhere there is
+law and periodic, rhythmical motion. The Lord, speaking to Job, refers
+to the "measures" of the earth, the "lines" which He has stretched upon
+it. He asks, concerning the heavenly bodies: "Canst thou bind the sweet
+influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring
+forth Mazzaroth in his season? Or canst thou guide Arcturus with his
+sons?" And Job answers: "I know that Thou canst do everything."
+
+And so there is a Reign of Law in the dew on the grass (Job 38, 28), and
+in the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. The Universe is ruled by Mind.
+
+Professor Koelliker (Leipsic) says in his work _"Ueber die Darwinsche
+Schoepfungstheorie"_ (1904): "The development theory of Darwin is not
+needed to enable us to understand the regular harmonious progress of the
+complete series of organic forms from the simpler to the more perfect.
+The existence of general laws of nature explains this harmony, even if
+we assume that all beings have arisen separately and independent of one
+another. Darwin forgets that inorganic nature, in which there can be no
+thought of a genetic connection of forms," that one form of crystal, for
+instance, arose out of another, "exhibits the same regular plan, as the
+organic world (of plants and animals), and that, to cite only one
+example, there is as much a natural system of minerals as of plants and
+animals." We can go a step farther and say that there is system and
+orderly design even in the position and movements of the stars,--which
+certainly have not been evolved one from the other.
+
+More marvellous still, we are permitted to believe that there is an
+identity of plan connecting the arrangement of atoms in a molecule and
+the position of the stars and planets. Dr. Charles Young, Professor of
+Astronomy in Princeton College, says in his larger text-book upon his
+special theme that "our planetary system (the sun and planets) is not a
+mere accidental aggregation of bodies," that "there are a multitude of
+relations actually observed which are wholly independent of gravitation."
+In other words, in the position and motions of the planets there are
+evidences of design which cannot be accounted for by natural law. We
+shall point out an instance of such arrangement,--the progressive
+distance of the planets from the sun, as first discovered by Titius of
+Wittenberg, and later (in 1772) brought to the attention of the
+scientific world, by Johann Bode, the celebrated German astronomer. It
+is exhibited by writing a line of nine 4's and then placing regularly
+increasing numbers under the several 4's, beginning with the second.
+Thus 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192, and 384, each increased by 4, will give
+the resultant series, 4, 7, 10, 16, 28, 52, 100, 196, 388. These numbers
+divided by 10 are approximately the true distance of the planets from
+the sun in terms of the radius of the earth's orbit, with the exception
+of Neptune. Hence there is, in the arrangmeent of the planets, as
+orderly a system as we have noted with reference to the leaves on a
+plant. Any rational man on earth, finding an orderly system of materials
+arranged in such relation by such means, would instantly conclude that
+it must be due to intelligence and not to mere chance.
+
+Now, it is a remarkable fact that in the so-called Periodic Law of the
+elements constituting matter the same relation is observed. Of the
+eighty elements, no two now known have exactly the same capacity to
+resist heat, and no two atoms of the same elements have the same weight
+as compared with an atom of hydrogen. But these differences in
+resistance to heat and in weight, are not haphazard, but are so
+regularly progressive that they can be arranged in a series of regularly
+progressive increasing intervals. Most marvellous of all, however, when
+these differences in specific gravity are examined, we find that they
+bear a close resemblance to the arrangement of the planets in
+progressive distances from the sun. "There appears to be one law for
+atoms and for worlds."
+
+Again we ask, when there is such orderly arrangement and plan throughout
+nature, should the orderly plan of plant and animal life be regarded as
+a proof of evolution? Certainly, atoms have not evolved from atoms, nor
+planets from planets.
+
+And again, since omnipotence alone can account for the "sweet influences
+of the Pleiades," the "bringing forth of Mazzaroth"--the constellations
+of the heavens in their nightly revolutions,--why resist the conviction
+that omnipotence, voiced forth in the beginning, accounts for the life
+on earth that now exists?
+
+One more consideration, and we have done. Life on earth exists only
+through a combination of very complex physical conditions. These
+conditions are such as cannot, in their combination, be referred to
+chance, Fairhurst says, in his _"Organic Evolution Considered:"_ "The
+simple substances which constitute the earth are of such kinds and are
+found in such relative quantities as not only to render life possible,
+but also to contribute to the well-being of man as an intelligent and
+moral agent. I look upon the concurrence of all these things, according
+to any theory of _chance,_ as being entirely impossible. The conditions
+that must be fulfilled before living beings are possible are so complex
+that _nothing short of the wisdom of a Supreme Intelligence could have
+produced them."_ (cf. Rom. 1, 20.)
+
+This view has found support in a most unexpected quarter. No less a
+person than Alfred Russel Wallace, famed as the discoverer, independently
+of Darwin, of the principle of Natural Selection, in his last book,
+_"Man's Place in the Universe,"_ (1903) defended a position so subversive
+of every cherished belief (or unbelief) of scientists that it easily
+ranks as the greatest literary sensation, in the domain of natural
+science, of the century. Wallace assembled all the latest astronomcial
+[tr. note: sic] and other scientific discoveries and all knowledge
+bearing on the subject announced in his title. He deduces therefrom the
+theory:--First, that the earth or solar system is the physical center of
+the stellar universe. Second, _that the supreme end and purpose of this
+vast universe was the production and development of a living soul in the
+perishable body of man._
+
+"Modern skeptics," says Wallace, "in the light of accepted astronomical
+theories (which regard our earth as uttterly insignificant compared with
+the rest of the universe) have pointed out the irrationality and
+absurdity of supposing that the Creator of all this unimaginable
+vastness of suns and systems should have any special interest in so
+pitiful a creature as man, an imperfectly developed inhabitant of one of
+the smaller planets attached to a second or third rate sun, while that
+He should have selected this little world for a scene so tremendous and
+so necessarily unique as to sacrifice His own son in order to save a
+portion of these miserable sinners from the natural consequences of sins,
+is in their view a crowning absurdity, not to be believed by any rational
+being."
+
+We cannot follow Mr. Wallace's argument in detail. Suffice to say, that
+he adduces a vast amount of data showing, first, that the universe is not
+infinite, but has certain bounds, and that our earth and its system are
+in the center of it, and, secondly, that the entire purpose of the
+production of the universe is the human race. The earth, says Wallace, is
+the only body capable of sustaining life. Life is not possible on any of
+the planets, because they are either too close or too far distant from
+the sun; some are probably composed of gas. He proves, on the basis of
+accepted calculations, that of all the stars in the heavens there is not
+even a remote probability that any are attended by bodies which can
+provide the elements of life. Now, he says, this very peculiar position
+of the earth cannot have been due to accident. He refuses to believe that
+the earth should occupy this favored position "as the result of one out
+of a thousand million chances."
+
+"On the other hand," he says, "those thinkers may be right who, holding
+that the universe is a manifestation of mind, and that the orderly
+development of living souls supplies an adequate reason why such a
+universe should have been called into existence, believe that we
+ourselves are its sole and sufficient result and that nowhere else than
+near the central position in the universe which we occupy could that
+result have been attained."
+
+This conclusion of Mr. Wallace has, indeed, not found acceptance among
+scientists. Naturally not. If a materialistic conception of the universe
+is to prevail, if evolution in some form is to be accepted, we must have
+a universe of chance, not of a plan which spans the remotest star and
+the soul of the new-born infant in one tremendous arc. But it is highly
+instructive to observe how the scientists in 1903 met Wallace's argument.
+One very distinguished reviewer said:
+
+_"Too little is known,_ the most essential astronomical theories are too
+much _a matter of conjecture,_ to give much strength to a theory built
+up entirely of _such conjectural materials_. The argument from
+_probabilities_ can easily be turned against the author, for when a
+chain of reasoning depends upon _a long series of problematic premises,_
+the doubt of these premises increases in a mathematical ratio. Weakness
+in an argument is as cumulative as strength and while such of Dr.
+Wallace's conclusions taken separately may receive the support of eminent
+scientists, hardly any of them has received such demonstration as to
+entitle it to unreserved credence."
+
+This, at last, is a frank admission. Wallace quoted the generally
+accepted results of scientific calculation and research. On the basis of
+these results he demonstrates that the entire object of Evolution (to
+demonstrate the development of all things by natural causes, without a
+directing intelligence), is negatived by a proper consideration of
+"ascertained data,"--since these data, taken all together, prove a
+stupendous plan behind all natural phenomena, and the end of this plan,
+the human soul. In rebuttal we are now told that "the most essential
+astronomical theories"--as e.g. the Copernican System, Herschel's laws,
+the Newtonian theory of gravitation,--"are matter of conjecture" (in
+plain English, are blind guesses), are "problematic," and "hardly any
+entitled to unreserved credence."
+
+Thus do we find, that the greatest of Darwinians, on a mature
+consideration of the subject, reached a conclusion which makes evolution
+as a theory quite unnecessary; he found that the world is ruled not by
+blind forces inherent in matter but by Supreme Intelligence. And in
+their effort to keep themselves from being engulfed in the apostacy of a
+great leader, the scientists, as by a unanimous chorus, announce that
+the scientific dogmas which enter more or less essentially into their
+atheistic conception of the universe, are nothing but surmises!
+
+What reason has a Christian to surrender his faith on account of the
+contradiction of scientists? He has the oracles of God, the sure Word of
+Him Who created all things in six natural days. And if he but escape the
+fascination of scientific speculations, and study the works of God
+without bias, he will find in Nature nothing that does not agree with
+the Book.
+
+
+CHAPTER TWELVE.
+The Fatal Bias.
+
+If the theory of evolution is contradicted as we believe by the data of
+experimental science, by the history of civilization, by the facts
+especially of religion, more especially of Christianity, then the
+question is justifiable: Why do scientists uphold the evolutionary
+theory in some form or other, in spite of such absence of proof and such
+insufficiency of the hypothesis?
+
+In answering this question let us first observe that scientists do not
+stand opposed to Christian belief _as representatives of science_. It is
+not science, but the scientists, not geology, but the geologists, not
+physics, but the physicists that oppose Christian theology. In other
+words, there is no conflict between the _facts_ of science and the facts
+of revelation. Why should one not be able to maintain Christian faith
+though one accept the fact that the volume of expired air is one-fifth
+less than inspired air; that plant substance is composed of cells; that
+Halley's comet returns to our system every seventy five years; that
+Sicily was part of the Roman Empire in the time of Augustus? These
+physiological, botanical, astronomical, and historical facts are not in
+conflict with the religious beliefs based on Scripture. The same holds
+good with reference to the so-called laws of nature. These "laws" are
+but group-names for certain phenomena. Thus we speak of the law of
+gravity, of the conservation of energy, the Laws of Charles and Mariotte
+regarding gaseous bodies, zoological laws, physiological, and
+psychological laws. A book which merely records and classifies these
+laws and describes the phenomena underlying them, is a truly scientific
+book, yet the acceptance of all that it contained would not force the
+surrender of any point of Christian doctrine. Hence we say that there is
+no contradiction between science and theology, between nature and
+religion.
+
+It is otherwise with the _constructions and the interpretations_ which
+the scientists place upon the facts of science. For instance, there is
+an evident similarity of structure in many animals; they are built on a
+similar plan; their organs have similar or even identical functions.
+These are simply facts ascertained by observation. Their acceptance does
+not place any burden on Christian faith. But scientists interpret these
+facts to mean that there is progressive development in animal and plant
+life. They have found certain laws (Natural Selection and others) by
+means of which they require only forces resident in matter to explain
+the universe. On their hypothesis there is no necessity of miracles nor
+need we believe in God. Observe, this is the result of speculation, not
+observation; interpretation of facts, but not a conclusion drawn from
+facts themselves. It is not science but scientists that are opposed to
+the Christian religion.
+
+This view is supported also by the reflection that the history of
+speculative thought has ever revealed an anti-Christian intent and
+purpose, a fatal bias of scientists and philosophers against the
+teachings of Christianity. The modern anatomist and physiologist may
+declare that his science precludes the necessity of faith in God and of
+prayer; that through his research he has become a materialist, an
+atheist. But even in the Middle Ages, when practically all of anatomy
+and physiology was yet unexplored, the physicians of that day were as
+materialistic as those of our own. The medieval saying was: "Tres
+physici, duo athei," "of every three physicians, two are atheists." The
+science of the Middle Ages differed very materially from the science of
+our own day. Is it not clear that the same result cannot be produced by
+causes so dissimilar? That materialism and atheism which scientists
+announce as a result, is really the starting point of their speculations.
+Otherwise, how account for the fact that physicists are, as a rule,
+gross materialists now as they were forty years ago, although all
+theories regarding the composition of matter have been radically altered
+since that day? Evidently, the modern scientist is not on account of his
+research and speculation induced to proclaim himself as agnostic; quite
+the reverse, the fact that on _any_ system of physics, zoology,
+psychology, the conclusions remain the same, proves that these
+conclusions were in the mind before the facts were investigated.
+Unbelief is not a product of scientific and philosophic speculation, it
+is rather their origin and source. There is a settled purpose in
+relation to which the facts are classified and interpreted. Not all
+scientists are as honest as Huxley who announces this purpose in the
+introduction of his _"Science and Hebrew Tradition:"_ "These essays are
+for the most part intended to contribute to the process of destroying
+the infallibility of Scripture."
+
+Additional light is received from the observation that scientists adhere
+to their agnostic conclusions even after the premises have been found at
+fault, on which they based their conclusions. It is the end and aim of
+evolution to demonstrate that all processes of life and the history of
+living organisms may be accounted for without the assumption of a
+personal Creator. Thus the very beginning of our universe is accounted
+for (in the nebular hypothesis) by the origin of force and motion in
+matter. However, President Lowell, of Harvard, twenty years ago said
+that the nebular hyopthesis was "founded on a fundamental mistake."
+(_"The Solar System,"_ p. 119.) Do we find that scientists, though
+forced to surrender this prop, have given up atheistic evolution? By no
+means. Evidently, their atheism is older than their evolution.
+
+Fifty years ago it was thought that in the heavenly bodies called
+nebulae the material of which the world was made had been discovered. It
+was assumed that these nebulae were worlds in the process of formation.
+In 1914 the scientists at Lick Observatory concluded, from the great
+speed at which the nebulae traveled, that they are the _remains_ of
+worlds which _have been_ or are passing, and are not the constituents
+of worlds to be. This destroyed another supposition favoring the theory,
+but we do not notice that scientists have become more friendly to
+Christianity. Or consider the latest speculations on the composition of
+matter as contained in the works of Lodge, Crookes, and Lord Kelvin. It
+is now believed that matter is composed of electrical particles smaller
+than atoms, called electrons. An atom of gold is said to consist of
+137,200 electrons. Now, if one considers how closely physical theories
+are bound up with the principle of evolution, should we not expect
+scientists to renounce this principle when another stone in its
+foundation has been destroyed? And since there is no such renunciation,
+is it not plain that this class of scientists insists upon an atheistic
+interpretation of the universe, no matter on what hypothesis? For the
+slow increase of variations in plants and animals, by which Darwin
+accounts for the origin of species, the evolutionists demanded more
+than 400,000,000 years. But it is asserted on the strength of certain
+calculations by physicists that the earth cannot possibly have existed
+more than 40,000,000 years. This latter figure, based especially on the
+calculations of Lord Kelvin, caused doubts to be raised regarding
+evolution which prompted many scientists to renounce it as a working
+theory. Rudimentary structures received attention, and as a result, St.
+John Mivart says: "It is an absolute fad that there is no instance of
+transmutation of species." Dr. Nathaniel S. Shaler, Professor of Geology
+in Harvard, wrote: "It is not proved that a single species of the two or
+three millions now on earth has been established by natural selection."
+Thus the evolutionary philosopher is compelled to relinquish one theory
+after another; the biologist knocks out the under-pinning, the
+geologists and physicists demolish most of the residue; yet the
+advocates of evolutionism adhere to their purpose to banish God from the
+universe. In this we have conclusive proof that what evolutionists
+pretend to find as the conclusion of their research, in reality was a
+settled conviction in their minds before they commenced their
+investigation, and to which, in their bias, they propose to hold fast,
+no matter what happens to the evidence once announced as final.
+
+The warfare of philosophy against Christian faith is readily explained.
+Man is corrupt. He loves sin. He is conscious of his guilt and fears the
+penalty. Hence every avenue of escape is welcome, if only he can
+persuade himself that there is no God, that there is no judgment. Man is
+proud, he desires no Savior. Hence the tendency to prove that no Savior
+is necessary; that there is no guilt attaching to sin, that there is no
+absolute right and wrong. Hence, too, the doctrine of the agnostic, that
+we can ascribe no attribute to God. When we read the _"Synthetic
+Philosophy"_ of Spencer, we are apt to belive [tr. note: sic] that the
+agnosticism there set forth is the result of deep philosophic
+speculation. Nothing further from the truth. Man, even cultured,
+philosophic man, wants no restrictions placed upon pride and selfishness;
+hence it is necessary to rid the mind of the fear of divine justice;
+hence we have an interest in demonstrating that God "has no attributes"
+--such as "just," for instance. The Psalmist describes this attitude:
+"Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us."
+
+No man who has grasped the inner motive of all scientific effort to
+demolish faith can fail to understand why the rabble greets with such
+jubilant acclaim every new attack upon the Biblical narrative. No man
+who has pondered this motive can be ensnared in the net of science
+falsely so called. He has seen its inwardness, its fatal bias.
+
+Thus a Christian may preserve an attitude of mental balance over against
+science. The Christian believer may admire the achievements of science
+without being carried away by the speculations of scientists. Great is
+the progress of modern medicine, so great, that even the past ten years
+have witnessed great advances in treating disease. Chemistry has
+developed greater marvels than was ever ascribed to the wizard's wand
+by Oriental poets. What astounding performances in applied science--the
+Panama Canal, the Hudson Tunnels, the development of the automobile and
+of the airplane, and the perfection of the telephone and the moving
+picture! We may exult in all these victories of mind over matter, and
+yet stoutly oppose those theories which would make of the mind which
+created all these marvels merely a development of the instincts of the
+ape.
+
+It is possible, even, to be a scientist and in no wise compromise one's
+Christian faith and honesty of Christtian [tr. note: sic] profession.
+Wherever men have contented themselves with purely scientific research,
+with investigating and tabulating the phenomena of nature and
+establishing the laws of life and motion in the universe, they have
+found no difficulty in retaining a child-like faith. Among those
+scientists of the first rank who, far from being forced to the
+atheistic conclusion, recognized a wonderful harmony between science
+and revelation, was a Kepler, who was led by meditations on the harmony
+of theology with mathematics to follow those laborious calculations by
+which he first established the orbit of Mars and then of other planets;
+among them was a Newton, called by Justus Liebig "the most sublime
+genius in a thousand years," who asserted that his entire system of
+mechanics was untenable without the supposition of divine Power; a
+Davy, prince of chemists, who "saw in all the forces of matter the
+tools of Divinity;" a Linne, called by Prof. Fraas the "greatest
+naturalist of all times," who commences his "System of Nature" thus:
+"Awakening I saw God, the Eternal, the Infinite, the Omniscient, the
+Omnipotent, and I was amazed. I read some of His traces in creation.
+What unspeakable perfection!" We find in the roster of scientists who
+believed in an inspired Bible and a divine Savior, such men as Hans
+Christian Oerstedt, the great discoverer of electro-magnetism and the
+father of all modern electrical science, who declared that he "had but
+a desire to lead men to God by his books;" Lavoisier, father of modern
+chemistry, a Christian; Maedler, who reached the front rank of modern
+astronomers without relinquishing his childhood faith and who said: "A
+real scientist cannot be an infidel;" Ritter, greatest of geographers,
+who said: "All the world is replete with the glory of the Creator;"
+Virchow, the surgeon of worldwide fame, who all his life was an
+outspoken opponent of the evolutionary theory and whose last prayer,
+uttered in the presence of his fellow-scientists, was: _"Christi Blut
+und Gerechtigkeit . . . ."_
+
+Speaking of the triumphant Redeemer the Lord says Isa. 53: "I will
+divide Him a portion with the great and He shall divide the spoil with
+the strong. The kings of the earth shall serve Him." The prophecy was
+fulfilled when kings not only on material thrones but kings in the world
+of intellect and giants of learning have paid homage to the God-man
+Jesus Christ. Throughout the record of modern science and erudition
+there are shining examples of the truth that great mental power and
+profound research are not incompatible with humble acceptance of Bible
+teachings. The spiritual blindness of natural man, his intellectual
+pride, and the depravity of his will account for the attitude of many
+scientists over against the facts of revelation. From the shifting
+quicksand of their speculation we may rise unharmed on the pinions of a
+faith guided by the principle: "It is written."
+
+
+
+***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EVOLUTION***
+
+
+******* This file should be named 19321.txt or 19321.zip *******
+
+
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/9/3/2/19321
+
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://www.gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit:
+http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
diff --git a/19321.zip b/19321.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d70448e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19321.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bd68ece
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #19321 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19321)