,q4,e4,d4    ,or  ,new ,light on the    
,doctrine  of ,creation    ,by          
,,george ,mc,c,r,e,a,d,y ,,price        
,professor of ,chemistry and ,physics1  
,lodi ,academy1 ,california    ,author  
of ,outlines of ,modern ,science and    
,modern  ,christianity1 ,the            
,fundamentals of ,geology1  ,god's ,two 
,books1 ,back to the ,bible1  ,a        
,text-,book of ,general ,science1 etc4  
444 and set you square with ,genesis    
again4                   --,robert      
,browning4        #aiag        ,to      
,,william ,,cleaver ,,wilkinson         
,scholar1 ,critic1 ,poet and ,christian 
,gentleman    ,this book is dedicated by
 one who  owes to his advice and kindly 
sympathy  more than can be expressed    
,preface    ,the great world disaster1  
ushered in with the dawn of that ,august
  morning in #aiad1 has already brought 
revolutionary changes in many           
departments of our thinking4 ,but not   
the least of the surprises awaiting  an 
amazed world1 whenever attention can    

again be directed to such  subjects1    
will be the realization that we have now
 definitely outgrown  many notions in   
science and philosophy which in the old 
order of things  were supposed to have  
been eternally settled4    ,there are   
but two theories regarding the origin of
 our world and of the  various forms of 
plants and animals upon it1 ,creation   
and  ,evolution1--the latter assuming   
many modifications4    ,the essential   
idea of the ,evolution theory is        
uniformity2 that is1 it  seeks to show  
that life in all its various forms and  
manifestations  probably originated by  
causes similar to or identical with     
forces and  processes now prevailing4   
,it teaches the absolute supremacy and  
the past  continuity of natural law as  
now observed4 ,it says that the changes 
now  going on in our modern world have  
always been in action and that these    
present-day natural changes and         
processes are as much a part of the     
origin of things as anything that ever  

took place in the past4 ,in short1      
,evolution as a philosophy of nature is 
an effort to smooth out all  distinction
 between ,creation and the ordinary     
processes of nature that  are now under 
the rgime of natural law4    ,on the    
other hand1 the essential idea of the   
doctrine of ,creation is  that1 back at 
a period called the beginning1 forces   
and powers were  brought into exercise  
and results were accomplished that have 
not since  been exercised or            
accomplished4 ,that is1 the origin of   
the first organic  forms1 indeed of the 
whole world as we know it1 was          
essentially and  radically different    
from the ways in which these forms are  
perpetuated  and the world sustained    
to-day4 ,time is in no way the essential
 idea  in the problem4 ,the question of 
how much time was occupied in the work  
of ,creation is of no importance1       
neither is the question of how long  ago
 it took place4 ,the one essential idea 
is that in its nature  ,creation is     

essentially inscrutable2 we can never   
hope to know just how  it was           
accomplished2 we cannot expect to know  
the process or the  details1 for we have
 nothing with which to measure it4 ,the 
one essential  thing in the doctrine of 
,creation is that the origin of our     
world and of  the things upon it came   
about at some period of time in the past
 by a  direct and unusual manifestation 
of ,divine power2 and that since this   
original ,creation other and different  
forces and powers have prevailed  to    
sustain and perpetuate the forms of life
 and indeed the entire world  as then   
called into existence4    ,accordingly1 
we might establish the ,evolution       
doctrine by showing that  matter can be 
made de novo1 that energy can be created
 or increased in  amount1 that life can 
be made from the not-living1 and that   
new and  distinct forms of life can be  
produced in modern times1--all by       
natural  law as now prevailing4    ,or  
we can practically demonstrate the      

historical reality of a direct          
,creation at some time in the past1 if  
we can show that the net results  of all
 modern science tend to prove that the  
forces and processes now in  operation  
can never account for the origin of     
things2 that matter1 and  energy1 and   
life1 and the various forms of life must
 all have had an  origin essentially    
different from anything now going on    
around us4    ,this indicates the line  
of argument adopted in the following    
pages4    ,the ,evolution theory has    
been widely discussed and accepted in   
modern  times4 ,indeed it has had a fair
 chance and an open field for several   
decades4 ,what is the present situation 
of the controversy8 ,the friends  of the
 ,bible and of old-fashioned            
,christianity need to know the real     
facts of the present situation4         
,every now and then the news despatches 
report that the great ,professor        
,so-and-so has at last really produced  
life from the not-living1 or has        

obtained some absolutely new type of    
life by some wonderful feat of          
breeding4 ,or some geologist or         
archologist has discovered in the earth 
the missing link which connects the     
higher forms of life with the  lower1 or
 which bridges over the gulf between man
 and the apes4 ,thus  many people who   
get their science through the daily     
papers really  believe that these       
long-looked-for proofs of ,evolution    
have at last been  demonstrated1 and    
hence they receive without question the 
confident  assertions of the camp       
followers of science published at space 
rates in  the ,sunday supplements that  
all intelligent men of to-day have long 
ago  accepted the ,evolution doctrine4  
,but in spite of the quick dissemination
 of news and the universal spread  of   
education1 it seems but a slow process  
for the really important  discoveries of
 modern science to filter down through  
such media as the  current periodicals  
to the rank and file of society4 ,the   

situation seems  to illustrate the old  
adage that a lie will travel round the  
world while  truth is getting on her    
shoes4 ,thus it happens that the common 
people  are still being taught in this  
second decade of the twentieth century  
many things that real scientists outgrew
 nearly a generation ago1 and           
assertions are still being bandied      
around in the individual sciences  which
 are wholly unwarranted by a general    
survey of the whole field of  modern    
natural science4 ,indeed1 in almost     
every one of the separate  sciences the 
arguments upon which the theory of      
,evolution gained its  popularity a     
generation or so ago are now known by   
the various  specialists to have been   
blunders1 or mistakes1 or hasty         
conclusions of  one kind or another4    
,thus the market value of all the       
various subsidiary  stocks of the       
,evolution group has been steadily      
declining in their  respective home     
markets1 and now stands away below par2 

while strange to  say the stock of the  
central holding company itself is still 
quoted at  fictitiously high figures4   
,this curious--not to say               
deplorable--situation has developed     
largely  because of the modern system of
 strict specialization in the various   
departments of science4 ,each scientist 
feels compelled by an unwritten  but    
rigid code of professional ethics to    
confine himself strictly to the         
cultivation of the little plot of ground
 on which he happens to be  working1 and
 is forbidden to express an opinion     
about what he may know  has been        
discovered on another plot of ground on 
which his neighbor is  working1 except  
by express permission4 ,in other words1 
science teaching  has now become        
strictly a matter of authority1 this    
authority being  vested in the various  
specialists2 and nobody is permitted to 
look at it  in a broad way1 or to frame 
a general induction from the sum of all 
the  facts of nature now discovered1    

under penalty of scientific             
excommunication4 ,the scientific code of
 ethics forbids any general view  of the
 woods3 each man must confine himself to
 the observation of the  particular tree
 in front of his own nose4    ,but these
 pages have been prepared under the idea
 that it is high time  to take a more   
general survey of the geography1 time to
 take our eyes  off the various         
individual trees1 and to look at the    
woods4 ,perhaps in  some respects they  
may be regarded as too technical for    
ordinary  readers4 ,but if this is the  
case1 it is because the writer had to   
choose  between this somewhat technical 
treatment of the subject and the        
alternative danger of making loose and  
inaccurate statements or dealing  in    
glittering generalities too vague to    
carry conviction4 ,as it is1 the  writer
 is here trying to give directly to the 
general public the results  of years of 
special research in correlating the data
 from many scattered  departments of    

science1--results that most scientists  
would feel obliged  to reserve for the  
select few of some learned society1 to  
be published  subsequently in the       
,reports of its ,transactions1 and to   
find their way  after years of delay    
into the main currents of human thought4
 ,but these  dilatory methods of        
professional pedantry1 miscalled ethics1
 shall not  longer be allowed to delay  
the publication of highly important     
principles which the public are entitled
 to know at once1 and to know at  first 
hand4 ,then1 too1 it is more than       
doubtful if any purely academic  body   
could be found willing to become        
responsible for giving to the  world    
conclusions so contrary to the vogue of 
the present day4    ,that these brief   
chapters may clear up the doubts of     
some1 and encourage  the faith of many1 
is the object of their publication in   
this  non-professional form4    ,g4     
,mc,c4 ,p4        ,contents    ,i4      
,,matter ,,and ,,its ,,origin #ae  ,,ii4

 ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,energy #ca       
,,iii4 ,,life ,,only ,,from ,,life #dc  
,,iv4 ,,the ,,cell ,,and ,,the ,,lessons
 ,,it ,,teaches #eg  ,v4 ,,what ,,is ,a 
,,species8 #fh  ,,vi4 ,,mendelism ,,and 
,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,species #gh       
,,vii4 ,,geology ,,and ,,its ,,lessons  
#ii  ,,viii4 ,,creation ,,and ,,the     
,,creator #abe        ,i    ,,matter    
,,and ,,its ,,origin      ,i    ,when we
 were told by a prominent scientist just
 the other day that  electricity is now 
known to be molecular in structure1 it  
almost took  our breath away4 ,and when 
we were informed that certain well-known
  chemical elements had been detected in
 the very act of being changed  over    
into other well-known elements1 with the
 prospect of such a  transformation of  
the elements being quite the normal     
thing throughout  nature1 the very earth
 seemed to be slipping away from under  
our feet4  ,some of the closely related 
discoveries1 such as the fact that the  
,x-rays show a spectrum susceptible of  

examination1 were not so  disconcerting 
in themselves2 but the marvellous       
pictures of the  structure of the atom  
elicited by these discoveries made many 
good  people almost question whether our
 venerable experimenters had not been   
indulging in pipe dreams amid their     
laboratory work4    ,do we1 then1 begin 
to understand the real composition of   
matter8 ,does it  have component parts1 
in the materialistic sense2 or is what  
we call  matter only a mysterious       
manifestation of energy8 ,and if the    
latter  be our answer1 can we hope to   
settle the problem objectively and so   
conclusively that it will stay settled8 
,in short1 do we1 regarding these       
border-line subjects between metaphysics
 and natural science1 know  anything    
more than our fathers and our           
grandfathers8    ,it will be convenient 
to consider these problems under two    
heads3 the  composition of matter1 and  
the origin of matter4      ,,ii    #a4  
,it was long ago recognized that matter 

must be composed of particles  which are
 driven farther apart by heat and are   
brought closer together  by cold1 thus  
laying the foundation for the theory of 
the molecular  composition of matter4   
,but not until the time of ,dalton1     
about a hundred  years ago1 was it      
proved that the molecule itself1 the    
unit of physical  change1 is capable of 
definite division into atoms1 the units 
of  chemical change4 ,this conception of
 the molecules and atoms as the         
ultimate units of which matter is       
composed maintained its place until  the
 discovery of radioactivity and its     
associated phenomena1 about  #ahif2     
since which time we have definitely     
ascertained that even the  atoms are    
separable into still smaller units1 and 
that possibly these  units are all      
alike4 ,on this last possibility1 it    
would surely be a  most amazing fact if 
such multitudinous properties of bodies 
could be  produced merely by variations 
in the arrangements of these ultimate   

units into atoms1 or in some other way  
which produces vast differences  in     
properties by combinations of units that
 are nevertheless mere  duplicates of   
one another4    ,as hydrogen is the     
lightest of the elements1 it has been a 
favorite  theory with scientists that   
the various elements are all composed of
  combinations of hydrogen atoms4 ,but  
since many of the elements have  atomic 
weights which cannot be made exact      
multiples of that of hydrogen1  it has  
been felt that there must be some other 
smaller unit than the  hydrogen atom2 or
 else that these hydrogen atoms         
themselves change in  weight when they  
combine to form other atoms4 ,but mass  
seems to be the  one unchangeable       
characteristic of matter2 hence it was  
felt that any  change of weight is      
almost unthinkable1 and so a solution   
was sought in  the direction of still   
further dividing the hydrogen atom1 the 
smallest  unit concerned in chemical    
change1 as then understood4 ,but now the

 facts  and principles brought to light 
in connection with the studies of       
radioactivity have settled it that we   
actually do have a much smaller  unit   
than the hydrogen atom1 one of only     
about #a_/agfj its mass1 in fact2  and  
that this smallest of the small things  
of nature is none other than  a particle
 of negative electricity1 now called an 
electron4    ,that the atoms of all the 
elements must have a common unit of     
composition1 that they behave as if     
composed of ultimate particles that  may
 be regarded as duplicates of one       
another1 has long been regarded as  an  
inevitable conclusion from the ,periodic
 ,law of ,mendeleef4 ,this law  says    
that the physical as well as the        
chemical properties of the various      
elements depend upon their atomic       
weights1 or as it is stated in the      
language of mathematics1 the properties 
of an element are functions of  its     
atomic weight4 ,this fact of the        
variation in the properties of  elements

 in accord with their atomic weights has
 been even more  strikingly illustrated 
by the behavior of discharges of        
electricity  through rarified gases1 as 
well as by the facts of radioactivity4  
,to  quote the words of ,sir ,j4,j4     
,thompson1 ,the transparency of bodies  
to  ,roentgen rays1 to cathode rays1 to 
the rays emitted by radioactive         
substances1 the quality of the secondary
 radiation emitted by the  different    
elements1 are all determined by the     
atomic weight of the  element4#a        
,footnote #a3 ,encyclopdia ,britannica1 
,vol4 ,,xvii1 #hia4 ,cambridge          
,edition4    ,just recently we have had 
opened up before us a still more        
intimate  inner-circle view of the      
composition of matter4 ,h4,g4,j4        
,moseley1 a young  man only twenty-six  
years of age1 at an ,english university1
 devised a  method of examining the     
spectra of the various elements by means
 of the  ,x-rays4 ,he found in this way 
that the principal lines of these       

various  spectra are connected by a     
remarkably simple arithmetical          
relationship2  for when the elements are
 arranged in the order of their atomic  
weights1  they show a graded advance    
from one to another equal to successive 
additions of the same electrical unit   
charge1 thus indicating a real  gamut of
 the elements that we can run up by     
adding or run down by  subtracting the  
same unit of electrical charge4 ,it is  
pitiable to have  to record that next   
year this scientific genius was killed  
in the  ill-fated ,gallipoli expedition 
against ,turkey4    ,thus in many fairly
 independent ways we are brought around 
to this same  idea of a common structure
 underlying all the many seeming        
diversities  manifested by what we call 
matter4    ,the phenomena of            
radioactivity were discovered           
accidentally in #ahif by  the ,french   
chemist ,becquerel4 ,many investigators 
immediately began  working along this   
promising line1 and two years later     

,madam ,curie1 in  association with     
others1 discovered the new element      
radium4 ,soon it was  discovered that   
radium and several other substances are 
continually  giving off radiations at an
 enormous rate1 that no change of       
chemical  combination1 no physical      
change of condition appears to have the 
slightest effect in slowing or          
increasing this discharge of emanations1
  while no scientific apparatus yet     
devised can detect any change in the    
substances left behind either in respect
 to weight or any other  properties as  
the result of these enormous losses of  
energy4 ,accordingly  some people not   
unnaturally were ready to draw the      
conclusion that those  most firmly      
established laws of physics and         
chemistry1 the laws of the  conservation
 of energy and of matter1 were          
overthrown by this  astonishing behavior
 of these newly discovered substances4  
,however1 only  a few more years of     
study and investigation were necessary  

to prove  that this last conclusion was 
wholly unwarranted2 and to-day these    
laws  of the conservation of energy and 
of matter are more firmly established   
than ever4    ,the thing that has gone  
by the board is the old idea of the     
atoms as the  indivisible and           
irreducible minima of the material      
universe4 ,for not  only do all the     
radioactive substances give off         
particles of helium gas  positively     
electrified1 but all bodies1 no matter  
what their  composition1 can by suitable
 treatment1 such as exposing them to    
ultra-violet light1 or raising them to  
incandescence1 be made to give  off     
electrons or negatively charged         
particles1 and these electrons are      
always the same no matter from what kind
 of substance they come4 ,in a  somewhat
 similar way1 we always get positively  
electrified particles of  the mass of   
the hydrogen atom1 or about #a1gfj times
 the mass of the  electron1 whenever we 
send an electric charge through a gas at

 very low  pressure1 no matter what the 
kind of gas4 ,whether or not these      
positive units will yet prove           
susceptible of being split up into      
smaller  particles comparable to the    
electrons1 is merely a subject for      
conjecture4 ,we have no proof that they 
will4 ,at the present time what we  call
 matter seems to be composed of these   
positive units and of the  electrons    
which are about #a_/agfj as great2 and  
in the present state of  our knowledge  
these facts suffice to explain all the  
properties of  matter4 ,thus we can     
either say that electricity is composed 
of matter1  or say that matter is       
composed of electricity2 and human      
language at  best is such a clumsy      
vehicle of thought that scientifically  
and  philosophically the one statement  
is as correct and as reasonable as the  
other4    ,and probably we shall never  
be able to learn any more than this4 ,we
 have  arrived at a sort of             
box-within-a-box theory of the make-up  

of matter4  ,by a very elaborate system 
of unpacking1 or by some violent        
external  force that makes the inside   
burst open1 as it were1 we seem to be   
able  to make pieces fly off from the   
atoms1 these pieces being then projected
  into space with enormous force and    
velocity4 ,there are theories galore  of
 the structure of the atom2 but as      
,prof4 ,e4,p4 ,lewis has said1 most of  
these theories are so impossible as to  
be absurd1 or so speculative that  they 
suggest no experimental tests for their 
validity4#b ,just at  present           
,rutherford's theory of the structure of
 the atom is quite  popular4 ,this      
postulates a nucleus composed of a group
 of positive units  and electrons1 with 
an excess of the positive charges equal 
to half the  atomic weight1 with an     
equal number of electrons circulating   
about this  nucleus in rings4 ,bohr's   
theory1 which is not very different from
 this1  has perhaps even more friends1  
and it is supported by the remarkable   

discoveries of the lamented ,moseley4   
,but we must not take such theories  too
 seriously4 ,as ,kayser has said1 any   
true theory of the make-up of the  atoms
 must assume an absolutely full and     
perfect knowledge of all  electrical and
 optical processes1 and is therefore    
beyond our dreams4 ,or  as ,professor   
,planck said in his ,columbia lectures1 
we are not entitled  to hope that we    
shall ever be able to represent truly   
through any  physical formul the        
internal structure of the atom4         
,footnote #b3 ,nature1 ,april #e1 #aiag4
      ,,iii    #b4 ,we must now take up 
the second phase of our subject1 the    
problem of  the origin of matter4       
,before we knew anything of             
radioactivity we could have dismissed   
such a  subject briefly by quoting the  
law of the conservation of matter1 which
  says that matter can neither be       
created nor destroyed by any means known
  to science4 ,by our knowledge of      
radioactivity we can make our answer a  

little more learned1 a little less      
abrupt1 but none the less  discouraging 
to the advocate of the development      
hypothesis4 ,we can tell  how the       
elements of high atomic weight1 such as 
uranium and thorium1 are  constantly    
giving off particles and are thus by    
loss or decomposition  being changed    
over into other elements1 such as       
radium1 niton1 polonium  and lead4 ,but 
our new knowledge compels us ultimately 
to give the same  answer as before1     
namely1 that we still do not know how   
matter ever  could have originated1     
except that in the beginning it was     
called  into existence by the fiat of   
,him whom we ,christians worship as our 
,god1  the ,creator4 ,thus we reach the 
conception of the universe as that of a 
great clock gradually running down1     
which is certainly the antithesis of    
that picture so long held before us by  
the advocates of the development        
theory4    ,uranium is a rather rare    
element1 though known for over a hundred

 years1  and has an atomic weight of    
#bch4e4 ,in decomposing it gives off    
first a  helium atom1 weight #d2 and    
after this action has been repeated     
three  times the substance left is      
radium1 atomic weight about #bbf4d4     
,thus  radium is simply uranium after it
 has lost three helium atoms4 ,radium in
  its disintegration gives off three    
kinds of particles1 namely1 helium      
atoms 7positively electrified71 ,greek3 
b-rays or electrons1 and  ,greek3       
g-rays1 the latter being identical with 
the ,x-rays1 and having  penetrating    
power sufficient to carry them through  
six inches of lead or  a foot of solid  
iron4 ,the final stage in this process  
of disintegration  is the ordinary      
element lead1 in which condition the    
atoms seem to have  reached relative    
stability4 ,whether or not our stock of 
lead1 with our  other common elements   
that are not radioactive1 was originally
 produced  by the disintegration of     
these other elements1 is merely a matter

 of  conjecture4 ,we know nothing at all
 about it4    ,the length of time it    
takes for half the atoms of an element  
to change  is called its life or period4
 ,the periods of most of the radioactive
  substances have been calculated1 that 
of uranium being very long4 ,the        
calculated period of radium is #b1ejj   
years1 while that of polonium is  only  
#bjb days1 and that of niton #e4f days4 
,these unquestioned facts1  together    
with the enormous amount of heat evolved
 by the disintegration  of these        
substances 7that from radium being about
 #bej1jjj times the heat  evolved by the
 combustion of carbon71 have thrown a   
great deal of doubt  upon the older     
estimates of the age of the earth4      
,the discussion of the details of these 
theories would be unprofitable4  ,but   
through the mists of all these          
conflicting theories and  probabilities 
two facts of tremendous importance for  
our modern world  emerge in clear       
relief1 namely1 that the grand law of   

the conservation  of matter still holds 
true1 and hence that the matter of our  
world must  have had an origin at some  
time in the past wholly different in    
degree  and different in kind from any  
process going on around us that we call 
a  natural process4 ,these elements of  
high atomic weight that break down  into
 others of lower atomic weight may be so
 rare because they have been  about all 
used up in this process4 ,at any rate1  
so far from revealing  the origin of    
matter as a process now going on1 these 
phenomena are an  objective             
demonstration that all matter is more or
 less unstable and  liable under some   
unknown but ever-acting force to lose   
some portion of  that fund of energy    
with which it seems to have been        
primarily endowed4  ,not the evolution  
of matter but the degeneration of matter
 is the  plain and unescapable lesson to
 be drawn from these facts4 ,the        
varieties  of matter may change greatly1
 and one variety or one chemical element

  may be transformed into another4 ,but 
this transformation is by loss and  not 
by gain4 ,it is degeneration and not    
upward evolution that is now  opened up 
before our astonished eyes by this peep 
into the ultimate  laboratories of      
nature2 and he is surely a blind        
observer who cannot  read in these facts
 the grand truth that all this substance
 called  matter with which science deals
 in her manifold studies must at some   
time in the past1 ,i care not when1 have
 been called into existence in  some    
manner no longer operative4 ,the past   
eternity of matter1 as well  as its     
progressive development from the simple 
to the complex1 seems  manifestly out of
 consideration in view of the facts as  
we now know  them4 ,there is no         
ambiguity in the evidence4 ,so far as   
modern science  can throw light on the  
question1 there must have been a real   
,creation of  the materials of which our
 world is composed1 a ,creation wholly  
different both in kind and in degree    

from any process now going on4      ,,iv
    ,a supposed objection has been      
raised to this view1 based on the       
vastness  of the universe as we now know
 it4 ,whether or not the universe is    
really  infinite in extent1 it is       
certainly of an extent that is          
practically  infinite1 so far as our    
powers of observation or of reasoning   
are  concerned4 ,but this practically   
infinite universe is not a bit harder to
  account for than would be a definitely
 limited universe1 say of the size  of  
our solar system4 ,if the spectroscope  
shows that the far distant  parts of the
 universe contain many of the same      
elements as are found in  our solar     
system1 we need not be surprised1 since 
all are alike the  work of the same     
,creator4 ,nor would this fact that the 
universe seems to  be composed of       
similar materials throughout tend in any
 way to prove  that all these parts of  
the universe were brought into existence
 at the  same time1 nor yet that our    

solar system was refashioned out of some
 of  the common stock of the universe   
already on hand1 as the nebular         
hypothesis supposes4 ,for all that we   
can tell to the contrary1 it would  seem
 probable that the materials of our     
solar system were called into  existence
 expressly for the position they are now
 occupying2 and this  seems to be the   
plain import of the record in ,genesis4 
,of one thing1  however1 we can be      
certain1--these materials must at some  
time have been  called into existence by
 methods or ways that are no longer in  
operation  around us4 ,in the beginning 
,god created the heaven and the earth4  
,v    ,some remarks are necessary here  
regarding the homogeneousness of matter1
  or the idea that the various elements 
are composed of primordial units  which 
are themselves alike1 mere duplicates of
 each other4 ,if this  should prove to  
be really the case1 as seems to be quite
 likely in the  light of the facts given
 above1 would it not be a veritable     

triumph for  materialism8 ,by no means4 
,on the contrary1 ,i think ,i can show  
in a very  few words not only that this 
homogeneousness of matter is the only   
rational view of the composition of the 
material universe1 but also  that it is 
the only view consistent with ,christian
 ,theism and with the  doctrine of      
,creation4    ,the theory of the atoms  
with their inherent and unchangeable    
properties1  which prevailed during the 
greater part of the nineteenth century1 
naturally led us to look upon these     
properties as inherent in the things    
themselves4 ,this was indeed            
materialism4 ,this view1 however1       
constantly  impelled us to find out the 
essential differences between the       
various  kinds of atoms1 so as to       
account for their varying behaviors4    
,and no  matter how far we push such    
inquiries1 this materialistic attitude  
of  mind will control us so long as we  
think we are dealing with substances    
which are intrinsically different4 ,if  

the differences are innate or  inherent 
in the things themselves1 we must       
naturally endeavor to find  out why and 
how they are different2 and no matter   
how far we go along  this road we are   
always headed in the direction of stark 
materialism4 ,on  the other hand1 to say
 that the properties of the atoms are   
not  inherent in themselves1 but are    
imposed on them by an external          
ceaselessly acting power1 the will of   
the ,creator1 would be in full  accord  
with ,biblical theism2 and then we might
 naturally say that the  ultimate       
particles of which matter is composed   
may well be regarded as  alike and mere 
duplicates of one another4 ,and this1 as
 we have seen1 is  just what modern     
discoveries in radioactivity are        
teaching us regarding  the make-up of   
the substances that we call matter4     
,but an objection at once arises4 ,how  
can these primordial units of which     
matter is composed behave so            
differently1 if they are really alike1  

mere  duplicates of one another8    ,we 
may not as yet be able to tell just why 
and how2 but we have in the  cells of   
which all plants and animals are        
composed an analogy which is  almost    
perfect1 if not quite4    ,these        
component units of organic matter1 the  
individual cells1 as will  be explained 
later1 seem physically and even         
chemically mere duplicates  of one      
another4 ,they may not all be of the    
same size2 but they are all  composed of
 protoplasm1 and the protoplasm of      
plants cannot be  distinguished from    
that of animals by any physical or      
chemical tests  known to modern science4
 ,the protoplasm in the brain of a bird 
is the  same as that in its toes2 and no
 metaphysical subtilties about heredity 
have ever explained why the one does a  
different work from the other4  ,the    
plain fact is that different cells1     
composed of identical protoplasm  and   
structurally alike1 act very            
differently2 and there is no  scientific

 reason based on innate properties that 
gives us even a  glimmer of a reason    
why4 ,we have searched a long time along
 this road2  but there is no prospect of
 finding an explanation2 we are merely  
running up a cul-de-sac with no view    
beyond4 ,from the materialistic  point  
of view1 nobody knows why protoplasm    
acts as it does1 least of  all1 why some
 masses of protoplasm act one way1 and  
exact duplicates act  differently4 ,but 
if1 on the other hand1 we look beyond   
the facts and  methods of physics and   
chemistry1 and even beyond the most     
plausible  theories of genetics1 we can 
readily explain this remarkable action  
of  the cells as the result of the will 
of an ever acting1 omniscient1  almighty
 ,god4 ,certainly nothing else is       
adequate to explain the behavior  of    
living cells4    ,in a very similar way 
we must reason regarding the ultimate   
units of  matter1 call them what we     
will1 electrons1 corpuscles1 or units of
  electricity4 ,if these are mere       

duplicates of each other1 as science now
  teaches1 they not only indicate by    
this identity that they are             
manufactured articles1 as was long ago  
pointed out of the atoms and  molecules1
 but they also indicate with all the    
force of a demonstration  that nothing  
but an ever present omniscient          
,intelligence could keep  these         
duplicates from always acting the same  
under similar external  forces4 ,if gold
 and carbon1 iron and oxygen are at     
bottom composed of  particles that are  
mere duplicates of each other1 as seems 
to be the  case1 how can these elements 
and the six dozen or more others        
maintain  their individuality throughout
 nature as we know they do1 even in the 
far distant stars1 except by the        
sleepless care of an ,intelligence whose
  ,word is as effective in one part of  
the universe as in another1 and to      
whose ,word these particles of matter   
can show no inertia and no              
disobedience1 because they have no      

powers or properties except what ,he    
has imparted8 ,this doctrine of the     
homogeneousness of matter is the        
antithesis of materialism4 ,it is       
consistent only with the doctrine of an 
almighty and ever present ,god1 and like
 many other facts which have been       
developed by modern scientific          
discoveries1 it confirms the other      
primal  doctrine of a literal ,creation 
in the beginning4      ,,vi    ,the     
conclusion which our minds are forced to
 draw from the facts  presented in this 
chapter is not doubtful1 nor is it      
difficult to state4  ,matter is not now 
being brought into existence by any     
means that we call  natural4 ,and yet   
the facts of radioactivity very         
positively forbid  the past eternity of 
matter4 ,hence1 the conclusion is       
syllogistic3  matter must have          
originated at some time in the past by  
methods or means  which are equivalent  
to a real ,creation4    ,thus far1 at   
least1 the record of ,genesis is        

confirmed3 ,in the  beginning ,god      
created4        ,,ii    ,,the ,,origin  
,,of ,,energy      ,i    ,what has been 
regarded by many as the greatest        
scientific triumph of  modern times was 
worked out about the middle of the last 
century by  ,james ,prescott ,joule and 
others1 in determining that a certain   
amount of  mechanical energy is exactly 
equivalent to a definite amount of heat4
  ,with this mechanical equivalent of   
heat all the various other forms of     
energy have also been correlated2 until 
now we have the general law of  the     
,conservation of ,energy1 which says    
that energy can be neither  manufactured
 nor destroyed1 but merely transformed  
and directed4 ,and  this magnificent    
law1 like that of the conservation of   
matter1 is strong  evidence that there  
must have been a real ,creation at some 
time in the  long ago1 different not    
merely in degree but in kind from       
anything known  to modern science4      
,joule worked out the mechanical        

equivalent of heat by means of his now  
famous experiment of churning water4 ,he
 reasoned that if the heat  produced by 
friction1 etc41 is really energy in     
another form1 then the  same amount of  
heat must always be generated by the    
expenditure of a  given amount of motion
 or mechanical work4 ,and this must be  
true1 no  matter whether this work is   
expended in overcoming the friction     
between  wood on wood1 iron on iron1 or 
in any other conceivable way4           
,accordingly1 he devised an experiment  
in which paddle wheels were made  to    
rotate in a vessel of water by means of 
falling weights somewhat like  the      
weights of a clock4 ,the amount of work 
represented by the falling of  the      
weights was easily calculated1 and so   
was the amount of rise in  temperature  
of the water caused by the friction of  
the water with the  rotating paddle     
wheels4 ,in various other ways he       
measured the amount of  heat generated  
by a measured amount of work2 and as the

 result of all  his experiments 7with   
very slight corrections made since by   
means of  more exact apparatus71 we now 
know that #ggh foot pounds of work      
produce  heat enough to raise one pound 
of water one degree ,fahrenheit2 or     
stated  in the metric system1 #dbg      
kilogram meters of work will produce a  
calorie  of heat4    ,since these       
record-making experiments by ,joule1 the
 matter has been  verified over and over
 again in all sorts of ways2 and almost 
every kind  of display of energy has    
been measured with more or less         
exactness4 ,even  the amount of food    
oxidized in the human body is now known 
to be capable  of correlation with the  
other forms of energy1 though           
necessarily very  minute exactness of   
measurement is scarcely attainable in   
this case4 ,but  no scientist of to-day 
doubts that all the physiological       
processes of  animals or of plants      
conform exactly to the law of the       
conservation of  energy that energy is  

neither created nor destroyed by any    
means known  to science4 ,in other      
words1 the amount of energy in our      
world1 if  science can at all determine 
such a matter1 seems to be a fixed      
quantity1 gradually being dissipated    
into space1 it is true1 but  momently   
replenished from the sun at exactly the 
same rate now as  hundreds or thousands 
of years ago4 ,and while this energy is 
in our  world it is always capable of   
exact correlation in all of its         
multitudinous forms1 and is             
transformable back and forth without    
increase and without loss4    ,on the   
discovery of the radioactive substances 
in #ahif1 some persons  hastily         
concluded that the law of the           
conservation of energy was  contradicted
 by the astonishing way in which these  
substances acted4 ,but  further and more
 accurate experiments have set this     
matter at rest1 as  indeed might have   
been expected2 for the law of           
gravitation itself is  not more         

immovably established in the make-up of 
the universe than this  magnificent law 
that energy cannot be created by any    
means which we call  natural4    ,in all
 ages there have been men who have spent
 their lives in the vain  effort to     
invent a machine out of which work could
 constantly be  obtained without the    
expenditure upon it of an equal amount  
of work4 ,but  the ,united ,states      
patent office has got so tired of       
receiving  applications for patents     
based on this idea of perpetual motion  
that  they have long since refused to   
issue any such patent where this        
principle is the manifest object2 and ,i
 suppose the governments of other       
countries have taken a similar stand4   
,and why8 ,because they know that       
energy cannot now be created by any     
device1 no matter how ingenious2 and    
they refuse to become a party to any    
scheme that seems to imply that  this   
modern creation of energy is within the 
bounds of possibility4    ,yet what is  

all this but a confirmation of the      
declaration long ago made  that the     
works were finished from the foundation 
of the world 7,heb4  #d3c78 ,true1 the  
energy we are constantly employing seems
 to come to us  from the sun2 but we    
must remember that the sun and its      
family of the  solar system1 including  
the earth1 were all made at the same    
time1 that  they are bound together as  
parts of an indissoluble whole4         
,accordingly1  no one can say that the  
total amount of energy called into      
existence at  the creation of our solar 
system is being added to at the present 
time4  ,at any rate1 so far as modern   
science can judge of the matter1 the    
total  amount of energy available for   
our world is a fixed quantity2 and its  
amount and the terms on which it was to 
be available for our use were  fixed or 
finished from the foundation of the     
world4 ,while it is a very  significant 
fact in this connection that with all   
the multiform  speculations which have  

been made as to the physical source of  
the sun's  heat1 no explanation wholly  
satisfactory has yet been made as to how
  this energy coming to us from the sun 
is constantly replenished or            
maintained4      ,,ii    ,the desire to 
find a material cause for all phenomena 
is instinctive in  the human mind1 and  
has proved the chief impetus in a       
thousand  discoveries4 ,and yet1 unless 
we are on our guard1 it is liable to be 
a  source of real error whenever we are 
dealing with the deeper problems of     
thought4 ,for when we have pushed our   
way into the inner sanctuary of any     
department of nature1 we almost         
invariably come upon a deep chasm that  
we can pass over only by building a     
bridge of words4 ,some of these  verbal 
bridges have been decorated with very   
dignified names1 such as  the           
luminiferous ether1 gravity1 chemical   
affinity2 and when we  have shifted from
 the one side of the chasm to the other 
we impose upon  the credulity of the    

public 7and even ourselves7 by giving   
out the  impression that these words    
represent the real objective bridge on  
which  we crossed4    ,in how many ways 
do we by our theories dodge the crucial 
problem of how  energy is really        
transmitted1 that is1 how matter can act
 on distant  matter across seemingly    
vacant space4 ,gravity1 and indeed all  
the forms  of the attractive forces1    
come under this head4 ,true1 we observe 
certain  regularities in the way in     
which these phenomena occur1 and the    
phenomenon at one place seems to be     
somehow dependent on some exercise  of  
force at another place4 ,and so we      
invent an ingenious theory1 and  fortify
 it all around with ponderous algebraic 
artillery for defense  against all      
attack4 ,and by persistent use of such  
theories we hypnotize  ourselves into   
the belief that we are truly scientific 
in method1 and  are dealing with        
objective realities1 and that these     
learned theories  are something more    

than pretentious masks to hide our      
ignorance of real  nature2 when in      
reality these theories seem to be only a
 material screen  to shield us from an  
embarrassing near view of the immediate 
action of  ,god in all the various      
phenomena of the world2 for not many    
find it a  comfortable thought thus to  
live continuously beneath the great     
,taskmaster's eye4    ,the theory of the
 luminiferous ether as the medium of the
 transmission  of light is one of these 
pretentious bridges of words4 ,our      
advancing  knowledge of electro-magnetic
 phenomena may some day drive us back to
 a  modified form of the corpuscular    
theory of light1 and then we can throw  
this of the ether to the winds4 ,in that
 case we would at least have a  real    
material cause for the phenomena with   
which we deal4 ,while the  current      
theory of the ether has so many         
inconsistencies1 and attempts to  bridge
 over so many real chasms in our        
thinking that it seems truly            

astonishing to see it taught so long4   
,by the theory of the ether the         
problems are not solved1 they are merely
 postponed or evaded2 for while  solving
 one difficulty it creates a multitude  
of its own4 ,how then are  we better off
 than before without any such theory8   
,being at liberty to invent any sort of 
qualities for their ether1  scientists  
have tried to imagine such a substance  
as they think they  need4 ,the ether    
must be a kind of matter2 but unlike any
 matter that we  know of it cannot have 
weight1 or else it would gravitate      
together here  and there1 thus becoming 
more abundant in some places than in    
others2  whereas the need is for a      
material absolutely uniform throughout  
space1 even throughout the interiors of 
solid bodies1 such as the earth  and the
 bodies upon the earth4    ,another     
reason for supposing the ether to be a  
plenum1 filling  absolutely all space1  
is that it must be perfectly            
frictionless2 and for  this reason it   

cannot be composed of particles with    
spaces between them4  ,it must be       
frictionless1 for otherwise the planets 
would be retarded in  their motions     
through space4 ,the earth1 for instance1
 is moving along  its orbit at the rate 
of eighteen miles a second2 and yet the 
ether does  not pile up in front of it1 
nor is it made rarer in the wake of the 
earth4 ,moreover1 during the thousands  
of years during which astronomers  have 
been making observations absolutely no  
retardation has been  detected in the   
motions of the earth or of any of the   
heavenly bodies1  even to the smallest  
fraction of a second4    ,it is         
necessary to make the ether absolutely  
elastic and absolutely  rigid4 ,we are  
acquainted with many materials that are 
elastic1 and with  some that are        
comparatively rigid4 ,but the elastic   
substances that we  are acquainted with 
are not rigid1 and the rigid substances 
are not  elastic2 and to assume such    
contradictory qualities in the ether    

transports us far beyond the bounds of  
experimental science4    ,these are but 
a few of the difficulties raised by the 
assumption of the  ether as a real      
entity2 but as there is no means of     
demonstrating its  existence1 except by 
arguing the necessity of having such a  
medium to  transmit radiant energy1 it  
follows that no multiplication of       
objections  to the theory is likely to  
refute it in the minds of those who feel
 this  necessity4 ,those who refuse to  
admit the possibility of action at a    
distance1 who insist on inventing a     
connecting material medium between      
every observed effect and some material 
object with which it seems to be  in    
causal connection1 will1 ,i suppose1    
have to be allowed to exercise  their   
ingenuity in any way to satisfy their   
minds1 even though they may  have to    
revise their theory with every fresh    
discovery in optics or  radioactivity4  
,there are many other ingenious mental  
devices1 like this of the ether1  which 

seem to me only materialistic efforts to
 postpone or to dodge the  real vital   
lessons to be read from natural         
phenomena1--efforts to push  the real   
,cause back one step farther into the   
shadow1--a last desperate  effort1 in   
the face of the constantly accumulating 
evidence of modern  knowledge that the  
great ,first ,cause is far more         
intimately connected  with life and     
motion than many are willing to believe4
 ,we have already  mentioned gravity and
 the other attractive forces1 such as   
cohesion and  adhesion2 but seemingly   
very few people have ever paused to     
consider how  utterly inexplicable they 
still remain in any physical or         
materialistic  sense4    ,it is easy to 
explain any form of a push in a physical
 way2 but  gravity is not a push but a  
pull4 ,and how are we to explain the    
method  by which a body can act where it
 is not1 how explain in detail the way  
by which it can reach out and pull in   
toward itself another separated  body1  

and exert this pull across the          
immeasurably wide fields of space8  ,the
 law of inverse squares may tell us very
 accurately the manner in  which the    
results are accomplished1 for our       
,creator is a ,god of order4  ,but there
 is no materialistic theory of the why  
of gravitation that is  worth employing 
the time of sensible1 truth-loving      
people4 ,and we can  rest assured that  
there never will be any such real       
explanation1 save  that this is the way 
which the great ,jehovah has ordained4  
,since such  theories only explain the  
known in terms of the unknown1 they can 
serve  only as a sort of mental buffer  
or shield between us and the conception 
of the direct working of a personal     
,god1 whose word must always be as      
effective throughout the remotest       
corners of ,his universe as near at     
hand1 for the very simple reason that   
matter has no properties which  ,he has 
not imparted to it1 and accordingly it  
can have no innate inertia  or          

reluctance to act which ,god's word     
would need to overcome in order to      
induce it to act1 even when this word   
operates across the wide fields  of     
space4 ,on this explanation these       
phenomena of action at a distance  are  
at least intelligible2 while to me1 and 
,i speak now as a scientist1  they are  
intelligible in no other way4      ,,iii
    ,there is another line of thought   
which has to do with living organisms1  
but which ,i shall beg leave to         
anticipate and bring in here at the     
close  of this chapter1 since it follows
 as a direct corollary from the law of  
the ,conservation of ,energy4 ,indeed1  
we might even term it the biological    
aspect of that law4    ,as we have seen1
 we can neither create energy nor       
destroy it2 though we  can lose it1--so 
far as this earth is concerned4 ,the    
vast fund of  energy that daily comes   
streaming to us from the sun is         
transmuted back  and forth in a thousand
 ways1 though little by little it is    

dissipated  off into space1 and we are  
dependent upon a fresh supply from the  
ever  replenished fountain4    ,just so1
 though in a somewhat idealistic sense1 
is it with what we may  term vital      
energy4 ,cells1 organisms1 even whole   
races1 are subject to  degeneration and 
decay4 ,they cannot acquire higher      
powers1 though they  may gradually lose 
what they already have2 as ,bateson has 
recently told  us that whatever         
evolution there is must be by loss and  
not by gain4  ,water very easily runs   
down hill2 but cannot go up hill in and 
of  itself4 ,just so with the types of  
organic life4 ,it was not merely an     
idle sneer of the witty ,frenchman1 that
 science has not yet explained  how an  
ancestor can transmit what he has not   
got himself4 ,he cannot  always transmit
 all that he himself actually possesses 
of nature's  gifts4 ,vitality becomes   
lowered1 and the type degenerates4      
,weismann has  emphasized this idea in  
his doctrine of panmixia1 or the        

withdrawal of  selection1 which always  
results in degeneration4 ,selection1    
artificial  or natural1 may serve to    
counteract this universal tendency of   
organic  life1 but only approximately4  
,as ,sir ,william ,dawson says1 ,all    
things  left to themselves tend to      
degenerate4 ,little by little the       
endowment  of vitality bestowed upon our
 world at the beginning has1 like       
radiant  energy1 been returned to ,god  
who gave it2 but1 unlike the case of    
radiant energy1 the ,creator has not    
established any regular source of  vital
 supply from without1 no elixir of life 
for organic nature in  general4 ,there  
is no longer within easy reach a tree of
 life from which  we may pluck and eat  
and live forever4 ,and as the individual
 grows old  and dies1 so do species and 
even whole tribes degenerate and become 
extinct4        ,from scarpd cliff and  
quarried stone       ,she cries1 ',a    
thousand types are gone4'    ,the       
glorious flood of vitality1 so          

prodigally lavished upon our world in   
the beginning1 has been ebbing lower and
 lower2 and the theory of  organic      
nature steadily advancing from the lower
 to the higher is  manifestly just as   
puerile as the old hope of creating     
energy by a  perpetual-motion           
machine1--and a mistake of precisely the
 same nature4  ,both are contradicted by
 the magnificent law of the             
,conservation of  ,energy1 which1 as we 
have said1 is only the scientific       
expression of the  ,scriptural statement
 that ,creation is completed1 so far as 
our world is  concerned2 though1 as the 
wages of sin1 death has been decreed    
upon  the individual1 and degeneration  
more or less marked upon every organic  
type4 ,the fossils of the past1 as well 
as our own experience within the        
historic period1 confirm the view       
already arrived at on other grounds     
that ,creation is a completed work and  
is not now going on2 and the  universal 
testimony from organic nature is that   

degeneration and decay  have marked the 
history of every living form4 ,just as  
the individual  grows old and dies1 so  
do species degenerate and become        
extinct4        ,,iii    ,,life ,,only  
,,from ,,life    ,no biological         
generalization rests on a wider series  
of observations1  or has been subjected 
to a more critical scrutiny1 than that  
every  living organism has come into    
existence from a living portion or      
portions of a pre-existing organism4#c  
,was there anything so absurd as to     
believe that a number of atoms1 by      
falling together of their own accord1   
could make a sprig of moss1 a  microbe1 
a living animal8 444 ,it is utterly     
absurd4444 ,here scientific  thought is 
compelled to accept the idea of creative
 power4 ,forty years  ago ,i asked      
,liebig 444 if he believed that the     
grass and flowers1 which  we saw around 
us1 grew by mere mechanical force4 ,he  
answered1 ',no more  than ,i could      
believe that a book of botany describing

 them could grow by  mere chemical      
force4'#d    ,let them not imagine that 
any hocus-pocus of electricity or       
viscous  fluids would make a living     
cell4444 ,nothing approaching to a cell 
of  living creature has ever yet been   
made4444 ,no artificial process         
whatever could make living matter out of
 dead4#e    ,footnote #c3 ,p4,c4        
,mitchell1 in ,encyclopdia ,britannica1 
,vol4 ,,iii1 p4  #ieb4    ,footnote #d3 
,lord ,kelvin in the ,london ,times1    
,may #d1 #aijc4    ,footnote #e3 ,lord  
,kelvin1 to a class of ,medical         
,students1 ,october #bh1  #aijd4      ,i
    ,ever since ,ren ,descartes1 in his 
,holland laboratory1 dissected the      
heads of great numbers of animals in    
order to discover the processes of      
imagination and memory1 men have been   
seeking a physical or  materialistic    
answer to such questions as1 ,what is   
life8 ,what is it to  be alive8 ,how    
shall we distinguish the living from the
 not-living8    ,no one of to-day1 in   

the light of the correlation of vital   
processes  with the general law of the  
conservation of energy1 believes that   
life  in plants and animals is a        
separate entity which may exist outside 
of  and apart from matter4 ,in a        
scientific sense1 we only know life by  
its  association with living matter1    
which in its simplest form is known as  
protoplasm4 ,the latter has been termed 
the physical basis of life1 and  so far 
as we know every material living thing  
is composed wholly of  protoplasm and of
 the structures which it has built up4  
,this grayish1 viscid1 slimy1           
semi-transparent1 semi-fluid substance1 
similar to the white of an egg1 is the  
most puzzling1 the most wonderful       
material with which science has to deal4
 ,chemically it is composed of  various 
proteids1 fats1 carbohydrates1 etc41 and
 these in turn of but  very few         
elements1 all of which are common1 and  
none of which are  peculiar to          
protoplasm itself4 ,and yet its         

essential properties1 its  mechanical as
 well as its chemical make-up1 have     
baffled the resources  of our wisest men
 with all their retorts and microscopes 
and other  instruments of precision4    
,protoplasm is essentially uniform and  
similar in appearance and  properties   
wherever found1 whether in the tissues  
of the human body1 in  a blade of grass1
 or in the green slime of a stagnant    
pool4 ,and yet  probably no two samples 
of protoplasm are ever exactly similar  
in all  respects1 though we may never be
 able to detect their precise           
differences4 ,these differences are due 
to the fact that the stuff is  alive1   
and within it are constantly going on   
those changes  accompanying metabolism1 
or the building up and tearing down     
processes  that always accompany life4  
,all separate masses of protoplasm1 such
 as  the one-celled amoeba or the       
individual cells of our own bodies1 are 
constantly taking in food and as        
constantly throwing off wastes4 ,hence1 

in the very nature of things1 it is     
impossible to find any mass of          
protoplasm absolutely pure4 ,and a      
further and impassable barrier to       
chemical analysis1 or indeed to any     
adequate scientific examination1  lies  
in the fact that we can never deal with 
protoplasm exactly as it  is1 since no  
analysis can be performed upon it       
without destroying its  life4 ,and yet  
even dead protoplasm1 and especially its
 most  characteristic constituent1      
proteid1 has been found the most        
difficult  material in the world to     
analyze1 and nobody as yet pretends to  
know its  exact chemical make-up4       
,the constant effort of natural science 
to press back the boundaries of  the    
unknown is very liable to obscure some  
of the things most essential  to any    
system of clear thinking regarding these
 matters4 ,we are so prone  to think    
that if only our microscopes were a     
little stronger1 if only we  could      
devise more effective methods of        

staining or of chemical analysis  or    
chemical synthesis1 we might really find
 out what life is1 or what  matter      
itself is2 in short1 that we might be   
able to solve in a  scientific way the  
old1 old riddle of existence4 ,but      
already we have  about reached the      
limits of the powers of the microscope2 
and even if we  could devise a way of   
seeing the ultimate structures of which 
protoplasm  is composed1 how would we be
 any better off8 ,would we not have to  
attribute to each constituent of this   
living substance the properties  which  
we now attribute to the whole8--that is1
 the properties which we  attribute to  
masses of protoplasmic units1 such as   
plants1 or birds1 or  human beings8     
,we look at ourselves and we feel sure  
that we have a separate and real        
existence1 that we are rationally       
conscious and are endowed with choice   
and free will4 ,we can say almost as    
much for an intelligent bird or dog4    
,but we hesitate to say how many of     

these powers or characteristics of  free
 and independent personality can be     
assigned to the unicellular  organisms1 
such as the amoeba or the corpuscles of 
our blood4 ,these  one-celled creatures 
are also alive1 are just as truly alive 
as are  those composed of many cells4   
,even the corpuscles of which our bodies
  are composed move1 and eat1 and grow1 
and seem really endowed with            
intelligence like the higher forms of   
life4 ,suppose we could go further  than
 is now possible and could lay bare the 
ultimate make-up of the  chromatin of   
these one-celled creatures1 would we    
even then be able to  prove that life   
with all its properties is inherent in  
these material  components of the cells8
 ,in other words1 would we really solve 
anything  after all8 ,or would we not   
rather be compelled to acknowledge that 
the  simplest1 the most truly rational  
view of the question is that in living  
matter we have merely a special         
manifestation of the presence and the   

direct action of the ,god of nature     
which we cannot so readily recognize  in
 not-living matter8 ,this1 it seems to  
me1 is all that we really know1  and all
 that we are likely ever to know4       
,when we examine carefully the          
differences between the living and the  
not-living1 we see that the chief       
difference between them is in their     
origin4 ,the matter of growth is not a  
real distinction2 for crystals  grow on 
the outside1 while inorganic liquids    
grow by intussusception1 as  when a     
soluble substance is added to them1 in  
very much the same way as  an animal    
grows by the ingestion of food4 ,even   
movement is hardly an  absolute         
distinction between the living and the  
not-living2 for no  movement can be     
detected in quiescent seeds1 which may  
lie dormant for  thousands of years2 and
 on the other hand inorganic foams when 
brought  into contact with liquids of   
different composition display movements 
that very closely simulate those of the 

living matter4 ,lastly1  irritability1  
though so notably characteristic of     
living matter1 is  scarcely peculiar to 
it1 for many inorganic substances seem  
almost as  definitely responsive to     
external stimulation4 ,but in the matter
 of  their origin there is a real and a 
most fundamental difference4 ,all       
living substance arises only from other 
substance already living4 ,it  cannot   
arise from the not-living2 or at least  
it never has done so since  the         
beginning of scientific observation1    
though on this point have been          
concentrated the learning and the       
laboratory technique of thousands of    
chemists and microscopists4    ,it may  
not be out of place to quote here from  
one of the classics  dealing with this  
subject1--words that are just as true   
to-day as when  first written nearly    
half a century ago3    ,let us place    
vividly in our imagination the picture  
of the two great  kingdoms of           
nature1--the inorganic and the          

organic1--as these now stand  in the    
light of the ,law of ,biogenesis4 ,what 
essentially is involved in  saying that 
there is no spontaneous generation of   
life8 ,it is meant that  the passage    
from the mineral world to the plant or  
animal world is  hermetically sealed on 
the mineral side4 ,this inorganic world 
is staked  off from the living world by 
barriers that have never yet been       
crossed  from within4 ,no change of     
substance1 no modification of           
environment1 no  chemistry1 no          
electricity1 nor any form of energy1 nor
 any evolution1  can endow a single atom
 of the mineral world with the attribute
 of  life4 ,only by the bending down    
into this dead world of some living form
  can these dead atoms be gifted with   
the properties of vitality2 without     
this preliminary contact with life they 
remain fixed in the inorganic  sphere   
forever4    ,it is a very mysterious law
 which guards in this way the portals of
 the  living world4 ,and if there is one

 thing in nature more worth pondering   
for its strangeness1 it is the spectacle
 of this vast helpless world of  the    
dead cut off from the living by the ,law
 of ,biogenesis1 and denied  forever the
 possibility of resurrection within     
itself4 ,the physical laws  may explain 
the inorganic world2 the biological laws
 may account for the  development of the
 organic4 ,but of the point where they  
meet1--of that  strange border-land     
between the dead and the                
living1--science is silent4  ,it is as  
if ,god had placed everything in earth  
and heaven in the hands  of nature1 but 
had reserved a point at the genesis of  
life for ,his  direct appearing4#f      
,footnote #f3 ,henry ,drummond1 ,natural
 ,law in the ,spiritual ,world1         
,chapter ,i4    ,it would be superfluous
 to emphasize further this great        
outstanding fact  that the not-living   
cannot become the living by any of the  
processes  which we call natural2 and it
 would be presumptuous to attempt to    

emulate these eloquent words by seeking 
to emphasize the completeness  with     
which this great ,law of ,biogenesis    
confirms the truth of a real  ,creation2
 for the supreme grandeur and importance
 of this law could be  only obscured by 
so doing4      ,,ii    ,perhaps some of 
the most impressive lessons on this     
subject will be  found in connection    
with the history of the discovery of    
this great ,law  of ,biogenesis1 which  
says that life can come only from life4 
,for by  studying the history of the way
 in which this great ,law has been      
established1 we cannot fail to be       
impressed with the thought that back  of
 all the complex array of living forms  
in our modern world which go on         
perpetuating themselves in orderly ways 
according to natural law1 they  could   
have originated only by a direct and    
real ,creation1 essentially  and        
radically different from any processes  
now going on4    ,the wisest of the     
ancients in ,greece and ,rome knew      

nothing of this great  law as we now    
know it4 ,aristotle1 the embodiment of  
all that the ancient  world knew of     
natural science1 expressly taught that  
the lower forms of  animals1 such as    
fleas and worms1 even mice and frogs1   
sprang up  spontaneously from the moist 
earth4 ,all dry bodies1 he declared1    
which become damp1 and all damp bodies  
which are dried1 engender animal  life4 
,according to ,vergil1 bees are produced
 from the putrifying  entrails of a     
young bull4 ,such were the teachings of 
all the ,greeks and  ,romans1 even of   
the scientists of the post-,reformation 
period1 some of  whom had accumulated a 
very considerable stock of knowledge    
concerning  plants and animals4    ,and 
similar absurdities continued to be     
taught until comparatively  modern      
times4 ,van ,helmont1 a celebrated      
alchemist physician who  flourished     
during the brilliant reign of ,louis    
,,xiv1 wrote3 ,the smells  which arise  
from the bottom of morasses produce     

frogs1 slugs1 leeches1  grasses1 and    
other things4 ,as a recipe for producing
 a pot of mice  offhand1 he says that   
the only thing necessary is partly to   
fill a  vessel with corn and plug up the
 mouth of the vessel with an old dirty  
shirt4 ,in about twenty-one days1 the   
ferment arising from the dirty  shirt   
reacting with the odor from the corn    
will effect the transmutation  of the   
wheat into mice4 ,the doctor solemnly   
assures us that he himself  had         
witnessed this wonderful fact1 and      
continues1 ,the mice are born           
full-grown2 there are both males and    
females4 ,to reproduce the species  it  
suffices to pair them4    ,scoop out a  
hole in a brick1 he says further1 put   
into it some sweet  basil1 crushed1 lay 
a second brick upon the first so that   
the hole may  be completely covered4    
,expose the two bricks to the sun1 and  
at the end  of a few days the smell of  
the sweet basil1 acting as a ferment1   
will  change the herb into real         

scorpions4#g    ,footnote #g3 ,louis    
,pasteur1 ,his ,life and ,labors1 p4    
#hi4    ,sir ,thomas ,browne1 the famous
 author of ,religio ,medici1 had        
expressed  a doubt as to whether mice   
may be bred by putrifaction2 but another
  scientist1 ,alexander ,ross1 disposed 
of this suggestion by the following     
line of argument which was supposed to  
be conclusive as a reductio ad          
absurdum3    ,so may he 7,sir ,thomas   
,browne7 doubt whether in cheese and    
timber worms  are generated2 or if      
beetles and wasps in cows' dung2 or if  
butterflies1  locusts1 grasshoppers1    
shell-fish1 snails1 eels1 and such like1
 be  procreated of putrid matter1 which 
is apt to receive the form of that      
creature to which it is by formative    
power disposed4 ,to question this is  to
 question reason1 sense and experience4 
,if he doubts this let him go  to       
,egypt1 and there he will find the      
fields swarming with mice1 begot of  the
 mud of ,nylus1 to the great calamity of

 the in-habitants4#h    ,footnote #h3   
,encyclopdia ,britannica1 ,vol4 ,i1 p4  
#fd4    ,when we remember that such     
nonsense constituted the wisdom of the  
scientific world only about two         
centuries ago1 we begin to realize the  
fact that the doctrine of ,biogenesis is
 indeed a very modern doctrine4  ,but it
 may be well to ask in passing1 ,how    
could the people of former  ages        
understand or appreciate the great truth
 of ,creation as we moderns  are able to
 do8    ,the first important step toward
 the refutation of this old pagan       
doctrine of spontaneous generation was  
made by the ,italian1 ,redi1 in  #affh4 
,he noticed that flies are always       
present around decomposing meat  before 
the appearance of maggots1 and he       
devised an experiment to keep  the flies
 away from actual contact with the meat4
 ,the meat putrified as  usual1 but did 
not breed maggots2 while the same kind  
of meat exposed  in open jars swarmed   
with them4 ,he next placed some meat in 

a jar with  some wire gauze over the    
top4 ,the flies were attracted by the   
smell of  the meat as usual1 but could  
not reach the meat4 ,instead they laid  
their  eggs upon the gauze1 where they  
hatched in due time1 while no maggots   
were generated in the meat4 ,thus from  
this time onward it became  gradually   
understood that1 at least in the case of
 all the larger and  higher forms of    
life1 ,harvey's dictum1 as announced    
some years  previously1 was true1 and   
that life comes only from life4    ,but 
the invention of the microscope opened  
the way for a renewal of the            
controversy regarding the origin of     
life4 ,bacteria were discovered in      
#afhc2 and it was soon observed that no 
precautions with screens or other       
stoppers could prevent bacteria and     
other low organisms from breeding in    
myriads in every kind of organic matter4
 ,here apparently was an entirely  new  
foundation for the doctrine of          
spontaneous generation4 ,it was freely  

admitted that all the higher forms of   
life arise only by process of  natural  
generation from others of their own     
kind2 but did not these  microscopic    
organisms prove that there was a        
perpetual abiogenetic  fount by which   
the first steps in the evolution of     
living organisms  continued to arise1   
under suitable conditions1 from         
inorganic  matter8#i    ,footnote #i3   
,encyclopdia ,britannica1 ,vol4 ,i1 p4  
#fd4    ,the famous barnacle-geese ought
 not to be omitted from any sketch of   
the vicissitudes of this doctrine of    
,biogenesis4 ,an elaborate  illustrated 
account covering their alleged natural  
history was printed  in one of the early
 volumes of the ,royal ,society of      
,london4 ,buds of a  particular tree    
growing near the sea were described as  
producing  barnacles1 and these falling 
into the water were alleged to be       
transmuted into geese4 ,nor should we   
omit mention of ,huxley's ,bathybius    
,haeckelii1 a slimy substance supposed  

to exist in great masses in the  depths 
of the ocean and to consist of          
undifferentiated protoplasm1 the        
exhaustless fountain from which all     
other forms of life had been  derived4  
,not long after ,huxley had given it a  
formal scientific name in  #ahfh1 it was
 discovered to be merely a precipitate  
of gypsum thrown down  from sea water by
 alcohol1 and thus a product of clumsy  
manipulation in  the laboratory1 instead
 of a natural product of the deep sea4  
,the  disappointment of those opposing  
biogenesis was severe2 but the lesson   
is still of value to the world to-day4  
,the masterly work of ,tyndall and      
,louis ,pasteur in doing for the        
bacteria  and protozoa what ,redi had   
done for the larger organisms1 is too   
much a  matter of modern contemporary   
history to need recital here4 ,upon this
  great truth of life only from life is 
based all the recent advances in  the   
treatment and prevention of germ        
diseases and all the triumphs of  modern

 surgery4 ,the housewife puts up canned 
fruit with the utmost  confidence       
because she believes in this great ,law 
of ,biogenesis4 ,it is  because we all  
believe in it that we use antiseptics   
and fumigators and  fly screens4        
,,iii    ,but what are the lessons to be
 learned from this great fact1 and what 
bearing has this fact on the old ,bible 
doctrine of a literal ,creation8        
,life comes now only from prexisting    
life4 ,but at some time there was no    
life on the globe4 ,it does not take any
 great exercise of philosophic  faith1  
as ,huxley suggested1 to look beyond the
 abyss of geologically  recorded time   
and recognize that at this beginning of 
things there must  have taken place a   
most wonderful event1 essentially and   
radically  different from anything now  
going on1 namely1 the beginning of      
organic  life4 ,but would not this be a 
real ,creation in the old-fashioned     
sense  of this term8 ,we cannot avoid   
this conclusion2 nor is there anything  

in  either science or philosophy to     
indicate that this creation of the      
living from the not-living was confined 
to one mere speck of  protoplasm4 ,it is
 absolutely certain that it required a  
real ,creation to  produce life from the
 not-living at all2 and it is just as   
reasonable  that this exercise of       
creative power may have taken place in  
all parts  of the earth at the same     
general time1 as the ,bible teaches4    
,for if a  ,being saw fit to create life
 at all1 why should ,he stop with one or
 two  bits of protoplasmic units8 ,an   
architect who can make his own bricks   
and  other building material1 can surely
 build what he desires out of these     
materials4 ,common sense tells us that1 
if the ,creator really created  life in 
the beginning1 ,he did not stop with a  
few specks of protoplasm  here and there
 over the earth4 ,the ability to create 
life from the  not-living implies the   
ability to make full-grown trees or     
birds or  beasts in twenty-four hours1  

instead of waiting for months or years1 
as  is usual at the present time4    ,as
 we have already found regarding matter 
and energy1 so of life4 ,the  record in 
,genesis is confirmed1 for modern       
science compels us to believe  in       
,creation as the only possible origin of
 life1--a ,creation entirely  different 
from anything now going on1 and one that
 can never be made to  fit into any     
scheme of uniformitarian evolution4     
,,iv    ,,the ,,cell ,,and ,,the        
,,lessons ,,it ,,teaches      ,i        
,with his usual vigor and expressiveness
 ,henry ,drummond has given us a        
picture of the remarkable fact that the 
cells of all plants and animals  are    
strikingly alike1 especially the single 
cells from which all  originate4 ,it is 
easy for any one to distinguish between 
an oak1 a palm  tree1 and a lichen1     
while a botanist will have elaborate    
scientific  distinctions which he can   
discern between them4 ,but if the first 
young  germs of these three plants are  

placed before him1 says ,drummond1 and  
the botanist is called upon to define   
the difference1 he finds it  impossible4
 ,he cannot even say which is which4    
,examined under the  highest powers of  
the microscope1 they yield no clue4     
,analyzed by the  chemist1 with all the 
appliances of his laboratory1 they keep 
their  secret4    ,the same experiment  
can be tried with the embryos of        
animals4 ,take the  ovule of the worm1  
the eagle1 the elephant1 and of man     
himself4 ,let the  most skilled observer
 apply the most searching tests to      
distinguish the  one from the other1 and
 he will fail4    ,but there is         
something more surprising still4        
,compare next the two  sets of germs1   
the vegetable and the animal1 and there 
is no shade of  difference4 ,oak and    
palm1 worm and man1 all start in life   
together4 ,no  matter into what         
strangely different forms they may      
afterwards develop1  no matter whether  
they are to live on sea or land1 creep  

or fly1 swim or  walk1 think or         
vegetate1--in the embryo1 as it first   
meets the eye of  science1 they are     
indistinguishable4 ,the apple which fell
 in ,newton's  garden1 ,newton's dog    
,diamond1 and ,newton himself1 began    
life at the same  point4#aj    ,in these
 remarks1 of course1 ,drummond is       
dealing with the unicellular  primal    
form1 as it first meets the eye of      
science2 and while certain  slight      
peculiarities 7such as the constant     
number of chromosomes7 have  been       
detected as characteristic of the cells 
of certain forms1 yet for  all practical
 purposes these words of ,drummond are  
just as true to-day  as when first      
written4 ,possibly it is because of a   
failure in our  technique or from a lack
 of power in our microscopes that these 
wonderful protoplasmic units from which 
all living things originate seem        
identical4 ,but it is equally possible  
that they are really identical  in      
structure and in chemical composition1  

and that only the ever present          
watchcare of the great ,author of nature
 directs the one to develop in a        
certain manner1 after its kind1 and     
another in still another manner1  after 
its kind4 ,at any rate1 the protoplasm  
of which they are all  alike composed is
 identical wherever found1 so far as any
 scientific  tests have yet been able to
 determine4    ,footnote #aj3 ,natural  
,law1 ,chapter ,x4      ,,ii    ,there  
are many varieties of single cells known
 to science which maintain  an          
independent individual existence4 ,among
 the unicellular plants are  the        
bacteria1 while the unicellular animals 
are known as the protozoa4  ,and        
although perhaps ,i ought to apologize  
to the reader for seeming to  anticipate
 here a part of the discussion of the   
problem of species1  yet it seems       
necessary to say a few words here       
regarding the  persistence of these     
unicellular forms4    ,among the        
diseases which have been proved to be   

due to protozoa are  malaria1 amoebic   
dysentery1 and syphilis2 while among the
 much larger  number which are due to   
bacteria1 bacilli1 or other vegetable   
parasites1  are cholera1 typhoid fever1 
the plague1 pneumonia1 diphtheria1      
tuberculosis1 and leprosy4    ,one of   
the difficulties attending the study of 
species among the  higher forms of      
plants and animals has always been the  
length of time  required to obtain any  
large number of generations on which to 
make  observations4 ,in the case of such
 plants as peas1 wheat1 corn1 or indeed 
almost any form of plant life1 it is    
only with difficulty that more than  one
 generation a year can be obtained2 and 
when two or more generations  a year are
 produced1 they are produced under more 
or less unnatural  conditions4 ,so that 
it takes almost a lifetime carefully to 
test and  record in a thoroughly        
scientific way the results of any       
extensive  experiments regarding        
variation and heredity4    ,in the case 

of mice or rats or rabbits or guinea    
pigs1 many more  generations can be     
obtained in a few years2 but in the case
 of the  larger kinds of animals the    
time taken for development to maturity  
and  for gestation is often much        
prolonged2 and scientific observation of
 an  exact character has been in vogue  
for so short a time that there has      
always been the chance for advocates of 
evolution to take refuge under  the plea
 that1 if we only had longer and more   
carefully conducted  observations1 we   
could really see species in the making1 
one form  becoming transformed into a   
distinct form1 or perhaps giving rise to
  another and distinct form as an       
offshoot4    ,but in the case of the    
bacteria and protozoa1 we can have a new
  generation every hour or so1 sometimes
 every half hour4 ,true1 these  forms of
 minute life have been under observation
 for only a few years2  but their       
effects have in many cases been observed
 for almost the  entire length of human 

history4 ,no physician would tolerate   
the  suggestion that the bacillus of    
cholera can produce the symptoms of     
diphtheria1 or the tubercle bacillus    
produce the symptoms of leprosy4  ,nor  
will any scientist deny that such       
diseases as the plague1  tuberculosis1  
or diphtheria are identical with        
diseases which ravaged  ,rome or ,greece
 or ,egypt thousands of years ago4 ,and 
as the symptoms of  these modern        
diseases are similar to those recorded  
by acute observers  in ,greece or ,egypt
 two thousand years or more ago1 we must
 conclude that  the organisms causing   
these symptoms are doubtless identical4 
,similar  remarks might be made         
regarding fermentation and other forms  
of decay4    ,in the case of a form of  
bacteria which reaches maturity and     
redivides  in half an hour1 the number  
of individual forms existing at the end 
of  two days would need about           
twenty-eight figures to represent it4   
,doubtless these forms never multiply at

 this rate uninterruptedly for  any     
great length of time1 or else they would
 occupy the whole world to  the         
exclusion of every other form of life4  
,and doubtless instances arise  where   
the period of growth to maturity and    
division is prolonged to  several times 
the half-hour period mentioned above4   
,but in any case1 as  we contemplate the
 length of time during which such well  
marked diseases  as diphtheria1 leprosy1
 or the plague have been known1 we must 
acknowledge that these unicellular forms
 seem to breed true during a  most      
astonishingly long period4 ,how can we  
deny that this persistence  of these    
unicellular forms constitutes a very    
strong argument in favor  of the fixity 
of these forms8      ,,iii    ,but we   
must proceed to examine the behavior of 
the various kinds of  cells of which the
 various multicellular organisms are    
composed4    ,plants were known to be   
composed of cells1 and their cells were 
studied  and described some years before

 it was understood that animals also are
  composed of cells as units4 ,even     
then1 however1 the first propounders of 
the cell theory 7,schleiden and         
,schwann7 had no clear or accurate idea 
of  the origin of cells1 or of their    
essential characters and structure4 ,as 
to origin1 they supposed that cells     
arose by a sort of crystallization  from
 a mother liquor2 and as to structure1  
they looked upon the  cell-wall as the  
really important part1 the fluid        
contents being quite  subordinate4 ,hugo
 von ,mohl 7#ahdf7 applied to the fluid 
contents of the  cell the term          
protoplasm1 and ,max ,schultze 7#ahfa7  
showed that this  protoplasm is really  
identical in all organisms1 plants and  
animals1  also that the cell-wall is    
frequently absent in many animal tissues
 and  in many unicellular forms1        
indicating that the protoplasm is the   
really  important substance4 ,by this   
time also it had become known that cells
  never arise de novo1 as had been      

supposed by the earlier  investigators1 
but that cells arise only by division of
 preexisting  cells2 or as ,rudolf      
,virchow 7#aheh7 expressed it1 omnis    
cellula e  cellula4    ,it was1 however1
 many years before the details of the   
growth and  reproduction of the cells   
7cell-division7 became well understood4 
,not  until the last quarter of the     
nineteenth century was it settled that  
the  nucleus of the cell is also a      
supremely important part2 but finally in
  #ahhb ,flemming was able to extend    
,virchow's aphorism to the nucleus also3
  omnis nucleus e nucleo4    ,since     
these discoveries our knowledge of the  
methods of cell-division  has much      
increased2 and in the light of our      
modern knowledge of these  matters there
 is nothing in all nature more          
marvellous than the regular  orderly way
 in which cells reproduce themselves    
according to fixed laws4  ,certain cells
 in the developing embryo1 for example1 
are early set apart  for a particular   

function or for building certain        
structures1 and  thereafter are never   
diverted from this duty so as to do a   
different  work or produce a different  
kind of structure4 ,in the young embryo 
certain structures arise at certain     
predestined times in particular  places1
 and only there and out of these cells  
alone4 ,as to why it  should be so1 we  
cannot tell1 save as the result of      
deliberate design  and as an expression 
of the order-loving mind of the ,god of 
nature4 ,in  the words of one of the    
greatest of modern authorities1 ,we     
still do not  know why a certain cell   
becomes a gland-cell1 another a         
gangleon-cell2  why one cell gives rise 
to smooth muscle-fiber1 while a neighbor
 forms  voluntary muscle4444 ,it is     
daily becoming more apparent that       
epigenesis  with the three layers of the
 germ furnishes no explanation of       
developmental phenomena4#aa    ,footnote
 #aa3 ,nature1 ,may #bc1 #aija4    ,in  
accordance with the general principle of

 a division of labor1 certain  cells    
become early set apart to particular    
functions1 and in accordance  with the  
varying demands of these functions the  
developing cells may  become greatly    
changed in form and in vital            
characteristics4 ,that is1  one cell    
specializes1 let us say1 in secretion1  
another in  contractility1 another in   
receiving and carrying stimuli1 etc4 ,in
 this  way we will have the gland-cell1 
the muscle-cell1 and the nerve-cell1    
each cell destined to produce one of    
these organs developing others  after   
its kind1 the result being that it is   
soon surrounded with  numerous          
companions doing a similar work1 making 
up in this way a  particular tissue or  
organ--gland1 muscle1 or nerve--which in
 the  aggregate has for its function the
 work of the particular cells  composing
 it4    ,but the important thing for us 
to remember in this connection is that  
when cells once become thus             
differentiated off and dedicated to any 

particular function1 they can never grow
 or develop into any distinctly         
different type of cell with other and   
different functions4 ,it is true  that  
through pathologic degeneration the form
 and even the function of  cells may    
become greatly changed2 but never does  
it amount to a complete  metamorphosis  
or complete transformation into another 
distinctly  different type4    ,this is 
a very important principle1 and it      
contains so many lessons for  us bearing
 on the philosophy of life in general   
that it may be allowable  to establish  
this fact by several somewhat lengthy   
quotations from  standard authorities4  
,the first will be from one of the      
highest authorities on embryology1      
,charles ,sedgwick ,minot1 of ,harvard3 
,in accordance with this law of         
differentiation we encounter no         
instances1 either in normal or          
pathological development1 of the        
transformation of a cell of one kind of 
tissue into a cell of another  kind of  

tissue2 and further we encounter no     
instances of a  differentiated cell     
being transformed back into an          
undifferentiated cell  of the embryonic 
type with varied potentialities4#ab     
,again1 we have the following from one  
of the foremost pathologists1 as  to the
 strict and rather narrow limits of even
 pathologic change3    ,epithelium and  
gland cells 444 never become converted  
into bone or  cartilage1 or vice versa2 
while1 again1 it may be laid down that  
among  epiblastic and hypoblastic       
tissues1 on the one hand1 and           
mesoblastic  tissues on the other1 there
 is no new development or metaplasia of 
the  most highly specialized tissues    
from less specialized tissues2 a simple 
epithelium cannot in the vertebrate give
 rise to more complex glandular  tissue1
 or to nerve cells2 in regeneration of  
epithelium there is no new  formation of
 hair roots or cutaneous glands4 ,the   
cells of white fibrous  connective      
tissue have not been seen to form       

striated or even  non-striated          
muscle4#ac    ,footnote #ab3 ,science1  
,march #bi1 #aija1 p4 #dij4    ,footnote
 #ac3 ,j4,g4 ,adami1 ,principles of     
,pathology1 pp4 #fda-fdb4    ,as implied
 by these quotations1 a constant and    
progressive  differentiation of cells   
prevails in the developing embryo2 and  
when  complete1 certain groups of cells 
act as specialists in doing only        
certain kinds of work for the body4     
,these cells maintain their specific    
characters in a very remarkable degree  
under normal conditions4 ,under  various
 abnormal conditions1 however1 these    
cells may become modified as  to        
functions1 so that cells or tissues of  
one type may assume more or  less       
completely the characters of another    
type4 ,but1 as a very high  authority   
declares1 the limitations in this change
 in type are strictly  drawn1 so that   
one type can assume only the characters 
of another which  is closely related to 
it4 ,this change of one form of closely 

related  tissue into another is called  
metaplasia4444    ,when differentiation 
has advanced so that such distinct types
 of tissue  have been formed as         
connective tissue1 epithelium1 muscle1  
nerve1 these  do not again merge through
 metaplasia4 ,there is no evidence that 
mesoblastic tissues can be converted    
into those of the epiblastic or         
hypoblastic type1 or vice versa4#ad     
,footnote #ad3 ,delafield and ,prudden1 
,text-,book of ,pathology1 pp4 #fb1     
#fc4    ,this modification of function  
among the cells which sometimes goes on 
in  the developing embryo1 or under     
pathologic conditions1 is very closely  
analogous to the variation which goes on
 among species of animals and  plants4  
,but1 as we shall see later1 there is a 
well marked limit to this  variation    
among species1 just as we see there is  
in the variations among  the cells4     
,practically the same general laws hold 
good in each case4    ,if cells did not 
maintain their ancestral characters in a

 very  remarkable way1 what would be the
 use of grafting a good kind of fruit   
onto a stock of poorer quality8 ,the    
very permanency of the grafts thus      
produced is proof of the persistency    
with which cells reproduce only  after  
their kind4      ,,iv    ,how can we    
fail to see the bearings of these facts 
on the doctrine of  the transformation  
of species among ordinary plants and    
animals1 which  are merely isolated and 
self-contained groups of cells8 ,do not 
these  facts constitute strong          
presumptive evidence that among animals 
and  plants1 though there may be        
variation in plenty within certain      
limits1  perhaps within even much wider 
limits than used to be thought possible1
  yet among these distinct organisms1   
little and big1 new forms develop  only 
after their ancestral type1 in full     
accord with the record given in  the    
first chapter of the ,bible8    ,but we 
are now prepared to examine in more     
detail the facts as now known  to modern

 science regarding species of plants and
 animals4        ,v    ,,what ,,is ,a   
,,species8      ,i    ,we have seen that
 there is no way to account for the     
origin of matter1  of energy1 or of     
life1 except by postulating a real      
,creation4    ,we have seen that cells  
continue to maintain their identity1 and
  reproduce only after their kind4      
,we must now deal with the higher forms 
of cell aggregates1 which we call       
plants and animals4 ,it has long been   
held that these at least are  mutable1  
that one kind of plant or of animal may 
in the course of ages  be transformed   
into a distinctly different type2 and of
 late years there  has accumulated a    
very voluminous literature dealing with 
the various  intricacies of this problem
 of the origin of species4 ,how can we  
deal  with such a large subject in a    
brief way8 ,it seems best to confine our
  attention in this chapter to an       
attempt to answer the question1 ,what is
  a species8 and are species natural    

groups clearly delimited by nature8     
,,ii    ,the term species was at first  
used very loosely by scientific writers4
  ,it meant very little more than our   
vague word kind does at the  present    
time4 ,not until the time of ,linnus    
7#agjg-aggh7 did the term  acquire a    
definite and precise meaning4 ,the      
aphorism of the great  botanist1 species
 tot sunt divers quot divers form ab    
initio sunt  creat--just so many species
 are to be reckoned as there were forms 
created in the beginning1--was at least 
an attempt to use the term in a         
well-defined sense4 ,of course1 this    
definition assumed the fixity of        
species2 but with the wide prevalence of
 the views of ,darwin and his  followers
 the term species has fallen into       
disrepute1 and is now  regarded by many 
as only an artificial rank in           
classification  corresponding to no     
objective reality in the natural world4 
,some  writers1 as ,lankester1 have     
found so much fault with the term as to 

urge  its complete abandonment in       
scientific literature4 ,this is logical 
enough from the standpoint of           
,darwinism2 for if the latter be true   
there  ought indeed to be such a        
swamping of every incipient species as  
to  make one kind blend with others all 
around it in the classification  series4
    ,but since the term has by no means 
been discarded1 we must endeavor to     
determine the sense in which it         
continues to be used in good scientific 
literature4    ,a species1 says ,huxley1
 is the smallest group to which distinct
 and  invariable characters can be      
assigned4 ,the ,standard ,dictionary    
says  that the term is used for a       
classificatory group of animals or      
plants  subordinate to a genus1 and     
having members that differ among        
themselves  only in minor details of    
proportion and color1 and are capable of
  fertile interbreeding indefinitely4   
,the latter authority also adds3    ,in 
the kingdoms of organic nature species  

is founded on identity of  form and     
structure1 and specifically             
characterized by the power of the       
individuals to produce beings like      
themselves1 who are in turn  productive4
    ,to put the matter still more       
definitely before the reader1 we quote  
the  following from a well-known        
scientist whose writings on the subject 
of  evolution have had a wide           
circulation3    ,there are two bases on 
which species may be founded4 ,species  
may be  based on form1 morphological    
species2 or they may be based on        
reproductive functions1 physiological   
species4 ,by the one method a  certain  
amount of difference of form1 structure1
 and habit1 constitutes  species2       
according to the other1 if the two kinds
 breed freely with each  other and the  
offspring is indefinitely fertile1 the  
kinds are called  varieties1 but if they
 do not they are called species4#ae     
,this author adds that this             
physiological test1 as to whether or not

 the  kinds are cross fertile1 is       
regarded as a most important test of    
true  species1 as contrasted with       
varieties or races4    ,footnote #ae3   
,joseph ,le ,conte1 ,evolution and      
,religious ,thought1 p4  #bcc4          
,,iii    ,when we look at the matter in 
this light1 it is very evident that     
there  are multitudes of long recognized
 specific distinctions that ought to  be
 discarded4 ,for instance1 there are    
some twenty odd species of wild  pigs   
scattered over the ,old ,world1 which   
,flower and ,lydekker assure us  would  
probably breed freely together4#af ,the 
yak and the zebu of  ,india1 and the    
bison of ,america1 would on this basis  
have to be  surrendered1 for it is well 
known that they will all breed freely   
with  the common domestic cattle1 as    
well as with one another4 ,perhaps all  
or  nearly all of the dozen or more     
species of the genus ,bos would thus  be
 included together4 ,all of the dogs1   
wolves1 and others of the  ,canid might 

thus be considered as fundamentally a   
unit4 ,the cats  7,felid7 are well known
 to breed freely together1 ,karl        
,hagnbeck of  ,hamburg having crossed   
lions and tigers as well as others of   
the family4  ,practically all of the    
bears have been crossed repeatedly1 and 
the  progeny of these and other crosses 
are quite familiar sights at the        
,london ,zological ,gardens4 ,among the 
lower forms of life even more           
surprising results have been attained by
 ,thomas ,hunt ,morgan and others4      
,footnote #af3 ,mammals ,living and     
,extinct1 pp4 #bhd-bhe4    ,it would1   
however1 be a very hasty conclusion to  
say on the basis of  these facts that   
there are no natural limitations to     
groups of animals  and plants4 ,but we  
are entirely warranted in concluding    
from these facts  that in very many     
cases1 perhaps in most1 our system of   
taxonomic  classification of animals and
 plants has gone altogether too far1 and
  that scientists have erected specific 

distinctions which are wholly  uncalled 
for and which confuse and obscure the   
main issues of the  species problem4    
,among the workers in botany and in     
every department of  zology there have  
always been the splitters and the       
lumpers1 as  they are familiarly called2
 the former insisting on the most minute
  distinctions between their species1   
thus multiplying them2 the latter  being
 more liberal and tending to diminish   
the number of species in any  given     
group4 ,for a generation or more in the 
recent past the splitters  had things   
pretty much their own way2 but of late  
there is a growing  tendency to frown   
down the mania for creating new names4  
,even yet it is  with the utmost        
reluctance that long established        
specific distinctions  are surrendered1 
as is illustrated in the case of the    
mammoth1 which is  acknowledged by some 
of the very best authorities to be      
really  indistinguishable from the      
modern ,asiatic elephant4 ,several      

fossil bears  were long listed in       
scientific books2 but they are all      
acknowledged now  to be identical with  
the modern grizzly1 and as we have      
already  intimated all the modern ones  
ought to be put together4 ,these modern 
rationalizing methods have made but a   
slight impression on the vast  complex  
of the fossil plants and animals1       
affecting the names of only a  few of   
the larger and better known forms4 ,in  
the realm of invertebrate  palontology1 
however1 the splitters are still holding
 high carnival1  in spite of the efforts
 of some very prominent scientists in   
the  opposite direction4 ,for           
palontologists still follow the         
irrational  course of inventing a new   
name1 specific or even generic1 for a   
form  that happens to be found in a kind
 of rock widely separated as to age     
from the other beds where similar forms 
are accustomed to be found4 ,as  ,angelo
 ,heilprin expresses it1 ,it is         
practically certain that numerous  forms

 of life1 exhibiting no distinctive     
characters of their own1 are            
constituted into distinct species for no
 other reason than that they  occur in  
formations widely separated from those  
holding their nearest  kin4#ag    ,as a 
result of these methods this same author
 declares3 ,it is by no  means          
improbable that many of the older       
genera1 now recognized as  distinct by  
reason of our imperfect knowledge       
concerning their true  relationships1   
have in reality representatives living  
in the modern  seas4#ah    ,footnote    
#ag3 ,geographical and ,geological      
,distribution of ,animals1 pp4  #ahc1   
#ahd4    ,footnote #ah3 ,id41 pp4 #bjg1 
#bjh4    ,but the situation is very     
little better when we come to deal with 
plants  and animals of our modern world4
 ,because1 with the many thousands of   
students of natural science all over the
 world1 each anxious to get into  print 
as the discoverer of some new form1 the 
systematists have a dead  weight of     

names on their hands that by a rational 
and enlightened  revision could         
doubtless be reduced to but a fraction  
of their present  disheartening array4  
,for as the result of the extensive     
breeding  experiments now being carried 
on under the study of what is called    
,mendelism 7a term that will be         
explained in the next chapter71 it has  
been found that great numbers of the    
species of the systematists or          
classificationists will not stand the   
physiological test of breeding1  that   
is1 they are found to breed freely      
together according to the  ,mendelian   
,law4 ,as ,william ,bateson remarks3    
,we may even be certain that numbers of 
excellent species recognized by         
entomologists or ornithologists1 for    
example1 would1 if subjected to         
breeding tests1 be immediately proved to
 be analytical varieties1  differing    
from each other merely in the presence  
or absence of definite  factors4#ai     
,the following from ,david ,starr       

,jordan1 the leading ,american authority
 on  fishes1 will serve to show how     
numerous have been the new names        
invented  in recent years1 all tending  
further to confuse and complicate the   
problem of what is a species3    ,in our
 fresh-water fishes1 each species on an 
average has been  described as new from 
three to four times1 on account of minor
  variations1 real or supposed4 ,in     
,europe1 where the fishes have been     
studied longer and by more different    
men1 upwards of six or eight  nominal   
species have been described for each one
 that is now considered  distinct4#bj   
,footnote #ai3 ,mendel's ,principles of 
,heredity1 p4 #bhd1 #aiji4    ,footnote 
#bj3 ,science ,sketches1 p4 #ii4    ,and
 again3    ,thus the common ,channel    
,catfish of our rivers has been         
described as a  new species not less    
than twenty-five times1 on account of   
differences real or imaginary1 but      
comparatively trifling in value4#ba     
,footnote #ba3 ,science ,sketches1 p4   

#if4    ,perhaps the reader will        
tolerate another somewhat long quotation
 because  of the light which it sheds on
 this whole problem4    ,some years ago 
we had a parasite of a very destructive 
aphid down in  our books as ,lysiphlebus
 tritici4 ,in carrying out our          
investigations  it became necessary to  
find out whether this parasite had more 
than a  single host insect1 and whether 
it could develop in more than one       
species of aphid4 ,to this end1 recently
 emerged males and females were  allowed
 to pair1 after which the female        
oviposited in several species of        
aphids4 ,both parents were then killed  
and preserved and all of their  progeny 
not used in further experiments were    
also preserved1 and thus  entire broods 
or families were kept together4 ,in this
 way females were  reared out of one    
host species and allowed to oviposit in 
others1 until1  often after several     
hosts had been employed1 it would be    
bred back into  the species whence it   

first originated4 ,in all cases the host
 was reared  from the moment of birth1  
while with the parasite both parents and
  offspring were kept together4    ,the 
result of this little fragment of work  
was to send two genera and  fourteen    
species to the cemetery--you may call it
 ,mt4 ,synonym ,cemetery1  if you       
choose--while the insect involved is now
 ,aphidius testaceipes4  ,the           
systematist who studies only dried      
corpses will soon be out of  date4#bb   
,footnote #bb3 ,f4,m4 ,webster1 of the  
,u4,s4 ,dept4 of ,agriculture1 in       
,science1 ,april #ab1 #aiab1 p4 #efe4   
,,iv    ,now all this is not given to   
intimate that there is no scientific    
justification for the term species1 but 
to make plain to my  non-professional   
readers what every well-informed        
biologist already  knows1 namely1 that  
at the present time the species question
 is still  in a very unsatisfactory     
state4 ,the facts given above would     
strongly  suggest that there probably is

 indeed such a thing as a species1 in   
the  sense assigned by ,linnus1 who as  
we have seen wished to make it a        
designation covering all the descendants
 of each distinct kind  originally      
created4 ,but this original aim of      
,linnus is to-day not  merely ignored   
but treated with lofty contempt2 for    
according to the  prevailing theories of
 evolution1 all the manifold diversities
 of life  in our modern world have come 
about gradually as the result of a slow 
development by natural process1 and     
hence it would be vain beyond  measure  
to attempt to determine the limits of a 
species in the sense  understood by     
,linnus4    ,but we may conclude1 from  
the facts presented above1 that if there
 is  such a naturally delimited group as
 a species in the ,linnan sense of  the 
word1 it by no means coincides with what
 now passes under this name1  but might 
include many so-called species1 often a 
whole genus1 or even  several4    ,with 
this in mind1 we must pass on to        

consider the next step in our  study1 as
 to whether new species are now coming  
into being in our  modern world under   
scientific observation1 either natural  
or  artificial4        ,,vi             
,,mendelism ,,and ,,the ,,origin ,,of   
,,species      ,had ,mendel's work come 
into the hands of ,darwin1 it is not too
 much to  say that the history of the   
development of evolutionary philosophy  
would  have been very different from    
that which we have witnessed4#bc        
,footnote #bc3 ,william ,bateson1       
,mendel's ,principles of ,heredity1 p4  
#caf4      ,i    ,from the latter part  
of the eighteenth century1 attempts were
  continually being made to explain the 
origin of all organic forms by  some    
system of development or evolution4     
,buffon had dwelt on the  modifications 
directly induced by the environment4    
,lamarck had made much  use of this     
idea1 claiming that such modifications  
were transmitted to  posterity1 and     
claiming the same for the structural    

changes produced by  use and disuse4    
,lamarck's work did not become at all   
popular while he  lived1 chiefly through
 the overpowering influence of ,baron   
,cuvier1 who  had an equally fantastic  
scheme of his own1 which may well be    
termed a  burlesque on ,creation and in 
which an extreme fixity of species was a
  cardinal doctrine4 ,erasmus ,darwin   
and ,robert ,chambers in ,england also  
tried to make a theory of evolution     
believable2 though their efforts  were  
but little more successful in gaining   
the ear of the world4    ,but to all    
that had gone before ,charles ,darwin   
and ,a4,r4 ,wallace 7#aheh7  added the  
idea of natural selection1 or the       
struggle for existence1  to use the     
respective terms coined by each of these
 authors1 as the  chief means by which  
the effects of variation are accumulated
 and  perpetuated so as to build up the 
modern complexities of the plant and    
animal kingdoms4 ,partly because it was 
a psychological moment1 from the  fact  

that the uniformitarian geology of      
,lyell with its graded advance of       
existences from age to age seemed       
absolutely to demand some evolutionary  
explanation2 partly because artificial  
selection was a familiar idea of  proved
 value in selective breeding1 and       
natural selection seemed an  exact      
parallel carried on by nature in the    
direction of continual  improvement2 but
 perhaps more largely because the       
abstract idea of  natural selection     
involved so many intricate separate     
concepts that  for nearly a generation  
scarcely two naturalists in the world   
could  state the whole problem of the   
theory exactly alike2--on all these     
accounts the theory of natural          
selection1 or of the survival of the    
fittest1 to use the phrase of ,herbert  
,spencer1 became in the latter  decades 
of the nineteenth century well-nigh     
universal4    ,but about #ahhg a faction
 or school arose who criticized the main
 idea of  ,darwin and ,wallace and fell 

back on the ,lamarckian factor of the   
transmission of acquired characters as  
really the essential cause of  the      
process of evolution4 ,herbert ,spencer1
 ,e4,d4 ,cope and others did much  to   
criticize natural selection as          
inadequate to do what was attributed  to
 it1 dwelling on the importance of the  
transmission of acquired  characters4   
,spencer even went so far as to declare1
 either there has  been inheritance of  
acquired characters1 or there has been  
no  evolution4 ,these ,neo-,lamarckians 
argued that natural selection alone  can
 neither explain the origin of          
varieties1 nor the first steps in the   
slow advance toward usefulness4 ,an     
organ must be already useful before     
natural selection can take hold of it to
 improve it4 ,selection cannot  make a  
thing useful to start with1 but only    
7possibly7 make more useful  what       
already exists4 ,until the newly formed 
buds of developing limbs or  organs     
became decidedly useful to the          

individual or the species1 would  they  
not be in the way1 merely so many       
hindrances1 to be removed by  natural   
selection instead of being preserved and
 improved8 ,but1 in this  view of the   
matter1 they argued1 what single organ  
of any species would  there be that must
 not thus have appeared long before it  
was wanted8    ,or to use the pungent   
words quoted with approval by ,hugo de  
,vries at the  end of his ,species and  
,varieties 7pp4 #hbe1 #hbf71 ,natural   
selection  may explain the survival of  
the fittest1 but it cannot explain the  
arrival of the fittest4    ,this side of
 the argument is dwelt upon at some     
length by ,alex4 ,graham  ,bell1 as     
reported in a recent interview4 ,he     
says3    ,natural selection does not and
 cannot produce new species or varieties
  or cause modifications of living      
organisms to come into existence4 ,on   
the contrary1 its sole function is to   
prevent evolution4 ,in its action  it is
 destructive merely1--not               

constructive1--causing death and        
extinction1 not life and progression4   
,death cannot produce life2 and  though 
natural selection may produce the death 
of the unfit1 it cannot  produce the    
fit1 far less evolve the fittest4 ,it   
may permit the fit to  survive by not   
killing them off1 if they are already in
 existence2 but  it does not bring them 
into being1 or produce improvement in   
them after  they have once appeared4#bd 
,footnote #bd3 ,world's ,work1          
,december1 #aiac1 p4 #agg4    ,opposing 
these ,neo-,lamarckians were such       
prominent scientists as ,august         
,weismann1 ,a4,r4 ,wallace1 ,e4 ,ray    
,lankester1 who strenuously opposed the 
idea that acquired characters1 or more  
precisely parental  experience1 are ever
 transmissible4 ,in the subsequent years
 the  greatest variety of experimental  
tests have been applied to secure the   
hereditary transmission of any sort of  
such acquired characters1 with          
uniformly negative results4 ,one of the 

most elaborate of these  experiments was
 conducted by a ,german botanist1 who   
transplanted #b1ejj  different kinds of 
mountain plants to the lowlands1 where  
he studied  them for several years      
alongside their relatives1 natives of   
these  lowlands4 ,he found that their   
mountain environment had made absolutely
  no permanent change in their          
structures or habits1 which soon        
conformed  exactly with those of their  
relatives which had lived in the lowland
  environment for centuries4 ,many      
similar efforts have been made to       
confirm this doctrine of the            
transmission of acquired characters2 but
  their universal failure is like that  
of mechanics in trying to invent        
perpetual motion4    ,thomas ,hunt      
,morgan sums up the present situation in
 the following words3  ,to-day the      
theory has few followers among trained  
investigators1 but it  still has a      
popular vogue that is wide-spread and   
vociferous4 ,and we  may add that the   

extent of its spread is directly        
proportioned to the  need felt for this 
doctrine as a support of the theory of  
evolution1  while the vociferance of its
 advocates is inversely proportioned to 
the  evidence in its support4    ,as a  
result of extensive modern experiments  
and discussion1 biologists  have grown  
very cautious1 and are by no means so   
positive as they were  twenty years ago 
in affirming just how species have come 
into  existence4 ,echoes of this old    
controversy between the two leading     
schools of biologists are occasionally  
heard2 but the enthusiasm with  which   
they set out a half century ago to solve
 the riddle of plant and  animal life   
has largely given way to a purpose to   
discard speculation  and patiently to   
observe and record actual facts4 ,for   
with natural  selection discredited in  
the house of its friends1 and           
,lamarckianism  under grave suspicion   
from want of a single well authenticated
 example1  it is hard to see what there 

is left of the biological doctrine that 
has so dominated scientific thought for 
a half century4 ,if each of these       
opposed schools of scientists are right 
in what they deny1 the whole            
theoretical foundation for the origin of
 new kinds of animals and plants  is    
swept away1--absolutely gone4 ,for if an
 individual really cannot  transmit what
 he has acquired in his lifetime1 how   
can he transmit what  he has not got    
himself1 and what none of his ancestors 
ever had8 ,and if  natural selection    
cannot start a single organ of a single 
type1 what is  the use of discussing its
 supposed ability to improve them after 
the  machinery is all built8      ,,ii  
,such was the general condition of      
theoretical biology about the  beginning
 of the present century4 ,in the        
meantime those who were dealing  with   
the empyrical or experimental side of   
these problems were seeking  for the    
causes of and the rules for variation4  
,all living things vary  from one       

generation to another2 the question was1
 ,why do they vary8 and  do these       
variations really represent new         
characters comparable to new  species in
 the making8 or are they1 so to speak1  
but an elastic reaction  of the internal
 vital elasticity of the organism1 all  
the while latent  and only seeking a    
favorable expression1 to return again   
under other  conditions to the former   
type8    ,the effort to reduce these    
variations to law and system was pursued
 by  thousands of investigators1 with   
varying but at all times perplexing  and
 disappointing results4 ,but in the year
 #aijj the scientific world  awoke to   
the surprising fact that a patient      
obscure investigator had  already solved
 most of the puzzles of variation and   
heredity some  thirty-five years before4
 ,gregor ,mendel1 born a peasant boy1   
trained as  a monk1 and afterwards      
appointed ,abbot of ,brnn1 had in the   
year #ahfe  published the results of his
 experiments in breeding1 which had been

  ignored or forgotten until            
rediscovered in #aijj by de ,vries and  
two  others simultaneously4 ,from this  
point ,mendelism1 as it is now called1  
has steadily gained ground1 until at the
 present time it can be said to  be the 
dominating conception among biologists  
the world over regarding  the problems  
of heredity4    ,mendel worked chiefly  
with peas1 crossing different varieties4
 ,in his  methods of investigation he   
differed from all previous investigators
 in  concentrating his attention upon a 
single pair of alternative or           
contrasted characters at a time1 and    
observing how these alternative         
characters are transmitted4    ,thus    
when he crossed a tall with a dwarf1    
giving attention to this pair  of       
contrasted characters alone1 he found   
that all the first hybrid  generation   
were talls1 with no dwarfs and no       
intermediates4 ,accordingly  he called  
the tall character dominant1 and the    
dwarf character  recessive1 and a pair  

of contrasted characters which act in   
this way  are now called factors or     
sometimes called unit characters4 ,but  
on  allowing these hybrids to           
cross-fertilize one another in the usual
 way1  ,mendel found that in the second 
generation of hybrids there were  always
 three talls to one dwarf out of every  
four4 ,further  experiments proved that 
these dwarfs of the second hybrid       
generation  always bred true1 that is1  
one out of four2 and that one out of the
  remaining talls always bred true1     
making another quarter of the total2    
while the remaining fifty per cent4     
proved to be mixed tails1 always  acting
 as did the original hybrids1 splitting 
up in the next generation  in the same  
arithmetical proportion as before4      
,accordingly1 if we confine our study to
 the two contrasted characters1         
tallness and dwarfness1 we see that just
 three kinds of peas exist1  namely1    
dwarfs which breed true1 talls which    
breed true1 and talls which  always give

 the same definite proportion of talls  
and dwarfs among their  descendants4    
,innumerable experiments which have     
since been made with  other pairs of    
characters have demonstrated that this  
same mathematical  proportion holds good
 throughout the whole world of plants   
and  animals2#be and hence this         
astonishing result is now called        
,mendel's  ,law1 and is regarded as the 
most important discovery in biology in  
several generations4    ,footnote #be3  
,when dealing with only a few individual
 cases1 we do not  always find them to  
come out in such exact proportion2 but  
when the  number of examples is large1  
the proportion is so close to these     
figures  that the exceptions can be     
entirely neglected as probably due to   
error  of some kind4    ,there are two  
distinct kinds of ,andalusian fowls1 one
 pure bred black1  the other pure bred  
white with slight dashes of black here  
and there4  ,when these are mated1 no   
matter which color is the father or the 

mother1  the next or hybrid generation  
are always a queer mixture of black and 
white called by fanciers blue4 ,when    
these blues are interbred1  one-quarter 
of their offspring will be white1 which 
will prove to breed  true ever          
afterwards1 one-quarter will be black   
that will breed true1  and fifty per    
cent4 will be blue which will break up  
in the next  generation in the very same
 way as before4 ,in this case neither   
white  nor black character is dominant1 
and accordingly we have a blending of   
both in the first hybrid generation4    
,in guinea pigs1 black color has been   
found to be dominant over white1  rough 
coat over smooth coat1 and short hair   
over long hair4 ,these  remarkable      
results following from an experimental  
trial of ,mendelism  have stimulated    
hosts of investigators in all parts of  
the world1 until  now many varieties of 
plants and animals have been studied for
 many  successive generations1 already1 
building up a considerable literature   

dealing with the subject4    ,perhaps   
the most extensive and exact series of  
experiments along this  line have been  
carried on by ,thomas ,hunt ,morgan and 
his assistants1 of  ,columbia           
,university4 ,for over five years they  
have been breeding the  wild fruit fly  
7,drosophila ampelophila71 during which 
time they have  originated and observed 
over a hundred and twenty-five new types
 that  breed true according to ,mendel's
 laws4 ,every part of the body has been 
affected by one or another of these     
mutations4 ,the wings have been         
shortened1 or changed in shape1 or made 
to disappear entirely4 ,the eyes  have  
been changed in color or entirely       
eliminated4 ,and each of these          
wonderful variations was brought about  
not gradually1 but at a single  step4   
,professor ,morgan grows justifiably    
sarcastic in contrasting these          
demonstrated laboratory facts with the  
armchair theories that have so  long and
 so harmfully dominated biological      

studies4 ,a quotation from him  will not
 be out of place at this point4    ,i   
may recall in this connection that      
wingless flies also arose in our        
cultures by a single mutation4 ,we used 
to be told that wingless insects        
occurred on desert islands because those
 insects that had the best  developed   
wings had been blown out to sea4        
,whether this is true or not1  ,i will  
not pretend to say2 but at any rate     
wingless insects may also  arise1 not   
through a slow process of elimination1  
but at a single  step4444 ,formerly we  
were taught that eyeless animals arose  
in caves4  ,this case shows that they   
may also arise suddenly in glass milk   
bottles1  by a change in a single       
factor4#bf    ,footnote #bf3 ,a         
,critique of the ,theory of ,evolution1 
p4 #fg4    ,we need not be particularly 
concerned here with the theoretical     
explanations of these facts offered in  
terms of the microscopic or even  the   
infra-microscopic components of the germ

 cells4 ,morgan seems to  make out a    
strong case for the theory that the     
chromosomes found in the  nucleus are   
the real ultimate units that carry the  
hereditary factors4  ,but he is quite   
decided in the opinion that these       
hereditary factors are  fixed1 and are  
not changed from generation to          
generation either by  environment or by 
selection4#bg ,the important thing for  
us in this  connection is to get a clear
 idea of the results following from an  
application of ,mendel's laws to the    
old1 old problem of the origin of       
species1 incidentally noticing how the  
theory associated with ,darwin's  name  
now looks in the light of these new     
facts4    ,footnote #bg3 ,in human      
beings it has been found that the       
effects of  alcoholism and of syphilis  
are indeed transmitted according to     
,mendelian  law1 being the two solitary 
examples of diseased conditions that are
  thus transmitted4 ,but they are so    
plainly pathologic phenomena that  there

 is little temptation for the advocates 
of ,lamarckianism to use  them as proofs
 of their theory4    ,we have hitherto  
been considering the results worked out 
by ,mendel with  but one pair of        
contrasted characters or factors4 ,but  
,mendel studied the  relation of other  
characters of the pea1 and found among  
other results  that smooth seeds are    
dominant to wrinkled seeds1 colored     
seeds dominant  to white1 yellow color  
dominant to green1 etc4 ,but when a     
combination of  two factors in each     
parent are put into contrast by cross   
breeding1  two wholly original forms 7as
 they seemed7 were sometimes produced1  
and  it looked as if these new kinds    
were really analogous to new species4   
,for example1 he crossed tall yellow    
peas with dwarf green peas1 with  the   
result that the first hybrid generation 
turned out to be all tall  yellows4     
,however1 in the second hybrid          
generation they split up  according to  
the law as already stated1 modified by  

the additional  complication brought    
into the problem by the additional pair 
of factors4  ,for out of every sixteen  
plants there were nine tall yellows1    
three  dwarf yellows1 three tall greens1
 and one dwarf green4 ,it is evident    
that these tall greens and dwarf yellows
 are really new forms2 and  further     
experiments proved that they can be     
separated out or segregated  and grown  
as pure forms which thereafter breed    
true4 ,thus we have a very  important   
result for the breeder1 for it enables  
him to work to a  definite aim and      
combine certain desirable characters    
into a single  form4    ,the term       
mutation1 as already intimated1 has been
 given to this  process of producing new
 varieties in this way4 ,the kinds so   
produced  are termed mutants1 and at    
first they were hailed by enthusiastic  
scientists as elementary species4 ,de   
,vries in particular gave much          
publicity to this idea2 for he thought  
he had really produced a new kind       

comparable in every respect to a true   
species as produced by nature  among    
wild plants4 ,but the enthusiasm with   
which this applied result of  ,mendel's 
,law was at first hailed by biologists  
has gradually subsided2  for it has been
 found that though these new forms will 
breed true under  certain conditions1   
they are nevertheless cross-fertile with
 the  original forms1 and thus the      
circle can be completed back again by a 
return to the parent form1 from which   
the new species can again be  produced  
at will with the same mathematical      
exactness as before4      ,,iii         
,where then are we8    ,clearly we have 
not really produced any new species in  
any correct sense  of the word4 ,if we  
have produced new forms that breed true 
and that are  seemingly just as         
deserving of the rank of distinct       
species as many now  listed in          
scientific books1 it only shows that our
 lists are sadly at  fault1 and that    
they are not all species that are called

 species4 ,these  experiments merely    
indicate that the parent form possesses 
more  potential characters than it can  
give expression to in a single          
individual form1 some of them being     
necessarily latent or hidden1 and  that 
when these latent ones show themselves  
they must do so at the  expense of      
others which become latent or hidden in 
their turn4 ,this  vital elasticity1 as 
it may be termed1 or the vital rebound  
under  definite conditions1 is indeed a 
prime characteristic of the species     
just as it is of the individual2 but    
like that of the individual the  vital  
elasticity of the species is strictly   
bounded by comparatively  narrow limits 
beyond which we have never seen a single
 type pass under  either natural or     
artificial conditions4 ,mutations can be
 made according  to ,mendel's ,law2 but 
when we have made them once we can      
always be sure  of producing the very   
same mutants again in the very same way1
 as  surely as we produce a definite    

chemical compound2 and when we have made
  it we can always resolve it at will   
back into its original form1 just  as we
 can a chemical compound4 ,and so1 where
 is the evolution8 or how do  these     
facts throw any light on the problem of 
the origin of species1 any  more than   
chemical compounds throw light on the   
origin of the elements8  ,obviously in  
biology as in chemistry we are only     
working in a circle1  merely marking    
time4    ,and the bearing of these facts
 on the other problem of the            
transmission  of acquired characters is 
quite obvious4 ,mendelism provides no   
place for  any such transmission4       
,mendel's ,law is sometimes called the  
law of  alternative inheritance1 thus   
embodying in its name the thought that  
offspring may show the characters       
possessed by one parent or by the       
other1 but that it cannot develop any   
characters whatever which were not      
manifest or latent in the ancestry4     
,changes in the environment during  the 

embryonic stage1 it is true1 seem       
sometimes to be registered in the       
growing form2 but it has never yet been 
proved that these induced  changes can  
ever amount to a unit character or      
genetic factor that will  maintain      
itself and segregate as a distinct      
factor after hybridization4  ,ancestry  
alone furnishes the material for the    
factor1 and no amount of  induced change
 can get itself registered in the       
organism so as to come  into this       
charmed circle of ancestral characters  
which alone seem to be  passed on to    
posterity4    ,a quotation from ,bateson
 ought to set this point at rest3       
,the essence of the ,mendelian principle
 is very easily expressed4 ,it is1      
first1 that in great measure the        
properties of organisms are due to the  
presence of distinct1 detachable        
elements factors1 separately            
transmitted in heredity2 and secondly1  
that the parent cannot pass on  to      
offspring an element1 and consequently  

the corresponding property1  which it   
does not itself possess4#bh    ,footnote
 #bh3 ,scientific ,american ,sup41      
,january #c1 #aiad4    ,heredity we now 
see is a method of analysis1 and the    
facts brought to  light by ,mendelism   
help us very much toward an             
understanding of living  matter4        
,especially does it help us to          
understand the complexity  underlying   
the facts of heredity1 which until now  
have seemed so strange  and capricious4 
,as ,professor ,punnett of ,cambridge   
remarks3    ,constitutional differences 
of a radical nature may be concealed    
beneath  an apparent identity of        
external form4 ,purple sweet peas from  
the same  pod1 indistinguishable in     
appearance and of identical ancestry1   
may yet  be fundamentally different in  
their constitution4 ,from one may come  
purples1 reds1 and whites2 from another 
only purples and reds2 from  another    
purples and whites alone2 whilst a      
fourth will breed true to  purple4 ,any 

method of investigation which fails to  
take account of the  radical differences
 of constitution which may underlie     
external  similarity1 must necessarily  
be doomed to failure4 ,conversely1 we   
realize to-day that individuals         
identical in constitution may yet have  
an entirely different ancestral history4
 ,from the cross between two  fowls with
 rose and pea combs1 each of            
irreproachable pedigree for             
generations1 come single combs in the   
second generation1 and these  singles   
are precisely similar in their behavior 
to singles bred from  strains of        
unblemished ancestry4 ,in the ancestry  
of the one is to be  found no single    
over a long series of years2 in the     
ancestry of the  other nothing but      
singles occurred4 ,the creature of given
 constitution  may often be built up in 
many ways1 but once formed it will      
behave like  others of the same         
constitution4#bi    ,footnote #bi3      
,encyclopdia ,britannica1 ,vol4 ,,xviii1

 p4 #aai4      ,,iv    ,vanished at last
 are the old theories of gradual changes
 in species  perpetuated and accumulated
 by natural selection until at last     
wholly  new forms have in this way been 
produced4 ,true variations are now seen 
to be confined within well-marked and   
rather narrow limits1 within which      
ordinary variations may occur1 perhaps  
induced by environment4 ,these          
fluctuating variations grade off into   
one another on all sides1 and  their    
differences can be plotted on a         
frequency curve2 but the very  important
 thing for us to remember is that these 
fluctuating variations  cannot be       
transmitted4 ,beyond these fluctuating  
variations come the  unit characters or 
factors1 which are distinct from each   
other1 or  discontinuous1 to use the    
technical term1 and which therefore     
cannot  be plotted on a frequency curve4
 ,these factors are not modified in the 
least by the environment1 and their     
peculiarities are faithfully            

transmitted in heredity with all the    
precision of chemical law4 ,but even    
these factors are all within the bounds 
of the species4 ,there is not a  shred  
of scientific evidence that either      
natural or artificial devices  have     
originated a single genetic factor that 
was not all the time  potentially latent
 in the ancestry1 capable of being      
produced at will by  the proper         
combination4    ,it is a universal law  
of living things that all forms left to 
themselves  tend to degenerate4 ,the    
necessity for continuous artificial     
selection in  the sugar beet1 in ,sea   
,island cotton1 in corn1 in ,jersey and 
,holstein  cattle1 in trotting horses1  
proves this universal tendency to       
degenerate4#cj ,natural selection in a  
somewhat similar way tends to  postpone 
this degeneracy by killing off the      
unfit1 but selection  either artificial 
or natural cannot originate anything    
new1 and its  results are here displayed
 merely among the small fluctuating     

variations  mentioned above4 ,even among
 the real genetic factors it may show   
itself  by allowing some to survive     
alone2 but as no combination of diverse 
factors can originate anything really   
new1 its field for operation among      
these factors is extremely limited4     
,among species also it is operative1    
killing off some and allowing others to 
survive4 ,but neither among             
fluctuations1 among factors1 nor yet    
among species can selection  originate  
anything new4    ,footnote #cj3 ,the    
following represents the consensus of   
scientific  opinion regarding the       
lessons to be drawn from the phenomena  
of our  improved races of domesticated  
plants and animals3    ,one need not be 
a pessimist to assert the actual        
evidence thus far  obtained indicates   
that the supposed progress made in the  
improvement of  domesticated animals and
 plants is nothing more than the sorting
 out of  pure lines1 and thus represents
 no advancement4--,prof4 ,l4,b4 ,walton1

  ,science1 ,april #c1 #aiad4    ,nor is
 there any other method known to modern 
science by means of which  new factors  
can be originated which were not        
potentially latent in the  ancestry4    
,the much heralded new species of de    
,vries and others are now  known to be  
merely new factors cropping out2#ca for 
though they remain  constant and breed  
true1 they obey ,mendel's ,law when     
crossed with their  parental forms1 and 
hence are merely the result of some new 
combination  of factors which can be    
reproduced at will by using the same    
method of  combination and segregation4 
,the real scientific test for any form  
supposed to be a new species would be   
twofold3 7#a7 to show that some  new    
character had been added which no       
ancestor ever possessed2 and 7#b7  to   
show that this new character will breed 
true under all circumstances  of        
hybridization and not merely segregate  
as a unit character or mere  analytic   
variety after hybridization4 ,it is     

almost superfluous to say  that no new  
species originating in modern times has 
ever justified  itself under these      
tests4    ,footnote #ca3 ,some of our   
leading biologists are now disposed to  
grow  somewhat humorous when speaking of
 this mutation theory of de ,vries1 as  
may be illustrated by the following3    
,the mutation theory of de ,vries       
appears accordingly to lag useless on   
the biological stage1 and may apparently
 be now relegated to the limbo  of      
discarded hypotheses4444 ,the present   
refutation has been undertaken  in the  
interest of biological progress in this 
country4 ,it is now high  time1 so far  
as the so-called mutation hypothesis1   
based on the conduct  of the evening    
primrose in cultures1 is concerned1 that
 the younger  generation of biologists  
should take heed lest the primrose path 
of  dalliance lead them imperceptibly   
into the primrose path to the           
everlasting bonfire4--,prof4 ,edw4 ,c4  
,jeffrey 7,harvard71 in ,science1       

,april #c1 #aiad4    ,in conclusion it  
may be remarked that biologists do not  
claim to have  solved all the problems  
connected with heredity and variation4  
,but the  general results taught us by  
,mendelism are now established beyond   
controversy4 ,led by the ,german        
biologists1 the leading scientists of   
the  world had already acknowledged that
 pure ,darwinism or natural  selection  
cannot explain the origin of new organs 
or new forms4 ,and now  ,mendelism      
destroys the other supposed foundation  
for biological  evolution1 by showing   
that small variations cannot be         
accumulated into  large differences     
equal in value to a unit character or a 
new species4  ,thus the whole foundation
 of biological evolution has been       
completely  undermined by these new     
discoveries2 and were it not for the    
wide-spread  credence the evolutionary  
theory has already received1 and the    
intellectual momentum it has acquired   
tending to carry it on by its  inertia  

into the future1 it could be only a very
 short time now before  the elaborate   
treatises attempting to orientate with  
it all the facts of  religion and       
history would have to be consigned to   
the shelves labeled1  ,of ,historic     
,interest4 ,for as ,bateson remarked in 
his recent address as  ,president before
 the ,british ,association at           
,melbourne1 ,australia1 the  new        
knowledge of heredity shows that        
whatever evolution there is occurs  by  
loss of factors and not by gain1 and    
that in this way the progress of        
science is destroying much that till    
lately passed for gospel4#cb            
,footnote #cb3 ,in commenting on these  
views of ,bateson1 ,prof4 ,s4,c4        
,holmes1  of the ,university of         
,california1 well speaks of them as an  
illustration  of the bankruptcy of      
present evolutionary theory4--,science1 
,september  #c1 #aiae4      ,v    ,let  
us sum up the situation4 ,we began this 
chapter with the question1  ,have new   

kinds of plants and animals originated  
in modern times  comparable in all      
essential respects with the idea of true
 species8    ,the answer of modern      
science is reluctantly obtained1 but it 
is a  negative4 ,de ,vries and others   
have indeed originated new kinds that   
were  loudly hailed as new species1 and 
are doubtless as deserving of specific  
rank as many already listed for years in
 the treatises of specialists4  ,indeed 
there is every reason to believe that   
almost countless numbers of  our        
taxonomic species have originated from  
common ancestral originals4  ,but as    
these so-called species are now known to
 be freely or moderately  cross fertile 
with other related species1 their       
hybrids following the  ordinary laws of 
,mendelian inheritance1 we see that they
 are not true  species but mere analytic
 varieties4    ,in short1 we now know   
that our taxonomic classifications have 
been  marked off on altogether too      
narrow lines4 ,this has tended greatly  

to  confuse the question at issue4 ,but 
from our enlarged views of the laws  and
 nature of heredity and variation1 as   
well as from the original  intent of the
 term species as defined by the great   
scientist who  originated it1 the       
verdict of an impartial investigator    
must be that we  have never seen a new  
species originate by any natural or     
artificial  method since the dawn of    
scientific observation4    ,here again  
we find the record of ,creation         
confirmed2 for the failure of  the      
thousands of modern investigators to    
originate genuine new species  proves   
that in this respect also ,creation is  
not now going on4 ,and all  the         
analogies from the origin of matter1 of 
energy1 of life1 and from  the laws of  
the reproduction of cells1 indicate that
 we have at last  found rock bottom     
truth regarding the vexed question of   
the origin of  species4 ,so far as      
science can observe and record1 each    
living thing on  earth1 in air1 in      

water1 reproduces after its kind4       
,,vii    ,,geology ,,and ,,its ,,lessons
      ,i    ,in all the previous        
chapters ,i have not been giving any    
very new facts  or any discoveries of my
 own4 ,true1 my conclusions from the    
facts may  seem novel2 but in general ,i
 have been giving merely facts which are
  almost universally acknowledged by    
educated men4 ,the conservation laws  of
 matter and of energy1 the impassable   
gulf between the living and the         
not-living1 the laws governing cell     
multiplication1 are matters of  common  
knowledge and will be found in the      
appropriate college text-books          
throughout the civilized world4 ,even   
the facts which ,i have presented       
regarding variation and heredity are    
admitted in one way or another by       
practically all biologists4 ,but in     
following our general subject into  the 
field of geology1 ,i shall be obliged to
 present some comprehensive  truths and 
general conclusions which are not so    

widely acknowledged1  because only      
recently brought to light4 ,however1 as 
these facts and  conclusions may seem   
very new and strange to many1 ,i shall  
endeavor to  build up my argument wholly
 on the recorded observations of the    
very  highest authorities rather than on
 my own unsupported testimony2 though   
for the sake of brevity ,i shall be     
obliged to refer the reader to my       
,fundamentals of ,geology 7#aiac7 for   
some of the details4    ,one of the     
great outstanding ideas of geology as   
usually taught is that  life has been on
 the globe for many millions of years1  
that in fact  there has been a graded   
succession of different types of life in
 a well  defined invariable order1 from 
the lower and more generalized to the   
higher and more specialized4 ,quite     
obviously this succession of life was   
antagonistic to the former views of a   
literal ,creation2 and only on this     
supposed fact as an outline has the     
modern theory of biological  evolution  

been built up4 ,for if geology cannot   
furnish the most  unquestionable proof  
that life has occurred in a very        
definite and  invariable order1 what is 
the use of talking about the development
 of  one form of life into another by a 
gradual process of evolution8    ,one of
 the highest scientific authorities in  
,america1 ,prof4 ,thomas ,hunt  ,morgan1
 of ,columbia ,university1 has recently 
said1 ,the direct evidence  furnished by
 fossil remains is by all odds the      
strongest evidence that  we have in     
favor of organic evolution4#cc          
,accordingly we purpose to  examine     
carefully what this by all odds         
strongest evidence is like4    ,footnote
 #cc3 ,a ,critique of the ,theory of    
,evolution1 p4 #bd4      ,,ii    ,as    
with some of the other facts with which 
we have had to deal in  previous        
chapters1 a correct understanding of the
 questions involved  can best be        
obtained by examining the history of the
 development of the  science4    ,the   

first man with whom we need to concern  
ourselves is ,a4,g4 ,werner1 a  teacher 
of mineralogy in the ,university of     
,freiberg1 ,germany4 ,for three  hundred
 years his ancestors had been connected 
with mining work1 and he1  though       
possessing little general education1    
knew about all that was then  known     
regarding mineralogy and petrology4 ,he 
wrote no books2 but by his  enthusiastic
 teaching he gathered as students and   
sent out as  evangelists hundreds of    
devoted young scientists who rapidly    
spread his  theories through all the    
countries of ,europe4    ,unfortunately1
 says ,zittel1 ,werner's field          
observations were limited  to a small   
district1 the ,erz ,mountains and the   
neighboring parts of  ,saxony and       
,bohemia4 ,and his chronological scheme 
of formations was  founded on the mode  
of occurrence of the rocks within these 
narrow  confines4#cd    ,footnote #cd3  
,history of ,geology1 p4 #ei4    ,werner
 had found the granites1 limestones1    

sandstones1 schists1 etc41  occurring in
 a certain relative order in his native 
country2 and he drew  the very          
remarkable conclusion that this was the 
normal order in which  these various    
rocks would invariably be found in all  
parts of the world1  on the theory that 
this was the order in which these       
different rocks had  been formed in the 
beginning1 great layers of these        
different rocks  having originally been 
spread completely around the globe one  
outside  another like the coats of an   
onion4 ,with this as a major premise1 it
 is  not surprising that he and his     
enthusiastic disciples were as certain  
of the origin and sequence of the rocks 
as if they had been present at  the     
formation of the earth's crust4#ce      
,footnote #ce3 ,a4 ,geikie1 ,founders of
 ,geology1 p4 #aab4    ,the amusement   
with which this onion-coat theory is now
 regarded is  hardly appropriate in view
 of its universal vogue among geologists
 about  the beginning of the nineteenth 

century1 and in view of the further fact
  that a very similar and only slightly 
modified substitute theory has  been    
universally taught for three-quarters of
 a century and still  prevails4 ,the    
modern form of the theory substitutes   
onion-coats of  fossiliferous rocks for 
onion-coats of mineral and lithological 
characters2 and a brief consideration of
 this theory is now in order4    ,about 
the time that various geologists here   
and there were finding rocks  in        
positions that could not be explained in
 terms of ,werner's theory1  ,william   
,smith 7#agfi-ahci7 in ,england and the 
great ,baron ,cuvier  7#agfi-ahcb7 in   
,france found characteristic fossils    
occurring in various  strata2 and under 
their teachings it was not long before  
the fossils  were considered the best   
guide in determining the relative       
sequence of  the rocks4 ,the familiar   
idea of world-enveloping strata as      
representing  successive ages was not   
discarded2 but instead of ,werner's     

successive  ages of limestone making1   
sandstone making1 etc41 these new       
investigators taught that there were    
successive ages of invertebrates1       
fishes1 reptiles1 and mammals1 these    
creatures having registered their       
existence in rocky strata which thus by 
hypothesis completely encircled  the    
globe one outside another4    ,it is    
true that early in the nineteenth       
century ,sir ,charles ,lyell and  others
 tried to disclaim this absurd and      
unscientific inheritance from  ,werner's
 onion-coats2 but modern geology has    
never yet got rid of its  essential and 
its chief characteristic idea1 for all  
our text-books  still speak of various  
successive ages when only certain types 
of life  prevailed all over the globe4  
,hence it is that ,herbert ,spencer     
caustically remarks3 ,though the        
onion-coat hypothesis is dead1 its      
spirit is traceable1 under a            
transcendental form1 even in the        
conclusions of its antagonists4#cf      

,hence it is that ,whewell1 in his      
,history of the ,inductive ,sciences1   
refuses to acknowledge that in  geology 
any real advance has yet been made      
toward a stable science like  those of  
astronomy1 physics1 and chemistry4 ,we  
hardly know1 he says1  whether the      
progress is begun4 ,the history of      
physical astronomy almost  commences    
with ,newton1 and few persons will      
venture to assert that the  ,newton of  
geology has yet appeared4#cg ,hence it  
is that ,t4,h4 ,huxley  declares1 ,in   
the present condition of our knowledge  
and of our  methods1 one verdict1--'not 
proven and not provable'--must be       
recorded  against all grand hypotheses  
of the palontologist respecting the     
general succession of life on the       
globe4#ch ,and hence it is that ,sir    
,henry ,h4 ,howorth1 a member of the    
,british ,house of ,commons and the     
author of three exhaustive works on the 
,glacial theory1 declares1 ,it is  a    
singular and notable fact1 that while   

most other branches of science  have    
emancipated themselves from the trammels
 of metaphysical reasoning1  the science
 of geology still remains imprisoned in 
a priori  theories4#ci    ,footnote #cf3
 ,illustr4 of ,univ4 ,prog41 p4 #cdc4   
,footnote #cg3 ,vol4 ,,ii1 p4#ehj4      
,footnote #ch3 ,discourses1 pp4         
#bgi-bhh4    ,footnote #ci3 ,the        
,glacial ,nightmare1 ,preface1 vii4     
,and thus the matter remains even       
to-day1 in this second decade of the    
twentieth century4 ,geology has never   
yet been regenerated1 as have all  the  
other sciences1 by being delivered from 
the caprice of subjective  speculations 
and a priori theories and being placed  
on the secure  basis of objective and   
demonstrable fact1 in accordance with   
the  principles of that inductive method
 of investigation which was  instituted 
by ,bacon and which has become so far   
universal in the other  sciences that it
 is everywhere known as the scientific  
method4 ,in  accordance with this       

method1 theories in all the other       
sciences are  always kept well          
subordinated to facts2 and whenever     
unequivocal facts  are found manifestly 
contradicting a theory no matter how    
venerable1 the  theory must go to make  
way for the facts4 ,in other words1 the 
theoretical parts of the various other  
sciences are always kept revised  from  
time to time1 to keep them in line with 
the new discoveries that  have been     
made4 ,there has been no lack of        
astonishing discoveries of new  facts in
 geology during the past half century or
 so1 while all the other  sciences have 
been making such astonishing progress4  
,but for over  seventy five years       
geology has not made a single advance   
movement in its  theoretical aspects2   
indeed1 in all its important general    
principles it  has scarcely changed in a
 hundred years4 ,i shall leave it to the
 reader  to judge whether this is a case
 of almost miraculous perfection from   
the  beginning1 or of arrested          

development4      ,,iii    ,of the three
 general postulates or a priori         
assumptions of this  curiously          
out-of-date medival science1 namely1    
7#a7 ,uniformity1 7#b7 the  ,cooling    
globe theory1 and 7#c7 the theory of the
 ,successive ,ages1 the  first two have 
already been examined and found wanting 
by other  investigators1 and have been  
allowed to lapse into a sort of honored 
disuse1 though their memory is still    
reverently cherished in all the         
text-books of the science4 ,the         
,challenger ,expedition dissipated most 
of the myths that had long been taught  
regarding the deep waters of the  ocean2
 and ,professor ,suess has disposed of  
the closely related myth  about the     
coasts of the continents being          
constantly on the seesaw up and  down4  
,these two discoveries1 with others that
 might be mentioned1  dispose of        
,lyell's theory of uniformity4 ,lord    
,kelvin and the other  physicists       
dissipated the idea of a molten interior

 of the earth4 ,hence1  because these   
other false hypotheses have already in a
 measure been  disposed of1 as well as  
for the sake of brevity1 ,i shall here  
discuss  only the third of the prime    
postulates of the current system of     
geology1 namely the theory of           
,successive ,ages4 ,and when we have    
adjusted  this aspect of the science of 
geology to the facts of the rocks as    
made  known to us by modern discoveries1
 we shall find little in this science   
out of harmony with the older view of a 
literal ,creation as taught in  the     
,bible and as already confirmed by the  
other branches of science  which we have
 been examining4    ,there are five     
leading arguments against the reality of
 these  successive ages4 ,four of them  
must be dismissed here by a brief       
summary  of the facts as we know them   
to-day1 referring the reader to the     
author's larger work1 where detailed    
evidence is given for each4 ,the  fifth 
series of facts ,i shall give here in   

more detail1 though of  course even this
 must be but an outline of what is given
 elsewhere4    #a4 ,in the earlier days 
of the theory of successive ages it was 
taught  that only certain kinds of      
fossils were to be found at the bottom  
of  the series1 or next to the          
,primitive or ,archan4 ,this feature of 
the  theory was demanded by the supposed
 universal spread of one type of life   
all around the globe in the earliest    
age4 ,but it is now known that the      
so-called oldest fossiliferous rocks    
occur only in detached patches  over the
 globe1 while other or younger kinds are
 just as likely to be  found on the     
,primitive or next to the ,archan4 ,not 
only may any kind of  fossiliferous     
rocks occur next to the ,archan1 but    
even the youngest  may be so            
metamorphosed and crystalline as to     
resemble exactly in this  respect the   
so-called oldest rocks4 ,on the other   
hand some of the very  oldest rocks may1
 like the ,cambrian strata around the   

,baltic and in  some parts of the       
,united ,states1 consist of muds        
scarcely indurated and  sands still     
incoherent4#dj    ,footnote #dj3 ,j4,a4 
,howe2 ,encyclopdia ,britannica1 ,vol4  
,,ii1 p4 #hf4  ,cambridge ,edition4     
,all this means that many facts         
regarding the position of the strata as 
well as regarding their consolidation   
contradict the theory of  successive    
ages4    #b4 ,many of the rivers of the 
world completely ignore the alleged     
varying  ages of the rocks in the       
different parts of their course1 and    
treat them  all as if of the same age or
 as if they began sawing at them all at 
the  same time4 ,this is true of the    
,rhine1 the ,meuse1 and the ,danube in  
,europe1 the ,sutlej of ,india1 and the 
upper part of the ,colorado in          
,america1 not to mention others4 ,the   
old strand lines around all the         
continents act in the very same way1    
ignoring the varying ages of the  rocks 
they happen to meet2 as is also true of 

nearly all the great  faults or fissures
 which are of more than local extent4   
,the ore veins of  the various minerals 
are about as likely to be found in      
,tertiary or  ,mesozoic as in the       
,palozoic4 ,a very similar lesson is to 
be learned  from the fossils found lying
 exposed on the deep ocean bottom2 for  
they  are about as likely to be         
,palozoic or ,mesozoic as ,tertiary4    
,from these facts we conclude that      
practically all the great natural       
chronometers of the earth seem to treat 
the fossiliferous rocks as if  they are 
all of about the same age1 completely   
disregarding the  distinctions in age   
founded on the fossils4    #c4          
,according to the present chronological 
arrangement of the rocks1 very  many    
genera1 often whole tribes of animals1  
are found as fossils only in  the oldest
 rocks1 and have skipped all the others1
 though found in  comparative abundance 
in our modern world4 ,very many others  
have skipped  from the ,mesozoic down1  

while still others skip large parts of  
the  series of successive ages4         
,these absurdities would all be avoided 
by acknowledging that the current       
distinctions as to the ages of the      
fossils are purely artificial1 and  that
 one fossil is intrinsically just as old
 or as young as another4    #d4 ,it is  
now known that any kind of young beds   
whatsoever1 ,mesozoic1  ,tertiary1 or   
even ,pleistocene1 may be found in such 
perfect  conformability on some of the  
very oldest beds over wide stretches of 
country that the vast interval of time  
intervening is unrepresented  either by 
deposition or erosion2 while in some    
instances these  age-separated          
formations so closely resemble one      
another in structure  and in            
mineralogical make-up that1 were it not 
for fossil evidence1 one  would         
naturally suppose that a single         
formation was being dealt with          
7,mc,connell72 and these conditions are 
not merely local1 but persistent  over  

wide areas 7,a4 ,geikie71 so that the   
numerous examples 7,suess7 of  these    
conditions may well be cause for        
astonishment 7,suess74    ,a still more 
astonishing thing from the standpoint of
 the current  theories is that these    
conformable relations of incongruous    
strata are  often repeated over and over
 again in the same vertical section1 the
  same kind of bed reappearing          
alternately with others of an entirely  
different age1 that is1 appearing as if 
regularly interbedded 7,a4  ,geikie7    
with them1 in a manifestly undisturbed  
series of strata4    ,here again we have
 a very formidable series of facts whose
 gravamen is  directed wholly against   
the artificial distinctions in age      
between the  different groups of        
fossils2 and their argument is an       
eloquent plea that  the fossils are     
neither older nor younger but all of a  
similar age4    #e4 ,our last fact      
demands a somewhat more extended        
consideration2 but it  may be stated in 

advance briefly as follows3    ,in very 
numerous cases and over hundreds and    
even thousands of square  miles1 the    
conformable conditions specified in the 
previous fact are  exactly reproduced   
upside down2 that is1 very old rocks    
occur with  just as much appearance of  
natural conformability on top of very   
young  rocks1 the area in some instances
 covering many hundreds of square       
miles1 and in one particular instance in
 ,montana and ,alberta covering  about  
five or six thousand square miles of    
area4    ,the first notable example of  
this phenomenon was discovered at       
,glarus1  ,switzerland1 a good many     
years ago2 since which time this        
locality has  become a classic in       
geological literature1 and has called   
out many  ponderous monographs in       
,german and ,french by such men as      
,heim1 ,schardt1  ,lugeon1 ,rothpletz1  
and ,bertrand4 ,this example1 which was 
first 7#ahgj7  called the ,glarner      
,double ,fold by ,escher and ,heim1 is  

now universally  called a nearly        
flat-lying thrust fault1 in accordance  
with the  explanations since adopted of 
similar phenomena elsewhere4 ,without   
obtruding unnecessary technicalities    
upon my non-professional readers1 ,i    
may quote the words of ,albert ,heim as 
to the conditions as now  recognized in 
these parts3    ,these flat-lying       
faults1 of which those at ,glarus were  
the first to be  discovered1 are a      
universal phenomenon in the ,northern   
and ,central  ,alps4#da    ,footnote    
#da3 ,der ,bau der ,schweizeralpen1 p4  
#ag4    ,the favorite method of         
explaining these conditions has slightly
 changed  within recent years1 as       
already remarked4 ,for whereas the      
classic  example at ,glarus was at first
 spoken of as a double fold-in from both
  sides toward the ,sernf ,valley1 this 
is now universally spoken of as a       
thrust fault1 with the rocks all pushed 
one way4 ,incidentally it may  be noted 
that this very fact that what was long  

regarded as two  completely overturned  
folds is now spoken of as one flat-lying
 thrust  fault1 is prima facie evidence 
that there is here no physical proof  of
 any real overturning of the strata1    
such as we do find on a very  small     
scale in true folded rocks4 ,the latter 
can usually be measured in  yards1 feet1
 or inches2 while in this example at    
,glarus the area  involved would be     
measured in many miles1 and in some very
 similar  examples to be presently      
mentioned from ,america the measurement 
could  best be made in degrees of       
latitude and longitude or in arcs of the
  earth's circumference4 ,in these      
larger examples it is manifestly        
impossible that there should be any     
physical evidence sufficient to         
indicate a huge earth movement of this  
character1 especially when1 as is       
usually the case1 both the upper and the
 lower strata are quite  uninjured in   
appearance4 ,no2 the fossils are here in
 the wrong order1  that is all4 ,and so1

 to save the long established doctrines 
of a very  definite order of successive 
life-forms1 this theory of a thrust     
fault  is offered as the best available 
explanation4 ,as ,dr4 ,albert ,heim     
himself  once expressed it very naively 
in a letter to the present writer1 that 
the strata over these large areas are in
 a position manifestly at direct        
disagreement with the received order of 
the fossils1 is a fact which  can be    
clearly seen1--only we know not yet how 
to explain it in a  mechanical way4     
,an example in the ,highlands of        
,scotland was about the next to be      
discovered4 ,here1 as ,dana says1 a mass
 of the oldest crystalline rocks1  many 
miles in length from north to south1 was
 thrust at least ten miles  westward    
over younger rocks1 part of the latter  
fossiliferous2 and he  further declares1
 the thrust planes look like planes of  
bedding1 and  were long so              
considered4#db    ,sir ,archibald       
,geikie and others had at first         

described these beds as  naturally      
conformable2 and when at length they    
were convinced that the  fossils would  
not permit this explanation1 ,geikie    
gives us some very  picturesque details 
as to how natural they look4    ,the    
thrust planes1 he says1 are with much   
difficulty distinguished from  ordinary 
stratification planes1 like which they  
have been plicated1  faulted1 and       
denuded4 ,here and there1 as a result of
 denudation1 a  portion of one of them  
appears capping a hilltop4 ,one almost  
refuses to  believe that the little     
outlier on the summit does not lie      
normally on  the rocks below it1 but on 
a nearly horizontal fault by which it   
has  been moved into its place4    ,of a
 similar example in ,ross ,shire he     
declares3    ,had these sections been   
planned for the purpose of deception1   
they  could not have been more skilfully
 devised1 444 and no one coming first   
to the ground would suspect that what   
appears to be a normal  stratigraphical 

sequence is not really so4#dc           
,footnote #db3 ,manual1 pp4 #aaa1 #ecd4 
,footnote #dc3 ,nature1 ,november #ac1  
#ahhd1 pp4 #bi-ce4    ,here again we    
have unequivocal testimony from the most
 competent of  observers that there is  
no physical evidence whatever to lead   
any one  to say that a ponderous scale  
of the earth's crust was really pushed  
up  on top of other portions1 as this   
makeshift theory of thrust faults       
involves4 ,the fossils are here in the  
wrong order1 just as in the case  at    
,glarus2 that is all4 ,the facts seem to
 be a flat contradiction to the  theory 
of definite successive ages1 and to save
 the theory this  explanation of a      
thrust fault is invented1 though there  
is absolutely  no physical evidence of  
any disturbance of the strata4    ,our  
next stopping place is in the ,southern 
,appalachian ,mountains of  eastern     
,tennessee and northern ,georgia4 ,here 
we have the ,carboniferous  strata      
dipping gently to the southeast1 like an

 ordinary low monocline1  under         
,cambrian or ,lower ,silurian1 one of   
these so-called faults having  a        
reported length of #cge miles1#dd while 
in another instance the upper  strata   
are said to have been pushed about      
eleven miles in the direction  of the   
thrust4#de ,these conditions1 we are    
told1 have provoked the  wonder of the  
most experienced geologists1#df because 
of the perfectly  natural appearance of 
the surfaces of the strata affected2 or 
as this  same writer puts it1 ,the      
mechanical effort is great beyond       
comprehension1 but the effect upon the  
rocks is inappreciable1 and the  fault  
dip is often parallel to the bedding of 
the one or the other  series of         
strata4#dg ,which means1 in other words1
 that these thrust  planes look just    
like ordinary planes of bedding between 
conformable  strata4    ,footnote #dd3  
,bailey ,willis1 ,geol4 ,survey1        
,report1 ,vol4 #ac1 p4 #bbh4            
,footnote #de3 ,c4,w4 ,hayes1 ,bull4    

,geol4 ,soc41 ,vol4 #b1 pp4 #ada-aed4   
,footnote #df3 ,willis1 op4 cit41 p4    
#bbh4    ,footnote #dg3 ,willis1 op4    
cit41 p4 #bbg4    ,the ,rocky ,mountains
 furnish examples of many kinds of      
natural phenomena  on the very largest  
scale1 and those of the sort here under 
consideration are no exception to this  
rule4 ,for here we have an immense  area
 east of the main divide1 extending from
 the middle of ,montana up to  the      
,yellowhead ,pass in ,alberta1 or over  
#cej miles long1 where the tops  of the 
mountains consist of jointed limestones 
or argillites of  ,algonkian or         
pre-,cambrian age1 resting on soft      
,cretaceous shales4  ,often the greater 
part of the mass of a range will consist
 of these  older and harder rocks1 which
 by the erosion of the soft underlying  
shales are left standing in picturesque1
 rectangular1 cathedral-like  masses1   
easily recognizable as far off as they  
can be seen4 ,and the  almost entire    
absence of trees or other vegetation    

helps one to trace  out the relationship
 of these formations over immense areas 
with little  or no difficulty4    ,in   
the latitude of the ,bow ,river1 near   
the ,canadian ,pacific main line1  there
 is a long narrow valley of these       
,cretaceous beds some sixty-five  miles 
long1 called the ,cascade ,trough1 with 
of course pre-,cambrian  mountains on   
each side4 ,somewhat further south there
 are two of these  ,cretaceous valleys  
parallel to one another1 and in some    
places three2  while just south of the  
fiftieth parallel of latitude1 at       
,gould's ,dome1  there are actually five
 parallel ranges of these ,palozoic     
mountains1  with four ,cretaceous       
valleys in between1 one of these        
valleys1 the  ,crow's ,nest ,trough1    
being ninety-five miles long4    ,but we
 ought to take a nearer view of these   
wonderful conditions4 ,a  convenient    
point of approach will be just east of  
,banff1 ,alberta1 near  ,kananaskis     
,station1 where the ,fairholme ,mountain

 has been described by  ,r4,g4          
,mc,connell of the ,canadian ,survey4   
,the latter remarks with amazement  on  
the perfectly natural appearance of     
these ,algonkian limestones  resting in 
seeming conformability on ,cretaceous   
shales1 and says that  the line of      
separation between them1 called in the  
theory the thrust  plane1 resembles in  
all respects an ordinary stratification 
plane4 ,i  quote his language3    ,the  
angle of inclination of its plane to the
 horizon is very low1 and  in           
consequence of this its outcrop follows 
a very sinuous line along the  base of  
the mountains1 and acts exactly like the
 line of contact of two  nearly         
horizontal formations4    ,the best     
places for examining this fault are at  
the gaps of the ,bow and  of the south  
fork of ,ghost ,river4444 ,the fault    
plane here is nearly  horizontal1 and   
the two formations1 viewed from the     
valley1 appear to  succeed one another  
conformably4#dh    ,footnote #dh3       

,annual ,report1 #ahhf1 ,part ,d1 pp4   
#cc1 #cd4    ,this author adds the      
further interesting detail that the     
underlying  ,cretaceous shales are very 
soft1 and have suffered very little by  
the  sliding of the limestone over      
them4#di    ,about a hundred miles      
further south1 but still in ,alberta1 we
 have the  well-known ,crow's ,nest     
,mountain1 a lone peak1 which consists  
of these  same ,algonkian limestones    
resting on a ,cretaceous valley in a    
nearly  horizontal attitude1 as ,g4,m4  
,dawson says1 which in its structure and
  general appearance much resembles     
,chief ,mountain1#ej another detached   
peak some fifty miles further south1    
just across the boundary line in        
,montana4    ,chief ,mountain has been  
well described by ,bailey ,willis1#ea   
who  estimates that the ,cretaceous beds
 underneath this mountain must be       
#c1ejj feet thick2 while the so-called  
thrust plane is essentially  parallel to
 the bedding of the upper series4#eb    

,this apparently is true not only of the
 segments of thrust surface  beneath    
eastern ,flattop1 ,yellow1 and ,chief   
,mountain1 but also of the  more deeply 
buried portions which appear to dip with
 the ,algonkian  strata into the        
syncline4 ,while observation is not     
complete1 it may be  assumed on a basis 
of fact that thrust surfaces and bedding
 are nearly  parallel over extensive    
areas4#ec    ,footnote #di3 ,report1    
#ahhf1 ,part ,d1 p4 #hd4    ,footnote   
#ej3 ,report1 #ahhe1 ,part ,b1 p4 #fg4  
,footnote #ea3 ,bull4 ,geol4 ,soc41     
,vol4 #ac1 pp4 #cje-ceb4    ,footnote   
#eb3 ,id41 p4 #ccf4    ,footnote #ec3   
,id41 p4 #ccf4    ,quite recently this  
region has been studied by ,marius ,r4  
,campbell of the  ,washington ,survey   
,staff 7,bulletin #fjj71 while the part 
in ,alberta has  been studied by ,rollin
 ,t4 ,chamberlin of ,chicago4 ,much of  
the vast area  involved is not yet well 
explored2 but over it all1 so far as it 
has  been fully examined1 the same      

lithological and stratigraphical        
structures reappear with the persistence
 of a repeating decimal4 ,and  were it  
not for the exigencies of the theory of 
,successive ,ages1 this  whole region of
 some five or six thousand square miles 
would be  considered as only an ordinary
 example1 on a rather large scale1 of   
undisturbed horizontal stratification   
cut up by erosion into mountains  of    
denudation1 with of course occasional   
instances of minor local  disturbances  
here and there1 as would be expected    
over an area of this  extent4           
,richards and ,mansfield in a recent    
paper describe the ,bannock             
,overthrust1 some #bgj miles long1 in   
,utah1 ,idaho1 and ,wyoming4 ,the       
,carnegie ,research recently reported a 
similar phenomenon about #ejj miles     
long in northern ,china4    ,but it     
would be tiresome to follow these       
conditions around the world4 ,we  have  
plenty of examples1 and we have them    
described by the foremost of  living    

geologists4 ,what we need to do now is  
to adopt a true scientific  attitude of 
mind1 a mind freed from the hypnotizing 
influence of the  current theories1 in  
order correctly to interpret the facts  
as we  already have them4    ,how much  
of the earth's crust would we have to   
find in this upside  down order of the  
fossils1 before we would be convinced   
that there must  be something hopelessly
 wrong with this theory of ,successive  
,ages which  drives otherwise competent 
observers to throw away their common    
sense  and cling desperately to a       
fantastic theory in the very teeth of   
such  facts8    ,the science of geology 
as commonly taught is truly in a most   
astonishing  condition1 and doubtless   
presents the most peculiar mixture of   
fact and  nonsense to be found in the   
whole range of our modern knowledge4 ,in
 any  minute study of a particular set  
of rocks in a definite locality1        
geology always follows facts and common 
sense2 while in any general view  of the

 world as a whole1 or in any correlation
 of the rocks of one  region with those 
of another region1 it follows its       
absurd1 unscientific  theories4 ,but    
wherever it agrees with facts and common
 sense1 it  contradicts these absurd    
theories2 and wherever it agrees with   
these  theories1 it contradicts facts   
and common sense4 ,that most educated   
people still believe its main thesis of 
a definite age for each  particular kind
 of fossil is a sad but instructive     
example of the  effects of mental       
inertia4      ,,iv    ,the reader will  
find this matter discussed at length in 
the author's  ,fundamentals of ,geology2
 but here it will be necessary only to  
draw  some very obvious conclusions from
 the five facts which we have set in    
opposition to the theory of ,successive 
,ages4    #a4 ,the first and absolutely 
incontrovertible conclusion is that this
  theory of successive ages must be a   
gross blunder1 in its baleful  effects  
on every branch of modern thought       

deplorable beyond computation4  ,but it 
is now perfectly obvious that the       
geological distinctions as to  age      
between the fossils are fantastic and   
unjustifiable4 ,no one kind of  true    
fossil can be proved to be older or     
younger than another  intrinsically and 
necessarily1 and the methods of         
reasoning by which  this idea has been  
supported in the past are little else   
than a  burlesque on modern scientific  
methods1 and are a belated survival from
  the methods of the scholastics of the 
,middle ,ages4    ,not by any means that
 all rock deposits are of the same age4 
,the lower  ones in any particular      
locality are of course older than the   
upper  ones1 that is1 they were         
deposited first4 ,but from this it by no
 means  follows that the fossils        
contained in these lower rocks came into
 being  and lived and died before the   
fossils in the upper ones4 ,the latter  
conclusion involves several additional  
assumptions which are wholly            

unscientific in spirit and incredible as
 matters of fact1 one of which          
assumptions is the biological form of   
the onion-coat theory4 ,but since       
thousands of modern living kinds of     
plants and animals are found in the     
fossil state1 man included1 and no one  
of them can be proved to have  lived for
 a period of time alone and before      
others1 we must by other  methods1 more 
scientific and accurate than the        
slipshod methods hitherto  in vogue1    
attempt to decide as best we can how    
these various forms of  life were       
buried1 and how the past and the present
 are connected  together4 ,but the      
theory of definite successive ages1 with
 the forms of  life appearing on earth  
in a precise and invariable order1 is   
dead for  all coming time for every man 
who has had a chance to examine the     
evidence and has enough training in     
logic and scientific methods to know    
when a thing is really proved4    ,and  
how utterly absurd for the friends of   

the ,bible to spend their time  bandying
 arguments with the evolutionist over   
such minor details as the  question of  
just what geological age should be      
assigned for the first  appearance of   
man on the earth1 when the              
evolutionist's major premise is  itself 
directly antagonistic to the most       
fundamental facts regarding the  first  
chapters of the ,bible1 and above all1  
when this major premise is  really the  
weakest spot in the whole theory1 the   
one sore spot that  evolutionists never 
want to have touched at all4    ,i fancy
 ,i hear some one object1 and ask what  
we are to do with the  systematic       
arrangement of the fossils1 the         
so-called geological  succession1 that  
monument to the painstaking labors of   
thousands of  scientists all over the   
world4 ,this geological series is still 
on our  hands2 what are we to do with   
it8    ,it is scarcely necessary for me 
to say that this arrangement of the     
fossils is not at all affected by my    

criticism of the cause of the           
geological changes4 ,the geological     
series is merely an old-time  taxonomic 
series1 a classification of the forms of
 life that used to  live on the earth1  
and is of course just as artificial as  
any similar  arrangement of the modern  
forms of life would be4    ,we may      
illustrate the matter by comparing this 
series with a card index4  ,the earlier 
students of geology arranged the outline
 of the order of the  fossils by a      
rather general comparison with the      
series of modern life  forms1 which     
happened to agree fairly well with the  
order in which they  had found the      
fossils occurring in ,england and       
,france4 ,but only a block  out of the  
middle of the complete card index could 
be made up from the  rocks of ,england  
and ,france2 the rest has had to be made
 up from the  rocks found elsewhere4    
,louis ,agassiz did herculean work in   
rearranging  and trimming this fossil   
card index so as to make it conform     

better1 not  only to the companion card 
index of the modern forms of life1 but  
also  to that of the embryonic series4  
,from time to time even now             
readjustments are made in the details of
 all three indexes1 the fossil1  the    
modern1 and the embryonic1 the method of
 rearrangement being  charmingly simple3
 just taking a card out of one place and
 putting it  into another place where we
 may think it more properly belongs4    
,and  then if we can convince our fellow
 scientists over the world that our     
rearrangement is justified1 our         
adjustment will stand1--until some one  
else arises to do a better job4 ,when a 
new set of rocks is found in any  part  
of the world it is simplicity itself for
 any one acquainted with  the fossil    
index system to assign these new beds to
 their proper place1  though of course  
the one doing this must be prepared to  
defend his  assignment with pertinent   
and sufficient taxonomic reasons4    ,in
 view of these facts1 we need not be    

concerned as to the fate of the         
geological classification of the        
fossils4 ,it is a purely artificial     
system1 just as is the modern           
classification2 but both are useful1 and
  so far as they represent true         
relationships they will both stand      
unaffected by any change we may make in 
our opinions as to how the  fossils were
 buried4 ,but in view of this purely    
artificial character of  the geological 
series1 what a strange sight is         
presented by the usual  methods employed
 to prove the exact order in which      
evolution has taken  place1 such for    
instance as the use made of the graded  
series of fossil  horses1 to illustrate 
some particular theory of just how      
organic  development has occurred4 ,one 
might just as well arrange the modern   
dogs  from the little spaniel to the    
,st4 ,bernard1 for the geological series
 is  just as artificial as would be this
 of the dogs4    #b4 ,another conclusion
 from the facts enumerated above is that

 there has  obviously been a great world
 catastrophe1 and that this must be     
assigned  as the cause of a large       
part1--just how large a part it is at   
present  difficult to say1--of the      
changes recorded in the fossiliferous   
rocks4  ,this sounds very much like a   
modern confirmation of the ancient      
record  of a universal ,deluge2 and ,i  
say confidently that no one who will    
candidly examine the evidence now       
available on this point can fail to  be 
impressed with the force of the argument
 for a world catastrophe as  the general
 conclusion to be drawn from the        
fossiliferous rocks all over  the globe4
    #c4 ,finally1 there is the further  
conclusion1 the only conclusion now     
possible1 if there is no definite order 
in which the fossils occur1  namely1    
that life in all its varied forms must  
have originated on the  globe by causes 
not now operative1 and this ,creation of
 all the types  of life may just as     
reasonably have taken place all at once1

 as in some  order prolonged over a long
 period4    ,as ,i have pointed out in  
my ,fundamentals1 a strict scientific   
method  may destroy the theory of       
,successive ,ages1 and it may show that 
there  has been a great world           
catastrophe4 ,but here the work of      
strict  inductive science ends4 ,it     
cannot show just how or when life or the
  various kinds of life did originate1  
it can only show how it did not4  ,it   
destroys forever the fantastic scheme of
 a definite and precise order  in which 
the various types of life occurred on   
the globe1 and thus it  leaves the way  
open to say that life must have         
originated by just such  a literal      
,creation as is recorded in the first   
chapters of the ,bible4  ,but this is as
 far as it can be expected to go4 ,it is
 strong evidence in  favor of a direct  
and literal ,creation2 but it furnishes 
this evidence  by indirection1 that is1 
by demolishing the only alternative or  
rival of  ,creation that can command a  

moment's attention from a rational mind4
    ,but if life is not now being       
created from the not-living1 if new     
kinds  of life are not now appearing by 
natural process1 if above all we cannot 
prove in any way worthy of being called 
scientific that certain types of  life  
lived before others1 if in fine man     
himself is found fossil and no  one     
fossil can be proved older than another 
or than that of man himself1  why is not
 a literal ,creation demonstrated as a  
scientific certainty for  every mind    
capable of appreciating the force of    
logical reasoning8        ,,viii        
,,creation ,,and ,,the ,,creator      ,i
    ,we need not here attempt to discuss
 the existence or even the nature of    
,god4 ,the ,infinite ,one in all ,his   
attributes is above and beyond          
discussion4 ,but there are some things  
that we can very profitably gather      
together as the net results of modern   
scientific investigation regarding  the 
origin of things2 and to this task we   

must now address ourselves in  a very   
brief way4    ,we shall not attempt to  
deal with the astronomical aspects of   
the  question1 or the origin of our     
world as a planet or the origin of the  
solar system4 ,this would lead us too   
far afield4 ,we shall make more         
progress in dealing with the questions  
nearest at hand1 namely1 the  origin of 
the present order of things on our      
globe4    ,first we must summarize the  
facts as we now know them in the five   
departments of knowledge with which we  
have had to deal4    #a4 ,both matter   
and energy seem now to be at a          
standstill1 so far as  creation is      
concerned2 no means being known to      
science whereby the fixed  quantity of  
both with which we have to deal in this 
world can be  increased 7or diminished7 
in the slightest degree4    #b4 ,the    
origin of life is veiled in a mist that 
science has not dispelled  and does not 
hope to dispel4 ,by none of the         
processes that we call  natural can life

 now be produced from the not-living4   
#c4 ,unicellular forms can come only    
from preexisting cells of the same      
kind2 and even the individual cells of a
 multicellular organism1 when  once     
differentiated1 reproduce only other    
cells after their own kind4    #d4      
,species of plants and animals have     
wonderful powers of variation2 but      
these variations seem to be regulated   
and predestined in accordance with      
definite laws1 and in no instance known 
to science has this variation  resulted 
in producing what could properly be     
called a distinct new kind  of plant or 
animal4    #e4 ,geology has been        
supposed to prove that there has been a 
long  succession of distinct types of   
life on the globe in a very definite    
order extending through vast ages of    
time4 ,this is now known to be a        
mistake4 ,most living forms of plants   
and animals are also found as  fossils2 
but there is no possible way of telling 
that one kind of life  lived and        

occupied the world before others1 or    
that one kind of life is  intrinsically 
older than any other or than the human  
race4      ,,ii    ,in view of such     
facts as these1 what possible chance is 
there for a  scheme of organic          
evolution8    ,must we not say that     
every possible form of the development  
theory is  hereby ruled out of court8   
,there can be no thought of the gradual 
development of organic nature by        
every-day processes in a world where    
such facts prevail4 ,rather must we say1
 with the force of the  accumulated     
momentum of all that has been won by    
modern science1 that1  instead of the   
animals and plants on our world having  
arisen by a  long-drawn-out process of  
change and development of one kind into 
another1 there must have been just such 
a literal ,creation at the  beginning as
 the ,bible describes4 ,as we stand with
 uncovered head and  bowed form in the  
presence of this great truth1 it would  
seem almost  like sacrilege to attempt  

by rhetoric to adorn it4 ,its           
inevitableness1  its majesty1 its       
transcendent importance for our         
generation1 would only  be obscured by  
so doing4    ,the essential idea of the 
,evolution theory is uniformity4 ,it    
seeks to  show that the present orders  
of plant and animal life originated by  
causes or processes identical with those
 now said to be operating in our  modern
 world4 ,it denies that at any          
particular time in the past causes  and 
processes were in operation to originate
 the present order of nature  which were
 essentially different from the         
processes now operating in our  world   
under what we call natural law4         
,evolution seeks to smooth out all      
distinction between ,creation and the   
modern rgime of natural law4    ,on the 
other hand1 the essential idea of the   
,christian doctrine of  ,creation is    
that1 back at a period called the       
beginning1 forces and  powers were      
brought into exercise and results were  

accomplished which  have not since been 
exercised or accomplished4 ,in other    
words1 the  origin of the world and the 
things upon it was essentially and      
radically  different from the manner in 
which the present order of nature is now
  being sustained and perpetuated4 ,the 
mere matter of time is in no way  the   
essential idea in the problem4 ,the     
question of how much time was  occupied 
in the work of ,creation is of no       
importance1 neither is the  question of 
how long ago it took place4 ,the one    
essential idea is that  the processes   
and methods of ,creation are beyond us1 
for we have nothing  with which to      
measure it2 ,creation and the reign of  
natural law are  essentially            
incommensurable4 ,the one thing that the
 doctrine of ,creation  insists upon is 
that the origin of our world and of the 
things upon it  must have been brought  
about by some direct and unusual        
manifestation of  the power of the      
,being whom we call the ,creator2 and   

that since this  original ,creation the 
things of nature have been perpetuated  
and  sustained by processes and methods 
which 7though still essentially         
inscrutable by us7 we call the order of 
nature and the reign of natural  law4   
,but in view of the series of facts     
enumerated in the previous pages1 the   
doctrine of ,creation is established by 
modern scientific discoveries  almost   
like the conclusion of a mathematical   
problem4      ,,iii    ,how are modern  
intelligent men and women to avoid any  
longer this  inevitable conclusion of a 
literal ,creation as the method of      
origin for  our world and the things    
upon it8    ,the facts enumerated in the
 previous pages are not new2 it is only 
the  present grouping and arrangement of
 them1 and the conclusions drawn from   
them1 that are new4 ,of all the leading 
facts enumerated above1 only the  last  
one1 the one regarding geology1 is any  
longer a subject of serious  discussion 
by educated people4 ,and the general    

facts as stated above  regarding geology
 have been proved 7by the present       
writer7 with such a  wealth of facts and
 arguments that they also must speedily 
be  acknowledged by scientists1 when the
 latter take the trouble to study  these
 facts and arguments4 ,and with geology 
once adjusted to a system of  real      
inductive science1 instead of being as  
hitherto under the hypnotic  control of 
speculative fancies and subjective      
methods1 there is no  longer any room   
for speculations regarding the origin of
 our world by  evolutionary processes4  
,it becomes almost a mathematical       
,q4,e4,d4 that  things were made in the 
beginning by methods and processes that 
are no  longer operative1 so far as     
science can observe4 ,this means a real 
,creation1 in the ,bible sense of the   
term1 something distinct from the  means
 by which nature is now being sustained 
and carried on4 ,any attempt  to        
describe the why or the how of this     
,creation would be useless  speculation2

 but this much is science1 and science  
that is to-day all  the more impressive 
and conclusive because it has been won  
by centuries  of conflict with every    
conceivable opposing prejudice4         
,,iv    ,in conclusion we may attempt to
 speak in a brief way of the present    
relationship between the ,creator and   
the things which ,he has made1 and  if  
possible to dispel the sad confusion    
prevailing in many minds between  ,god's
 continued immediate action in certain  
departments of nature and  ,his action  
in other departments through the        
intermediate use of second  causes4     
,on every hand we hear proclaimed a form
 of the doctrine of ,god's  omnipresence
 7usually called the divine immanence7  
which not only  denies all distinction  
between the original ,creation and the  
present  perpetuation of the world1 but 
a form which practically denies all     
second causes1 and which cannot well be 
distinguished from pantheism1  though it
 would be a spiritualistic or idealistic

 form of pantheism1  or monism1 to use  
the favorite modern term4 ,these extreme
 advocates of  what they term the divine
 immanence go so far as to deny all     
second  causes4 ,and while they are fond
 of proclaiming this idea as an entirely
  new discovery1 and proclaiming it with
 all the enthusiasm of proselytes  to a 
new religion1 they are also prone to    
state the 7seemingly7 opposed  doctrine 
of second causes in such a way that it  
amounts to a mere  caricature1 a        
burlesque1 picturing a sort of absentee 
,god1 who started  the universe running 
and now merely stands by and watches it 
go4 ,thus  pantheism and deism are often
 spoken of as the only alternatives for 
the  choice of the modern man2 for the  
real teachings of the ,bible and of     
,christian philosophy are as completely 
ignored as if they had never been       
formulated or taught by intelligent     
people4    ,let us first consider the   
scientific aspects of the doctrine of   
second  causes1 and the doctrine of     

,god's immediate acting in various      
departments 7or all departments7 of     
nature4    #a4 ,we cannot deny that the 
will of man is a real cause1 producing  
continual changes in the world about us4
 ,more than this1 if there are  not also
 second causes outside of the will of   
free intelligent  personalities1 the    
whole universe must be a gigantic       
deception2 for it  seems to be full of  
second causes4 ,long chains of what seem
 like second  causes exist1 made up of  
infinite numbers of links1 as when the  
sun  carries an amount of water up into 
the air1 the latter dropping the  water 
upon a mountain in the form of rain1    
gravity rolling it down the  slope in   
vast force1 sweeping away villages and  
towns1 changing the  fates of           
individuals and of nations4 ,to quote   
two familiar examples from  ,stewart and
 ,tait3 ,in a steam engine the amount of
 work produced depends  upon the amount 
of heat carried from the boiler into the
 condenser2 and  this amount depends in 

its turn upon the amount of coal which  
is burned  in the furnace of the engine4
 ,in like manner the velocity of the    
bullet  which issues from the rifle     
depends upon the transformation of the  
energy of the powder2 this in turn      
depends upon the explosion of the       
percussion cap2 this again upon the fall
 of the trigger2 and lastly this  upon  
the finger of the man who fires the     
rifle4#ed ,thus even the very  strongest
 opponents of the idea of second causes 
never deny that the  latter seem to     
surround us on every side1 and that it  
would be possible  to trace a continuous
 line of apparent effects and causes    
back to the  very beginning4            
,footnote #ed3 ,the ,unseen ,universe1  
p4 #ahd4    ,this view of the matter1 it
 is evident1 readily leads to a deistic 
view  of the universe1--or to that      
burlesque of the ,christian view spoken 
of  as the doctrine of an absentee ,god1
 watching ,his universe run from the    
outside1 slightly concerned with what it

 does4    #b4 ,on the other hand1 a     
careful study of the correlation of     
forces shows  us that the great ,first  
,cause is still very closely related to 
the  operation of ,his universe4 ,we may
 start1 for instance1 with the old      
argument from the evidences of design in
 nature1 which1 though often  sneered at
 of late1 cannot be cavalierly dismissed
 in this way2 for1 as  ,dugald ,stewart 
has well said1 every combination of     
means to an end  implies intelligence4  
,but the direct or immediate action of  
the great  ,intelligence behind nature  
is manifest in the marvellous behavior  
of  the cells2 which1 instead of        
behaving in a way to indicate that their
  life processes are due to properties  
inherent in the atoms and molecules     
composing them1 show every appearance of
 being mere automata under the  direct  
control of an intelligent1              
purpose-filled ,mind1--a ,mind external 
to themselves1 it is true1 and          
gloriously transcending them1 but       

constantly1 ceaselessly exercised by an 
immediate action which we may  well call
 immanent1 in the original and proper   
sense of this term4 ,yet  vital action  
is capable of exact correlation with the
 other forces of  nature2 and thus the  
modern law of the correlation of forces 
teaches us  that the energy behind life 
must be the same as the energy pervading
 all  nature1 the various manifestations
 of which we know as light1 heat1       
gravity1 electricity1 etc4 ,thus while  
the study of the behavior of life  or   
the doctrine of vitalism might encourage
 us to think that in the  cells and in  
the behavior of protoplasm we are       
witnessing the direct  action of an     
intelligent ,creator2 yet we find that  
by the correlation of  forces we must   
say the same about all the physical and 
chemical  phenomena of nature4 ,in other
 words1 while the study of mere physical
  and chemical action might easily lead 
us to a strong belief in second  causes1
 or to the belief that in this          

department of nature at least  certain  
properties had been imparted to matter  
and it had then been  left to act       
largely by itself2 yet1 since the vital 
processes of living  organisms are      
capable of exact correlation with all   
other forces1 such  as light1 heat1 and 
electricity1 the direct action of this  
universal  all-controlling ,mind in all 
the phenomena of nature seems           
demonstrated  beyond a doubt1 leaving   
apparently little or no room for any    
action of  second causes4    ,but this  
view of the matter1 as is very evident1 
is liable to lead to a  pantheistic view
 of the universe1 than which nothing    
could be more  horrible4    ,how then   
shall we reconcile these conflicting    
views8    ,in this case1 as in so many  
others1 the ,bible comes in to show us  
the  rational via media1 the straight   
path of reason and sound philosophy     
which avoids the absurdities of both    
extremes4    ,the plain and unambiguous 
teaching of the ,bible is that ,god1 the

  ,creator1 is a being1 a person1       
infinite in all ,his powers and         
perfections1 omnipresent throughout the 
universe2 yet that there is a  place in 
which ,he is to be found1 or where ,he  
abides1 in a sense in  which ,he is not 
to be found in any other place4 ,this   
paradox is easily  understood when we   
realize that ,god is present everywhere 
throughout ,his  universe by ,his word  
and by ,his ,spirit1--,his word being as
 effective  throughout the remotest     
corners of ,his universe as near at     
hand1 for the  very simple reason that  
matter has no properties which ,he has  
not  imparted to it1 and therefore it   
can have no innate inertia or           
reluctance to act which ,god's word     
would need to overcome in order to      
induce it to act1 even when this word   
operates across the boundless  fields of
 space4 ,he has created free            
personalities1 and ,he leaves the  mind 
of each of ,his creatures free to serve 
,him or not to serve ,him1  these free  

intelligent beings becoming thus true   
second causes4 ,more  than this1        
provision for almost innumerable second 
causes seems to have  been made even    
among other departments of nature1      
without however  interfering with the   
direct action of the word of the        
,infinite ,one in  guiding and          
controlling them all4    ,christ ,jesus1
 our ,lord and ,savior1 was associated  
with the ,father in all  the primary    
work of ,creation2 and ,he came to earth
 to show us what ,god  the ,father is   
like1 that mortals might behold their   
,creator without  being consumed4 ,in   
,him we are to behold as much of the    
,deity as it is  for our good to know2  
beyond that we must trust the hand that 
never  wearies1 the mind that never     
blunders1 the heart that never grows    
cold4    ,in reality the seeming        
conflict between the doctrine of second 
causes  and that of ,god's omnipresence 
is closely analogous to the old         
7imaginary7 conflict between the ,law   

and the ,gospel1 read from the book  of 
nature instead of from the ,bible4 ,the 
reign of second causes is the  reign of 
law2 but ,god's immediate action brings 
in the supernatural1 the  miraculous1 or
 the ,gospel4 ,each has its proper      
place2 and neither must  be dwelt on to 
the exclusion of the other4 ,we are all 
under the hard  exactitude of the law1  
with its irrevocable condemnation1 until
 the  ,gospel intervenes1 and not only  
pardons the past1 but enables us to     
fulfil the law's requirements for the   
future4 ,the reign of second causes     
alone would take away man's moral       
responsibility1 making us all mere      
creatures of our environment1 the       
victims of a merciless determinism1  and
 death would be the inevitable result of
 the violation of the  slightest        
physical or physiological law4 ,but we  
are all given power to  live above      
environment1 and a beneficent healing   
power is constantly  intervening to save
 us from the consequences of our errors1

 healing our  wounds and curing our     
diseases1 in this giving us an object   
lesson of  the forgiveness of sin and a 
promise of our ultimate conquest over   
all  its power4 ,we are all ineluctably 
bound about by countless chains of      
second causes1 awful with inevitable    
fates1 until we see through them  all   
the close providential working of our   
,creator1 who is also our  ,saviour1 and
 who is in no way shackled by ,his own  
laws1 but conducts all  things according
 to the counsel of ,his own will4       
,the ,bible teaches us of a ,creation as
 a definite act1 completed at a         
definite period in the past1 and it     
gives us the ,sabbath as the divine     
memorial of this completed ,creation4   
,we have seen how science also  points  
backward along the various diverging    
lines of the great  perspective of the  
ages to the vanishing point whence they 
all begin1  the birth-day of the world2 
and we say that thus science confirms   
the  ,bible record of ,creation4 ,but we

 also know that when ,christ was being  
examined by the ,sanhedrin for healing  
on the ,sabbath1 ,he defended  ,himself 
by saying1 ,my ,father worketh hitherto1
 and ,i work4 ,that is1  although the   
works were finished from the foundation 
of the world1 and  second causes are now
 largely operative in nature all around 
us1 still  there is everywhere manifest 
an active energy1 a presence1 an        
,intelligence1 in ,whom we live1 and    
move1 and have our being4    ,that we   
cannot comprehend all this1 that we     
cannot set definite  boundaries to these
 seemingly conflicting views1 is not at 
all  surprising2 for we are but         
finite4#ee ,even ,his universe partakes 
so much  of ,his prerogative of infinity
 that it is utterly beyond the compass  
of  our finite minds4 ,indeed1 if either
 the ,bible or the book of nature       
contained nothing beyond what we could  
easily comprehend1 would it not         
diminish our reverence and awe for the  
,one behind them1 ,whom we now  regard  

as infinite in power and in wisdom8     
,true1 the natural human heart cannot   
bear this thought of the direct  acting 
throughout nature of the infinite       
,creator4 ,it brings us too close       
beneath ,his gaze in our sinful         
shortcoming and nakedness4    ,footnote 
#ee3 ,a recent clever writer likens some
 of these metaphysical  speculations to 
the act of a baby sucking at a nursing  
bottle4 ,so long  as there is any milk  
in the bottle1 the baby sucks with      
pleasure and  profit4 ,unfortunately the
 little fellow does not always stop     
sucking  when the supply of milk gives  
out1 but still keeps on sucking empty   
air1  with resulting discomfort and     
colic4 ,we all need to recognize the    
limits  of the intellectual milk supply1
 and not keep on trying to solve        
problems that are in their very nature  
beyond the limits of the human  mind4   
,and so men draw the veil of their      
pantheistic or monistic philosophy  over
 their hearts1 to hide them from ,his   

all-searching gaze4 ,in ancient  times  
they seem to have done the same1 as the 
monuments of ,egypt and  ,babylonia     
declare2 and the intimate knowledge of  
,nature and its ,creator  which they had
 in the morning of our world1           
degenerated into the nature  worship and
 polytheism which we find so nearly     
universal at the first  dawn of secular 
history4 ,it is only the child of ,god1 
the redeemed man1  who can view without 
flinching the sublime fact of a direct  
,creation1 or  face the other great fact
 that what we call second causes are not
 the  real causes of natural action1    
that the ordinary phenomena of light1   
heat1 gravity1 vital action1 etc41 do   
not occur because certain  properties   
have been once imparted to matter and it
 then left to act  of itself1 any more  
than the child of ,god is left to       
struggle along with  the supply of      
divine grace which was imparted to him  
at his conversion4  ,the ,christian     
feels his constant dependence upon his  

,creator for  overcoming power day by   
day1 and he sees the whole universe just
 as  momently dependent upon the        
tireless watchcare of the great         
,sustainer of  all4 ,the ,christian     
alone delights to look upon the         
ceaseless service of  his ,father's     
love1 perpetually ministering to the    
needs and even to the  whims of ,his    
creatures4 ,but if this tireless        
ministry reminds man of his  own        
spiritual nakedness and insular         
selfishness1 it serves also to  remind  
him that it is only the free gift of a  
righteousness not his own  that can     
clothe the ashamed soul cowering beneath
 the eye of infinite  ,purity and       
unselfish ,love4    ,in our natural     
state we are like the dead1 inorganic   
matter4 ,only by a  new life that must  
be imparted to us from above1 a real1   
individual1 new  creation1 can we become
 alive spiritually4 ,and then only by   
constant  dependence for spiritual life 
and growth upon the word of the ,one who

  first created us can we hope to       
develop into ,his true sons and         
daughters1 whose continuous care is     
momently exercised in controlling  every
 particle of our bodily frame1 and by   
whose continuous guidance in  the       
development of character we hope to     
become worthy of a place in ,his        
presence forevermore4      ,v    ,our   
,lord ,jesus once said to the leaders of
 the ,jews1 ,if ye believed  ,moses1 ye 
would believe me2 for he wrote of me4   
,but if ye believe not  his writings1   
how shall ye believe my words8 7,john   
#e3 #df-dg74 ,in our  days is certainly 
consistent and appropriate that those   
who have had  their faith revived in the
 first chapters of the ,bible should    
also have  renewed confidence in the    
last part of the ,bible4 ,a belief in a 
real  ,creation of the world1 as        
recorded in the book of ,genesis1       
naturally  implies a belief in the end  
of the world as predicted in the book of
  ,revelation4 ,a belief in the former  

destruction of the world by water is  in
 accord with a belief in its coming     
destruction by fire1 each of these      
destructions being not absolute but     
regenerative4    ,this is in fact the   
line of argument used in that remarkable
 prophecy of  #b ,peter #c3 #c-g3    ,in
 the last days mockers shall come with  
mockery1 walking after their  own lusts1
 and saying1 ,where is the promise of   
his coming8 ,for1 from the  days that   
the fathers fell asleep1 all things     
continue as they were from  the         
beginning of the creation4 ,for this    
they wilfully forget1 that there  were  
heavens of old1 and an earth compacted  
out of water and amidst  water1 by the  
word of ,god2 by which means the world  
that then was1 being  overflowed with   
water1 perished2 but the heavens that   
are now1 and the  earth1 by the same    
word have been stored up for fire1 being
 reserved  against the day of judgment  
and destruction of ungodly men4    ,two 
points in this remarkable prophecy      

deserve special attention3    #a4 ,it is
 a description of the religio-scientific
 problems of the last  days2 and the    
class of people referred to are         
represented as mocking  at the second   
coming of ,christ1 because they have    
grown accustomed to  denying1 or        
wilfully forgetting1 the former         
destruction of the world  by the waters 
of the ,flood4 ,this prediction1 as we  
have seen1 is in  complete and accurate 
accord with the present situation2 for  
the  doctrine of ,evolution is chiefly  
supported by the accepted theories of   
geology that there never was a universal
 ,flood4 ,belief in the current         
theories of geology and in a universal  
,deluge cannot be held by the same      
mind1 for they are mutually exclusive3  
either one makes the other  meaningless4
 ,and as the popular geology is the     
foundation of the  ,evolution theory1 so
 does the latter render useless and     
incredible what  the ,bible calls that  
blessed hope1 the second coming of      

,christ and the  purification of the    
earth by fire4    #b4 ,the mockers here 
described certainly talk exactly like   
our modern  uniformitarians2 for they   
argue that from the days that the       
fathers  fell asleep1 all things        
continue as they were from the beginning
 of the  creation4 ,they imply that in  
the days of the fathers some people were
  foolish enough to believe differently2
 but since they fell asleep we  have    
learned better4 ,it should also be      
carefully noted that their theory  of   
uniformity stretches back1 not to the   
close of ,creation1 but to  the         
beginning of the ,creation4 ,plainly1   
then1 ,creation itself is  embraced in  
their scheme of absolute uniformity2 and
 according to their  view all           
distinction is smoothed out between     
,creation and the present  perpetuation 
of the world by second causes4 ,how     
could we ask for a more  accurate word  
picture of the modern popular doctrines 
of the  evolutionists and their         

characteristic methods of reasoning than
 is here  given us by an inspired       
prophecy nearly two thousand years ago8 
,,vi    ,the call of the hour to the    
,church of ,christ is for a renewed     
confidence  in that ,guide ,book which  
she has brought with her down the       
centuries4 ,as  her ,divine ,lord went  
away1 ,he commissioned her to carry ,his
 good  tidings to all peoples2 and so   
long as she remained true to this       
commission and to her instruction book1 
the world's cunning sophistries  could  
not deceive her1 nor could the cruel    
power of a world empire  stifle her     
voice4 ,and now when her absent ,lord is
 about to return again1  it surely      
behooves her to set her house in order1 
and to return with  candor and fidelity 
to that written code of instruction left
 with her by  her departing ,master4    
,for the old-time friends of the ,bible1
 the night of darkness and doubt  is    
rapidly passing2 the morning of a fuller
 knowledge and a fuller  confidence is  

at hand4 ,gone are those agonies of     
doubt regarding the  truthfulness of the
 ,bible's history and the adequacy of   
its ethics for  the needs of our modern 
world4 ,abandoned forever are all those 
futile  attempts at compromise1 in a    
vain and painful endeavor to translate  
the  record of ,creation into the       
language of a pseudo-science now rapidly
  being outgrown1 and to adapt the plan 
of salvation to the false  standards of 
an artificial age that seems to be      
rapidly disintegrating  before the      
,church's very eyes4 ,she now realizes  
that her ,bible is more  accurate than  
the world's science1 her simple gospel  
wiser than its  philosophy4    ,the hour
 has struck2 a sublime opportunity is   
before her2 for the ,god of  nature has 
,himself opened up before ,his ,church  
the long-sealed chapters  in ,his larger
 book1 and is now pointing out the      
marvellous agreement  between ,his book 
of nature and ,his written record4 ,the 
strongest  message of the ,church has   

often been heard amid the darkest ages  
of  apostasy4 ,and the prophecies of the
 ,bible have repeatedly pointed out a   
special message that the ,church is to  
bear to the world in that darkest  hour 
just before the breaking of eternal     
day1--a message that we now see  is     
wonderfully adapted to this age of      
evolutionism in science and  pantheism  
in philosophy4 ,looking down along the  
darkening vistas of the  coming years1  
the great ,jehovah saw how a vastly     
increased knowledge of  ,his created    
works would be perverted into a         
burlesque of ,creation1 and  how this   
would result in a wide-spread apostasy  
in which ,his written  ,word would be   
derided and scorned4 ,thus ,he timed a  
special reform for  ,his faithful people
 to give to the world just before the   
end1 calling  upon the disbelievers in  
,creation then living to worship him    
that made  heaven1 and earth1 and the   
sea1 and the fountains of waters 7,rev4 
#ad3  #g74 ,and so now1 when the        

darkness of evolutionism and pantheism  
is most  dense1 a light from above has  
illuminated the record in the book of   
nature1 the language of which is already
 more familiar to our modern  world than
 the language of the book so long       
distrusted and almost  derided4 ,this   
message itself from the book of nature  
is full of the  essential ideas of the  
,gospel1 faith in a ,creator1 who by    
,his tireless  care for the particles   
composing our bodies keeps them in      
order1 and by  healing our injuries and 
curing our diseases inspires us with    
faith in  ,him as our ,saviour and      
,redeemer4 ,and in such an hour1 in such
 a world  crisis1 ,he has placed within 
the power of ,his ,church these modern  
means  of travel and quick              
communication1 in order to speed on this
 last work  of ,his ,church so as to    
complete it in this generation4         
99       99       99       99       99  
,,works ,,by ,,the ,,same ,,author      
,the ,fundamentals of ,geology          

,cloth1 #bgj pages1 ,illustrated with   
engravings1  charts1 and maps     #a4be 
,i have been intensely interested1 444  
and ,i think you prove your points      
conclusively4--,,rev4 ,s4               
,,baring-,,gould1  ,lew ,trenchard1     
,england4    ,it is a very clever       
book4--,,david ,,starr ,,jordan1        
,leland ,stanford ,university4    ,i    
have found your book extremely          
interesting1 putting old facts in a  new
 light1 and full of acute remarks4      
,current theories needed                
criticism4--,a4,h4 ,,sayce1  ,oxford    
,university1 ,england4    ,you have     
brought out with great clearness the    
difficulties of  supporting the         
evolution theory from the geological    
side4--,,george  ,,howard ,,parker1     
,professor of ,zoology1 ,harvard        
,university4    ,it is a remarkable     
piece of logical reasoning4             
--,,franklin ,,johnson1  ,the           
,university of ,chicago4    ,it was     
needed4 ,i think you have peeled the    

onion-coat theory  completely4 ,to and  
your book is like finding a spring after
 toiling  through the dry-as-dust       
desert4 ,it is refreshing and           
enjoyable4--,,gilbert ,e4 ,,bailey1     
,professor of ,geology1 ,university of  
,southern ,california4      ,god's ,two 
,books1 ,or ,plain ,facts  about        
,evolution1 ,geology1 and the ,bible    
,cloth1 #ahd pages1 ,illustrated        
#ge;,c4    ,naturally ,i have read it   
with great interest4444  ,i have never  
seen any answer to ,sir ,henry          
,howorth's  ',mammouth1' nor do ,i see  
what answer is possible1 and  the same  
seems to me to be the case as regards   
,professor  ,price's argument4--,a4,h4  
,,sayce1  ,oxford ,university1 ,england4
    ,it will be a perfect armory for use
 in meeting attacks  on ,holy ,scripture
 by false science and false             
,criticism4--,,sir ,,robert ,,anderson1 
,london1 ,england4      ,back to the    
,bible  ,paper1 #bae pages     #ej;c4   
,it is most excellent4--,a4,c4          

,,gaebelein1  ,new ,york ,city4    ,i   
know of no book in theological          
literature that surpasses  this1 or     
indeed equals it in accurate1 effective 
adaptedness to the need of the hour4    
--,,william ,,cleaver ,,wilkinson1  ,the
 ,university of ,chicago4