,services at ,concordia ,college1 ,bronxville1 ,new ,york1 ,,usa ,,evolution4 ,an ,investigation and a ,criticism by ,,th4 ,,graebner1 ,concordia ,seminary1 ,st4 ,louis1 ,mo4 ,milwaukee1 ,wis4 ,northwestern ,publishing ,house1 #aiba4 ,species tot sunt1 quot diversas formas ab initio produxit ,infinitum ,ens4 ,linne4 ,to the ,memory of my teacher 7,new ,ulm1 #ahib7 ,john ,schaller ,educator1 ,theologian1 ,student of ,science these chapters are dedicated by ,the ,author ,,table ,,of ,,contents4 ,chapter #a4 ,an ,outline of the ,theory444#aa ,definition--,historical ,review--,the ,darwinian ,hypothesis--,lines of ,evidence--,the ,descent of ,man--,the ,nebular ,hypothesis--,the ,origin of ,life--,the ,bearing of ,evolution on ,christianity4 ,chapter #b4 ,unexplained ,origins444#bi ,the ,origin of the ,universe--,the ,origin of ,life--,biological ,barriers-- ,man4 ,chapter #c4 ,the ,testimony of the ,rocks444#dg ,chapter #d4 ,the ,fixity of ,species444#fb ,chapter #e4 ,rudimentary ,organs444#gj ,chapter #f4 ,instinct444#gd ,chapter #g4 ,heredity444#hj ,chapter #h4 ,a ,scientific ,creed ,outworn444#hg ,chapter #i4 ,man444#id ,chapter #aj4 ,the ,verdict of ,history444#aac ,chapter #aa4 ,evidences of ,design444#abd ,chapter #ab4 ,the ,fatal ,bias444#ada ,,prefatory4 ,i first read ,charles ,darwin's ,origin of ,species in the library of my sainted uncle1 ,john ,schaller1 at ,new ,ulm1 ,minnesota1 in #ahib4 ,i did not comprehend all of it then1 a cause1 to me1 of considerable chagrin1 for which ,i later found some consolation in the opinion of ,dr4 ,frederick ,lynch1 who pronounces ,darwin's epochal work one of the two most difficult books in the ,english language4 ,but like many others1 ,i understood enough of ,darwin's book to catch glimpses of the grandeur of the conception which underlies its argumentation4 ,it was then that my beloved uncle1 out of that wide and accurate reading which so frequently astonished his friends1 and with that penetrating dialectic of his1 opened my eyes to certain fallacies in ,darwin's argument1 especially to the fatal weakness of the chapter on ,instinct4 ,the reading of ,st4 ,george ,mivart's book ,the ,genesis of ,species later convinced me of the accuracy of my uncle's judgment4 ,but the fascination of the subject persisted1 and for a time ,herbert ,spencer's ,synthetic ,philosophy1 by the comprehensiveness of its induction and its vast array of data1 exercised its thrall4 ,alfred ,russel ,wallace's ,darwinism1 ,huxley's ,lectures on ,evolution1 ,tyndall's ,the ,beginning of ,things1 ,grant ,allen's ,the ,evolutionist at ,large1 ,eimer's ,orthogenesis1 ,clodd's ,story of ,creation1 occupied me in turn1 until the apodictic presentation of ,john ,fiske's ,essays on ,darwinism1 no less than the open and haggard opposition to ,christianity which prevails in ,huxley's ,science and ,hebrew ,tradition and in ,spencer's chapters on ,the ,unknowable 7so the ,synthetic ,philosophy denominates ,god71 caused a revulsion of sentiment1--the anti-religious bias of evolution standing forth the clearer to my mind1 the longer ,i occupied myself with the subject4 ,i determined to investigate for myself the data on which the speculations whose mazes ,i had trod these years were built up4 ,the leisure hours of three years were devoted to the study of first-hand sources of ,comparative ,religion4 ,the result of this research was deposited in two articles contributed to the ,theological ,quarterly in #aijf and #aijg4 ,i fear that the forbidding character of the foot-notes served as an effective deterrent to the reading of these articles4 ,i have now given1 in several chapters of this little volume1 in popular language the argument against evolution to be derived from the study of ,religion4 ,the reading of ,le ,conte's and ,dana's text-books of geology and various other treatises supplied the data on palaeontology embodied in the first chapters of the book4 ,the notable circulus in concludendo 7begging the question7 of which evolutionists here are guilty was first pointed out to me by ,prof4 ,tingelstad of ,decorah1 ,iowa1 who was in #aijh taking a course in ,evolution at ,chicago ,university1 and who called on me for discussion of the doctrine as he received it from head-quarters4 ,an an excursus in the subject of ,pedagogy1 ,i have treated in my ,seminary lectures the past years1 under the head of natural sciences1 the argument against evolution1 and the outlines of these lectures have furnished the framework for the present volume4 ,it is hoped that especially our young men and women who take courses at our universities will examine the case against the fascinating and in some respects magnificent conception of evolution as this case is presented in the following chapters4 ,i realize that they1 as well as intelligent readers generally1 may not meet with confidence the statements of a theologian on a scientific question1 least of all when he essays to treat such a question from the standpoint of science4 ,he is presumed to be at home in theology1 but a stranger in the domain of geology1 astronomy1 and biology4 ,it is for the purpose of obtaining a hearing at all that these introductory remarks are written4 ,but the argument must stand on its own merits4 ,the writer will now retire to the background4 ,the facts shall speak4 ,,th4 ,g4 ,,evolution4 ,,chapter ,,one4 ,an ,outline of the ,theory4 ,definition4 ,evolution is a name comprehending certain theories which seek to account for all operations of nature as carried on according to fixed laws by means of forces resident in nature4 ,prof4 ,j4 ,le,conte of the ,university of ,california defines evolution as3 ,continuous progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces4 ,evolution is a theory1 a philosophy1 it is not a science4 ,the theory is called organic evolution in its relation to living forms 7plant and animal life71 cosmic evolution1 inasmuch as attempts have been made to account by certain laws and the working of resident forces for the development of the universe1--the earth1 the sun1 and the starry heavens4 ,also the development of society1 of religion1 morals1 politics1 art1 and mechanical inventions is accounted for on the theory that there are forces which1 acting according to certain laws1 have through many changes made human life and institutions as we see them today4 ,the doctrine of ,evolution briefly stated1 is as follows3 ,that in some infinitely remote period in the past1 how or from whence science does not affirm1 there appeared matter and force2 that within matter and in association with force there also appeared a primordial cell1 how or from whence no man knoweth1 in which there was a spark of life2 and that from this cell all things animate have emerged1 being controlled by certain laws variously stated by various evolutionists2 that these laws in connection with the modifying influences of environment 7surroundings1--soil1 climate1 etc47 account for and explain the various species that have existed in the past and now exist upon earth1 man included4 ,that there are no gaps in the process but that there is demonstrable a steady ascent from lower to higher 7simple to more complex7 forms of life1 until man is reached1 the acknowledged highest product of evolution4 ,the extreme evolutionists hold that all the power and potency of the universe was stored up in that primordial cell1 and that all things have been worked out without any superintending agency other than the forces resident in matter4 ,every operation of ,god is ruled out1 or deemed unnecessary4 ,this is sometimes called atheistic evolution4 ,the theistic evolutionist 7theistic from theism1 the belief in a personal ,god7 makes place for ,god in the beginning and all along the line of development1 as overlooking the process1 perhaps reinforcing and to a certain extent directing the energy1 but not interfering with the fixed law or rule of evolution4 ,according to theistic evolution1 ,god did not create plants and animals as separate species 7as related in ,genesis #a7 but created matter as a crude form and placed it under certain laws1 by which this matter was1 during untold ages1 gradually evolved into worlds4 ,that out of this matter1 called inorganic1 plants came into existence1 from some germ or property existing in matter4 ,the origin of animal life is explained in various ways by the so-called theistic evolutionists4 ,some hold that the primordial plant life contained potentially the lowest and simplest principles of animal life1 and from it the simplest animal forms were evolved2 that from these latter were evolved forms a little higher1 until1 after long ages1 all the gradations were passed through until man1 the highest form1 was the result4 ,others believe that there is such an essential difference between plants and animals that the latter could not have come from the former1 that there must be a new start on the animal side of life4 ,therefore they claim that when the evolutionary development of matter reached a certain stage1 ,god appeared on the scene and endowed certain forms with the principle of animal life1 in its lowest elements4 ,these lowest forms of animal life then entered upon a series of evolutionary growth1 each lower form evolving one a little more complex1 each series gaining the use of and developing organs which existed essentially in the lower form but were small1 imperfect1 and useless1 because not needed4 ,thus the hand and arm in man are structurally or essentially the same as the leg of the brute1 the wing of the bird1 the flipper of the whale1 and the fin of the fish2 and the endeavor to adapt itself to the water caused the bird to develop a fin1 as by a similar process the fore-leg of brutes developed into the human arm and hand4 ,for our present consideration1 we need not distinguish between atheistic and theistic evolution1 as the latter is subject to the fundamental objections urged against evolution in general1 and is1 like atheistic evolution1 without a single fact to support it and in direct contradiction of all that is known of the laws in operation now1 and as far back as knowledge penetrates4 ,moreover1 so-called theistic evolution is universally approved by infidels and skeptics and is used by them as a favorite means of assault on revealed ,truth4 ,historical ,review4 ,while in our own day the names of certain ,english and ,german scientists 7,darwin1 ,spencer1 ,huxley1 ,tyndall1 ,romanes1 ,buechner1 ,vogt1 ,haeckel7 are inseparably connected with a history of this hypothesis1 its roots are found far back in the early ages of ,greek philosophy4 ,a theory of evolutionary development was first propounded by ,greek thinkers living about #fjj years ,b4 ,c4 ,the human mind is ever on the search for unifying principles1 principles which account for entire groups of natural phenomena1 and not for isolated phenomena only4 ,the ,greek mind sought a principle by which to account for the manifold and diverse forms of life in nature4 ,whence do all things come8 ,how have they come to be what they are8 ,questions about the nature of the universe in which we live have been asked from the very beginning4 ,the moment the human mind began to reflect the notion that the vegetation which covers the earth1 the animals which inhabit it1 the rocks and hills1 the mountains and valleys which constitute its physical features1 may have undergone changes in past time1 and that all the phenomena which constitute the animal1 vegetable and mineral worlds as they now exist1 are but modifications of other forms which have had their day and their philosophy1 the idea of development became prominent4 ,the early ,greek philosophers were the first to attempt answers to these problems4 ,many of them held that all things natural sprang from what they called the original elements--fire1 air1 earth1 water4 ,anaximander held that animals were begotten from the earth by means of heat and moisture2 and that man was developed from other beings different in form4 ,empedocles had a fantastic theory1 viz41 that the various parts of man and animals at first existed independently1 and that these--for instance1 arms1 legs1 feet1 eyes1 etc41 gradually combined--perhaps after the manner in which automobiles are assembled2 and that these combinations became capable of existing and even of propagating and reproducing themselves4 ,anaxagoras was of opinion that animals and plants sprang from the earth by means of germs carried in the atmosphere which gave fecundity to the earth4 ,aristotle held opinions not very unlike those of our own day4 ,all of which goes to show that speculation about the origin of the universe and the why and wherefore of living things did not come into existence with the ,darwinian hypothesis and that the doctrine of descent with modification as an explanation of all biological phenomena antedates by over two thousand years the publication of the ,origin of ,species4 ,in modern times a theory of development was first suggested by ,goethe in his ,italienische ,reise4 ,acting under the same mental urge for seeing diverse forms under a unifying principle1 ,goethe looked for the original form of plant life1 the ,urpflanze1 the plant which would be at once simple enough to stand for a type of all plants and yet susceptible to variation in so many directions that all plants might derive from it their origin4 ,goethe has also clothed this conception in poetic form4 ,the first philosophic statement of the hypothesis is found in ,immanuel ,kant's ,kritik der ,urteilskraft1 #agij4 ,in paragraph #hj we find a discussion of the similarity between so many species of animals1 not only in their bony structure1 but also in the arrangement of their other parts1 a similarity which1 says ,kant1 casts a ray of hope1 that all forms may be traced back to original simple forms1 to a generation from a common ancestor1 rising from the lowest forms to man1 according to mechanical laws4 ,kant assumes that1 for instance1 certain aquatic animals by and by formed into amphibia1 and from these after some generations were produced land animals4 ,a treatise of the same philosopher entitled ,presumable ,origin of ,humanity suggests that man in the early age of the world was developed from mere animal creatures4 ,even a universal law of world-formation 7cosmic evolution7 was set forth by ,kant in a work which he published anonymously in #agge4 ,in its relations to animal life a development theory was first clearly set forth by ,karl ,ernst von ,baer 7died #ahgf74 ,in his ,entwickelungsgeschichte der ,tiere 7#ahbh71 the author explains ,entwickelung as a progress from simple to complex forms4 ,he believes that in evolution there is a fundamental idea that goes through all the forms of cosmic and animal development4 ,a predecessor of von ,baer had been the ,frenchman1 ,lamarck4 ,from von ,baer1 ,herbert ,spencer1 about #ahej1 adopted the definition of evolution4 ,the hypothesis entered a new phase through ,charles ,darwin's epochmaking work3 ,the ,origin of ,species4 ,the keynote of ,darwin's theory is ,natural ,selection1 by which term the development of all living forms is referred to the working of certain laws which in the reproduction of plants and animals preserved those individuals which were best fitted to survive the struggle for existence4 ,the ,darwinian theory may be summarized thus3 ,the ,darwinian ,hypothesis4 #a4 ,every kind of animal and plant tends to increase in numbers in a geometrical progression4 #b4 ,every kind of animal and plant transmits a general likeness1 with individual differences1 to its offspring4 #c4 ,past time has been practically infinite4 #d4 ,every individual has to endure a very severe struggle for existence1 owing to the tendency to geometrical increase of all kinds of animals and plants1 while the total animal and vegetable population 7man and his agency excepted7 remains almost stationary4 #e4 ,thus1 every variation of a kind tending to save the life of the individual possessing it1 or to enable it more surely to propagate its kind1 will in the long run be preserved and will transmit its favorable peculiarity to some of its offspring1 which peculiarity will thus become intensified till it reaches the maximum degree of utility4 ,on the other hand1 individuals presenting unfavorable peculiarities will be ruthlessly destroyed 7,survival of the ,fittest71 tr4 note3 sic punctuation ,the basis of the theory then is that animals and plants multiply very rapidly and1 second1 that the offspring always vary slightly from the parents1 though generally very closely resembling them4 ,mr4 ,alfred ,russel ,wallace says3 ,from the first fact or law there follows1 necessarily1 a constant struggle for existence2 because while the offspring always exceeds the parents in number1 generally to an enormous extent1 yet the total number of living organisms in the world docs not1 and can not1 increase year by year4 ,consequently every year1 on the average1 as many die as are born1 plants as well as animals2 and the majority die premature deaths4 ,they kill each other in a thousand different ways2 they starve each other by some consuming the food that others want2 they are destroyed largely by the powers of ,nature--by cold and heat1 by rain and storm1 by flood and fire4 ,there is thus a perpetual struggle among them which shall live and which shall die2 and this struggle is tremendously severe1 because so few can possibly remain alive--one in five1 one in ten1 often only one in a hundred or even in a thousand4 ,then comes the question1 ,why do some live rather than others8 ,if all the individuals of each species were exactly alike in every respect1 we could only say it is a matter of chance4 ,but they are not alike4 ,we find that they vary in many different ways4 ,some are stronger1 some swifter1 some hardier in constitution1 some more cunning4 ,an obscure color may render concealment more easy for some1 keener sight may enable others to discover prey or escape from an enemy better than their fellows4 ,among plants the smallest differences may be useful or the reverse4 ,the earliest and strongest shoots may escape the slug2 their greater vigor may enable them to flower and seed earlier in a wet autumn2 plants best armed with spines or hairs may escape being devoured2 those whose flowers are most conspicuous may be soonest fertilized by insects4 ,we can not doubt that1 on the whole1 any beneficial variations will give the possessors of it a greater probability of living through the tremendous ordeal they have to undergo4 ,there may be something left to chance1 but on the whole the fittest will survive4 7,darwinism p4 #g74 ,the same writer gives a probable instance of the working of ,natural ,selection in the origin of certain aquatic birds called dippers4 ,he says3 ,an excellent example of how a limited group of species has been able to maintain itself by adaptation to one of these 'vacant places' in ,nature1 is afforded by the curious little birds called dippers or water-ouzels1 forming the genus ,cinclus and the family ,cindidae of naturalists4 ,these birds are something like small thrushes1 with very short wings and tail1 and very dense plumage4 ,they frequent1 exclusively1 mountain torrents in the northern hemisphere1 and obtain their food entirely in the water1 consisting1 as it does1 of water-beetles1 caddis-worms1 and other insect-larvae1 as well as numerous small fresh-water shells4 ,these birds1 although not far removed in structure from thrushes and wrens1 have the extraordinary power of flying under water2 for such1 according to the best observers1 is their process of diving in search of their prey2 their dense and somewhat fibrous plumage retaining so much air that the water is prevented from touching their bodies or even from wetting their feathers to any great extent4 ,their powerful feet and long curved claws enable them to hold on to stones at the bottom1 and thus to retain their position while picking up insects1 shells1 etc4 ,as they frequent chiefly the most rapid and boisterous torrents1 among rocks1 waterfalls1 and huge boulders1 the water is never frozen over1 and they are thus able to live during the severest winters4 ,only a very few species of dipper are known1 all those of the old world being so closely allied to our ,british bird that some ornithologists consider them to be merely local races of one species2 while in ,north ,america and the northern ,andes there are two other species4 ,here1 then1 we have a bird1 which1 in its whole structure1 shows a close affinity to the smaller typical perching birds1 but which has departed from all its allies in its habits and mode of life1 and has secured for itself a place in ,nature where it has few competitors and few enemies4 ,we may well suppose199 99,note characteristic phrase ,we may suppose that1--4 ,g4 that1 at some remote period1 a bird which was perhaps the common and more generalized ancestor of our thrushes1 warblers1 wrens1 etc41 had spread widely over the great northern continent1 and had given rise to numerous varieties adapted to special conditions of life4 ,among these some took to feeding on the borders of clear streams1 picking out such larvae and mollusks as they could reach in shallow water4 ,when food becomes scarce they would attempt to pick them out of deeper and deeper water1 and while doing this in cold weather many would become frozen and starved4 ,but any which possessed denser and more hairy plumage than usual1 which was able to keep out the water1 would survive2 and thus a race would be formed which would depend more and more on this kind of food4 ,then1 following up the frozen streams into the mountains1 they would be able to live there during the winter2 and as such places afforded them much protection from enemies and ample shelter for their nests and young1 further adaptations would occur1 till the wonderful power of diving and flying under water was acquired by a true land-bird4 7,darwinism1 p4 #ha-hb47 ,lines of ,evidence4 ,the evolutionary hypothesis 7both in its atheistic and theistic or ,christian form7 is understood to rest on the following lines of proof3 i4 ,primary3 ,the evidence of palaeontology 7the study of fossil remains in the rocks74 ,the surface of the earth underneath the top soil consists of layers of rock4 ,some of them are made up of lime deposits1 others of the shells of shell-fish1 others of sand-stone1 others of dead trees of the forest 7coal71 all of them turned hard by the pressure of the weight lying on top of them4 ,besides these sedimentary rock there are formations like granite1 showing the influence of heat4 ,digging among the sedimentary rock 7limestone1 sand-stone1 principally7 we come across preserved remains of all sorts of animals2 some just like those which live to-day1 some similar but somewhat different1 others quite dissimilar from living animals of our day4 ,these are the fossils4 ,now1 evolutionists assert that the oldest and simplest animal and plant remains are found in the oldest layers of rock4 ,this is said to prove that in the history of plants and animals on earth1 the simplest forms are the oldest and that later the more complex forms were developed from these4 ,le,conte states the matter thus3 ,the farther back in time we go1 the simpler the forms of animal and plant life become1 and these forms occur in the order of their origination1 just as if they were developed one from another4 #b4 ,corroborative3 a7 ,the ,argument from ,morphology 7,structure74 ,the resemblance of the structure of various animal types is asserted to imply a community of descent4 ,large groups of species1 whose habits are widely different1 present certain fundamental likenesses of structure4 ,the arms of men and apes1 the fore-legs of quadrupeds1 the paddles of whales1 the wings of birds1 the breast-fins of fishes1 are constructed on the same pattern1 but altered to suit their several functions4 ,nearly all mammals1 from the long-necked giraffe to the short-necked elephant1 have seven neck-bones2 the eyes of the lamprey are moved by six muscles which correspond exactly to the six which work the human eye2 all insects and ,crustacea--moth and lobster1 bettle tr4 note3 sic and cray-fish---are alike composed of twenty segments2 the sepals1 petals1 stamens1 and pistils of a flower are all modified leaves arranged in a spire4 7,clodd1 ,the ,story of ,creation1 p4 #ajb47 ,these resemblances are looked upon as evidence of a common origin4 b7 ,the ,argument from ,embryology4 ,the individual animal in embryonic development passes through temporary stages which are similar to permanent conditions in some of the lower forms in the same group4 ,evolutionists believe that these forms were actually possessed by the ancestors of these animals in the course of their evolution4 ,they hold that the changes which take place in the embryos epitomize the series of changes through which the ancestral forms passed4 ,because the embryos of some four-footed animals have gill-slits1 this is pointed out as evidence that land animals are evolved from fishes4 c7 ,geographical ,distribution4 ,in geological time1 natural barriers have sprung up which separated the species which have since developed4 ,in this way the existence of marsupials 7pouched animals--kangaroo1 oppossum7 tr4 note3 sic on certain limited areas1 the limitation of certain plants to certain islands1 etc41 are explained4 d7 ,classification4 ,the so-called ,tree of ,life4 ,all living forms can be arranged in a diagram called the ,tree of ,life4 ,the ,tree has a short trunk1 indicating common origin of the living from the non-living1 and is divided into two large trunks representing plants and animals respectively4 ,from each of these start large branches representing classes1 the larger branches giving off smaller branches representing families1 and so on with smaller and smaller branches representing orders and genera1 until we come to leaves as representing species1 the height of the branch from which they are hanging indicating their place in the growth of the great life-tree4 7,clodd1 ,story of ,creation1 p4 #ajc47 ,there is an exact gradation from the lowest life forms to the highest4 ,first such simple forms as the sponges and corals1 then1 through the worms1 crabs1 oysters1 and snail to the fish1 and thence through amphibia1 reptiles1 beasts of prey1 ungulates 7hoofed animals7 and apes to man4 ,evolutionists say that in this gradation of life we see illustrated the evolution of complex from simple forms4 ,the ,descent of ,man4 ,according to the evolutionary hypothesis man is related to the animal kingdom by descent from a brute ancestor1 who1 apelike in appearance1 is the common ancestor of ape and man4 ,the evidence of such derivation is believed to be3 i4 ,rudiments of structure which were useful in some brute ancestor4 ,there remain in man a few elementary muscles for twitching the skin1 as in the forehead2 and it is pointed out that many animals have such muscles at the present time1 and it is argued that the ability of some men to move the whole scalp points to the existence of muscles with such function in our brute ancestors4 ,the vermiform appendix in man is termed rudimentary1 being but a remnant of the much longer and more complex appendix of the same nature in living animals today4 #b4 ,embryonic ,development4 ,because the young of all animals resemble one another while in the embryo stage1 and since such resemblances are found in man1 it is concluded that the evolution of man from some related animal form must be accepted as the most reasonable explanation4 #c4 ,some diseases are common to animals and man 7tuberculosis1 cholera1 hydrophobia1 etc474 #d4 ,the similarity in structure of man and the apes4 #e4 ,the fossil remains of man4 ,certain skulls and leg bones have been found which are said to represent forms higher than the ape and lower than man4 ,on the strength of such finds it is said that the missing link has now been supplied4 ,the ,nebular ,hypothesis4 ,the ,frenchman de ,la ,place 7#ahbg7 first promulgated in modern terminology the theory once held by ,greek philosophers1 that the earth and the system in which it is a member originated from a primitive cosmic-vapor or universal fire-mist filling all space with infinitely small atoms4 ,in this homogeneous mass motion originated1 resulting in a concentration at one point4 ,this condensation resulted in heat and light4 ,the planetary system at first consisted of a huge gas-ball which gradually cooled1 contracting into a molten mass which under the influence of centrifugal force began to rotate4 ,this rotation became more rapid as the mass condensed1 throwing off the planets1 in which the process was repeated 7the moons being cast off71 until the earth became sufficiently cool to sustain life4 ,the ,origin of ,life4 ,when asked about the origin of life on earth1 the evolutionists generally reply that this is not a question for science but for philosophy to answer4 ,however1 the question comes with such insistent force that the biologist finds himself constrained to offer some explanation of the origin of the simplest plant and animal life after the globe had1 according to the hypothesis1 sufficiently cooled to present areas in which life might arise4 ,necessarily1 the assumption must be that life was generated out of lifeless matter4 ,huxley says3 ,if the hypothesis of evolution be true1 living matter must have arisen from not-living matter1 for by the hypothesis1 the condition of the globe was at one time such that living matter could not have existed on it1 life being entirely incompatible with a gaseous state4 7,the earth having been a ball of gases at the time47 ,tyndall is a little more specific2 he says that the combination of electrical and chemical forces acting on the primal ooze caused germs of life to originate in small bubble-like forms1 7vesicles74 ,his words are3 ,the first step in the creation of life upon this planet was a chemico-electric operation by which simple germinal vesicles were produced4 ,the vesicles consisted of protoplasm1 the simple substance 7white-of-egg7 which exists in the cells of animal and vegetable tissues1 and which is composed of oxygen1 carbon1 hydrogen1 nitrogen and traces of other elements4 ,from this original protoplasm the great variety of living things has been developed4 ,the ,bearing of ,evolution on ,christianity4 ,it is evident that the evolutionary theory not only contradicts the ,bible story of creation but1 if true1 deprives ,christianity of every claim of being the true religion4 ,if all things have come into being through the action of forces residing in matter then the world did not come into being through a divine fiat or command4 ,as ,haeckel says3 ,every supernatural creation is completely excluded4 7,quoted by ,john ,fiske in ,a ,century of ,science1 #ahii1 p4 #ea47 ,thomas ,huxley is quite as definite3 ,not only do ,i hold it to be proven that the story of the ,deluge is a pure fiction2 but ,i have no hesitation in affirming the same thing of the story of the ,creation4 7,science and ,hebrew ,tradition1 #ahif1 p4 #bcj47 ,furthermore1 the theory1 by its implications1 disposes summarily of the immortality of the soul4 ,the belief in an immortal soul is termed by ,haeckel as quite excluded by the bearing of evolution on the origin of man4 ,the fall of man becomes a myth1 since man has not fallen from a high estate but has through many ages of slow development arrived at the use of reason and the dominion over nature2 not a perfect man1 made in the image of ,god1 but a cousin to the tail-less apes1 newly accustomed to walking on two feet1 is the ancestor of our race4 ,without a fall of man there is no possibility nor even a necessity of redemption2 our entire ,christian theology would be dealing with shadowy abstractions1 unreasonable fears and hopes1 and purposeless strivings4 ,the belief of the ,christian is to the evolutionist of some value as a phenomenon in the history of the mind1 but not the slightest intrinsic value is recognized in any of the doctrines of ,christian faith1 not even in the belief in a personal ,god4 ,god is1 according to ,spencer1 the ,unknowable4 ,naturally1 there can not be miracles1 since all processes in nature are conceived as governed by laws not directed by a ,divine ,intelligence but by forces resident in nature4 ,hence1 too1 there can be no inspired revelation of ,god1 since that would presume not only the existence of a personal ,god but an intervention in natural processes of thought 7miracle74 ,john ,fiske wrote3 ,the hypothesis of inspiration conveys most certainly a conception of ,divine action as local1 special1 and transitory2 and in so far as it does this1 it bears the marks of that heathen mode of philosophy which was current when ,christian monotheism arose4 7,darwinism and ,other ,essays1 #ahie47 ,evolution says3 ,if there is a ,god we have no means of knowing ,him2 and what we know of nature certainly precludes the idea that ,god1 if ,he exists1 will concern ,himself about man or break down the laws of nature even for an instant in his behalf4 ,the conclusion is1 that there is no inspired ,bible4 ,nor indeed an absolute religion4 ,all religious truths are considered relative1 with no such distinction as true religion and false religion1 since there is no criterion revealed 7according to the theory7 by which we can test a religion whether it be true or false4 ,finally1 there is no absolute standard of morals4 ,moral truths1 like the religious1 are relative only4 ,in other words1 the teaching that ,christ has atoned for sin1 is as little to be accepted as an absolute truth1 as the command3 ,thou shalt not steal must be accepted as embodying an absolute rule of conduct4 ,clodd says in ,the ,story of ,creation3 ,man by himself is not only unprogressive1 he is also not so much immoral as unmoral4 ,for where there is no society there is no sin6 ,therefore the bases of right and wrong lie in conduct towards one's fellow2 the moral sense or conscience is the outcome of social relations1 themselves the outcome of the need of living44444 ,while the lower instincts1 as hunger1 passion1 and thirst for vengeance1 are strong1 they are not so enduring or satisfying as the higher feelings which crave for society and sympathy4 ,and the yielding to the lower1 however gratifying for the moment1 would be followed by the feeling of regret that he had thus given way1 and by resolve to act differently for the future4 ,thus at last man comes to feel1 through acquired and perhaps inherited habit1 that it is best for him to obey his more persistent impulses44444 ,morals are relative1 not absolute2 there is no fixed standard of right and wrong by which the actions of all men throughout all time are measured44444 ,that which man calls sin is shown to be more often due to his imperfect sense of the true proportion of things1 and to his lack of imagination1 than to his willfulness4 ,clodd adds that if conduct has been made to rest on supposed divine commands 767 as to what man shall and shall not do1 that is an assumption which at best serves to restrain the brutal and ignorant4 ,j4 ,b4 ,warren1 of the ,university of ,california1 has well stated the effects of the evolutionary theory on religion and morals3 ,its legitimate tendency is to degrade mankind from that mental and moral dignity that is always recognized as belonging to them1 and to place them on an essential level with the brute creation--even with the lowest forms of vegetable and animal existence4 ,according to that theory1 man differs from the lower organisms not in kind so much as in the degree of development4 ,mr4 ,darwin himself was troubled about the value of his own convictions1 on the ground that his mind was evolved from that of lower animals4 ,that is to say1 he reckoned his own mental actions as valueless and untrustworthy1 because of the essential identity between his mind and that of the lowest creatures that live in the mud of our swamps4 ,thus we see the legitimate tendency of this theory to degrade the mental dignity of man4 ,and it also degrades the moral nature and faculties of man1 and undermines the very foundations of moral and religious principle1 in that it teaches that man is only a better developed brute--the natural result being that man is no more under moral obligation than the brute1 or has no different basis of moral obligation from the brute1 but only a better idea of right and wrong1 because on a higher plane in the process of evolution4 ,it strikes at the root of the doctrine that men are1 by their origin and nature1 under peculiar and special obligations to ,god4 ,in the words of the late ,dr4 ,robert ,patterson1 such a theory tends to 'obliterate a belief in the divine origin and sanction of morality1 and in the existence of a future life of rewards and punishments1 and to promote the disorganization of society1 and the degradation of man to the level of the brutes1 living only under the laws of their brutal instincts4' ,such a theory is dishonoring to man and offensive to ,god4 ,when these discrepancies between a world-view governed by the ,christian's faith in ,revelation and one governed by the theory of evolution are once clearly understood1 there will be no need to inquire1 why1 on the one hand1 enemies of the ,bible in all ranks of life greeted with such joyous acclaim the principle announced by ,darwin and1 why1 on the other hand1 a chief purpose of ,christian apologetics has become the demonstration that ,christianity is justified even by reason in the world-view which it inculcates1 and that1 on the other hand1 the evolutionary hypothesis is contradicted by the facts of religion1 of history1 and of natural science4 ,,chapter ,,two4 ,unexplained ,origins4 ,the evolutionary scheme of development is1 by its originators and defenders1 accepted as a working hypothesis by which it is believed that the origin of all forms which matter has taken1 and of the activities of living things1 including man and human society1 can be accounted for4 ,it is an attempt to answer the old question1 suggested to the thinking mind by a contemplation of nature3 ,whence these things8 ,it it a theory of origins4 ,now1 a hypothesis1 being a theory1 or supposition1 provisionally employed as an explanation of phenomena1 must be verified before it can be accepted as truth4 ,moreover1 it can stand even as a hypothesis only if it meets the test of observation and experiment4 ,it it can demonstrate its adaption to explain all the facts1 it may1 until another and better theory is propounded1 be accepted as a theory4 ,when it does not explain the facts1 it must be modified or abandoned4 ,since the evolutionary hypothesis is employed as an explanation of certain origins1 a legitimate test of the theory is its adaptation to explain these origins4 ,this test we now shall apply4 ,we shall try to answer the question3 ,is the evolutionary theory entitled to the name of a working hypothesis8 ,is it able to account for those things which it is set forth by its spokesmen to account for8 ,does it account for the origin of the universe1 of life1 and of the various forms of life8 ,scientists as a rule disclaim any intention to account1 on the basis of their hypothesis1 for the origin of matter4 ,when it is suggested to them that any theory of origins should also account for the ,,first ,,origin1 the beginning of things1 they direct us to philosophy3 ,evolution is not concerned with the origin of matter2 it takes matter for granted2 the origin of matter is properly a philosophical and not a scientific problem4 ,let us note the fallacies of this position4 ,in the first place it is not proper to introduce the word science into this plea4 ,science is1 indeed1 only concerned with things that can be demonstrated by observation and from experience2 and since no one has seen the beginning of matter1 science is very properly not concerned with it4 ,but evolution is not a science4 ,it is a hypothesis1 a theory4 ,it is an explanation proposed for certain phenomena4 ',and we have a right to demand that1 if it wants recognition even as a theory1 it must explain those phenomena4 ,now the principle of evolution is3 ,all things have developed through certain forces which inhere in matter4 ,in other words1 without being acted upon from the outside1 7without a creative word of ,god1 for instance17 the unvierse tr4 note3 sic has come to be what it is to-day4 ,in matter there are from the beginning certain forces inseparable from matter4 ,these acted in such a way that very simple plants and animals became very complex2 and this without any directing ,intelligence4 ,this is the evolutionary theory4 ,now1 we hold that a theory which claims to account for the beginning of all animal life 7and every species of animal life71 for the beginning of plant life 7and of every species of plant life71 for the beginning of life germs1 of the globe1 of the sun and stars1 cannot stop short when we press our questions still farther and ask3 ,whence is matter8 ,whence is force8 ,nor1 indeed1 do evolutionists hesitate to express an opinion concerning the origin of matter and force4 ,the universe1 as it exists to-day1 is made up of matter disposed in various forms1--stars1 rock1 plants1 animals1--and endowed with energy in various forms2 and from the earliest age of speculation1 as we have seen1 the human mind conceived of a time in which there was unorganized matter1 substance without form4 ,like the ancient ,greek philosophers1 evolutionists to-day try to formulate a working hypothesis to account for the origin of the universe4 ,it is believed that1 in a broad way1 the ,nebular ,hypothesis put forth by ,la ,place indicated the manner in which the earth and the system to which it belongs have been evolved4 ,we have outlined1 briefly1 in our first chapter1 the main features of this theory4 ,we shall now indicate the difficulties which stand in the way of its acceptance even as a working hypothesis4 #a4 ,the ,nebular ,hypothesis assumes that during a past endless time there has existed an incalculable number of original atoms4 ,let us understand that according to the so-called atomic theory1 matter is composed of indivisible particles1 called atoms4 ,since the discovery of radium this theory has been considerably modified1 each atom now being understood to consist of many thousands of smaller particles1 called electrons4 ,however1 whether we call them atoms or electrons1 the smallest1 indivisible particles of matter are assumed to have existed during infinite past time4 ,now1 the origin of these simplest component parts of matter remains an unsolved mystery4 ,the mind is unable even to formulate a guess with reference to their organization4 #b4 ,a second postulate of the ,nebular ,hypothesis is the origin of force and motion in the huge gas ball which existed in the beginning4 ,la ,place says that at some point concentration took place in the homogeneous mass1 this contraction produced radiation of heat and light1 and through the differences in temperature1 motion and dynamic reaction were produced4 ,the difficulty which inheres in this postulate is the unquestioned fact that all motion in nature follows certain immutable laws991 99,these laws1 so far as known1 form the basis of what we call physics and chemistry4 and the origin of these laws is not accounted for by the theory4 ,laws never make themselves1 and their complexity1--immeasurably beyond our power of exploration--yet everywhere adjusted to a definite end1 is so intricate that their origin can by no means be accounted for by chance4 #c4 ,according to the theory matter was first in nebular 7gas7 form1 and that the gases existing diffused through space were1 through the motion which originated1 changed from a huge ball of fire-mist to a semi-solid sphere1 which threw off smaller spheres 7the planets7 that gradually became solid4 ,now1 this is contrary to our knowledge of gases4 ,gases may be produced from solids1 but an incandescent gas will not1 through simple motion1 become a solid substance4 ,gases may be solidified1 but only in two ways1 by pressure or when greatly cooled1--when they become ice4 ,but they do not retain this form when the pressure or the cooling agency is removed4 ,gases1 as we know them1 all have a tendency to expand indefinitely4 ,they have no tendency to solidify1 as the hypothesis presumes4 #d4 ,la ,place assumed that the solar system when still in gaseous state1 began to revolve upon its axis1 and that1 as the gas ball continued to revolve1 it condensed4 ,as condensation went on1 the rotation became faster1 and a ring of matter was thrown off from the hardening core4 ,this ring again resolved itself into a rotating globe which1 still in a fluid state1 threw off other balls1 which revolved around their mother1 the first planet1 even as the latter continued to follow an orbit around the central body1 the sun4 ,in this way the planets of the solar system1 including the earth1 7according to the theory71 were evolved together with their satellites or moons4 ,the difficulty attending this view of planetary evolution is found in the difference between the movements of a number of satellites around the planets4 ,while the satellites of the earth1 of ,jupiter and of ,saturn revolve from west to east1 the moons of ,uranus and ,neptune have an orbital movement from east to west4 ,this is regarded also by the friends of the ,nebular ,hypothesis as one of the gravest difficulties1 since no mechanical law will explain the reverse movement of the satellites of the remotest planets when they1 as well as ,jupiter1 ,saturn1 and the rest are supposed to have been cast off by the same central body4 #e4 ,according to the theory1 the original atoms during the process of world-making united into molecules4 ,the laws according to which atoms unite1--so that1 for instance1 the hydrogen atom each unites with two atoms of oxygen1 and so down the list of all known existences1--these laws are among the assured results of scientific study4 ,now1 the entire science of chemistry in all its branches is built upon the axiom that molecules are absolutely unalterable and that molecules of the same kind are always absolutely identical4 ,a molecule of water is always and invariably composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen4 ,a molecule of sulphuric acid invariably contains two atoms of hydrogen1 one of sulphur1 and four of oxygen4 ,a molecule of potassium chlorate is always composed of just one atom of potassium chloride and three atoms of oxygen4 ,never is there any variation of these proportions in the same element1 and a chemist will1 without handling the elements1 merely by mathematical calculation1 unerringly produce new combinations1 relying on the absolute constancy of the relations of atoms and molecules4 ,now1 the theory that in the beginning of things1 out of a mass of atoms diffused without form through space1 molecules came into being1 each kind or type composed of atoms according to a proportion peculiarly its own1 cannot be accepted unless it is shown in what manner the laws came into existence according to which these combinations take place4 ,clerk ,maxwell concludes a masterly statement of this aspect of the hypothesis by asking3 ,who can restrain the ulterior question1 ,whence then these myriad types of the same letter imprinted on the earth1 the sun1 the stars1 as if the very mould used here had been lent to ,sirius1 and passed on through the constellations8 ,no theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of the molecules throughout all time1 and throughout the whole region of the stellar universe2 for evolution necessarily implies continuous change1 and the molecule 7as known to science7 is incapable of growth or decay1 of generation or destruction4 ,the ,origin of ,life4 ,the origin of life on our globe is not accounted for on the basis of the evolutionary hypothesis4 ,at some time in the remote past1 there must1 according to the theory1 have been a development of living substance from a mineral base4 ,but if scientific experiment has shown anything it has shown the unreality of what was called spontaneous generation4 ,this term was very popular with the scientists of a century or two ago4 ,it was believed that certain animal and vegetable forms gave birth1 in the process of decay1 to insect life4 ,putrefying meat gives rise to maggots4 ,the origin of these grubs was referred to the power of spontaneous generation4 ,when the ,italian naturalist ,redi discovered that an exclusion of flies from meat was all that was necessary to prevent the production of grubs1 the doctrine of spontaneous generation was thoroughly upset1 for his time at least4 ,but the microscope revealed in pure water the presence of thousands of small creatures1 the infusoria4 ,again spontaneous generation was appealed to in order to explain their presence4 ,but the famous experiments of ,pasteur 7related by ,huxley in his lectures on ,the ,origin of ,species1 ,lecture ,,iii71 proved conclusively that sterilized water will not produce living forms when the germs floating everywhere about in the air are excluded4 ,since that time all men of science agree that there is no such thing demonstrable as spontaneous generation4 ,it has become an axiom that ,life only comes from life4 ,but how the first germs of life originated1 is a question for which there is no answer4 ,huxley admits3 ,of the causes which led to the origination of living matter it may be said that we know absolutely nothing4 ,the present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the not living4 ,however1 while spontaneous generation is absolutely inconceivable 7,darwin71 and while no experiments made on dead matter have ever produced living 7plant and animal7 matter1 life must have originated at some time from non-life according to the evolutionary hypothesis4 ,the theory assumes that at some time the globe was in an incandescent stage4 ,at that time there could not have been any life on our earth4 ,but as the earth cooled1 it is held that by some chemico-electric action 7electric force acting upon elements in favorable combinations71 inert1 lifeless matter became endowed with the property which we call life1 and this original living substance is called protoplasm4 ,from it1 by successive modifications1 slow in their operation1 the teeming variety of living things is believed to have developed4 ,now it is a notable fact1 that many evolutionists 7among them ,alfred ,russell ,wallace1 the co-discoverer of the theory which goes under ,darwin's name7 frankly admit the inability to account for the origin of protoplasm4 ,from mineral substances1 protoplasm differs in that it possesses the power of growth1 development1 and reproduction4 ,the very first vegetable cell must have possessed altogether new powers1 says ,mr4 ,wallace1 that of extracting carbon from the air and that of indefinite reproduction4 ,here1--note this admission1--we have indications of a new power at work4 ,in other words1 forces resident in matter no longer suffice4 ,the evolutionistic principle breaks down4 ,some fifty years ago it was thought that experimental proof had been found for the presence on earth of the original1 simple1 unorganized protoplasm2 that the basis of all life on earth had been discovered1--in the depths of the ocean4 ,the story of this discovery is entertainingly told by the ,duke of ,argyle in the ,nineteenth ,century magazine4 ,we quote from his article4 ,along with the earlier specimens of deep sea deposits sent home by naturalists during the first soundings in connection with the ,atlantic telegraph cable1 there was very often a sort of enveloping slimy mucus in the containing bottles which arrested the attention and excited the curiosity of the specialists to whom they were consigned4 ,it was structureless to all miscroscopic examination4 ,but so is all the protoplasmic matter of which the lowest animals are found4 ,could it be a widely diffused medium of this protoplasmic material1 not yet specialized or individualized into organic forms1 nor itself yet in a condition to build up inorganic skeletons for a habitation8 ,here was a grand idea4 ,it would be well to find missing links2 but it would be better to find the primordial substance out of which all living things had come4 ,the ultra-,darwinian enthusiasts were enchanted4 ,haeckel clapped his hands and shouted ,eureka6 loudly4 ,even the cautious and discriminating mind of ,professor ,huxley was caught by this new and grand generalization of the 'physical basis of life2' ,it was announced by him to the ,british ,association in #ahfh4 ,dr4 ,will ,carpenter took up the chorus4 ,he spoke of 'a living expanse of protoplasmic substance1' penetrating with its living substance the 'whole mass' of the oceanic mud4 ,a fine new ,greek name was devised for this mother slime1 and it was christened ',bathybius1' 7from two ,greek words meaning depth and life171 from the consecrated deeps in which it lay4 ,the conception ran like wildfire through the popular literature of science4 ,expectant imagination soon played its part4 ,wonderful movements were soon seen in this mysterious slime4 ,it became an 'irregular network1' and it could be seen gradually 'altering its form1' so that 'entangled granules changed their relative positions4 ,such was ,bathybius1 which once raised such a commotion in the world of science1 but which is never heard of or even alluded to in scientific circles today4 ,and now for the issue of this discovery of such mighty promise4 ,in the year #ahgb1 the ,challenger1 commanded by ,john ,murray1 set out on a voyage of deep-sea exploration4 ,the naturalists of the ',challenger' began their voyage in full ,bathybian faith4 ,but the sturdy mind of ,mr4 ,john ,murray kept its balance--all the more easily since he never could himself find or see any trace of this protoplasm when the dredges of the ',challenger' came fresh from the ocean bottom4 ,again and again he looked for it1 but never could he discover it4 ,it always hailed from ,england4 ,the bottles sent there were reported to yield it in abundance1 but somehow it seemed to be hatched in them4 ,the laboratory in ,london was its unfailing source4 ,the ocean never yielded it until it had been bottled4 ,at last1 one day on board the ',challenger1' an accident revealed the mystery4 ,one of ,mr4 ,murray's assistants poured a large quantity of spirits of wine into a bottle containing some pure sea-water1 when lo6 the wonderful protoplasm ,bathybius appeared6 ,it was the chemical precipitate of sulphate of lime produced by the mixture of alcohol and sea-water6 ,thereafter ',bathybius' disappeared from science4 ,the term protoplasm has1 indeed1 been retained by writers on biology4 ,the whole body of an animal1 and the structure of plants1 are understood to consist of cells4 ,the cells consist of a colorless substance1 and this is called protoplasm4 ,it is a substance of very complex chemical and physical make-up1 in fact1 no chemist has yet been able to analyze it and a famous biologist says that very probably it may never be analyzed 7,david ,starr ,jordan47 ,protoplasm1 like the white of egg1 is the basic substance of life1 yet in the variety of forms which it takes it is of almost unlimited complexity 7,jordan74 ,now1 a new difficulty develops when this complex character of protoplasm as it is now found in animals and plants is considered4 ,clear 7unmodified7 protoplasm1 as found in white of egg and in the white cells of the blood1 is the structureless substance called albumen4 ,however1 protoplasm varies almost infinitely in consistency1 in shape1 in structure1 and in function4 ,it is sometimes so fluid as to be capable of forming in drops1 sometimes semifluid1 sometimes almost solid4 ,in shape the cells may be club shaped1 globe shaped1 threaded1 flat1 conical4 ,some protoplasm produces fat1 others produce nerve substances1 others brain substances1 bone1 muscle1 etc41 each producing only its own kind1 uninterchangeable with the rest4 ,lastly1 there is the overwhelming fact that there is an infinite difference of protoplasm in the infinitely different plants and animals1 in each of which its own protoplasm but produces its own kind4 ,here are several thousand pieces of protoplasm2 analysis can detect no difference in them4 ,they are to us1 let us say1 as they are to ,mr4 ,huxley1 identical in power1 in form1 and in substance2 and yet on all these several thousand little bits of apparently indistinguishable matter an element of difference so pervading and so persistent has been impressed1 that of them all1 not one is interchangeable with another6 ,each seed feeds its own kind4 ,the protoplasm of the gnat will no more grow into the fly than it will grow into an elephant4 ,protoplasm is protoplasm2 yes1 but man's protoplasm is man's protoplasm1 and the mushroom's the mushroom's4 7,dr4 ,sterling1 ,as ,regards ,protoplasm47 ,hence we are compelled to acknowledge not an identity of protoplasm in all substances1 but an infinite diversity4 ,it follows that the derivation of all plant and animal forms from an original speck or germ of living matter is not only un-proven1 but is contradicted by biological science4 ,darwin himself1 like his co-laborer ,wallace1 was constrained to admit that the origin of life constitutes an unsolved problem4 ,matter and force do not account for it4 ,darwin accepted a divine fiat somewhere in the beginning4 ,he says4 ,there is grandeur in this view of life1 with its several powers1 having been originally breathed by the ,creator into the first forms or into one4 ,in other words1 the creation of the first living being was an exceptional kind of power4 ,but if1 as ,mr4 ,darwin says1 life was breathed by the ,creator into the first forms1 this constitutes a break in the sufficiency of natural causes alone to produce life4 ,if a special fiat was necessary at this point1 why may it not have been at others8 ,if by divine omnipotence1 life is believed to have been originated1 why shall we not believe that by divine omnipotence the various species of plants and animals were brought forth as related in the first chapter of the ,bible8 ,if the ,creator could breathe life into a few forms or into one1 as ,darwin thinks he did1 without violating the law of his own being1 and in accordance with the laws which he has established1 it seems evident that he might at other times breathe life into other forms in accordance with his laws4 ,i see no necessity for a logic that would compel the ,creator to confine the number of his creative fiats to a few1 or to one1 nor which would limit the fiats to one time4 7,fairhurst1 ,organic ,evolution ,considered47 ,biological ,barriers4 ,the atom1 the molecule1 the life-germ1--these are the barriers which stand against the evolutionistic conception of origins on the physical side4 ,we proceed to investigate the points at which biology touches our problem1 and again three barriers call for notice and investigation3 ,the difference between plants and animals2 the difference between vertebrates and invertebrates2 and the difference between mammals and all other vertebrates4 #a4 ,whence the animal kingdom8 ,this stage in the scale of life1 the advance from vegetable to the animal kingdom1 is1 to quote ,mr4 ,wallace1 again completely beyond all possibility of explanation by matter1 its laws and forces4 ,it is the introduction of sensation or consciousness1 constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and vegetable kingdoms4 ,plants live1 animals live and feel2 and they have consciousness4 ,at this point again1 only a thorough-going materialist will deny the working of an outside power1 a power not resident in matter1 but altering and molding matter from without and endowing it with new abilities4 ,only an act of this ,power ,without could endow living substance with feeling and consciousness4 ,no one can here any longer appeal to that undefined chemico-electric action by which some attempt to account for protoplasm4 ,mr4 ,wallace says3 ,here all idea of mere complication of structure producing the result is out of the question4 ,we feel it to be altogether preposterous to assume that at a certain stage of complexity of atomic constitution1 and as a necessary result of that complexity alone1 an ego should start into existence1--a thing that feels1 that is conscious of its own existence4 ,here we have the certainty that something new has arisen1--a being whose nascent consciousness has gone on increasing in power and definiteness till it has culminated in the higher animals4 ,no verbal explanation or attempt at explanation--such as the statement that life is 'the result of the molecular forces of the protoplasm1' or that the whole existing organic universe from the amoeba up to man was latent in the fire-mist from which the solar system was developed--can afford any mental satisfaction1 or help us in any way to a solution of the mystery4 #b4 ,whence the backbone8 ,all animals are divided into vertebrates and invertebrates1 the animals with a backbone and animals without4 ,between these two groups the barrier of backbone stands impassable till it is explained how a butterfly could become a bird1 or a snail a serpent1 or a star fish acquire the skeleton of the shark4 ,these two groups1 the vertebrate animals and the invertebrate1 must be regarded as fundamentally distinct4 #c4 ,whence the breast8 ,vertebrates are either mammals or submammals4 ,the breastless tribes are brids1 tr4 note3 sic reptiles1 and fishes4 ,these are far beneath in the scale1 while the mammal1 by its peculiar endowment in that it gives suck to its young1 stands elect1 aloft1 and apart4 ,till it is shown how an animal that never got milk from its mother stumbled on the capacity of giving what was never given it1 the breast will stand1 against all dreams of development1 companion-barrier to the backbone4 ,nor is there an animal that can be regarded as a connecting link between these two master groups4 ,the theistic evolutionist1 who believes that ,god at various times helped out the forces residing in matter1 by creating something new1 is inclined to say that at each of these points1--the origin of the first sentient animal1 the origin of the first vertebrate1 and of the first mammal1--,god by his omnipotence caused a new type to originate4 ,aside from the fact that forces resident in matter1 the basic idea of the evolutionistic theory1 here begins to become somewhat faint as a background even for a theistic conception of development1 it is evident that we have already reached a point far down the scale of organic evolution in which the admission must be made that no possible working of forces within matter can account for the change4 ,again we say1 if we already admit that the various great types of animal life could not originate without a special creative act of ,god1 then why should we not accept the record of ,genesis which says that the various species of plants and the various species of animals were created1 each a separate species1 in the beginning8 ,once admit special creative acts1 and there is no longer any need for a hypothesis of evolution4 ,man4 ,the difficulty which stands in the way of accepting1 on purely scientific grounds1 the descent of man from a brute ancestor1 is1 first of all a biological 7physiological7 difficulty4 ,among all the mammalia 7to accept the classification of man with that group71 man alone has a perfect brain4 ,by this we mean the physiologically and structurally perfect brain4 ,it is present even in the lowest man--present in the negro or the ,australian ,bushman as in the civilized ,american2 and absent in all living beings below man--absent in the ape or the elephant as truly as in the lowest mammals1 the kangaroo or the duckbill4 ,its sign is language1 capacity of progress1 culture4 ,all healthy human brains are structurally perfect2 the highest brute brains are structurally imperfect4 ,the least cultivated human being is susceptible of culture2 a savage not only possesses the endowment of language but may be educated to appreciate the art of a ,raphael or a ,shakespeare4 ,the brains of all other living beings are circumscribed by instinct1 which never progresses4 ,the perfect brain thus introduces another impassable biological barrier dividing the world of life4 ,however1 the derivation of man from brute ancestry is attended by another and even greater difficulty4 ,the brain1 after all1 is but an organ1 it is the organ of ,mind4 ,man possesses faculties of intellect 7reason1 imagination1 the artistic faculties1 etc47 and1 above all1 a moral nature1 which raises him far above the brute4 ,these faculties could not possibly have been developed by means of forces resident in matter or by means of the laws which are made to account for the physical universe4 ,the very term evolution implies the development of something that was at first involved1 or essentially infolded1 in that in which evolution began4 ,in man there are attributes and faculties not shown by lower orders4 ,evolution1 seeking to be consistent1 answers3 ,it is true that faculties cannot be evolved out of a thing unless they exist in a crude and undeveloped state in that thing1 but these higher faculties do exist in the lower orders1 potentially1 or in a germ form and are developed and become operative only in the higher forms of life4 ,evolutionists do not shrink from this application of their theory to the human mind4 ,the attributes of a ,shakespeare and the moral nature of a ,paul were1 essentially or potentially 7capable of development71 in the star fish and the jelly fish4 ,the difference is not one of kind but of development and degree4 ,man has these faculties developed1 the animals have them undeveloped4 ,in the ,life and ,letters of ,charles ,darwin1 published by his son1 is a letter from ,mr4 ,darwin to ,w4 ,graham1 written in #ahha1 from which ,i quote the following3 ,i have no practice in abstract reasoning1 and ,i may be all astray4 ,nevertheless1 you have expressed my inward conviction1 though far more vividly and clearly than ,i could have done4 ,but then1 with me1 the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind1 which has been developed from the lower animals1 are of any value1 or are at all trustworthy4 ,again he says 7p4 #ebh71 in another letter written to ,sir ,c4 ,lyell3 ,grant a simple archetypal creature1 like the mud-fish or lepidosiren 7mud eel7 with five senses and some vestige of mind1 and ,i believe natural selection will account for the production of every vertebrate animal1 including1 of course1 man4 ,observe that this language is very definite4 ,it says that the mind of man1 with all its wonderful attributes and faculties1 was evolved from the mind of the lower animals--and he goes as low as the mud-fish and the eel that live in the slime of the swamps4 ,now1 whoever wishes to believe such a preposterous assumption can do so4 ,he is able to believe almost anything1 and to disbelieve everything4 ,mr4 ,darwin himself says he looks upon man's convictions as of no value1 because they are the convictions of a mind derived from the mind of lower animals2 nor can one blame him for being skeptical4 ,our point1 however1 is that there is such a tremendous difference between the intellectual and moral faculties of man and the barely instinctive impulses of the lower creatures1 that no one can see any connection between the two1 unless there is some serious defect in his own mental or moral perceptions4 ,every instinct and conviction of the human mind rises in indignant repudiation of the theory of man's descent4 ,there are even among thoroughgoing ,darwinians some who draw the line at this 7necessary7 application of the development idea4 ,wallace says1 at the conclusion of his defense of ,darwinism3 ,the faculties of man could not possibly have been developed by means of the same laws which have determined the progressive development of the world in general1 and also of man's physical organism--the human body4 ,he finds in the origin of ,mind clear indications of an unseen universe--a world of spirit1 to which the world of matter is altogether subordinate4 7,darwinism1 p4 #cbj47 ,yet the development of mind through merely physical forces is upheld to the present day by the majority of evolutionists4 ,the doctrine is even found in public school texts4 ,in ,davis' ,physical ,geography1 a high-school text1 we read page #cda3 ,the greater intelligence of many land animals than of sea animals should also be regarded as a result of the development of land animals amid a greater variety of geographical conditions than is found in the seas4 4 4 4 ,the wonderful intelligence of man has been developed on the lands1 because only on the lands is to be found the great variety of form1 climate and products which can stimulate the development of high intelligence4 ,it would have been as impossible for man to develop as an inhabitant of the dark and monotonous ocean floor as it has been for civilization to arise out of the frozen and lonesome lands of the ,antarctic regions4 ,thus even the children of our generation are taught a doctrine which is not only unproven but so far falls short of explaining that which it was invented to explain that it cannot1 by any correct definition1 even be dignified with the name of a working hypothesis4 ,it is a theory of origins which fails to account for one thing precisely--,origins4 ,,chapter ,,three4 ,the ,testimony of the ,rocks4 ,we have seen that the principal argument for a development of the higher types of life from lower organisms is based upon a study of fossil remains 7paleontology74 ,the older the strata in the earth's surface1 the simpler the animal forms imbedded therein2 the more recent the strata1 the more complex and highly developed the fossil remains4 ,popular scientific works1 and books of refence tr4 note3 sic generally1 quote it as an axiom3 ,in the oldest rocks the simplest fossils are found1 hence the higher animals are developed from the lower4 ,davis ,physical ,geograhy tr4 note3 sic says 7page #ag73 ,age of the ,earth4--,it is impossible to say what the age of the earth and the solar system is1 but it certainly should be reckoned in millions and millions of years4 ,there is every reason to believe that the sun and the planets existed for an indefinitely long period before the condition of the earth's surface was such as to allow the habitation of the planet by plants and animals4 ,it is well proved by the prints or fossils of various plants and animals in ancient rock layers that these lower forms of life existed upon the earth for a vast length of time1 millions and millions of years before man appeared4 ,here1 then1 we are squarely confronted by the issue4 ,either the rocks testify to a slow evolution of plant and animal life1 or they supply no such testimony4 ,professor ,downing of ,chicago ,university1 says that this is indeed1 the one primary argument for evolution1 the rest being simply corroborative4 ,on this rock evolutionists build their scientific ,faith4 ,let us investigate4 ,we shall note1 to begin with1 that there are1 indeed1 a larger number of species1 both of animals and plants1 preserved in the rocks1--thousands1 in fact4 ,there are lowly organisms1 of the crab and cuttle fish variety1 and more highly organized forms1 fishes and birds1 and there are the prints and fossilized bones of great monsters1 huge lizards and sloths and other mammalia4 ,it is possible to establish a gradation in this great catalog of fossils1 beginning with the largest or most perfectly developed1 and ending with the animals lower in the scale of life2 or vice versa4 ,the evolutionists say1 vice versa1 the simplest first1 the most complex last1 and then they add3 ,so they have developed4 ,at this point we shall first quote one of the earliest palaeontologists1 and one of the most famous1 ,hugh ,miller1 whose ,old ,red ,sandstone1 first published in #ahda1 has now been republished in the ,everyman ,library4 ,in this brilliant work1 ,miller pays his respects to the evolutionists of his age4 ,he refers to ,lamarck and says3 ,the ingenious foreigner1 on the strength of a few striking facts which prove that to a certain extent the instincts of species may be improved and heightened1 and their forms changed from a lower to a higher degree of adaptation to their circumstances1 has concluded that there is a natural progress from the inferior order of being towards the superior1 and that the off-spring of creatures low in the scale in the present time may hold a much higher place in it1 and belong to different and nobler species1 a few thousand years hence4 4 4 4 ,he has argued on this principle of improvement and adaptation1--which1 carry it as far as we rationally may1 still leaves the vegetable a vegetable1 and the dog a dog1--that in the vast course of ages1 inferior have risen into superior natures1 and lower into higher races2 that molluscs and zoophytes have passed into fish and reptiles1 and fish and reptiles into birds and quadrupeds2 that unformed gelatinous bodies1 with an organisation scarcely traceable1 have been metamorphosed into oaks and cedars2 and that monkeys and apes have been transformed into human creatures1 capable of understanding and admiring the theories of ,lamarck4 ,it is a law of nature1 continues ,mr4 ,miller1 that the chain of being1 from the lowest to the highest form of life1 should be1 in some degree1 a continuous chain2 that the various classes of existence should shade into one another1 so that it often proves a matter of no little difficulty to point out the exact line of demarcation where one class or family ends and another class or family begins4 ,the naturalist passes from the vegetable to the animal tribes1 scarcely aware1 amid the perplexing forms of intermediate existence1 at what point he quits the precincts of the one1 to enter on those of the other4 ,all the animal families have1 in like manner1 their connecting links2 and it is chiefly out of these that writers such as ,lamarck and ,maillet construct their system4 ,they confound gradation with progress4 ,geoffrey ,hudson was a very short man1 and ,goliath of ,gath a very tall one2 and the gradations of the human stature lie between4 ,but gradation is not progress2 and though we find full-grown men of five feet1 five feet six inches1 and six feet and a half1 the fact gives us no earnest whatever that the race is rising in stature1 and that at some future period the average height of the human family will be somewhat between ten and eleven feet4 ,and equally unsolid is the argument that from a principle of gradation in races would reduce a principle of progress in races4 ,the tall man of six feet need entertain quite as little hope of rising into eleven feet as the short man of five2 nor has the fish that occasionally flies any better chance of passing into a bird than the fish that only swims4 ,geology abounds with creatures of the intermediate class4 ,but it furnishes no genealogical link to show that the existences of one race derive their lineage from the existences of another4 ,the scene shifts as we pass from formation to formation2 we are introduced in each to a new dramatis personae4 ,of all the vertebrata1 fishes rank lowest1 and in geological history appear first4 ,now1 fishes differ very much among themselves3 some rank nearly as low as worms1--some nearly as high as reptiles2 and if fish could have risen into reptiles1 and reptiles into mammalia1 we would necessarily expect to find lower orders of fish passing into higher1 and taking precedence of the higher in their appearance in point of time4 ,if such be not the case1--if fish made their first appearance1 not in their least perfect1 but in their most perfect state1--not in their nearest approximation to the worm1 but in their nearest approximation to the reptile1--there is no room for progression1 and the argument falls4 ,now1 it is a geological fact1 that it is fish of the higher orders that appear first on the stage1 and that they are found to occupy exactly the same level during the vast period represented by five succeeding formations4 ,there is no progression4 ,if fish rose into reptiles1 it must have been by sudden transformation4 ,there is no getting rid of miracle in the case1--there is no alternative between creation and metamorphosis4 ,the infidel substitutes progression for ,deiety2--,geology robs him of his ,god4 ,mr4 ,miller then relates his discovery of the winged fish 7,pterichtys73 ,of all the organisms of the ,old ,red ,sandstone1 one of the most extraordinary1 and the one in which ,lamarck would have most delighted1 is the ,pterichtys1 or winged fish4 ,had ,lamarck been the discoverer1 he would unquestionably have held that he had caught a fish almost in the act of wishing itself into a bird4 ,here are wings which lack only feathers1 a body which seems to have been as well adapted for passing through the air as the water and a tail by which to steer4 ,i fain wish ,i could communicate to the reader the feeling with which ,i contemplated my first-found specimen4 ,it opened with a single blow of the hammer2 and there on a ground of light-colored limestone1 lay the effigy of a creature fashioned apparently out of jet1 with a body covered with plates1 two powerful-looking arms articulated at the shoulders1 a head as entirely lost in the trunk as that of the ray or the sun-fish1 and long angular tail4 ,miller says that he at first thought he had discovered a kind of turtle that partook of the characteristics of a fish4 ,but he continues3 ,i had inferred somewhat too hurriedly1 though perhaps naturally enough1 that these wings or arms1 with their strong sharp points and oar-like blades1 had been at once paddles and spears1 --instrument of motion and weapons of defence2 and hence the mistake of connecting the creature with the ,chelonia 7turtles74 ,i am informed by ,agassiz1 however1 that they were weapons of defence only1 which1 like the spines of the river bull-head1 were erected in moments of danger or alarm1 and at other times lay close by the creature's side2 and that the sole instrument of motion was in the tail4 ,the river bull-head1 when attacked by an enemy1 or immediately as it feels the hook in its jaws1 erects its two spines at nearly right angles with the plates of the head1 as if to render itself as difficult of being swallowed as possible4 ,the attitude is one of danger and alarm2 and it is a curious fact1 that in this attitude nine-tenth of the ,pterichthyes of the ,lower ,old ,red ,sandstone are to be found4 ,a century has passed since ,miller thought he had discovered a turtle which was so modified in structure as to be a link between the turtles and the fish4 ,but to the present day geology has failed to furnish evidence that such a link at one time existed4 ,this absence1 in the geological record1 of transitional forms1 is one of the greatest difficulties of the evolutionistic theory4 ,according to the theory1 the fossils found in the various layers of rock ought to show gradual modifications1 linking the various species of animals and plants in a finely graduated system1 with thousands of forms showing in rudimentary structure those organs which in the more advanced forms have become fully developed4 ,however1 no such progress from more to less generalized types has been demonstrated1 although many trained investigators have searched the fossiliferous rocks for such evidence of evolution4 ,professor ,huxley in his ,lay ,sermons admits that an impartial survey of the positively ascertained truths of paleontology ,either shows us no evidence of such modification1 or demonstrates such modification as has occurred to have been very slight2 and as to the nature of that modification1 it yields no evidence whatsoever that the earlier members of any long-continued group were more generalized in structure than the later ones4 ,le,conte says3 ,although the species change greatly1 and perhaps many times1 in passing from the lowest to the highest strata1 we do not usually1 it must be acknowledged1 find the gradual transitions we would naturally expect1 if the change were effected by gradual transitions4 ,he further speaks of the absence of connecting links as the greatest of all objections against the theory of evolution4 7,evolution1 p4 #bcd47 ,this absence of transitional forms between different species has always been recognized as a serious difficulty2 and ,mr4 ,darwin1 in the attempt to obviate it1 succeeds only in showing how very serious it is4 ,these are his words3 ,geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain2 and this1 perhaps1 is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory4 ,alfred ,fairhurst says1 in his ,organic ,evolution ,considered 7p4 #ic73 ,according to the theory of evolution1 and especially of natural selection1 if we start with any organism and trace its history backward1 we would find that through an endless number of generations it had been very slightly changing1 so that any individual is always a transitional form between its immediate ancestors and its own offspring4 ,this being true1 one would expect1 if the theory of evolution is true1 to find vast numbers of transitional forms connecting earlier and later species in the various periods where fossils are well preserved4 ,this1 however1 is not true4 ,species1 when they first appear1 stand sharply defined4 ,darwin expresses his disappointment at the absence of transitional forms as follows3 ',but ,i do not pretend that ,i should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections1 had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation pressed so hardly on my theory4' ,even a cursory study of such texts as ,dana's ,manual of ,geology will reveal that the development of the plants and animals through the ages of speculative geology does not move forward like a steadily rising flood4 ,there is rather a series of great waves1 each rising abruptly1 new forms often appearing suddenly and together4 ,the very simplest known fossils1 the trilobites1 of which nearly a hundred species are known in ,america alone1 and certain cephalopods 7sea snails7 are animals highly complex in structure and regarded by ,le ,conte as hardly lower than the middle of the animal scale4 ,the trilobites possess well developed compound eyes and the cephalopods have simple eyes1 almost as complex as the eyes of man1 possess a well defined stomach1 a systemic heart1 a liver1 and a highly developed nervous system tr4 note3 no period in original ,observe1 that these two highly organized forms of animals1 hardly to be regarded as lower than the middle of the animal scale1 are the very oldest animals found in fossil form6 ,in other words1 of at least one half of the total progress of the animal kingdom every vestige is lost4 ,if we turn a few pages in ,dana's ,manual we find in the sandstone of the ,devonian ,era gigantic species of fish4 ,the entire record of evolution from the mollusk to the fish is lost6 ,there is not a single transitional form4 ,these fishes have organs as complex and perfect as the fishes of to-day4 ,suddenly1 in the carbonic age amphibia and reptiles appear1 and then come1 in the ,triassic the huge reptiles known as dinosaurs4 ,insects and scorpions have been found in the ,silurian4 tr4 note3 sic on punctuation ,they stand among the highest of even living articulates1 and they are the oldest known airbreathing animals4 ,we seek in vain for the progenitors of these highly organized articulates or for some conceivable method by which their wings and special breathing apparatus could have evolved4 ,we do not know that these first insects and scorpions have made any material progress through all the ages4 7,fairhurst47 ,professor ,huxley in delivering the anniversary address to the ,geological ,society for #ahgj1 quotes the following from an address before the same society in #ahfb3 ,if we confine ourselves to positively ascertained facts1 the total amount of change in the forms of animal and vegetable life since the existence of such forms is recorded1 is small4 ,when compared with the lapse of time since the first appearance of these forms1 the amount of change is wonderfully small4 ,moreover1 in each great group of the animal and vegetable kingdoms1 there are certain forms which ,i termed ,persistent ,types1 which have remained1 with but very little apparent change1 from their first appearance to the present time4 ,in answer to the question1 ',what then does an impartial survey of the positively ascertained truths of paleontology testify in relation to the common doctrines of progressive modification1 which suppose that modification to have taken place by necessary progress from more to less embryonic forms1 from more to less generalized types within the limits of the period represented by the fossiliferous rocks8' ,i reply1 ,it negatives these doctrines2 for it either shows us no evidence of such modifications1 or demonstrates such modification as has occurred to have been very slight4 ,the significance of persistent types and of the small amount of change which has taken place even in those forms which can be shown to have been modified1 becomes greater and greater in my eyes1 the longer ,i occupy myself with the ,biology of the past4 ,from the fact that the trilobites1 so highly organized1 appeared in the primordial1 or oldest strata1 it would seem that they were specially adapted to make progress4 ,they lived through ,paleozoic time1 which1 according to ,dana1 represents twelve of the sixteen parts of all geological time1 beginning with the ,primordial2 or1 calling the whole geological time #dh millions of years1 the trilobites lived #cf million of years1 or three-fourths of all geological time4 ,from their great persistence in time 7accepting1 for the sake of argument1 the ages of speculative geology7 it would seem that they had a remarkably good opportunity to make wonderful progress in structure4 ,during that time there were thousands of species1 yet they made no progress4 ,we do not know that in all those millions of years a single higher form was evolved from any one of the great multitude of species of trilobites4 ,as ,darwin says of the goose1 so one may say of the trilobite2 it had a singularly inflexible organization4 ,the remarkable thing about this1 however1 is that previous to the ,primordial1 while it was becoming a trilobite1 it must have had a singularly flexible organization1 otherwise it could not have obtained its complex structure2 but when it reached the ,primordial it became very conservative4 ,fairhurst says1 in the work already quoted3 ,it is a most remarkable fact that in the first geological period in which undoubted fossils occur1 all the sub-kingdoms except that of the vertebrates are well represented1 and that there is no evidence from fossils that one sub-kingdom1 or even that different classes of the same sub-kingdom were evolved from each other4 ,the great gulfs that separate the animal kingdom into sub-kingdoms and classes existed then1 and have continued till the present time4444 ,if we rely on known fossils as evidence1 we would be obliged to conclude that highly organized fishes were suddenly introduced4 ,the break in the supposed chain of evolution between the invertebrates and the highly organized vertebrates of the ,lower ,silurian is one of the greatest in the whole geological record4 ,the vast gulf between these structures must1 ,i think1 remain unbridged except by the imagination4 ,the late ,prof4 ,joseph ,le,conte1 of the ,university of ,california1 writes in his book1 ,religion and ,science3 ,the evidence of geology to-day is that species seem to come in suddenly and in full perfection1 remain substantially unchanged during the term of their existence1 and pass away in full perfection4 ,other species take their places apparently by substitution1 not by transmutation4 ,dr4 ,robert ,watts uses these emphatic words3 ,the record of the rocks know nothing of the evolution of a higher form from a lower form4 ,neither the paleozoic age nor the living organisms of our world reveal an authentic instance of such evolution4 ,both nature and revelation proclaim it as an inviolable law that like produces like4 ,and ,hugh ,miller went one step further when he testified3 ,i would ask such of the gentlemen whom ,i now address as have studied the subject most thoroughly1 whether1 at those grand lines of division between the ,palaeozoic and ,secondary1 and again between the ,secondary and ,tertiary periods1 at which the entire type of organic being alters1 so that all on the one side of the gap belongs to one fashion1 and all on the other to another and wholly different fashion1--whether they have not been as thoroughly impressed with the conviction that there existed a ,creative ,agent1 to whom the sudden change was owing1 as if they themselves had witnessed the miracle of creation8 7,presidential address before the ,royal ,physical ,society of ,edinburgh1 #aheb47 ,but we have not yet done with this part of our investigation4 ,the argument from geology is based on the assumption that the chronological order of the earth's layers has been determined at least with great approximation to certainty1 so that we may say with some assurance that this layer of limestone or sandstone is of earlier1 that1 of later origin4 ,as a matter of fact1 the textbooks do treat the various ages of geology as if they corresponded to certain strata of the earth's crust4 ,but by what method is the age of the various layers determined8 ,james ,d4 ,dana in his ,manual of ,geology 7,fourth edition1 p4 #cih f47 says that there are four methods by which we may decide the relation of one layer to another4 ,the first is1 naturally1 the order in which the layers rest upon one another2 the lower strata1 are1 of course1 older than the upper4 ,however1 he points out in four precautions the inability of the investigator to depend on this method1 since for the comparing of rocks of disconnected regions1 this criterion must fail4 ,also the color and mineral composition can be used only with distrust and must be usually disregarded4 ,then the ,manual proceeds3 #d ,fossils4--,the criterion for determining the chronological order of strata dependent on kinds of fossils takes direct hold upon time1 and therefore1 is the best2 and1 moreover1 it serves for the correlation of rocks all over the world4 ,now observe how1 in the following1 the geologist leans upon the evolutionist3 ,the life of the globe has changed with the progress of time4 ,each epoch has had its peculiar species1 or peculiar groups of species4 ,moreover1 the succession of life has followed a grand law of progress1 involving under a single system a closer and closer approximation in the species1 as time moved on1 to those which now exist4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that identity of species of fossils proves approximate identity of age4 ,let us bear this in mind4 ,dana takes for granted the evolutionary process4 ,the simpler forms of animal life indicate the older strata1 the complex forms1 the more recent4 ,we do not misunderstand ,mr4 ,dana4 ,such expressions as the following abound3 ,where direct paleontological observation has ascertained in particular cases the steps of progress in the development of organs1 as1 for example1 those of the teeth in ,mammals1 the facts become a basis for further use in the same direction4 7p4 #djb47 ,the grander divisions of geological time should be based1 in a comprehensive way1 on organic progress 7from simple to more complex structures7 7p4 #djd47 ,when the relations of the beds to those recognized in other regions have been ascertained through fossils444 7p4 #dje47 ,the principle announced by ,dana is accepted by geologists generally4 ,angelo ,heilprin in ,the ,earth and its ,story1 p4 #aec ff4 has the following3 ,there has been a steady and progressive advance in the general type of organization from the oldest to the newest periods2 more highly developed or more complicated forms have successively replaced forms of simpler construction2 and this advance is still continuing to-day4 ,once more1 the correctness of the evolutionary hypothesis is taken for granted4 ,in the oldest rocks1 for example1 no trace of backboned animals has yet been detected2 when such do appear for the first time1 they show themselves in their lowest types1 the fishes2 these are succeeded later by the amphibians 7frogs1 newts1 salamanders71 and these again by reptiles4 ,and if we take the fishes by themselves1 we find that they1 too1 begin with their lower1 if not absolutely the lowest types1 and progressively develop their higher ones4 ,this history is repeated in the cases of the reptiles and quadrupeds--in fact1 with every class of animals that is known to us4 ,naturalists 7evolutionists7 are to-day well agreed among themselves that all animal and vegetable forms are derivatives from forms that preceded them44444 ,hence it is1 that1 in following the geological record1 we speak of progressive evolution1 the evolving of higher or more complicated types of organisms from those simpler and more general in structure4 ,now read carefully the following3 ,this fact has permitted geologists to mark off distinct eras or periods in the life-history of the planet1 each of them determined by certain characteristic animal or vegetable forms1 which either do not appear before or after such period1 or else are by numbers so distinctive of it as to typify it clearly4 ,evidently1 the ,philadelphia professor1 too1 assumes progressive evolution as an ascertained fact and in accordance therewith classifies the layers of the earth's surface4 ,almost every species of fossil has a definite position in the geological scale1 and would by itself serve to locate a formation2 but oftentimes the determination of species1 owing to insufficiency of knowledge of the obliteration of characters1 is a most difficult task1 and then recourse is had to the aspect of the entire group 'of fossils which a given rockmass contains4 ,this generally gives the age or position without difficulty4 ,edward ,clodd1 in ,the ,story of ,creation1 a ,plain ,account of ,evolution1 says1 page #ah4 ,the relative age and place of each stratum 4444 are fixed by the fossils4 ,now1 is not this a most extraordinary situation8 ,the evolutionist says3 ,the science of paleontology furnishes the basic argument for our hypothesis1--the older the strata of the earths surface1 the simpler the fossils found therein4 ,this sounds impressive4 ,but we ask him3 ,how do you know the age of the strata1--and the answer is1 that1 of course1 is the business of the geologist to determine4 ,we now turn to the geologist and ask3 ,how do you determine the age of the strata8 ,and the geologist answers3 ,why1 evolutionary science has proven that the simplest animals and plants appeared first2 hence1 where ,i find simple fossils1 ,i know that ,i have a more ancient bed of lime-stone or sand-stone than the strata which contain more complex forms1--which appeared later4 ,note well1 the geologists which we have quoted assert that this is the best and final proof for the position of a stratum in the scale of geological history4 ,the geologist depends on the fossils4 ,but he believes these to belong to an earlier or more recent age because he accepts the evolutionist's word for it4 ,and the evolutionist says3 the geologist says these rocks are oldest2 but in them ,i find the simplest forms2 hence the evolutionary theory is proven4 ,we repeat it1--is not this a very1 very extraordinary situation8 ,have we not here a perfect case of what logicians call reasoning in a circle1 or begging the question8 ,how can the evolutionist quote the geologist when the geologist asserts that he classifies his layers of rock according to the fossils1--and that he accepts what the evolutionists asserts tr4 note3 sic regarding these8 ,what1 in view of this situation1 becomes of the evolutionist's argument from fossils8 ,and what becomes of the ages of speculative geology8 ,,chapter ,,four4 ,the ,fixity of ,species4 ,a writer in the ,lutheran ,companion recently said that his seven year old boy brought home a text book some months ago1 called ,home ,geography for ,primary ,grades4 ,on page #adc is found this statement about birds3 ,ever so long ago1 their grandfathers were not birds at all4 ,then they could not fly1 for they had neither wings nor feathers4 ,these grandfathers of our birds had four legs1 a long tail and jaws with teeth4 ,after a time feathers grew upon their bodies and their front legs become changed for flying4 ,these were strange looking creatures4 ,there are none living like them now4 ,one is tempted to disgress1 tr4 note3 sic for a moment1 from the subject at hand in order to draw1 from this incident1 an argument for the ,christian ,day ,school2 but we shall desist4 ,the quotation is here adduced to illustrate the vogue which evolution1 specifically ,darwinism1 still maintains in the literature1 even in the school-texts of our day4 ,babes and sucklings are introduced to the theory of evolutionary development1 and the theory is presented with an assurance as if it were scientific truth4 ,the words of ,agassiz1 prince of naturalists1 apply to-day4 ,the manner in which the evolution theory in zoology is treated would lead those who are not special zoologists to suppose that observations have been made by which it can be inferred that there is in nature such a thing as change among organized beings actually taking place4 ,he adds3 ,there is no such thing on record4 ,it is shifting the ground from one field of observation to another to make this statement1 and when the assertions go so far as to exclude from the domain of science those who will not be dragged into this mire of mere assertion1 then it is time to protest4 ,dr4 ,j4 ,b4 ,warren1 of the ,university of ,california1 more recently said3 ,if the theory of evolution be true1 during the many thousands of years covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge1 there would certainly be known at least a few instances1 or at least one instance1 of the evolution of one species from another4 ,no such instance is known4 ,abstract arguments sound learned and appear imposing1 so that many are deceived by them4 ,but in this matter we remove the question from the abstract to the concrete4 ,we are told that facts warrant the evolutionary theory4 ,but do they8 ,where is one single fact8 ,the hypothesis assumes that through environment1 certain varieties of species 7both of plants and animals7 arose1 and that the varieties best fitted1 through their habits1 structure1 or color1 to maintain themselves in the struggle for existence1 survived the species less favorably endowed1 and hence persisted4 7,we have quoted in our initial chapter the classical illustration of the dipper-birds from ,wallace's ,darwinism47 ,now1 as a matter of fact1 we cannot prove that a single species has changed4 ,these are the words of ,darwin himself1 quoted from ,life and ,letters1 ,vol4 ,,iii1 p4 #be3 ,there are two or three million of species on earth1 sufficient field1 one might think1 for observation4 ,but it must be said to-day that in spite of all the efforts of trained observers1 not one change of a species into another is on record4 ,dr4 ,n4 ,s4 ,shaler1 ,professor of ,geology in ,harvard1 asserts that it has not been proved that a single species has been established solely or even mainly by the operation of ,natural ,selection4 ,professor ,fleischmann1 of ,erlangen1 has gone so far as to say that the ,darwinian theory of descent has1 in the realms of nature1 not a single fact to confirm it4 ,dr4 ,ethridge of the ,british ,museum says3 ,in all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species4 ,nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense1 not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts4 ,prof4 ,owen declares that no instance of change of one species into another has ever been recorded by man4 ,dr4 ,martin1 ,sanitaetsrat1 of ,germany1 who has conducted some highly technical experiments in the blood reactions of various animals and man1 on which he bases his conclusions1 says3 ,since ,darwin we have been accustomed to consider the concept 'species' as something insecure and unstable4 ,the whole organic world must be thought of as fluid if the evolution theory is to find room for action4 ,it required1 indeed1 all the great investigator's keenness to fence his theory against the difficulty which the lack of transitional forms occasioned1 and against the fact that the rise of a new species has never been observed1 much more against the fact that all processes in artificial breeding have not sufficed to fix permanently the changes which have been attained4 ,we admire the clever structure of the theory1 but there is no doubt that the obstinacy with which the organism clings to its species-characteristics is the point on which it is mortal4 ,one is1 tr4 note3 sic in fact1 as much justified in speaking of a struggle to retain these characteristics as to speak of a struggle for existence4 ,man has been able greatly to modify many vegetable productions4 ,witness the comparatively recent changes in the potato plant4 ,the small1 almost worthless tubers of the wild potato have changed1 under the force of intelligent cultivation1 to the large1 starchy1 nutritious vegetables1 which furnish so many people a large portion of their food4 ,mind has been at work2 mind and nature have changed the size1 the quality1 the productiveness of the solatium tubcrosum2 but neither mind nor nature1 nor both combined1 have1 so far as we know1 ever in the slightest degree changed the species4 ,potatoes are potatoes still1 and always will be4 ,the present law of vegetation is that intelligent cultivation of almost any plant will either change the original in one way or another1 or1 what is more likely1 will produce several distinct varieties2 but that all these changed forms are but mere modifications of the original species1 and that1 when deprived of intelligent cultivation1 they all tend to revert to the original form4 ,it is true that we see many and very diverse varieties of certain species1 especially those that have received the most attention from the hands of man4 ,the dog1 for instance1 exists as the great1 shaggy ,newfoundland or ,st4 ,bernard1 or as the tight girted greyhound1 as the petted poodle or the despised yellow dog2 but in every case he is a dog1 and not a wolf1 and his fellow dogs recognize him as such1 too4 ,hens differ amazingly2 new breeds periodically come into existence and into fashion2 but turn them loose1 and they will all seek the barnyard1 and soon your fancy breeds will become corrupt4 ,they revert to type4 ,by the exercise of intelligent selection and training1 man is able to emphasize certain points and to produce new breeds1 but not to change the essential structure nor to alter the specific characteristics4 ,the species are fixed4 ,huxley says3 ,if you breed from the male and female of the same race1 you of course have offspring of the like kind1 and if you make the offspring breed together1 you obtain the same result1 and if you breed from these again1 you will still have the same kind of offspring2 there is no check4 ,but if you take members of two distinct species1 however similar they may be to each other1 and make them breed together1 you will find a check4 ,if you cross two such species with each other1 then--although you may get offspring in the case of the first cross1 yet1 if you attempt to breed from the products of that crossing1 which are what are called hybrids-- that is1 if you couple a male and a female hybrid--then the result is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at all2 there will be no result whatsoever4 ,the reason of this is quite obvious in some cases2 the female hybrids1 although possessing all the external appearances and characteristics of perfect animals1 are physiologically imperfect and deficient in the structural parts of the reproductive elements necessary to generation4 ,it is said to be invariably the case with the male mule1 the cross between the ass and the mare2 and hence it is that although crossing the horse with the ass is easy enough1 and is constantly done as far as ,i am aware1 if you take two mules1 a male and a female1 and endeavor to breed from them1 you get no offspring whatever2 no generation will take place4 ,this is what is called the sterility of the hybrids between two distinct species4 7,huxley1 ,on the ,origin of ,species4 p4 #bab47 ,he continues3 ,thus you see that there is a great difference between 'mongrels1' which are crosses between distinct races1 and 'hybrids1' which are crosses between distinct species4 ,the mongrels are1 so far as we know1 fertile with one another4 ,but between species1 in many cases1 you cannot succeed in obtaining even the first cross2 at any rate it is quite certain that the hybrids are often absolutely infertile one with another4 ,here is a feature1 then1 great or small as it may be1 which distinguishes natural species of animals4 ,can we find any approximation to this in the different races known to be produced by selective breeding from a common stock8 ,up to the present time the answer to that question is absolutely a negative one4 ,as far as we know at present1 there is nothing approximating to this check4 ,in crossing the breeds1 between the fantail and the pouter1 the carrier and the tumbler1 or any other variety or race you may name--so far as we know at present--there is no difficulty in breeding together the mongrels4 ,however1 he continues1 as soon as you remove the conditions which produced the new variety1--as when you permit pigeons to mate promiscuously1--no matter how different the varieties may have been1 you will have1 in a few generations of pigeons1 the same blue rock pigeon with the black bars across the wings4 ,no new species has originated4 ,all varieties1 in a free state1 revert to type4 ,this1 says ,huxley1 is certainly a very remarkable circumstance4 ,fairhurst points out the difficulties in which the evolutionist becomes involved through the fixity of species4 ,he writes3 ,it is well known that as a rule distinct species will not cross1 and that if they do cross the offspring are not fertile4 ,on the other hand1 it is true that all varieties of a species readily cross1 producing fertile offspring4 ,this has commonly been regarded as a well-defined distinction between varieties and species4 ,if the varieties of pigeons which are so different from each other did not freely cross1 and if the mongrel offspring were not fertile1 ,darwin's argument as to the production of new species under domestication would be complete4 ,the fact is1 we do not know of the origin of any two species of animals that do not cross and whose offspring are not fertile2 in other words1 we do not know of the origin of species1 but only of varieties4 ,the origin of species that will not cross and produce fertile offspring is assumed from the origin of varieties that do cross and produce fertile offspring4 ,this leaves the evolutionists to account for one of the most difficult things in connection with this theory1 namely1 how did varieties of animals of the same species become cross-sterile899 99,so that they were unable to interbreed4 ,only if such cross-sterility exists1 could they exist thereafter as independent new species4--,g4 ,several things must occur simultaneously before cross-sterility between parent and offspring could occur and become effective1 namely1 a number of individuals must be born at the same time possessing the same variation1 the variation must be useful1 these individuals must be fertile with each other1 they must be cross-sterile with the parent form1 as1 otherwise1 the offspring would revert to type1 and1 finally1 the few1 if any1 individuals thus produced and being widely scattered through the species1 must find each other before they could propagate4 ,i regard it impossible that these things could all occur simultaneously4 7,organic ,evolution1 p4 #ccc47 ,mr4 ,huxley is forced to this admission3 ,after much consideration1 and with assuredly no bias against ,mr4 ,darwin's views1 it is our clear conviction that1 as the evidence stands1 it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals1 having all the characters exhibited by species in nature1 has ever been originated by selection1 whether artificial or natural4 ,and again4 ,our acceptance of the ,darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting2 and so long as all the animals and plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile with one another1 that link will be wanting4 ,in a recent book1 ,creation or ,evolution8 ,a ,philosophical ,inquiry1 ,george ,ticknor ,curtis says3 ,the whole doctrine of the development of distinct species out of other species makes demands upon our credulity which the tr4 note3 sic irreconcilable with the principles of belief by which we regulate1 or ought to regulate1 our acceptance of new matter of belief4 ,,chapter ,,five4 ,rudimentary ,organs4 ,darwinism does not account for the fact that the various organs of animals while in process of evolution1 must have through many generations1 been in a rudimentary1 incomplete state4 ,since it is a basic doctrine of evolution that useful variations were transmitted from parent to offspring because they were useful2 and since furthermore1 only the fully developed eye1 the hearing ear1 the actively functioning poison glands of insects and reptiles1 etc41 as well as the fully developed means of defense1 were useful1 it is not possible to understand how these organs in their rudimentary state 7the half developed eye1 not yet capable of vision2 the rudimentary spinneret of the spider1 not yet capable of producing a thread1 etc47 could serve any purpose which would make their transmission advantageous to the species4 ,conversely1 the existence of rudimentary organs in living species 7the rudimentary spurs of female birds1 the rudimentary legs of skeleton of serpents7 proves that organs do not change by use or disuse1 otherwise they would long ago have disappeared4 ,with regard to this difficulty1 ,darwin says3 ,if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous1 successive1 slight modifications1 my theory would absolutely break down4 ,but ,i can find no such case4 ,let us see4 ,a difficult organ to account for is the electric organ of the skates4 ,in these fishes it has been shown to be a true electric battery1 but the discharges from this battery1 even in the adults1 are so feeble that they are of no practical use so far as has been ascertained4 ,it is well known that the electric eel and the torpedo use their batteries for stunning other animals4 ,it is evident that1 according to the theory of natural selection1 these batteries could not have been preserved through their long functionless and useless stages1 for that theory assumes that they were preserved because they were useful4 ,it is asserted by evolutionists that wings as organs of flight have been independently evolved in at least four different lines--namely1 in insects1 the fossil pterodactyls1 birds and bats4 ,that an organ so highly specialized as any one of these wings could be evolved seems improbable2 while the evolution of the four different kinds1 independently of each other1 only increases the improbability4 ,the difficulty1 however1 is to account for the evolution of any known kind of wing4 ,in each case there exists the insuperable difficulty of preserving the organ through the rudimentary stages4 ,the wings of an insect in the first generation of its evolution would be almost imperceptible and entirely useless for any purpose whatever1 and so it would continue to be for a great number of generations4 ,it is evident1 therefore1 that they could not have been preserved through their long rudimentary stage on the ground that they were useful1 nor do we know of any theory that will account for their evolution4 ,to say that they were evolved is easy1 but to account for their evolution seems impossible4 ,fairhurst refers to the delicate and complex organs of spiders4 ,the organs which spiders possess for secreting material and for making a web could not have been gradually evolved4 ,the whole apparatus involved in making the web would be useless until sufficiently developed to make a web4 ,the same is true1 he continues1 of the sting of the scorpion1 the stings of bees1 the mandibles of spiders with the gland of poisonous fluid at the base1 and the poison apparatus of serpents4 ,all of these glands for secreting poison would be useless until they could secrete a harmful fluid4 ,the spurs of birds present further difficulties to the theory of evolution4 ,most birds have no spurs4 ,when they possess them1 as a rule the males alone have them well-developed1 while they are rudimentary in the females4 ,in some cases1 however1 both sexes possess them in a well-developed form4 ,but how could a spur be evolved in either sex8 ,as a rudiment1 it would for many generations be entirely useless for any purpose1 and consequently it would not be preserved by natural selection1 nor in any other possible way1 so far as ,i can see4 ,the spurs are in the best possible position on the legs for combat4 ,why did they appear in the best place and nowhere else8 ,as useless rudiments they would be quite as likely to survive in one place as in another4 ,if spurs could not have been preserved by natural selection through their rudimentary stage1 why assume that they have been evolved according to this law8 ,if they could survive through the critical rudimentary period till they became of use1 why not assume that their evolution was continued according to the same law8 ,the fact is1 however1 that we know of no law according to which they could have been evolved4 ,the bat is another highly specialized animal4 ,in many respects it resembles the mole1 but its hands are1 enormously expanded1 and the exceedingly long fingers are connected by a soft membrane1 making a most serviceable wing4 ,it is not extremely likely1 assuming the development theory to be true1 that both the mole and the bat sprang from a common ancestor8 ,and was not that ancestor probably a wingless1 though not a legless mammal8 ,now1 how came the bat to acquire his wings8 ,did he attempt to spring into the air and seize a passing insect1 and reach out his paws to catch it8 ,and did those paws gradually become enlarged1 till1 after some generations1 they were real wings8 ,but what happened in the meantime to those connecting links whose wings were but partly developed8 ,a bat with wings only half grown would be a helpless creature1 and would surely perish4 ,a mole with hands terminating in long1 slender fingers1 would be helpless1 and would perish4 ,there is no middle ground4 ,if the ancestor of the bat was a terrestrial creature1 with limbs fitted for walking1 then it must have given birth to a full-fledged bat1 fitted for flying4 ,there could have been no middle stage1 for such a creature would have been helpless1 and must have perished4 ,all this applies with equal force to the diversified and often highly complex structure of plants4 ,as the organs of the various plants are now constituted1 they most admirably serve their purpose4 ,given a slight change1 an underdevelopment1 and the individual would perish4 ,but such underdeveloped stages must have occurred in the history of every life-form on earth1 if a change through slow adaptations is to be accepted as a hypothesis to account for their present form4 ,to our mind1 this matter of rudimentary structures presents an insuperable obstacle to acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis even on scientific grounds4 ,,chapter ,,six4 ,instinct4 ,how the various instincts of animals1 the homing instinct of birds and insects1 the building instincts1 the migrating instinct1 etc41 could have been developed though forces working by natural selection or any other law1 is a question which has called forth much discussion4 ,it cannot be said that the explanations contained in the pages of ,darwin1 ,romanes1 and ,spencer are satisfying4 ,the difficulty that remains unsolved is similar to that 7already considered7 of rudimentary structures4 ,on instinct depends the existence of most animals4 ,according to the theory these instincts have been developed by slow degrees4 ,hence there must have been a time when these instincts1 because not yet completely developed1 were useless to the animal4 ,but if useless1 the animal must have perished4 ,the strength of this objection to the evolutionary hypothesis will become clear from a brief study of the manner in which animal life is bound up with the proper functioning of instinct4 ,consider1 for instance1 the dependence of the honey bee and her hive on the functions1 every one instinctive1 of queen1 workers1 and drones4 ,there is the queen1 whose sole work is to lay eggs2 the drones1 or males1 whose function it is to fertilize the queen2 and the workers1 which are females undeveloped sexually4 ,in these three kinds of individuals we see a combination of many most remarkable instincts and peculiarities of structure which look to the good of the community4 ,how could they have been produced by evolution8 ,the workers are sterile and leave no offspring1 consequently their instincts cannot be inherited from bees of their own class4 ,each generation of workers is isolated from all succeeding generations4 ,a colony of bees is not like a community of civilized human beings in whom many of the wants are artificial1 and which may remain unsupplied1 with simply a certain amount of discomfort1 but the wants which the instincts of bees supply are imperative1 and1 therefore1 the instincts themselves1 as a whole1 are necessary to the existence of the bees4 ,their instincts are all linked together as a necessary chain1 so that if one should fail the community would perish4 ,each kind of work is perfectly done1 and yet the workers are totally unconscious as to what will be the result of their labors4 ,for the most part they work for future generations of their colony1 and not for themselves1 and yet they are as careful and diligent as if they were guided by the highest intelligence and the most selfish motives tr4 note3 sic no punctuation4 ,fairhurst1 whom we are quoting1 adds3 ,there is nothing more wonderful and mysterious in nature than the instincts of bees4 ,what can be more remarkable than that instinct of the workers which causes them to prevent the queen from stinging to death the young queens in their cells8 ,here we see the instinct of the workers opposing that of the queen1 and thus saving the colony and insuring the propagation of the species4 ,and yet at other but proper times the workers permit the old queen to kill the young ones in their cells4 ,how could these instincts in the workers1 which act in exactly opposite ways by just the right times for the welfare of the community1 have ever been evolved8 ,or how could that instinct have arisen which causes two queens when engaged in combat to refrain from inflicting the mortal sting if they would mutually destroy each other1 and thus leave the hive without a queen8--acting as if they knew that the life of one of them was necessary for the welfare of the community4 ,concerning the modifications of structure and the instincts necessary to produce the web of the spider1 ,fairhurst quotes the following from ,orton's ,zoology4 ,spiders are provided at the posterior end with two or three pairs of appendages called spinnerets1 which are homologous 7correspond structually7 tr4 note3 sic with legs4 ,the office of the spinnerets is to reel out the silk from the silk-glands1 the tip being perforated by a myriad of little tubes through which the silk escapes in excessively fine threads4 ,an ordinary thread1 just visible to the naked eye1 is the union of a thousand or more of these delicate streams of silk4 ,these primary threads are drawn out and united by the hind legs4 ,from this we see that two special glands1 capable of secreting a soft material that can be readily drawn into the finest threads of the greatest strength1 requiring no perceptible time for drying1 and two to four spinnerets perforated by more than a thousand of the smallest apertures1 and hind legs modified so that they can be used to draw out the web through the spinnerets1 and also the instincts which enable the spider to use its web to advantage1 must all have been evolved4 ,to evolve the silk glands would have required1 as for most other organs1 a long period of incipiency1 during which they would have been useless4 ,we can not assume that a substance so exceptional in its character as the web of the spider could have been suddenly produced by evolution4 ,but the glands would be useless without spinnerets4 ,the hypothesis asks us to assume that two or three pairs of legs that were probably at one time useful for locomotion became so modified that they could perform the function of spinnerets4 ,but in what conceivable way could locomotive legs have become so modified and pierced with more than a thousand apertures through which the web is drawn8 ,and how could these organs serve their purpose while the complex instincts required for their functioning were only in course of development8 ,from a ,german monthly devoted to aquaria1 we quote the following3 ,but now1 dear readers1 we come to a fish which shows an exceptionally peculiar and touching care for its young--the mouth-brooder1 ,haplochromis ,strigigena 7formerly ,paratilapia ,multicolor74 ,this fish is so much concerned about the safety of its young1 that it knows no better and no more secure place than its own mouth in which to preserve them4 ,in no other division of the animal kingdom can we find such an interesting example of fostering care for the young as we find in this species of fish4 ,immediately after emitting the spawn the female again gathers up the eggs and packs them away in her mouth like herring in a barrel4 ,she naturally must employ the organs of the throat and also the organs between the gills and thus the appearance of the animal is greatly changed even to the extent that it looks very much like as if she had a craw4 ,furthermore1 during ths tr4 note3 sic entire period1 which is about fourteen days1 the little animal cannot take food and is hampered very much in her movements4 ,therefore in case of imminent danger it becomes necessary for her to cast out the entire brood which then wretchedly perish1 and for this reason it is to be recommended to disturb or disquiet these animals during this period as little as possible4 ,even after the young leave the mother of their own accord1 they always flee to her protecting mouth1 and thus they present an exciting aspect1 when they are first seen peacefully and contentedly playing about the mother fish1 until a shadow or a sudden thrust warns them of danger and quick as lightning they dart into her mouth4 ,if the fostering care of this mouth-brooding fish is regarded as wonderful and singular1 what should one then say1 if another fish is spoken of which does not regard this kind of protection as sufficient1 and which therefore causes its eggs to hatch outside the surface of the water4 ,the exceedingly adorned and elegant ,phyrrhylima ,filamentosa performs this masterpiece of truest love4 ,with great dexerity tr4 note3 sic this fish darts from #e to #g cm4 above the surface of the water and there fastens its eggs on the walls of the aquarium--usually in one corner4 ,even though one must and can preserve damp air by covering the aquarium1 the spawn would nevertheless surely dry up1 if the fish itself were not constantly concerned to keep the spawn damp by an extended bombardment of little drops of water4 ,in the performance of this act the fish remains near the surface of the water and then by a quick upward movement of the fins of the tail it throws a drop of water upon the spawn in such an expert manner as is truly admirable4 ,one must also keep in mind here that the spawn require from three to five days for hatching1 and now one can understand what a huge task this little fish performs and what efforts are required4 ,later on the young hatch and then slide down the slick wall of the aquarium into their native element4 7,v4 ,schloemp in ,blaetter fuer ,aquarien und ,terrarienkunde1 ,stuttgart1 ,sept4 #aiac47 ,in all the domain of natural science there are no wonders more amazing than those of instinct4 ,the subject is simply inexhaustible4 ,moreover1 every animal is absolutely dependent on instinctively performed actions and habits4 ,the life-story of many wasps1 of the various ants1--someone has called the brain of the ant the most wonderful speck of protoplasm in the world1--and of the insects generally1 is bound up with instincts that partly interlock marvellously with the life-story of plants1 and which are1 even viewed in themselves1 the greatest wonders of creation4 ,the questions insistently call for an answer3 ,how could these instincts preserve the animal when they were still in an incipient1 undeveloped state8 ,how could they arise through natural selection 7which is simply accident1 of course71 at all8 ,darwin says that there are instincts almost identically the same in animals so remote in the scale of ,nature1 that we cannot account for their similarity by inheritance from a common progenitor1 and consequently must believe that they were independently acquired through natural selection4 ,again he says ,many instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overcome my whole theory4 ,and here1 in the vernacular of the day1 we would depose that ,mr4 ,darwin said something4 ,,chapter ,,seven4 ,heredity4 ,the subject of heredity is intimately bound up with the evolutionary hypothesis and1 it must be admitted1 creates a new difficulty for the acceptance of the theory4 ,indeed1 the laws of heredity1 so far as understood1 appear to contradict the theory of ,lamarck and ,darwin at a vital point1 if not at the vital point of the entire structure raised in the ,origin of ,species4 ,it is necessary in order to appreciate the strength of this objection1 to recall once more the outstanding features of the hypothesis by which scientists have attempted to account for the variety of living forms4 ,the various theories of organic evolution1 whether ,lamarckian1 neo-,lamarckian1 or ,darwinian1 are based upon the assumption that animals and plants have a tendency to perpetuate by transmission to offspring a variation which has proven useful as an aid to the particular species in its struggle for existence4 ,we have just discussed1 in the chapters on the ,fixity of ,species and on ,rudimentary ,organs1 certain difficulties which loom up when the question is raised1 ,how did varieties become distinct species8 ,however1 even if it were to be assumed that some satisfying answer might be found to this question so far as the stages of incomplete organs are concerned1 there is one fact in heredity which1 it would seem to me1 strikes at the very heart of the theory4 ,in his ,philosophic ,zoologique 7#ahji71 ,lamarck first explicitly formulated his ideas as to the transmutation of species1 though he had outlined them as early as #ahja4 ,the changes in the species have been wrought1 he said1 through the unceasing efforts of each organism to meet the needs imposed upon it by its environment4 ,constant striving means the constant use of certain organs1 and such use leads to the development of those organs4 ,thus a bird running by the sea-shore is constantly tempted to wade deeper and deeper in pursuit of food2 its incessant efforts tend to develop its legs1 in accordance with the observed principle that the use of any organ tends to strengthen and develop it4 ,but such slightly increased development of the legs is transmitted to the offspring of the bird1 which in turn develops its already improved legs by its individual efforts1 and transmits the improved tendency4 ,generation after generation this is repeated1 until the sum of the infinitesimal variations1 all in the same direction1 results in the production of the long-legged wading-bird4 ,in a similar way1 through individual effort and transmitted tendency1 all the diversified organs of all creatures have been developed--the fin of the fish1 the wings of the bird1 the hand of man2 nay1 more1 the fish itself1 the bird1 the man1 even4 ,note well1 the fundamental assumption is that such acquired characteristics1--greater length of leg1 or of neck1 a coating of hair1 a protective coloring1 etc41--however acquired1 can be transmitted from the parent animal possessing them1 to its offspring4 ,the question arises3 ,can such characteristics be transmitted8 ,and the students of heredity answer3 ,they cannot6 ,i find in ,g4 ,archibald ,reid ,alcoholism1 a ,study in ,heredity1 a lucid exposition of this subject4 7,reid is a ,f4 ,r4 ,s4 ,e4 ,his book was published by ,t4 ,fisher ,unwin1 ,london1 a few yars tr4 note3 sic ago47 ,all the characters of a living being1 every physical structure and every mental trait1 may be placed in one of two categories4 ,either they are inborn or they are acquired4 ,an inborn or innate character is one which1 in common parlance1 arises in the individual 'by nature4' ,thus arms1 legs1 eyes1 ears1 head1 etc41 and all inborn characters4 ,the child inherits them from his parent4 ,but1 if during its development1 or after the completion of the development any one of the inborn characters of an individual is modified by some occurrence1 the change thus produced is known as an acquired character1 or1 shortly1 as an acquirement4 ,thus all the effects of exercise are acquirements2 for example the enlargement which exercise causes in muscles4 ,the effects of lack of exercise are also acquirements2 for example1 the wasting of a disused muscle4 ,the effects of injury are acquirements2 for example1 the changes in a diseased lung or injured arm4 ,every modification of the mind is also an acquirement2 for example1 everything stored within the memory4 ,if a man be blinded by accident or disease1 his blindness is acquired4 ,but if he comes into the world blind1 if he be blind by nature1 his blindness is inborn4 ,if a son be naturally smaller than his father1 then his inferiority of size is inborn2 but if his growth be stunted by ill health or lack of nourishment or exercise1 his inferiority is acquired4 ,lamarck held1 as people in all ages have held1 that characters acquired by parents are also transmissible to some extent1 and that evolution results from their accentuation during succeeding generations4 ,lamarck's theory is rejected totally by the modern followers of ,darwin4 ,ten thousand men might break their fingers1 yet among their offspring not one might have a crooked finger4 ,consider on the other hand for how many generations women have bored their ears and noses in ,india4 ,yet when is a girl born with ears and nose already pierced8 ,for how many generations have we amputated the tails of terriers1 and yet their tails are no shorter4 ,it will then be perceived how overwhelming is the case against the doctrine of the transmission of acquirements4 ,the general question of the transmission of acquirements is too big and too abstruse to be treated adequately here4 ,two arguments more ,i may use1 however1 partly because they have not been developed1 to my knowledge1 by other writers1 and partly because they seem to me well-nigh decisive4 ,the more than normal development of the blacksmith's arm is rightfully called an acquired trait1 since it arises from exercise1 from use1 not from germinal conditions4 ,but no infant's arm develops into an ordinary adult arm without exercise similar in kind to that which develops the blacksmith's arm1 though less in degree4 ,every single thing contained within the memory of man1 every single word of a language1 for instance1 is an acquirement4 ,but when are the contents of a parent's mind transmitted to the child8 ,again1 a man is capable of becoming a parent at any time between extreme youth and extreme old age2 a woman from the age of thirteen to fourteen till nearly fifty4 ,between the birth of the first child and the last such an individual changes vastly4 ,under stress and fear of circumstances1 under the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune1 all sorts of acquirements are made4 ,the body becomes vigorous and then feeble1 the mind grows mature1 and then senile4 ,he or she grows wrinkled and bowed and perhaps very wise1 or perhaps much the reverse4 ,yet no one viewing a baby show1 a children's party1 or an assembly of adults1 of whom he has no previous knowledge1 can say which is the child of the youthful and which of aged parents4 ,apparently1 therefore1 the whole of the parent's acquirements have no effect on the child4 ,surely no evidence could be stronger499 99 ,the undoubted transmission of siphilis tr4 note3 sic to off-spring might be regarded as a case of transmission of an acquired characteristic4 ,but the case is not in point since congenital siphilis tr4 note3 sic is1 properly1 due to a prenatal infection1 the bacillus entering the very germ-plasm of the human ovum 7egg74 ,medical science1 generally1 has become very cautious in the use of the word hereditary4 ,there is almost unanimity among medical men in the denial of heredity as a factor in tuberculosis and cancer4 ,most physicians are honest enough to say that they know considerably less about these things than was known ten and twenty years ago4 ,herbert ,spencer claims that the inheritance of acquired characters is a necessary supplement to natural selection4 ,close contemplation of the facts impresses me more strongly than ever with the two alternatives--either there has been inheritance of acquired characters1 or there has been no evolution4 ,again1 the inheritance of acquired characters1 which it is now the fashion of the biological world to deny1 was by ,mr4 ,darwin fully recognized and often insisted on4 ,the neo-,darwinists1 however1 do not admit this cause at all4 ,he admits that known facts which show that acquired characters are inherited are few1 but he thinks that they are as large a number as can be expected1 considering the difficulty of observing them and the absence of search4 ,from the above1 we see that the biological world is against ,mr4 ,spencer's view2 that he would abandon the theory of evolution unless acquired characters had been inherited1 but that facts in support of this theory are meager4 ,biologists in the above instance1 as well as in others1 differ in theory as to fundamental principles of evolution4 ,he who imagines that the theory of organic evolution has been proved to the point of demonstration1 has but to read the contentions of evolutionists themselves with regard to the most important things involved in the theory1 in order to satisfy his mind that there is great diversity of opinion4 7,fairhurst47 ,the general abandonment of the ,darwinian hypothesis by biologists1 adverted to in our next chapter1 is mainly due to the failure of heredity to account for the gradual modification of organs and of habits4 ,various expedients are resorted to by ,haeckel and a few others in their attempts to bolster up a theory which has broken so signally on the rock of heredity4 ,principal among these is the reference to unlimited time4 ,it is asserted that1 after all1 such minute differences might1 in the course of many ages1 result in new and more perfect organs4 ,however1 here a new and unexpected difficulty presents itself4 ,the physicist1 who has measured the heat of the sun1 rises up and says that the age of the earth1 as estimated by specialists like ,lord ,kelvin1 is not nearly so great as is demanded by the ,darwinian4 ,the period which the physicists1 in their mercy1 appear to be willing to grant the inhabitable globe is from twenty to forty million years4 ,but the evolutionists maintain with great fervor that this period is far too short for the production of such complicated types of organism as now live on the earth2 they demand from two hundred to a thousand million years6 ,and so these two groups of scientists1 the evolutionistic biologist and the physicists are hopelessly at odds4 ,a new generation of evolutionists has within the past twenty years arisen which holds that the changes in the organizations of plants and animals do not come by slow growth of favorable characteristics1 but arise suddenly4 ,such is the ,mutation theory of ,hugo de ,vries4 ,but science has failed to receive this and similar theories with the same acclaim which once greeted ,darwin's ,origin of ,species4 ,naturalists have become cautious4 ,they remember the inglorious collapse of the ,darwinian regime and they are slow to hail another ,abraham of scientific thought4 ,they are1 in a general way1 believers in some kind of evolution2 but they prefer not to specify exactly the laws which have been operative in past geological time4 ,it is only in high-school texts in physical geography1 zoology1 and botany1 that the evolutionary theory as propounded by ,darwin is still treated as if it enjoyed among scientific men the same respect as the multiplication table4 ,speaking in the ,darwinian dialect we should say that the authors of these school-texts constitute a case of arrested development4 ,,chapter ,,eight4 ,a ,scientific ,creed ,outworn4 ,the preceding chapter concludes our investigation of that stage of evolutionistic thought which owes its origin and name to ,charles ,darwin4 ,the question suggests itself1 do scientists to-day believe as ,darwin did8 ,a great many do4 ,darwin remains to many scientists what ,huxley1 ,i think1 called him1 the ,abraham of scientific thought4 ,but if we examine the roster of these1 we find that they belong1 with a single exception 7,haeckel71 to those whose departments of investigation have nothing to do with the study of life forms 7biology1 zoology1 botany71 and who consequently do not speak from first hand knowledge of the facts4 ,anthropologists 7students of the races of man71 sociologists1 psychologists1 and many educated persons generally1 accept the ,darwinian scheme of evolution as a fact and build their theories on it in turn4 ,they accept the theory and ask no question4 ,the vogue which ,darwinism still enjoys among writers of school-texts has already been noted4 ,however1 the specifically ,darwinian phase of evolutionistic thought1 as laid down in ,spencer's interminable volumes1 for instance1 is given up by reputable biologists the world over4 ,there is pretty much of a ,babel among them1 when it comes to a definition of evolution4 ,there are dozens of theories1--mutation1 orthogenesis1 ,weismanism1 ,mendelianism1 etc41-- and each has its adherents1--but they agree in one thing1 that ,natural ,selection does not account for the forms of life on earth to-day4 ,the revolt against ,natural ,selection came some forty years ago4 ,it was announced in two famous declarations by ,spencer and ,huxley4 ,this constitutes one of the most remarkable and important1 as well as one of the most significant episodes1 in the history of evolution4 ,in two of the most remarkable essays which ever appeared in the ,nineteenth ,century magazine1 now over thirty years ago1 ,herbert ,spencer stepped on to the stool of repentance and read his recantation and renunciation of the doctrine of natural selection and the survival of the fittest2 first doing vicarious penance 7unauthorized1 however7 for ,darwin1 and then1 in no uncertain terms1 for himself4 ,there was no mistaking ,spencer's meaning4 ,his language was explicit4 ,the phrases 7natural selection and survival of the fittest7 employed in discussing organic evolution1 he told his readers1 though convenient and needful1 are liable to mislead by veiling the actual agencies4 ,the words 'natural selection1' do not express a cause in the physical sense4 ,kindred objections1 he continues1 may be urged against the expression into which ,i was led when seeking to present the phenomena in literal terms rather than metaphorical terms--'the survival of the fittest4' ,in the working together of those many actions1 internal and external1 which determine the lives and deaths of organisms1 we see nothing to which the words 'fitness' and 'unfitness' are applicable in the physical sense4 ,and he continues3 ,evidently1 the word 'fittest' as thus used is a figure of speech4 ,had the sun fallen from the heavens the shock to the followers of ,darwin could not have been more stunning than this open apostasy from the ,darwinian faith4 ,nor was this all4 ,new surprises were still in store for the faithful who still clung to the cherished dogma4 ,now they find their faith itself assailed1 and this1 too1 by these very selfsame leaders1 who had been at such pains to make them proselytes4 ,there can be little doubt that misgivings regarding the truth of their claims began to haunt the champions of the ,darwinian hypothesis4 ,they were just then masters of the whole field of scientific thought4 ,they had brought all science to the feet of ,darwin4 ,the few benighted dissenters who still held out against the doctrine were looked upon as not worthy even of contempt4 ,the whole world had adopted the creed of evolution4 ,was it wantonness then1 or was it conscience1 that prompted ,huxley in what is now a historically famous speech1 delivered at the unveiling of a statue to ,darwin in the ,museum at ,south ,kensington1 to openly declare that it would be wrong to suppose that an authoritative sanction was given by the ceremony to the current ideas concerning evolution8 ,well might his hearers be astonished6 ,but they must have held their breath1 when they heard him add boldly and bluntly1 in no uncertain tones1 that science commits suicide when it adopts a creed4 ,a creed1 indeed6 ,what had science been doing in the field of evolution ever since ,darwin has given his doctrine to the world1 but proclaiming its faith in the ,darwinian creed8 ,there was no blinking the inevitable conclusions4 ,both ,huxley on the platform and ,spencer in the ,nineteenth ,century had acknowledged before the whole world that they had lost faith in the idol which for thirty years they had so vociferously worshipped4 ,it is true that both ,spencer and ,huxley might have intended to warn biologists merely against a too implicit faith in natural selection or the survival of the fittest4 ,but even so1 the position of their followers was little to be envied4 ,their leaders had confidently assured them that ,darwin had given to the world coveted knowledge never known until he had discovered it4 ,this had been loudly and confidently proclaimed from the housetops of science2 and now--strange reversal--those same leaders tell them that their preachments were of a faith without foundation4 ,the words of ,professor ,osborn may be adduced3 ,between the appearance of ',the ,origin of ,species' in #ahei and the present time there have been great waves of faith in one explanation and then in another2 each of these waves of confidence has ended in disappointment1 until finally we have reached a stage of very general scepticism4 ,thus the long period of observation1 experiment and reasoning which began with the ,french philosopher ,buffon1 one hundred and fifty years ago1 ends in #aiaf with the general feeling that our search for causes1 far from being near completion1 has only just begun4 ,sir ,william ,dawson1 of ,montreal1 the eminent geologist1 said that the evolution doctrine is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity1 a system destitute of any shadow of proof1 7,story of the ,earth and ,man1 p4 #cag74 ,even ,professor ,tyndall in an article in the ,fortnightly ,review said3 ,there ought to be a clear distinction made between science in the state of hypothesis and science in the state of fact4 ,and inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage the ban of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of ,evolution4 ,i agree with ,virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting1 that the failures have been lamentable1 that the doctrine is utterly discredited4 ,one of the ablest evolutionists today is ,professor ,henslow1 formerly ,president of the ,british ,association4 ,in his book1 ,modern ,rationalism ,critically ,examined1 he shows that ,darwinian natural selection is absolutely inadequate to account for existing facts4 ,professor ,bateson1 who gave the ,presidential ,address at the ,meeting of the ,british ,association for the ,advancement of ,science1 in #aiad1 bore striking testimony to the modifications made by recent science in connection with the ,darwinian theory4 ,this is what he said among other things3 ,the principle of natural selection cannot have been the chief factor in delimiting the species of animals and plants4 ,we go to ,darwin for his incomparable collection of facts4 ,we would fain emulate his scholarship1 his width and his power of exposition1 but to us he speaks no more with philosophical authority4 ,we have done with the notion that ,darwin came latterly to favor1 that large differences can arise by accumulation of small differences4 ,st4 ,george ,mivart as long as thirty years ago wrote an exhaustive treatise entitled1 ,the ,genesis of ,species1 in which he subjects the ,darwinian hypothesis to a searching examination1 and discards it as unproven in every particular and contradicted by the facts of nature in many points4 ,he called it a puerile 7childish7 hypothesis4 ,professor ,h4 ,h4 ,gran of ,christiana ,university1 an expert in biology1 says he believes in evolution1 but declares ,darwin's explanation of it to be inadequate4 ,his words are3 ,darwin collected a great mass of stuff both from the animal as well as from the vegetable kingdom1 but these collections were not thoroughly sifted and cannot be used as the basis of theoretical conclusions as ,darwin did4 ,prof4 ,fleischman1 of ,erlangen1 says3 ,there is not a single fact to confirm ,darwinism in the realm of ,nature4 ,drs4 ,e4 ,dennert1 ,hoppe and von ,hartmann2 ,profs4 ,paulson and ,rutemeyer1 and the talented scientists ,zoeckler and ,max ,wundt1 have given ,darwinism up4 ,men like our own ,h4 ,f4 ,osborn may still cling to the beloved theory and furnish imaginary pictures of ape-men as proof1 in recent books2 but hear ,prof4 ,ernest ,haeckel himself3 ,most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution1 and particularly ,darwinism1 is an error1 and cannot be maintained4 ,this was said some years before the ,great ,war4 ,other names 7,friedmann1 de ,cyon7 might be added4 ,the present attitude of naturalists toward the theory may be learned from a symposium by a number of eminent writers in a recent number of the ,biblical ,world 7,february1 #aiac71 on the theme1 ,has ,evolution ,collapsed8 ,prof4 ,moulton1 of ,chicago1 says3 ,the essence of evolution is that the order which exists one day changes into the order which will exist on succeeding days1 in a systematic manner1 rather than in an irregular and chaotic one4 ,this states the theory1 but adds a mere platitude1 for all believe that the universe is orderly and not chaotic4 ,the real question is1 ,what is the nature and the cause of the prevailing order8 ,this question he does not attempt to answer4 ,prof4 ,lillie1 of ,chicago1 tells us that there are differences in opinion among recent investigators concerning the method of evolution1 and says3 ,opinion in reference to this matter is in a state of flux4 ,prof4 ,mathews1 of ,chicago1 says3 ,while the fact of evolution is universally admitted1 the means by which evolution is brought to pass are uncertain4 ,prof4 ,patten1 of ,darmouth1 says3 ,as for biologists1 they are now farther from agreement as to what constitutes the processes and conditions essential to organic evolution1 99 99 99 tr4 note3 sic than they were a generation ago4 ,prof4 ,mall1 of ,johns ,hopkins1 says3 ,it is true that gradual evolution1 as advocated by ,darwin1 is seriously questioned by those who believe that it takes place by 'rapid jumps4' ,prof4 ,williston1 of ,chicago1 says3 ,the causes of organic evolution are still an unsolved problem2 and he will be a greater man than ,darwin1 who finally demonstrates them4 ,thus these recognized authorities1 while accepting the theory1 add many limitations and admit that the method1 the manner1 the process1 the conditions and the causes of the movement are still unknown4 ,what1 then1 remains of the theory8 ,not much but the name4 ,,chapter ,,nine4 ,man4 ,there is no longer any doubt among scientists that man descended from the animals4 ,this sweeping statement was made in #aibj by ,edwin ,grant ,conklin professor of biology in ,princeton ,university4 ,and so evolutionists generally1 while giving up geology as hopeless in regard to the evolution of plants and animals1 cling to the doctrine that man has ascended1 through long ages of development1 from the brute4 ,we have seen that ,wallace and other profound students of the subject recognize the essential difference between the faculties of man and the instincts of animals4 ,they admit that forces resident in matter do not account for the origin of ,thought4 ,they believe that ,spirit1--,god1--created something new when intelligence first entered the brain of man4 ,but even ,wallace holds that the human body is a product of evolution2 that there was a common brute ancestor1 both for apes and the men4 ,the search for the missing link between man and his animal ancestor is still going on4 ,as soon as any human remains are dug up in the earth1 evolutionists begin to measure the skull and bones1 and to find how many points of resemblance they have to the apes4 ,if the brain-pan is a bit shallow1 or small1 or the eyebrows prominent1 or the slope of the face acute1 or the teeth and jaws large1 they announce with much confidence that the missing link has been found4 ,but after a while they begin to grow more modest and end in finding other points which show that the specimen was an unmistakable ape1 or an unmistakable man1 and not something between the two4 ,one could fill a museum with discarded missing links2 and yet men refuse to learn caution1 and repeat their shoutings every time a new find is announced4 ,it will be instructive to pass in review a few of the more famous prehistoric remains of man which have at one time and another been declared undeniable proof of a development1 through intermediate stages1 of the human body from the body of a brute4 ,pithecanthropus ,erectus is the name invented by ,haeckel for the missing link1 and given by ,dr4 ,eugene ,du ,bois1 a ,dutch physician1 to certain remains discovered by him on the island of ,java in #ahia4 ,the remains consist of an imperfect cranium1 a femur bearing evidence of prolonged disease1 and a molar tooth4 7,dana1 ,manual of ,geology1 p4 #ajcf47 ,the discoverer of these bones believed that they are the remains of a being between the man-apes and man4 ,prof4 ,virchow and other specialists in anatomy examined this find4 ,it was established that the femur was found a year after the cranium4 ,some regard the remains as belonging to a low-grade man or to an idiot4 7,dana1 ,i c47 ,the cubic measurement of the skull is #fj cubic inches1 about that of an idiot1 that of a normal man being #ij cubic inches and that of an ape #cj4 ,these specimens were found in separate places4 ,the skull is too small for the thigh-bone4 ,the age of the strata in which they were found is uncertain4 ,an authority of the first rank1 ,prof4 ,klaatsch1 of ,heidelberg ,university1 says that the creature does not supply the missing link4 ,dr4 ,smith ,woodward and ,dr4 ,charles ,dawson1 in reconstructing a man from the ,piltdown skull1 discovered in #aiab on ,piltdown ,common1 near ,ucksfield1 ,sussex1 ,england1 built up something essentially monkey-like1 with receding forehead1 projecting brows1 and a gorilla-like lower jaw4 ,prof4 ,keith1 a renowned specialist1 checking up on this reconstruction1 comes to an entirely different conclusion4 ,he finds that the work of ,drs4 ,dawson and ,woodward was done in open defiance of all that scientists know about skulls1 whether ancient or modern4 ,his words are3 ,i soon saw that the parts of the reconstructed ,piltdown skull had been apposed in a manner which was in open defiance of all that was known of skulls1 ancient and modern1 human and anthropoid4 ,articulating the bones in a manner which has been accepted by all anatomists in all times1 ,i found that the brain-chamber1 instead of measuring #a1jgj cubic cm41 as in ,dr4 ,smith ,woodward's reconstruction1 measured #a1ejj cubic cm41--a large brain chamber for even modern man4 ,the ,neanderthal skull was found in #ahef in the neighborhood of ,duesseldorf by ,dr4 ,fuhlrott1 of ,elberfeld4 ,when the skull and other parts of the skeleton were exhibited at a scientific meeting held at ,bonn the same year1 a wide divergence of opinion at once developed among the specialists4 ,by some1 doubts were expressed as to the human character of the remains4 ,others held that the remains indicate a person of much the same stature as a ,european of the present day1 but with such an unusual thickness in some of them as betokened a being of very extraordinary strength4 ,dr4 ,meyer1 of ,bonn1 regarded the skull as the remains of a ,cossack killed in #ahad4 ,other scientists agreed with him4 ,modern science accepts the antiquity of the ,neanderthal man1 but the controversy has never ceased4 ,the great ,virchow declared the peculiarities of the bones to be the result of disease4 ,near ,liege1 in ,belgium1 not more than seventy miles from the ,neanderthal1 the ,engis skull was found4 ,after careful measurement it was proved not to differ materially from the skulls of modern ,europeans4 ,such experiences should prevent us from making any assertions respecting the primitive character1 in race or physical conformation1 of these cave-dwellers4 ,indeed4 ,prof4 ,huxley1 in a very careful and elaborate paper upon the ,neanderthal and ,engis skulls1 places an average skull of a modern native of ,australia about half-way between those of the ,neanderthal and ,engis caves4 ,yes1 he says that1 after going through a large collection of ,australian skulls1 he found it possible to select from these crania two 7connected by all sorts of intermediate gradations71 the one of which should very nearly resemble the ,engis skull1 while the other would somewhat less closely approximate to the ,neanderthal skull in size1 form1 and proportions4 ,the ,engis skull1 perhaps the oldest known1 is1 according to ,prof4 ,huxley1 a fair average skull1 which might have belonged to a philosopher1 or might have contained the thoughtless brain of a savage4 ,in this opinion ,mr4 ,huxley is supported by one of the greatest anthropologists of his time1 ,daniel ,g4 ,brinton1 who says concerning the cave-man of ,france and ,belgium3 ,neither in stature1 cranial capacity1 nor in muscular development did these earliest members of the species differ more from those now living than do these among themselves4 ,we have no grounds for assigning to these earliest known men an inferior brain or a lower intelligence than is seen among various savage tribes still in existence4 ,every new find1 upon investigation1 proves the truth of ,virchow's words3 ,we must really acknowledge that there is a complete absence of any fossil type of a lower stage in the development of man4 ,nay1 if we gather together all the fossil men hitherto found1 and put them parallel with those of the present time1 we can decidedly pronounce that there are among living men a much greater proportion of individuals which show a relatively inferior type than there are among the fossils known up to this time4 4 4 4 ,every positive progress which we haw made in the region of prehistoric anthropology has removed us farther from the demonstration of this theory6 ,quite recently 7in #aiac7 a remarkable fossil was found in the ,oldoway gulch in northern ,german ,east ,africa1 by an expedition of the ,geological ,institute of the ,university of ,berlin4 ,the remains consist of a complete skeleton1 which was found deeply imbedded in firm soil4 ,unquestionably ancient as these remains are1--the bones are completely fossilized1--they contained lamentably few primitive characteristics1 and hence have not been exploited in the interest of the evolutionary theory4 ,a fragment of skull1 a tooth1 a thigh-bone1 offer much more inviting fields to the evolutionists1 since they permit his imagination to range without the restraint of fact4 ,the ,oldoway fossil1 which is in every essential respect a normal human skeleton1 possesses no special attractions for those who would represent man as a descendant of brutish ancestors4 ,says ,prof4 ,virchow3 ,we seek in vain for the missing link2 there exists a definite barrier separating man from the animal which has not yet been effaced--heredity1 which transmits to children the faculties of the parents4 ,we have never seen a monkey bring a man into the world1 nor a man produce a monkey4 ,all men having a ,simian 7monkey-like7 appearance are simply pathological variants1 7abnormal varieties1 due to some diseased condition74 ,it was generally believed a few years ago that there existed a few human races which still remained in the primitive inferior condition of their organization4 ,but all these races have been objects of minute investigation1 and we know that they have an organization like ours1 often1 indeed1 superior to that of the supposed higher races4 ,thus the ,eskimo head and the head of the ,terra del ,fuegians belong to the perfected types4 ,all the researches undertaken with the aim of finding continuity in progressive development have been without result4 ,there exists no proanthrope1 no man-monkey1 and the 'connecting link' remains a phantom4 ,dr4 ,berndt1 of ,berlin1 recently said in the ,naturwissenschaftliche ,rundschau der ,chemikerseitung 7,april1 #aiad73 ,max ,weber1 one of the best authorities on mammals1 regards the anthropoid apes of to-day as a branch parallel to the human branch4 ,scholars like ,cope1 ,adloeff1 ,klaatsch1 prefer to push the origin of man back to the earliest age of terrestrial life1 whence he went his way from the very outset separate from the apes4 ,this is a highly significant utterance4 ,it means nothing more than this3 there is not one recognizable link which unites man with the animal kingdom4 ,all the intermediate forms between man and the original jelly-fish1 which according to ,haeckel and ,vogt was his ancestor1 have disappeared4 ,for their existence we have nothing but the word of speculative scientists4 ,concerning the ,neanderthaler1 the ,cro-,magnon man4 etc41 ,dr4 ,dawson has said3 ,geological evidence resolves itself into a calculation of the rate of erosion of river valleys1 of deposition of gravel and cave-earths1 and of formation of stalagmite crusts1 all of which are so variable and uncertain that1 though it may be said that an impression of great antiquity beyond the time of received history has been left on the minds of geologists1 no absolute antiquity has been proved2 and while some1 on such evidence1 would stretch the antiquity of man to even half a million years1 the oldest of these remains may1 after all1 not exceed our traditional six thousand4 ,these skeletons tell us that primitive man had the same high cerebral organization which he possesses now1 and we may infer the same high intellectual and moral nature1 fitting him for communication with ,god and headship over the lower world4 ,similarly ,figuier held that we know of no archaeological find 7stone hatchets1 etc47 that could not be pronounced only five thousand years old as well as fifty thousand4 ,lionel ,s4 ,beale1 the famous microscopist1 testifies3 ,in support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin1 there is not at this time the shadow of scientific evidence4 ,william ,hanna ,thomson1 ,m4,d41 ,,ll4,d41 ,physician to the ,roosevelt ,hospital2 ,consulting ,physician to ,new ,york ,state ,manhattan ,hospital for the ,insane1 who has held a professorship in ,new ,york ,university ,medical ,college2 been president of the ,new ,york ,academy of ,medicine1 etc1 in his recent book4 ,what is ,physical ,life8 says concerning the doctrine of evolution3 ,no contradiction could be greater than that between this doctrine and the greatest truth which underlies this human world4 ,the ,russo-,french physiologist1 ,m4 ,elie ,de,cyon1 for many years professor in the ,faculty of ,sciences and in the ,academic ,medico-chirurgicale at the ,university of ,petrograd1 has lately published a book of essays in which he says that the theory of evolution1 especially in its relation to the ancestry of man1 is a pure assumption4 ,he quotes ,prof4 ,fraas1 who devoted his long life to the study of fossil animals3 ,the idea that mankind has descended from any ,simian 7ape7 species whatsoever1 is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man4 ,it should be handed down to posterity in a new edition of the ,memorial of ,human ,follies4 ,no proof of this baroque theory can ever be given from discovered fossils4 ,and to quote from another address by ,virchow1 delivered at ,vienna3 ,i have never found a single ape skull which approaches at all the human one4 ,between men and apes there exists a line of sharp demarcation4 ,one of the most recent authoritative publications by a ,german anthropologist urges that the apes are to be regarded as degenerate branches of the pre-human stock4 ,this means1 in a word1 that man is not descended from the ape1 but the ape from man4 ,this is almost what may be called reductio ad absurdum1 and yet it is one of the latest pronouncements of scientific thought 7,editorial in ,new ,york ,herald1 ,december #cj1 #aiaf74 ,to the same effect are the words of ,professor ,wood-,jones1 ,professor of ,anatomy in the ,university of ,london1 ,england1 who recently pointed out that so far from man having descended from anthropoid apes1 it would be more accurate to say that these have been descended from man4 ,this was claimed not only by reason of the best anatomical research1 but to be deducible from the whole trend of geological and anthropological discovery4 ,on this account ,professor ,wood-,jones appealed for an entire reconsideration of the post-,darwinian conceptions of man's comparatively recent emergence from the brute kingdom4 7,quoted by ,w4 ,h4 ,griffith ,thomas in ,what about ,evolution8 p4 #aj47 ,it is refreshing to turn aside from speculation to revelation1 from conjectures and theories to proven facts1 and no one has stated ascertained facts1 touching the origin of man1 more succinctly and more clearly than ,prof4 ,dr4 ,friedrich ,pfaff1 professor of ,natural ,science in the ,university of ,erlangen4 ,he shows conclusively that the age of man is comparatively brief1 extending only to a few thousand years2 that man appeared suddenly2 that the most ancient man known to us is not essentially different from the now living man1 and that transitions from the ape to the man1 or from the man to the ape1 are nowhere found4 ,the conclusion he reaches is that the ,scriptural account of man1 which is one and selfconsistent1 is true2 that ,god made man in his own image1 fitted for fellowship with himself and favored with it--a state from which man has fallen1 but to which restoration is possible through ,him who is the brightness of his ,father's glory1 and the express image of his ,person4 ,we cannot refrain from reverting1 in this connection1 to the essential difference between the animal instincts and the intellect of man1 and would quote1 on this subject1 the forceful statement of the case by ,paul ,haffner in his ,materialismus 7,mainz1 #ahfe74 ,we translate3 ,if the hypothesis of materialism were acceptable1 if we were to believe that a merely animal form of consciousness might develop into spiritual and intellectual perceptions1 we ought to be able to observe such capacities of change and growth also in the animal world of to-day4 ,yet this is not the case4 ,for thousands of years we have observed the domestic animals1 and still we can see no trace of a dawn of intellect4 ,we expend much training upon them2 we make them our confidants and treat them with inexhaustible tenderness1 and still we never see them rise out of their narrow sphere and out of the bonds of their primitive desires and instincts4 ,we note external imitation of human activities1 such as the ludicrous virtuosity of the apes1 and that superficial adaptation which we call 'animal training' and which is nothing but a development of sense stimuli2 the animal does not know what it is doing1 it is duped by man who knows how to employ its instincts and make them serviceable to his purposes4 ,we cannot fail to note that never1 not even under the most favorable conditions1 do the animals step out of their original sphere2 that neither by their own efforts nor through the aid of man are they able to rise into ideas of a spiritual or suprasensual nature2 that they remain forever what they were in the beginning4 ,hence it cannot be denied that also men would have remained what they once were according to the notions of materialists4 ,only if from the beginning the light of spiritual life was enkindled in them1 could they become1 what they are to-day4 7,materialismus1 p4 #ei f47 ,it will be noted that when we hear the specialists in anatomy and biology1 their expressions on the subject of man's ancestry are1 as a rule1 characterized by a strong dissent from the development theory1 while the belief in a development of man from an ape-like ancestor1 uttered with a note of cocksureness1 is found mainly among amateurs in these sciences4 ,moreover1 even among the believers in a rise of our race from brute origins1 many1 and the most distinguished among them1 assert that the faculties of the human mind are indeed to be accounted for only on the basis of a special creative act of ,god4 ,they cling1 however1 to the notion that the body of man is evolved from the lower animals--a view which has been very ably met by ,prof4 ,orr of ,glasgow1 one of the foremost ,biblical scholars of our time4 ,he writes3 ,it is well known that certain distinguished evolutionists1 while handing over man's body to be accounted for by the ordinary processes of evolution1 yet hold that man's mind cannot be wholly accounted for in a similar manner4 ,the rational mind of man1 they urge--,i agree with the view1 but am not called upon here to discuss it--has qualities and powers which separate it1 not only in degree1 but in kind1 from the animal mind1 and put an unbridgeable gulf1 on the spiritual side1 between man and the highest of the creatures below him4 ,in other words1 there is1 in man's case1 a rise on the spiritual side--the constitution of a new order or kingdom of existence--which requires for its explanation a distinct supernatural cause4 ,now the weakness of this theory1 ,i have always felt1 lies in its assumption that1 while man's mind needs a supernatural cause to account for it1 his body may be left to the ordinary processes of development4 ,the difficulty of such a view is obvious4 ,i have stated the point in this way4 ',it is a corollary from the known laws of the connection of mind and body that every mind needs an organism fitted to it4 ,if the mind of man is the product of a new cause1 the brain1 which is the instrument of that mind1 must share in its peculiar origin4 ,you cannot put a human mind into a ,simian brain4' ,in other words1 if there is a sudden rise on the spiritual side1 there must be a rise on the physical--the organic--side to correspond4 7,virgin ,birth of ,christ1 p4 #aii47 ,can anything be more cogent1 more conclusive8 ,the strongest direct proof against the ascent of man1 however1 has so far only been touched upon4 ,i refer to the evidences derived from the history of ,religion4 ,to this ,i now invite the reader's close attention4 ,if man was developed from a lower order of creatures1 or from any member of the animal kingdom1 religion must have been a late development4 ,that this tailless1 catarrhine1 anthropoid ape should have had anything resembling a religion1 is1 of course1 not to be thought of4 ,to imagine that he had a knowledge of the one1 true ,god1 his nature and his attributes1 would be preposterous4 ,how then explain the origin and rise of religion8 ,the evolutionists do not agree on this subject4 ,herbert ,spencer maintains that ,animism was the most primitive form of faith4 ,man reverenced spirits1 the ghosts of the departed1 then raised them to the eminence of divinities and finally developed the idea of one absolute being1 ,god4 ,others suggest1 that primitive man first adored the terrible powers and awful phenomena of nature1 was thus led to ,polytheism 7a religion of many ,gods7 and finally evolved ,monotheism 7a belief in one ,god74 ,but all agree in this1 that ,religion in its earliest form was of a very crude and elementary character1 and only in the course of many thousands of years1 attained to the conception of one ,supreme ,being4 ,there was at first a faith in gods1--,polytheism1 and much later a faith in ,god--,monotheism4 ,now1 let is tr4 note3 sic be observed that this is the only possible view from the standpoint of ,evolution4 ,remember that this doctrine is not only conceived as bearing on the development of the animal kingdom4 ,the principle is assumed to operate in the development of the earth1 of man1 of society1 of government1 of manufactures1 of language1 of literature1 science1 art1 and religion4 ,according to the theory1 there must have been progress from a crude form of spirit-worship to a worship of gods1 and thence to a worship of one ,god4 ,but what are the facts8 ,has religion so developed8 ,it has not4 ,not only has history failed to show a single form of belief which has advanced in the manner demonstrated1 but every religion1 no matter how pure and exalted1 has gone through a process of degeneration1 of devolution4 ,the founders of the comparative study 7or ,science7 of ,religion1 and the greatest authorities in its various departments1 are practically unanimous in their opinion1 that all pagan systems of mythology and religion contain remnants of a more exalted form of belief1 of a higher1 clearer knowledge of the ,divinity1 which gradually became dimmed and corrupted4 ,from ,max ,mueller's ,lecture on the ,vedas 7the ancient hymns of ,india7 we quote the following3 ,as a result to which a comparative study of religion is sure to lead1 we shall learn that religions in their most ancient form1 or in the minds of their authors1 are generally free from many of the blemishes that attach to them in later times4 ,le ,page ,renouf expresses his entire agreement with the matured judgment of ,emmanuel ,rouge3 ,the first characteristic of the ,egyptian religion is the ,unity of ,god most energetically expressed3 ,god1 ,one1 ,sole and ,only--no others with ,him4444 the ,only ,being 4444 ,the belief in the ,unity of the ,supreme ,god and in ,his attributes as ,creator and ,lawgiver of man1 whom ,he has endowed with an immortal soul1 4444 these are the primitive notions1 enchased in the midst of mythological superfetations accumulated in the centuries4 ,franz ,lenormant reached the same conclusion4 ,elsewhere1 ,renouf says3 ,it is incontestably true1 that the sublimer portions of the ,egyptian religions are not the comparatively late result of a process of development4 ,the sublimer portions are demonstrably ancient2 and the last stage of the ,egyptian religion 4444 was by far the grossest and most corrupt4 7,religion of ,ancient ,egypt1 p4 #ie47 ,this opinion is supported by the testimony of the ,egyptian inscriptions4 ,in the very oldest inscriptions reference is had to a ,supreme ,god and ,lord of all1 to whom no shrines were raised1 whose abode was unknown1 who was not graven in stone1 while the ,egptian tr4 note3 sic of a later day adored the crocodile1 the ichneumon1 serpents1 bulls1 cats1 and ibises4 ,the history of ,hindu belief presents testimony of a still more startling nature4 ,in the ,vedas we find statements and prayers which are clear proof of an early ,monotheism4 ,thus the ,,ix book of the ,rig ,veda contains the following prayer4 ,who is the ,god to whom we shall offer our sacrifice8 ,the one-born ,lord of all that is2 he established the heaven and sky2 he is the one king of the breathing and awakening world2 he through whom the heaven was established2 he who measured out the light in the air--he who alone is ,god above all gods4 ,here the belief in one ,supreme ,being is clearly set forth4 ,and yet this faith in one ,god in the course of time degenerated into a worship of #cc1jjj divinities--until ,gautama the ,buddha evolved a system that denied the very existence of ,god4 ,turning to ,greece we have the testimony of ,prof4 ,max ,mueller to this effect3 ,when we ascend to the distant heights of ,greek history the idea of ,god1 as the ,supreme ,being1 stands before us as a simple fact4 7,essays1 ,,ii1 p4 #adf47 ,carl ,boettcher1 in his great work on the ,treeworship of the ,greeks1 maintains3 ,as far as the legends of the ,greeks can be traced into prehistoric ages1 the entire nation worshipped a single ,god1 nameless1 without statues1 without a temple1 invisible and omnipresent4 ,this he regards as a tradition of irrefutable inner truthfulness4444 ,the beginning of ,polytheism therefore represents the second phase of ,greek religion1 which was preceded by a ,monotheism4 ,every student of ,greek literature knows that this original belief at an early age gave place to a worship of the gods on ,olympus1 a worship which in turn gave way to openly avowed atheism4 ,the ,greeks were aware of this decay4 ,plato1 in his ,phaidros 7#bgd ,b7 quotes ,socrates as saying3 ,i know of an old saying1 that our ancestors knew what constituted the true worship of ,god2 if we could but discover what it was1 would we then have need of human theories and opinions on the matter8 ,certainly a startling statement from the lips of a pagan4 ,undoubtedly ,welcker was right when he asserted1 as the ultimate result of his researches3 ,this 7,greek7 polytheism has settled before the eyes of men like a high and continuous mountain range1 beyond which it is the privilege only of general historical study to recognize1 as from a higher point of view1 the natural primitive monotheism4 ,concerning the monotheistic ideas of later ,greek thought1 the same author says that they are to be regarded not as a result of an ascending line of evolution 7aufsteigende ,linie der ,entwickelung71 but as a return of the profound wisdom of old age to the feeling of primitive simplicity4 ,of the ,phoenicians the greatest student of their history and religion1 ,f4 ,k4 ,movers1 says3 ,nature worship gradually obscured the purer ,god-idea of a more ancient stage of belief1 but has never entirely obliterated it4 ,he refers to an evident adulteration of a purer and more ancient ,god-idea4 ,regarding the ,zoroastrians of ancient ,persia1 ,m4 ,haug1 the famous ,zend scholar1 asserts that ,monotheism was the leading idea of ,zoroaster's theology2 he called ,god ,ahura-mazda1 i4 e41 the ,living ,creator4 ,zoroaster did not teach a theological ,dualism4 ,he arrived at the idea of the unity and indivisibility of the ,supreme ,being1 and only as in course of time this doctrine was changed and corrupted 444 the dualism of ,god and the devil arose4 ,monotheism was superseded by ,dualism4 ,both ,dr4 ,f4 ,hommel and ,friedrich ,delitzsch agree on the question of an early ,arabian and ,sumerian monotheism4 ,dr4 ,hommel demonstrates from the personal surnames contained in the inscriptions the existence of a very exalted monotheism in the most ancient times of the ,arabian nation1 about #bejj ,b4 ,c41 and among the ,semitic tribes of northern ,babylonia4 ,this monotheistic religion degenerated under the influence of ,babylonian polytheism4 ,the same opinion was held years ago by ,julius ,oppert1 the ,assyriologist1 who was led to a belief in a universal primitive monotheism as the basis of all religions4 ,expressions similar to the above might be adduced from ,rawlinson1 ,legge 7,religions of ,china71 ,doellinger1 ,victor v4 ,strauss-,torney 7the ,egyptologist71 ,jacob ,grimm1 and others4 ,in short1 the majority of independent and unprejudiced students of heathen beliefs1 from the days of ,a4 ,w4 v4 ,schlegel to our own1 have reached the conclusion1 that all religions in their later stages exhibit a much lower conception of the ,divinity than in their earlier form4 ,it is only the hopelessly prejudiced who can say1 as does ,john ,fiske1 that to regard classic paganism as one of the degraded remnants of a primeval monotheism1 is to sin against the canons of a sound inductive philosophy4 ,sinning against the consonant testimony of universal history is a venial offense1 it would seem1 when the integrity of this sound inductive philosophy--that is1 of the ,spencerian theory--is at stake4 ,it needs but a glance at the well-known facts of religious history to show the working of this ,law of ,decay as influencing the development of every system of ethnic belief which has a recorded history or a literature4 ,the workings of this law can be traced even in the case of the savage tribes of our own day4 ,of the ,african negroes1 ,p4 ,bandin says that their traditions and religious doctrines 444 show clearly that they are a people in decadence4444 ,they have an obscure and confused idea of the only ,god1 4444 who no longer receives worship4 7,fetichism1 p4 #g-aj47 ,winwood ,reade testifies3 ,the negroes possess the remnants of a noble and sublime religion1 though they have forgotten its precepts and debased its ceremonies4 ,they still retain a recollection of ,god1 the ,supreme1 the ,creator4 ,concerning the ,zulus1 ,bastian records that they informed him that their ancestors possessed the knowledge of 4444 that source of being which is above1 which gives life to men4 7,vorgeschichtliche ,schoepfungslieder47 ,a missionary of the ,lutheran ,general ,synod1 ,rev4 ,j4 ,c4 ,pedersen1 wrote in ,lutheran ,observer1 ,august1 #aiaj1 concerning the ,african natives that they still have a considerable display of religion1 but ask him1 who is the ,god in whom you trust8 what do you mean by trusting8 how can he help you8 and he will answer1 ',i don't know1 but the old people used to say so1 and taught us to say so4' ,john ,hanning ,speke1 in his ,journal of the ,discovery of the ,sources of the ,nile records reminiscences among the degraded savages among whom he dwelt1 of a supreme ,god who dwells in heaven1 but who no longer received worship4 ,mungo ,park1 in the diary of his ,travels in the ,interior of ,africa1 says that the ,mandingoes1 a degenerate race of fetish worshippers1 still possessed the knowledge of one ,god1 but do not offer up prayers and supplications to him4 ,in the record of his famous circumnavigation of the globe1 ,captain ,cook says that the cannibals of ,new ,zealand still acknowledged a superior being1 although their religion was a crude system of spiritualistic practices4 ,concerning the ,koreans ,mrs4 ,l4 ,h4 ,underwood1 medical missionary1 says that a thousand unworthy deities now crowd the temples1 although the great universal ,ruler is still worshipped at times1 and the ancient purity of faith and worship has become sadly darkened4 ,the foremost student of modern missions1 ,johann ,warneck1 in ,the ,living ,christ and ,dying ,heathenism 7,f4 ,h4 ,revell ,co417 comes to the conclusion that the ,christian religion and its monotheism are not only not a development from lower origins1 but that the heathen religions1 historically considered1 are a degeneracy from a higher knowledge of ,god4 ,in other words1 the application of the doctrine of evolution to the field of comparative religion is a mistake4 ,any form of ,animism known to me has no lines leading to perfection1 but only incontestable marks of degeneration1 says the author4 ,in heathenism the gold of the divine thought becomes dross4 ,says he1 ,i have been counselled to recognize that the idea of evolution at present ruling the scientific world must also rule in the investigation of religion4 ,i am not unacquainted with the literature of the subject1 ,i have described animistic heathenism as concretely as ,i could2 ,i confined myself strictly to that4 ,i began with the facts of experience2 then ,i drew inferences from them4 ,if these do not agree with the dominant hypothesis of evolution1 that is due to the brutal facts1 and not to the prepossessions of the observer4 ,i do not deny that something can be said for the idea of evolution in the religions of mankind1 but the study of ,animism1 with which ,i have long been familiar as an eyewitness1 did not lead me to that idea4 ,rather the conviction which ,i arrived at is1 that animistic heathenism is not a transition stage to a higher religion4 ,there are no facts to prove that animistic heathenism somewhere and somehow evolved upwards towards a purer knowledge of ,god4 ,i have worked as a missionary for many years in contact with thousands of the adherents of animistic heathenism and ,i have been convinced that the force of that heathenism is hostile to ,god4 ,in the same work ,dr4 ,warneck says that among the ,battaks of ,sumatra there are remains of a pure idea of ,god4 but there is also a host of spirits1 born of fear1 which thrust themselves between ,god and man4 ,the idea of ,god which is found in the religions of the ,indian ,archipelago1 and probably also of ,africa1 cannot have been distilled from the motley jumble of gods and of nature1 for it exists in direct opposition to the latter4 ,the idea of ,god is preserved1 but ,his worship is lost4 ,in reviewing this book the late ,dr4 ,schmauk said in #aiaj3 ,a dispassionate study of heathen religions confirms the view of ,paul that heathenism is a fall from a better knowledge of ,god4 ,the idols come between ,god and man4 ,w4 ,st4 ,clair ,tisdale1 concludes an exhaustive study of ,christianity and ,other ,faiths with the statement3 ,it follows that ,monotheism historically preceded ,polytheism1 and that the latter is a corruption of the former4 ,it is impossible to explain the facts away4 ,taken together they show that1 as the ,bible asserts1 man at the very beginning of history knew the ,one ,true ,god4 ,this implies a ,revelation of some sort and traces of that ,revelation are still found in many ancient faiths4 ,we conclude that the history of religion does not only fail to support the evolutionistic postulate of a slow upward development of religions from crude original beliefs1 but quite the reverse4 ,it is true that the popular handbooks of comparative religion quite generally teach a development of religious belief through animism1 fetishism1 and polytheism to monotheism4 ,but the consonant testimony of specialists in the field of historical study and of those who have had first-hand acquaintance with the aborigines of heathen lands1 is a strong dissent from this position4 ,here again we find confident assertion of an evolutionistic process mainly among those who lack the qualifications of original research4 ,even as it is not the specialist in biology that still maintains the ,darwinian theory of ,natural ,selection1 but the non-professional and the amateur1 even so the specialist acquainted with the original sources1 and the explorer1 possessing first hand knowledge1 asserts a decline1 through history1 from purer to less spiritual faiths1 while the bias of the evolutionist1 who has no first hand knowledge of the sources constrains him to begin his scheme of religion with animism and fetish-worship4 ,the theory which holds him in thrall demands such a construction4 ,but the theory is contradicted by the facts1 which point unmistakably to a degeneration of the race1 to a ,fall of ,man4 ,,chapter ,,ten4 ,the ,verdict of ,history4 ,john ,fiske1 who1 in the seventies of the last century1 popularized ,darwinism in the ,united ,states1 asserts that the scope of evolution is much wider than the organic field4 ,there is no subject great or small he wrote in ,a ,century of ,science1 that has not come to be affected by this doctrine4 ,a development has been recognized in plants1 mountains1 oysters1 subjunctive moods1 and the confederacies of savage tribes 7p4 #ce74 ,fiske is one of those defenders of the evolutionistic philosophy who irritate by reason of their cocksureness4 ,hear him1 in ,darwinism and ,other ,essays3 ,one could count on one's fingers the number of eminent naturalists who still decline to adopt it--the ,darwinian hypothesis4 ,that was in #ahgf4 ,to-day we know that one cannot on one finger the eminent naturalists of the present century who still accept it--,haeckel4 ,it is possible that ,fiske's extension of the development theory1 along lines laid down by ,herbert ,spencer1 to all human history1 even to tribal confederacies1 is likewise subject to a revision4 ,indeed1 it would seem that even without special or detailed knowledge1 the failure of human history to conform with this universal law would be apparent4 ,consider once more the basic concepts of ,evolution4 ,they are two in number1 #a4 ,everything that is1 has been evolved1 having been involved 7potentially1 as a possibility7 in that which preceded it4 ,potentially1 the feather of the blue-bird was in the speck of original protoplasm1 potentially the flights of ,dante's and ,goethe's genius were in the primordial cell4 ,all that has occurred in history has developed out of antecedents4 ,furthermore3 #b4 ,all that exists has developed according to natural laws4 ,scientists have given up the law which ,darwin called ,natural ,selection1 and ,spencer himself cashiered the law which he had called ,survival of the ,fittest4 ,but evolutionists continue to assert that somehow1 by the action of certain laws1 that which exists has naturally--there is no need of divine ,providence1 overruling the affairs of men1--has naturally been developed out of its antecedents4 ,and so history is read by the evolutionist4 ,he sees in all the institutions of civilization1 in every department of culture1 in the rise and fall of nations1 the progress and decay of literatures1 a result of natural laws1 working out the evolution of human society as it exists to-day4 ,what1 then1 is the verdict of history8 ,does it conform to this scheme8 ,is there a demonstrable development1 by inherent forces1 of human society1 from lower to higher ranges of culture8 ,civilization tr note3 sic have risen1 civilizations have perished3 is there in this traceable the working of natural law8 ,dr4 ,emil ,reich1 in the ,contemporary ,review1 #ahhi4 p4 #de ff4 pointed out the failure of the development theory as applied to human culture4 ,hebrew religion as well as the ,hebrew state were not derived from ,babylonian1 ,egyptian1 ,arabic or ,hittite culture2 ,greek art is not a derivative product of ,egyptian1 ,assyrian1 or ,phoenician art2 ,greek religion and mythology are not derived from other pagan systems2 ,roman law has not been developed out of ,greek1 ,aryan1 or ,egyptian law2 the ,english constitutional form of government has no antecedents in ,german or ,norman-,french history2 ,german music is not a result of development out of ,dutch1 ,french1 or ,italian music4 ,dr4 ,reich sums up the matter3 ,institutions do not 'evolve1' nor are they 'derived1' they step into existence by fulguration--sudden flashes--1 by a process that is technically identical with the theological idea of creation4 ,the whole concept of evolution does not at all apply to history4 ,in this argument there is considerable force4 ,for1 indeed1 what natural law can account for the rise of human institutions1 so infinitely diversified in their structure8 ,every age is divided into epochs1 and at the center of each epoch there is some personage of force and genius4 ,but how did ,cromwell1 ,lincoln1 ,bismarck arise8 ,what force produced them8 ,whence did they evolve8 ,yet without these three names1 three great periods in the world's history would be meaningless4 ,by what combination of forces shall we say that the various geniuses have developed which1 in a manner almost spectacular1 rise before us as we study the literatures of the past8 ,the youthful years of ,shakespeare were spent under circumstances which might have produced in him one dull and unaspiring ,british country lout1 like1 as one egg to another1 to a hundred thousand others who lived in his age4 ,what made this one country boy the most astonishing genius in all the history of literature8 ,study the youth of ,robert ,burns1 of ,heinrich ,heine1 or ,coleridge1 and then tell me why the first two should become the greatest lyric poets of their time1 and the third1 one of ,england's deepest thinkers8 ,why did they not develop1 one into a satisfied ,scottish farmer1 the other into a peddler of notions1 and the third into a fat and comfortable ,english banker8 ,we quote from an article which appeared in ,theological ,quarterly some twenty years ago3 ,what process of evolution resulted in the lives and deeds of such men as ,alexander the ,great1 ,julius ,ceasar1 tr4 note3 sic ,constantine the ,great1 ,luther1 ,napoleon ,i1 and ,bismarck8 ,all these great makers of history were what they were far less in consequence and by the continuation of the course of previous events or developments1 than largely in spite of the past and in direct opposition to forces which had worked together in shaping the condition of things with which they had to deal4 ,the ,macedonian empire would never have sprung into being but for an ,alexander1 in whose mind the chief facts for its realization were united4 ,the ,rome which ,julius ,ceasar tr4 note3 sic left behind him was not that which he had found1 only carried forward to a new stage of development1 but the embodiment of ideas conceived in his mind1 a quantity which under ,god the greatest ,roman had made out of a quantity which he had found4 ,the distinctive features of the ,constantinian empire as compared with that of ,diocletian1 or of the tetrarchy of which he was the head1 were not evolved from earlier political principles1 but stood out in bold contrast and even in direct opposition to the very fundamentals of antique statesmanship1 and so new in politics that even ,constantine permitted them to slip away from his grasp long before the sunset of his life had come4 ,luther was not a more fully developed ,hus or ,savonarola1 and the ,reformation was not the more advanced stage or completion of a movement inaugurated by the ,humanists1 but a work of ,god the actuating spirit of which was as diametrically contrary to the rationalistic spirit which animated ,erasmus and1 in a measure1 ,zwingli and his abettors1 as it was to anti-christian ,rome1--which was in #aeag essentially what it had been in #acjb1 when ,boniface ,,viii issued his bull ,unam sanctum as a definition of the rights and powers of ,popery4 ,napoleon did not carry onward but broke away from the tumult of ,french politics when he laid the greater part of western ,europe at his feet1 and the battle of ,austerlitz and the rule of the ,hundred ,days were no more evolved from the ,french ,revolution as by intrinsic necessity than the burning of ,moscow and the ,russian snows which turned to naught the campaign of #ahab4 7,a4 ,l4 ,graebner47 ,according to the theory we would expect that in the various departments of art1 perfection would be a late blossom1 burgeoning forth only after ages of feeble experiment and attempt4 ,but what are the facts8 ,as we study the history of any art1--be it literature or any department of literature2 be it architecture1 sculpture1 the domestic arts1 or even the art of war1--we find the highest culmination either at points which specifically exclude the idea of a development or1 indeed1 perfection shines forth in the very beginning1 all subsequent art being decay and apostasy from that primal perfection4 ,in epic poetry1 the greatest work does not stand at the end of a long period of development1 but the first and oldest is the greatest4 ,nothing has ever been produced to equal the ,iliad and ,odyssey1 written #ijj ,b4 ,c4 ,we have epics that will always hold a prominent place in literature1 ,virgil's ,aeneid1 ,milton's ,paradise ,lost1 but neither these nor the many flights attempted into epic poetry before or since will be seriously considered as rivalling the rhapsodies of ,homer4 ,the first novel ever written1 ,cervantes' ,don ,quijote1 tr4 note3 sic remains one of the greatest4 ,the oldest dramatists1 ,aeschylus1 ,euripides1 ,sophocles1 have never been surpassed4 ,and so in every department of art1 the earliest stage of development seems to be the very most perfect4 ,pyramid building was a pastime of the earliest ,pharaos2 tr4 note3 sic the later did not attempt to rival these structures with any of their own4 ,no finer jewelry can be produced to-day than the gold ornaments found in the oldest tombs of ,egypt4 ,the finest examples of ,east ,indian architecture are the oldest4 ,gothic art was not a slow development but came to utter perfection in its earliest examples1--as in the ,cathedral of ,amiens4 ,evolution represents the history of our race as a constant climb1 from brute or near-brute beginnings1 to ever higher forms of civilization1 until the heights which our race has reached in the present century were attained4 ,in reality1 the reverse process1 a constant and invariable process of degeneration characterizes the history of nations and peoples4 ,where ,christianity entered as a factor1 as in the history of ,western ,europe and in the results of ,christian missions in heathen lands1 we can indeed observe a rise out of barbaric or savage conditions to refinement and culture4 ,but only where the ,christian gospel is preached1 was the natural process of decay1 of degeneration1 interfered with4 ,elsewhere1 that is to say1 where purely natural forces were given free play1 mankind has declined physically1 mentally1 spiritually4 ,all civilizations illustrate this law of decay4 ,wilhelm ,f4 ,griewe1 in his ,primitives ,suedamerika 7,cincinnati1 #ahic71 summarizes his observations on the ,south ,american continent as follows3 ,the ,malaysian aborigines of ,south ,america1 in a period of #c1jjj years1 failed to advance in development4 ,the ,japanese discoverers of ,peru testify that they found the natives in a condition of extreme decay2 within a period of #a1ejj years they had made no progress but had retrogressed4 ,when the ,spaniards came1 they described the natives of ,chile and ,argentina in such a manner that it is quite evident how little these tribes had progressed in #c1jjj years4 ,the ,araucanians of ,chile have1 even in historic times1 greatly degenerated2 they have lost the very meaning of many words2 retaining the shell1 they have lost the kernel4 ,in ,peru1 the age of heroic deeds and wonderful architecture was followed by decay1 --religious1 moral1 intellectual decay4 ,the population was all but destroyed by vices and cruelty4 ,their neighbors1 the ,chibchas1 likewise described an arc which ended in devil-worship4 ,similarly1 the history of the ,botokudes is degeneration1 vice1 atrocities4 ,the negro tribes in the north and east of ,south ,america record no progress1 but1 on the other hand1 sank into abominations1 slavery1 cannibalism4 ,where1 then1 is there support for the evolutionary theory1 with its assumption of an upward trend from a brute condition to civilized and cultured life8 ,everywhere in primitive ,south ,america we see before our very eyes the process of decline and decay4 ,also the religious idea became obscured4 ,some of these tribes had an original monotheism4 ,they recognized a supreme creator of all things and gave him various names4 ,but the spiritual character of their knowledge of ,god was gradually obscured1 ,god was dragged into the sphere of sense and lower divinities were associated with ,him1--a downward development which absolutely contradicts the ,darwinian hypothesis4 ,from an original1 pure1 spiritual worship to gross idolatry1--that is the religious decay which in the world outside the ,bible meets us everywhere1 also among the original races of ,south ,america4 ,thus in the history of human society1 we observe1 unless the divine power of the gospel supplies the sole preserving and regenerating element1 a universal law of decay in human affairs4 ,innumerable times1 and at the most crucial moments of human history1 not the fittest but the unfittest survived4 ,dr4 ,a4 ,l4 ,graebner said3 ,the principle of the 'survival of the fittest' is so far from accounting for the phenomena of history1 that the principle itself is flatly contradicted and utterly exploded by a sober investigation of historical facts4 ,that there are in nature numerous instances of a survival of the unfittest1 is not only conceded by our evolutionists1 but has been deliberately forged into an argument against teleology 7divine purpose7 and divine providence6 ,and1 we ask1 was it by the survival of the fittest that ,julius ,ceasar1 tr4 note3 sic one of the grandest rulers of all ages1 should succumb under the daggers of ,brutus and ,cassius3 that ,paul and ,seneca should die by authority of their inferior1 ,nero2 that ,popery1 rotten to the core and represented by men who would have brought on the ignominous tr4 note3 sic collapse or extinction of every other dynasty in the days of the ,roman pornocracy1 should survive1 while the illustrious house of ,henry ,i4 sank away to ruin in the third and fourth generation2 that ,john ,hus should die at the stake and ,jean ,charlier de ,gerson in timid monastic retirement1 while ,balthasar ,cossa1 by far their inferior in talents and learning1 and every inch an infamous scoundrel1 having for a time disgraced even the ,roman see as ,john ,,xxiii1 ended his days as a ,cardinal and ,bishop of ,tusculum and ,dean of the ,sacred ,college2 that ,girolamo ,savonarola1 one of the most remarkable and pure-minded leaders of his day and of all times1 should be fought down and crushed in a struggle with men not one of whom was worthy of unloosing his shoe's latchet1 among them ,alexander ,,vi1 one of the most scandalous wretches of all history8 ,survival of the fittest6 ,the article from which we have quoted points out the relevancy1 to the question at issue1 of the principle of degeneration and gradual decay in historical organisms or institutions4 ,our scientists who bother themselves and others about the descent of man have favored with a keen interest the ,bushmen of ,australia and other types of savage humanity1 with receding skulls1 flat noses1 thin legs1 little or no clothing1 and not much of morals or religion4 ,the lower in the scale and the farther remote from the civilized ,caucasian a newly discovered or investigated tribe or specimen1 living or dead1 would appear to be1 the greater was the value set on the discovery1 because the nearer science was supposed to have come to the missing link1 the transition from brute to man4 ,of course1 the missing link will never be discovered1 because it never existed4 ,there is no transition from brute to man1 and never was4 ,but if there were a species of beings which might be classed either with man or with brutes1 a transitional species1 even that would not necessarily represent a transition in the direction from brute to man4 ,we do not say that a transition from man to brute is possible2 for it is not2 but we do say that the evolutionist who sees in ,bushmen and other savages specimens of humanity representing the earlier stages of development1 through which the more highly developed species had long since passed on the way from the primitive state of man to their present state1 makes a great1 fundamental mistake1 the same mistake which one would make in supposing that the pale and decrepit inmates of a city hospital or a country poorhouse represented the lower stage of development from which the strong and healthy men and women in the surrounding country had been evolved4 ,our evolutionists are in very much the same plight with ,mark ,twain and his friend1 who1 having slept all day1 rushed from the hotel in scanty clothing1 climbed the observatory and to the amusement of the guests loudly admired what they took to be the famous ,rigi sunrise1 while in fact they were vociferating and gesticulating at the setting sun4 ,but while our tourists had soon found out their mistake1 our evolutionists have not2 which does not make it any less a mistake4 ,st4 ,paul has drawn a vivid picture of the degenerating influence of sin upon the nations under the righteous wrath of ,god199 99 ,rom4 #a1 #ah-cb4 and the course which the ,greek nation and the ,roman would have run from their pristine vigor exhibited in the days of ,thermopylae and ,cannae down to the state of marasmus senilis pictured by ,juvenal1 a state of rottenness which even the transfusion of ,german blood into the putrid veins of that degenerate and decaying race could not remedy1 is a fearful corroboration of the apostle's testimony4 ,we cannot leave this subject without briefly adverting to a great historic fact1 indeed1 the most massive and significant fact in all history1 which1 in its remoter bearings1 not only strikes at the very heart of the evolutionistic philosophy1 but at the same time wounds it mortally in all its parts4 ,i refer to the ,resurrection of our ,lord4 ,the resurrection of ,jesus ,christ is the central fact of our ,christian belief and it is1 rightly understood1 the all-sufficient answer to the theory of evolution4 ,christ's resurrection is an historical fact fully as much as the defeat of ,xerxes at ,salamis in #dhj ,b4 ,c41 the discovery of ,america by ,columbus in #adib1 and the peace of ,versailles of #aiai are historical facts1 proven by the word and record of contemporary witnesses4 ,but if ,christ was raised then we have proof for the following tenets1 all contradicting evolutionary speculation at so many vital points3 #a7 ,the existence of a personal ,god who is concerned with human affairs2 #b7 ,the reality of miraculous interference with natural forces2 #c7 ,the truth of atonement and the redemption1 and #d7 ,the inspiration of the ,old ,testament ,scriptures 7hence also of the creation account in ,genesis74 ,the details of the argument are beyond the scope of this paper1 but a little patient study will bring to light the fact that each of these four basic ideas is dove-tailed1 mortised and anchored so firmly in the fact of ,christ's resurrection1 that you can get rid of them all only by denying that fact4 ,hence it is1 aside from any investigation of proofs of evolutionism1 clear to the ,christian student that there must be some fault either in reason or in observation that vitiates the whole theory4 ,the resurrection of ,christ is a fact1 a fact to which the entire history of ,christianity testifies1 the most tremendous fact in the history of the world4 ,and it stands fore-square against a theory which says that there is no personal ,god1 that there is no sin1 no redemption2 that there are no miracles1 no revelation1 no inspiration2 that there is no absolute religion nor an absolute standard of right and wrong4 ,,chapter ,,eleven4 ,evidence of ,design4 ,compare all that has been said by scientists themselves about the evolutionary theory1 and what remains8 ,this1 only1 that some how1 we do not know when1 life arose1 and some how1 we do not know by what laws1 one form evolved from another1 until we and the world about us have become what we are now4 ,now1 the fact that no laws have so far been discovered by scientists to account for this presumed development of all things by inherent forces1 is very significant and the conclusions which logically follow from it deserve our attention4 ,since ,darwin's solution1 ,natural ,selection1 was discarded1 twenty or thirty years ago1 many other solutions have been propounded1 but none has received the assent of even a respectable group of scientists1 let alone by all4 ,these solutions1 --such as the theories of de ,vries and ,mendel1 are frankly no more than guesses based on certain observation in plant life and insect life and their originators by no means assert that they have found a law by which the universe can be accounted for4 ,but if there is no universal law1 there is only chance4 ,hence it is clear that what we are asked to believe is that ancient ,greek speculation was after all not far from the truth1 that through a fortuitous 7accidental7 concourse of atoms the world came into being1 and that by chance combinations of elements the great variety of living things arose4 ,such is the condition of evolutionistic thought to-day4 ,that there is no direct evidence for organic evolution is generally admitted4 ,that geology cannot be quoted for it is also quite generally conceded1 since the sudden rise of perfect 7not half-developed7 insects1 of perfect fish1 of perfect mammals1 is clear even to the man who merely turns the leaves of ,geikie's1 ,le ,conte's1 and ,dana's text books1 or visits ,field's ,museum4 ,yet some-how things must have gotten to be what they are by development from earlier forms1--this about sums up what is really contained in the concept of evolution as it appears in most recent scientific literature1 so far as scientists at all touch upon the subject4 ,however1 they by no means urge the evolutionary principle as they used to do4 ,bacteriologists especially1 so ,i am informed by a chemist of international repute1 ,dr4 ,p4 ,a4 ,kober1 of ,new ,york1 as a class are inclined to give up the theory as a bad guess4 ,why1 they find in fossil fish diseased portions which bear unmistakable traces of the action of bacteria which live to-day1 in other words1 which in countless millions of years have not progressed enough to show any change recognizable under the most powerful miscroscope6 tr4 note3 sic ,anthropologists shake their head when they are told by evolutionists that the animal which shows clearest resemblance in a structural way1 to certain points in human anatomy1 is a small fossil ape1 about the size of a house cat1 with a skull one inch in diameter6 ,there remains no proof1 direct or indirect1 of any principle working the changes which are believed to have occurred4 ,all things have evolved1 if they have evolved at all1 by chance4 ,now1 over against this doctrine of chance there stands the monumental fact that throughout nature1 living and non-living1 there runs a principle of design4 ,the minerals1 the plants1 the animals1 all exhibit1 as even the superficial observer knows or might know1 a plan4 ,there is design in the crystals in which elements exist when they pass from a liquid into a solid state2 there is design in the leaf and flower of every plant2 there is plan1 design1 in the structure and physiology of animals4 ,we would add1 there is an evident plan in the history of the ,chosen ,race1 the ,jews1 as we possess it in the ,old and ,new ,testaments2 there is a plan in the moral sphere1 laws producing unvaried results2 there is an ordered scheme even in the life of the individual4 ,but let us limit our investigation to the domain of nature4 ,let us note how little necessity there is for assuming that by mere chance things have come to be what they are4 ,as a rule each chemical substance has an individual crystal by which it can be distinguished4 ,it is possible to classify the thousands of different crystals1 since all belong to one of six classes1 according as their surfaces are grouped symmetrically around the axes of the crystal4 ,the salt crystal has one form1 the topaz another1 quartz and beryl another1 borax another1 and these forms are absolutely unvaried wherever these substances are found in nature or in the chemist's retort4 ,it is not here our intention to point out how impossible it is to assume that there has been an evoluton tr4 note3 sic of one of these forms out of another4 ,the point is that there is not chance1 but orderly arrangement1 symmetrical shape1 in a word1 most evident design4 ,turning to plant life1 even the amateur student cannot fail to observe that the entire world of plants is built on a beautiful system which argues most powerfully not for accidental arrangement but for plan4 ,the place of every leaf on every plant is fixed beforehand by unerring mathematical rule4 ,as the stems grow on1 leaf after leaf appears exactly in its predestined place1 producing a perfect symmetry2--a symnetry tr4 note3 sic which manifests itself not in one single monotonous pattern for all plants1 but in a definite number of forms exhibited by different species1 and arithmetically expressed by the series of fractions1 #a_/b1 #a_/c1 #b_/e1 #c_/h1 #e_/ac1 #h_/ba1 etc41 according as the formative energy in its spiral course up the developing stem lays down at corresponding intervals #b1 #c1 #e1 #h1 #ac1 or #ba ranks of alternative leaves4 ,the position of each blossom is determined beforehand by that of the leaves2 so that the shape of every flower-cluster in a boquet tr4 note3 sic is given by the same simple mathematical law which arranges the foliage4 ,every flower has a ,numerical ,plan4 ,although not easy to make out in all cases1 yet generally it is plain to see that each blossom is based upon a particular number1 which runs through all or most of its parts4 ,and a principal thing which a botanist notices when examining a flower is its numerical plan4 ,it is upon this that the symmetry of the blossom depends4 ,thus the stonecrop and the flax are based upon the number five1 which is exhibited in all their parts4 ,some flowers of this same stonecrop have their parts in fours1 and then that number runs throughout2 namely1 there are four sepals1 four petals1 eight stamens 7two sets71 and four pistils4 ,next let us touch upon the plan which connects the plant with the animal world4 ,the wonderful adaptations of many flowers and insects to each other1 as to the fertilization of the former1 and as to the life of the individual insect and the propagation of its kind1 are evidence of design4 ,for example1 there are certain species of plants that are dependent for their fertilization on certain species of moths which live in the flowers1 and the moths1 in turn1 are dependent on the plants4 ,they deposit their eggs in the ovaries of the flowers where the young are hatched and nourished4 ,the moths in some cases carry the pollen and place it on the stigmas of the flowers1 as if guided by intelligence4 ,so marvellous are the provisions which are made to ensure the fertilization of plants that the dean of ,amercan tr4 note3 sic botanists1 ,professor ,asa ,gray1 exclaims3 ,if these structures and their operations do not argue intention1 what stronger evidence of intention in nature can there possibly be8 ,if they do1 such evidences are countless1 and almost every blossom brings distinct testimony to the existence and providence of a ,designer and ,ordainer1 without whom1 we may well believe1 not merely a sparrow1 not even a grain of pollen1 may fall4 7,on this entire subject read ,selina ,gaye's ,the ,great ,world's ,farm1 published by the ,mac,millan ,co41 ,new ,york47 ,we can only lightly touch on the wonders of design in the structure and functions of animals4 ,here is a feather1 any feather1 say1 the feather of an eagle4 ,we quote the following on ,one of ,nature's ,wonders--the ,feather'' from an article in a popular magazine3 ,to most people a feather is just a feather1 either pretty or plain according to how the coloring strikes their individual fancy4 ,yet when a feather is examined critically1 it becomes a wonder and yet more wonderful--it is amazing when its details are understood4 ,never was there a thing better planned and builded for the uses intended4 ,take1 for instance1 a plain feather--say the tail feather of an eagle4 ,the long quill is made of feather-bone1 that wonderfully light1 yet strong material that forms the rigid part of all feathers1 so tough that it is almost impossible to break it1 yet so flexible it will bend into a circle and then spring back like a bit of whalebone6 ,nothing that man has ever been able to make can equal it4 ,there is no blood1 no nerves1 no circulation and apparently no life in a full grown feather1 yet it does not decompose2 indeed1 it is one of the hardest things in the world to destroy by any process of decomposition4 ,it retains its resiliency and all its flexibility for years--all that is necessary is to keep it dry4 ,it is finished all along the rib 7or quill7 with a hard1 glossy enamel on the outside and this enamel keeps its polish as long as the feather lasts4 ,from tr4 note3 sic on punctuation an engineering standpoint1 or the standpoint of the mechanic or artisan1 there is absolutely no suggestion of betterment to be made1 for the feather is an exact1 perfectly finished product4 ,its long central quill tapers from base to point with geometric precision1 thereby giving perfect resistance to bending force1 and this is one of the combination of secrets that enables the bird to fly as easily as man can walk4 ,also this long quill is hollow1 thereby all extra weight is done away with and added strength gained because of the tube contraction2 and to make it perfect from a mechanical standpoint1 the under side of the quill is reinforced by a doublerolled thickening of the shell of the quill itself so that strains are equalized4 ,this long quill is also curved slightly1 to meet air resistance again and overcome it when the whole tail is spread1 fan-like1 to suddenly alter a direction or check speed in flight4 ,the long1 soft side masses are formed of a multitude of tiny feathers1 each one perfectly equipped1 perfectly made1 mechanically and geometrically without fault4 ,each of these tiny side feathers has its own midrib that tapers from base to tip1 and each of these midribs carries its own equipment of side 'hairs' so beautifully constructed that it locks automatically into the one on each side of it in such a way that it makes a solid yet flexible mass of the whole surface1 against which the air flows as the bird flies4 ,if these side feathers be split apart they will come back into place so exactly that the split cannot be detected4 ,nothing else in nature repairs itself with such precision4 ,many things1 for instance the claw leg of the crawfish1 will replace itself exactly when destroyed1 but the feather alone repairs its own breaks precisely and automatically4 ,taken as a whole1 the feather is one of the most perfect products of nature because the material used is the one best thing throughout1 the engineering principles involved are without fault1 the mathematical plan is precise1 the construction is perfect1 the coloring and artistry are flawless1 and there is not one single point about it that can be constructively criticized4 ,this short article can only hint at the wonderful things one may find in a single feather1 and it is something well worth not an hour1 but weeks or months of the most painstaking and careful study1 for it covers an amazing field4 ,the electric battery in certain fishes is so palpable a case of design that ,charles ,darwin admitted his inability to account for it by ,natural ,selection4 ,the electric ray1 or torpedo1 for instance1 has been provided with a battery which1 while it closely resembles1 yet in the beauty and compactness of its structure1 it greatly exceeds the batteries by which man has now learned to make the laws of electricity subservient to his will4 ,in this battery there are no less than #idj hexagonal columns1 like those of a bee's comb1 and each of these is subdivided by a series of horizontal plates1 which appear to be analogous to the plates of the batteries used in automobiles4 ,the whole is supplied with an enormous amount of nervous matter1 four great branches of which are as large as the animal's spinal cord1 and these spread out in a multitude of thread-like filaments round the prismatic columns1 and finally pass into all the cells4 ,a complete knowledge of all the mysteries which have been gradually unfolded from the days of ,galvani to those of ,faraday1 and of many others which are still inscrutable to us1 is exhibited in this structure4 ,well may ,mr4 ,darwin say1 ,it is impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs have been produced4 ,we see the purpose--that a special apparatus should be prepared2 but we have not the remotest notion of the means employed4 ,yet we can see so much as this1 that here again1 other laws1 belonging altogether to another department of nature--laws of organic growth--are made subservient to a very definite and very peculiar purpose4' tr4 note3 sic on punctuation ,the new-born kangaroo1 says ,professor ,owen1 is an inch in length1 naked1 blind1 with very rudimental limbs and tail2 in one which ,i examined the morning after the birth1 ,i could discern no act of sucking2 it hung1 like a germ1 from the end of the long nipple1 and seemed unable to draw sustenance therefrom by its own efforts4 ,the mother accordingly is provided with a peculiar adaptation of a muscle 7cremaster7 to the mammary gland1 by which she can inject the milk from the nipple into the mouth of the pendulous embryo4 ,were the larynx of the creature like that of the parent1 the milk might1 probably would1 enter the windpipe and cause suffocation3 but the larynx is cone-shaped1 with the opening at the apex1 which projects1 as in the whaletribe1 into the back aperture of the nostrils1 where it is closely embraced by the muscles of the 'soft palate4' ,the air-passage is thus completely separated from the fauces 7mouth71 and the injected milk passes in a divided stream1 on either side the base of the larynx1 into the oesophagus4 ,these correlated modifications of maternal and foetal structures1 designed with especial reference to the peculiar conditions of both mother and off-spring1 afford1 as it seems to me1 irrefragable evidence of creative forsight4 ,the parts of this apparatus cannot have produced one another2 one part is in the mother1 another part in the young one2 without their harmony they could not be effective2 but nothing except design can operate to make them harmonious4 ,they are intended to work together2 and we cannot resist the conviction of this intention when the facts first come before us4 ,we cannot stop to pass in review the structural marvels of the human eye and ear1 of the digestive organs1 and circulatory system of animals1 of adaptations of fishes to the watery element4 ,but we must mention an outstanding feature of all animal life1 the evident likeness of plan upon which the entire kingdom of sentient life is constructed4 ,from amoeba and other infusorial animals of simplest structure1 through coral and oyster1 bird1 reptile1 to mammals1 there is an evident gradation1 many structures being represented in entire great groups of living beings1 such as the air-breathing lung4 ,here is a grand plan of animal life1 which permits us to classify all living things into a system4 ,there are classes and subclasses1 orders or families1 suborders1 tribes1 sub-tribes1 genera1 species1 and varieties1 just as in the world of plants and even1 according to their atomic weight1 among the elements4 ,we see in all this1 ,creative ,design4 ,the evolutionist believes that he can percive tr4 note3 sic stages of progress4 ,similarity of plan is interpreted as proof that there is a common origin4 ,are we to admit1 in the face of all that has been said about the fixity of species 7to mention only this71 the reasonableness of such an assumption8 ,does orderliness and plan argue for development8 ,the steam-engine is a machine of remarkable structure4 ,it has had1 in one sense of the term1 a wonderful evolution4 ,it is based on certain principles1 the foundation one of which is the expansibility of steam1 and its ability1 when confined in a cylinder1 to give motion to a piston4 ,the steam-engine was first used for pumping1 then for turning machinery1 then for propelling boats1 and now its crowning department is seen in the locomotive4 ,there is a plan1 a likeness1 a similarity1 which runs through all steam-engines1 whether they be found in the mine1 in the mill1 beneath the deck of the steamship1 or on the railroad track4 ,but the locomotive is not formed from the mine engine2 it is made new1 and is a distinct type4 ,and yet1 the same principles are seen in both4 ,even so it is with the genera of animals4 ,the whale and the elephant both have backbones1 jointed limbs1 warm blood1 and a hundred homologous organs4 ,they are both mammals1 both are sagacious1 and are gifted with acute senses4 ,but otherwise they are unlike as the monster locomotive that pulls the heavy train over the ,sierras1 and the compound engines of the ,vaterland4 ,similarity of structures argues powerfully for unity of plan1 but by no means proves identity of origin4 ,the evidence of design in nature conflicts with the idea that all things in the organic domain have come to be what they are by chance4 ,but it agrees perfectly with the ,christian view of animal nature4 ,what is that8 ,it is that ,god created the different classes of existences in the strict sense2 that is1 that he created them separate classes and species1 each with its own peculiarities and habits1 while1 at the same time1 they rise one above the other in general and steady order1 with certain general organs and functions1 which run through nearly all except the lowest classes1 each higher class having also some distinct and additional peculiarities not found in those below it4 ,in other words1 to the ,christian the steadily ascending scale in the work of creation is only the unfolding or development of the great plan of creation that was in the mind of ,god4 ,he believes that ,god did not create one or more simple cells or germs1 and cause all higher forms to be evolved from them1 interfering only once or twice 7when the backbone appeared1 the nourishing breast1 the mind of man1 etc471 but that he1 in the execution of his plan1 created successively as distinct orders and species those things and beings which now exist as distinct orders and species1 and many of which have become extinct4 ,this is the ,story of ,creation as given in ,genesis3 ,each plant1 each animal1 created in its own place in the scale of living thing1 but each created as a species1--after their kind1 the phrase repeated after each creative act of the third1 fifth1 and sixth day1 except with reference to man1 who was not created as a species but after the image of ,god4 ,but the evidences of design are yet of a higher nature than we have so far considered4 ,there is not only ,creative ,intelligence at work in the pollen of flowers1 the breathing of sponges1 and the eagle's orb of vision2 ,mind dominates the universe as a whole4 ,everywhere there is law and periodic1 rhythmical motion4 ,the ,lord1 speaking to ,job1 refers to the measures of the earth1 the lines which ,he has stretched upon it4 ,he asks1 concerning the heavenly bodies3 ,canst thou bind the sweet influences of ,pleiades1 or loose the bands of ,orion8 ,canst thou bring forth ,mazzaroth in his season8 ,or canst thou guide ,arcturus with his sons8 ,and ,job answers3 ,i know that ,thou canst do everything4 ,and so there is a ,reign of ,law in the dew on the grass 7,job #ch1 #bh71 and in the revolutions of the heavenly bodies4 ,the ,universe is ruled by ,mind4 ,professor ,koelliker 7,leipsic7 says in his work ,ueber die ,darwinsche ,schoepfungstheorie 7#aijd73 ,the development theory of ,darwin is not needed to enable us to understand the regular harmonious progress of the complete series of organic forms from the simpler to the more perfect4 ,the existence of general laws of nature explains this harmony1 even if we assume that all beings have arisen separately and independent of one another4 ,darwin forgets that inorganic nature1 in which there can be no thought of a genetic connection of forms1 that one form of crystal1 for instance1 arose out of another1 exhibits the same regular plan1 as the organic world 7of plants and animals71 and that1 to cite only one example1 there is as much a natural system of minerals as of plants and animals4 ,we can go a step farther and say that there is system and orderly design even in the position and movements of the stars1--which certainly have not been evolved one from the other4 ,more marvellous still1 we are permitted to believe that there is an identity of plan connecting the arrangement of atoms in a molecule and the position of the stars and planets4 ,dr4 ,charles ,young1 ,professor of ,astronomy in ,princeton ,college1 says in his larger text-book upon his special theme that our planetary system 7the sun and planets7 is not a mere accidental aggregation of bodies1 that there are a multitude of relations actually observed which are wholly independent of gravitation4 ,in other words1 in the position and motions of the planets there are evidences of design which cannot be accounted for by natural law4 ,we shall point out an instance of such arrangement1--the progressive distance of the planets from the sun1 as first discovered by ,titius of ,wittenberg1 and later 7in #aggb7 brought to the attention of the scientific world1 by ,johann ,bode1 the celebrated ,german astronomer4 ,it is exhibited by writing a line of nine #d's and then placing regularly increasing numbers under the several #d's1 beginning with the second4 ,thus #c1 #f1 #ab1 #bd1 #dh1 #if1 #aib1 and #chd1 each increased by #d1 will give the resultant series1 #d1 #g1 #aj1 #af1 #bh1 #eb1 #ajj1 #aif1 #chh4 ,these numbers divided by #aj are approximately the true distance of the planets from the sun in terms of the radius of the earth's orbit1 with the exception of ,neptune4 ,hence there is1 in the arrangmeent of the planets1 as orderly a system as we have noted with reference to the leaves on a plant4 ,any rational man on earth1 finding an orderly system of materials arranged in such relation by such means1 would instantly conclude that it must be due to intelligence and not to mere chance4 ,now1 it is a remarkable fact that in the so-called ,periodic ,law of the elements constituting matter the same relation is observed4 ,of the eighty elements1 no two now known have exactly the same capacity to resist heat1 and no two atoms of the same elements have the same weight as compared with an atom of hydrogen4 ,but these differences in resistance to heat and in weight1 are not haphazard1 but are so regularly progressive that they can be arranged in a series of regularly progressive increasing intervals4 ,most marvellous of all1 however1 when these differences in specific gravity are examined1 we find that they bear a close resemblance to the arrangement of the planets in progressive distances from the sun4 ,there appears to be one law for atoms and for worlds4 ,again we ask1 when there is such orderly arrangement and plan throughout nature1 should the orderly plan of plant and animal life be regarded as a proof of evolution8 ,certainly1 atoms have not evolved from atoms1 nor planets from planets4 ,and again1 since omnipotence alone can account for the sweet influences of the ,pleiades1 the bringing forth of ,mazzaroth--the constellations of the heavens in their nightly revolutions1--why resist the conviction that omnipotence1 voiced forth in the beginning1 accounts for the life on earth that now exists8 ,one more consideration1 and we have done4 ,life on earth exists only through a combination of very complex physical conditions4 ,these conditions are such as cannot1 in their combination1 be referred to chance1 ,fairhurst says1 in his ,organic ,evolution ,considered3 ,the simple substances which constitute the earth are of such kinds and are found in such relative quantities as not only to render life possible1 but also to contribute to the well-being of man as an intelligent and moral agent4 ,i look upon the concurrence of all these things1 according to any theory of chance1 as being entirely impossible4 ,the conditions that must be fulfilled before living beings are possible are so complex that nothing short of the wisdom of a ,supreme ,intelligence could have produced them4 7cf4 ,rom4 #a1 #bj47 ,this view has found support in a most unexpected quarter4 ,no less a person than ,alfred ,russel ,wallace1 famed as the discoverer1 independently of ,darwin1 of the principle of ,natural ,selection1 in his last book1 ,man's ,place in the ,universe1 7#aijc7 defended a position so subversive of every cherished belief 7or unbelief7 of scientists that it easily ranks as the greatest literary sensation1 in the domain of natural science1 of the century4 ,wallace assembled all the latest astronomcial tr4 note3 sic and other scientific discoveries and all knowledge bearing on the subject announced in his title4 ,he deduces therefrom the theory3--,first1 that the earth or solar system is the physical center of the stellar universe4 ,second1 that the supreme end and purpose of this vast universe was the production and development of a living soul in the perishable body of man4 ,modern skeptics1 says ,wallace1 in the light of accepted astronomical theories 7which regard our earth as uttterly insignificant compared with the rest of the universe7 have pointed out the irrationality and absurdity of supposing that the ,creator of all this unimaginable vastness of suns and systems should have any special interest in so pitiful a creature as man1 an imperfectly developed inhabitant of one of the smaller planets attached to a second or third rate sun1 while that ,he should have selected this little world for a scene so tremendous and so necessarily unique as to sacrifice ,his own son in order to save a portion of these miserable sinners from the natural consequences of sins1 is in their view a crowning absurdity1 not to be believed by any rational being4 ,we cannot follow ,mr4 ,wallace's argument in detail4 ,suffice to say1 that he adduces a vast amount of data showing1 first1 that the universe is not infinite1 but has certain bounds1 and that our earth and its system are in the center of it1 and1 secondly1 that the entire purpose of the production of the universe is the human race4 ,the earth1 says ,wallace1 is the only body capable of sustaining life4 ,life is not possible on any of the planets1 because they are either too close or too far distant from the sun2 some are probably composed of gas4 ,he proves1 on the basis of accepted calculations1 that of all the stars in the heavens there is not even a remote probability that any are attended by bodies which can provide the elements of life4 ,now1 he says1 this very peculiar position of the earth cannot have been due to accident4 ,he refuses to believe that the earth should occupy this favored position as the result of one out of a thousand million chances4 ,on the other hand1 he says1 those thinkers may be right who1 holding that the universe is a manifestation of mind1 and that the orderly development of living souls supplies an adequate reason why such a universe should have been called into existence1 believe that we ourselves are its sole and sufficient result and that nowhere else than near the central position in the universe which we occupy could that result have been attained4 ,this conclusion of ,mr4 ,wallace has1 indeed1 not found acceptance among scientists4 ,naturally not4 ,if a materialistic conception of the universe is to prevail1 if evolution in some form is to be accepted1 we must have a universe of chance1 not of a plan which spans the remotest star and the soul of the new-born infant in one tremendous arc4 ,but it is highly instructive to observe how the scientists in #aijc met ,wallace's argument4 ,one very distinguished reviewer said3 ,too little is known1 the most essential astronomical theories are too much a matter of conjecture1 to give much strength to a theory built up entirely of such conjectural materials4 ,the argument from probabilities can easily be turned against the author1 for when a chain of reasoning depends upon a long series of problematic premises1 the doubt of these premises increases in a mathematical ratio4 ,weakness in an argument is as cumulative as strength and while such of ,dr4 ,wallace's conclusions taken separately may receive the support of eminent scientists1 hardly any of them has received such demonstration as to entitle it to unreserved credence4 ,this1 at last1 is a frank admission4 ,wallace quoted the generally accepted results of scientific calculation and research4 ,on the basis of these results he demonstrates that the entire object of ,evolution 7to demonstrate the development of all things by natural causes1 without a directing intelligence71 is negatived by a proper consideration of ascertained data1--since these data1 taken all together1 prove a stupendous plan behind all natural phenomena1 and the end of this plan1 the human soul4 ,in rebuttal we are now told that the most essential astronomical theories--as e4g4 the ,copernican ,system1 ,herschel's laws1 the ,newtonian theory of gravitation1--are matter of conjecture 7in plain ,english1 are blind guesses71 are problematic1 and hardly any entitled to unreserved credence4 ,thus do we find1 that the greatest of ,darwinians1 on a mature consideration of the subject1 reached a conclusion which makes evolution as a theory quite unnecessary2 he found that the world is ruled not by blind forces inherent in matter but by ,supreme ,intelligence4 ,and in their effort to keep themselves from being engulfed in the apostacy of a great leader1 the scientists1 as by a unanimous chorus1 announce that the scientific dogmas which enter more or less essentially into their atheistic conception of the universe1 are nothing but surmises6 ,what reason has a ,christian to surrender his faith on account of the contradiction of scientists8 ,he has the oracles of ,god1 the sure ,word of ,him ,who created all things in six natural days4 ,and if he but escape the fascination of scientific speculations1 and study the works of ,god without bias1 he will find in ,nature nothing that does not agree with the ,book4 ,,chapter ,,twelve4 ,the ,fatal ,bias4 ,if the theory of evolution is contradicted as we believe by the data of experimental science1 by the history of civilization1 by the facts especially of religion1 more especially of ,christianity1 then the question is justifiable3 ,why do scientists uphold the evolutionary theory in some form or other1 in spite of such absence of proof and such insufficiency of the hypothesis8 ,in answering this question let us first observe that scientists do not stand opposed to ,christian belief as representatives of science4 ,it is not science1 but the scientists1 not geology1 but the geologists1 not physics1 but the physicists that oppose ,christian theology4 ,in other words1 there is no conflict between the facts of science and the facts of revelation4 ,why should one not be able to maintain ,christian faith though one accept the fact that the volume of expired air is one-fifth less than inspired air2 that plant substance is composed of cells2 that ,halley's comet returns to our system every seventy five years2 that ,sicily was part of the ,roman ,empire in the time of ,augustus8 ,these physiological1 botanical1 astronomical1 and historical facts are not in conflict with the religious beliefs based on ,scripture4 ,the same holds good with reference to the so-called laws of nature4 ,these laws are but group-names for certain phenomena4 ,thus we speak of the law of gravity1 of the conservation of energy1 the ,laws of ,charles and ,mariotte regarding gaseous bodies1 zoological laws1 physiological1 and psychological laws4 ,a book which merely records and classifies these laws and describes the phenomena underlying them1 is a truly scientific book1 yet the acceptance of all that it contained would not force the surrender of any point of ,christian doctrine4 ,hence we say that there is no contradiction between science and theology1 between nature and religion4 ,it is otherwise with the constructions and the interpretations which the scientists place upon the facts of science4 ,for instance1 there is an evident similarity of structure in many animals2 they are built on a similar plan2 their organs have similar or even identical functions4 ,these are simply facts ascertained by observation4 ,their acceptance does not place any burden on ,christian faith4 ,but scientists interpret these facts to mean that there is progressive development in animal and plant life4 ,they have found certain laws 7,natural ,selection and others7 by means of which they require only forces resident in matter to explain the universe4 ,on their hypothesis there is no necessity of miracles nor need we believe in ,god4 ,observe1 this is the result of speculation1 not observation2 interpretation of facts1 but not a conclusion drawn from facts themselves4 ,it is not science but scientists that are opposed to the ,christian religion4 ,this view is supported also by the reflection that the history of speculative thought has ever revealed an anti-,christian intent and purpose1 a fatal bias of scientists and philosophers against the teachings of ,christianity4 ,the modern anatomist and physiologist may declare that his science precludes the necessity of faith in ,god and of prayer2 that through his research he has become a materialist1 an atheist4 ,but even in the ,middle ,ages1 when practically all of anatomy and physiology was yet unexplored1 the physicians of that day were as materialistic as those of our own4 ,the medieval saying was3 ,tres physici1 duo athei1 of every three physicians1 two are atheists4 ,the science of the ,middle ,ages differed very materially from the science of our own day4 ,is it not clear that the same result cannot be produced by causes so dissimilar8 ,that materialism and atheism which scientists announce as a result1 is really the starting point of their speculations4 ,otherwise1 how account for the fact that physicists are1 as a rule1 gross materialists now as they were forty years ago1 although all theories regarding the composition of matter have been radically altered since that day8 ,evidently1 the modern scientist is not on account of his research and speculation induced to proclaim himself as agnostic2 quite the reverse1 the fact that on any system of physics1 zoology1 psychology1 the conclusions remain the same1 proves that these conclusions were in the mind before the facts were investigated4 ,unbelief is not a product of scientific and philosophic speculation1 it is rather their origin and source4 ,there is a settled purpose in relation to which the facts are classified and interpreted4 ,not all scientists are as honest as ,huxley who announces this purpose in the introduction of his ,science and ,hebrew ,tradition3 ,these essays are for the most part intended to contribute to the process of destroying the infallibility of ,scripture4 ,additional light is received from the observation that scientists adhere to their agnostic conclusions even after the premises have been found at fault1 on which they based their conclusions4 ,it is the end and aim of evolution to demonstrate that all processes of life and the history of living organisms may be accounted for without the assumption of a personal ,creator4 ,thus the very beginning of our universe is accounted for 7in the nebular hypothesis7 by the origin of force and motion in matter4 ,however1 ,president ,lowell1 of ,harvard1 twenty years ago said that the nebular hyopthesis was founded on a fundamental mistake4 7,the ,solar ,system1 p4 #aai47 ,do we find that scientists1 though forced to surrender this prop1 have given up atheistic evolution8 ,by no means4 ,evidently1 their atheism is older than their evolution4 ,fifty years ago it was thought that in the heavenly bodies called nebulae the material of which the world was made had been discovered4 ,it was assumed that these nebulae were worlds in the process of formation4 ,in #aiad the scientists at ,lick ,observatory concluded1 from the great speed at which the nebulae traveled1 that they are the remains of worlds which have been or are passing1 and are not the constituents of worlds to be4 ,this destroyed another supposition favoring the theory1 but we do not notice that scientists have become more friendly to ,christianity4 ,or consider the latest speculations on the composition of matter as contained in the works of ,lodge1 ,crookes1 and ,lord ,kelvin4 ,it is now believed that matter is composed of electrical particles smaller than atoms1 called electrons4 ,an atom of gold is said to consist of #acg1bjj electrons4 ,now1 if one considers how closely physical theories are bound up with the principle of evolution1 should we not expect scientists to renounce this principle when another stone in its foundation has been destroyed8 ,and since there is no such renunciation1 is it not plain that this class of scientists insists upon an atheistic interpretation of the universe1 no matter on what hypothesis8 ,for the slow increase of variations in plants and animals1 by which ,darwin accounts for the origin of species1 the evolutionists demanded more than #djj1jjj1jjj years4 ,but it is asserted on the strength of certain calculations by physicists that the earth cannot possibly have existed more than #dj1jjj1jjj years4 ,this latter figure1 based especially on the calculations of ,lord ,kelvin1 caused doubts to be raised regarding evolution which prompted many scientists to renounce it as a working theory4 ,rudimentary structures received attention1 and as a result1 ,st4 ,john ,mivart says3 ,it is an absolute fad that there is no instance of transmutation of species4 ,dr4 ,nathaniel ,s4 ,shaler1 ,professor of ,geology in ,harvard1 wrote3 ,it is not proved that a single species of the two or three millions now on earth has been established by natural selection4 ,thus the evolutionary philosopher is compelled to relinquish one theory after another2 the biologist knocks out the under-pinning1 the geologists and physicists demolish most of the residue2 yet the advocates of evolutionism adhere to their purpose to banish ,god from the universe4 ,in this we have conclusive proof that what evolutionists pretend to find as the conclusion of their research1 in reality was a settled conviction in their minds before they commenced their investigation1 and to which1 in their bias1 they propose to hold fast1 no matter what happens to the evidence once announced as final4 ,the warfare of philosophy against ,christian faith is readily explained4 ,man is corrupt4 ,he loves sin4 ,he is conscious of his guilt and fears the penalty4 ,hence every avenue of escape is welcome1 if only he can persuade himself that there is no ,god1 that there is no judgment4 ,man is proud1 he desires no ,savior4 ,hence the tendency to prove that no ,savior is necessary2 that there is no guilt attaching to sin1 that there is no absolute right and wrong4 ,hence1 too1 the doctrine of the agnostic1 that we can ascribe no attribute to ,god4 ,when we read the ,synthetic ,philosophy of ,spencer1 we are apt to belive tr4 note3 sic that the agnosticism there set forth is the result of deep philosophic speculation4 ,nothing further from the truth4 ,man1 even cultured1 philosophic man1 wants no restrictions placed upon pride and selfishness2 hence it is necessary to rid the mind of the fear of divine justice2 hence we have an interest in demonstrating that ,god has no attributes --such as just1 for instance4 ,the ,psalmist describes this attitude3 ,let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us4 ,no man who has grasped the inner motive of all scientific effort to demolish faith can fail to understand why the rabble greets with such jubilant acclaim every new attack upon the ,biblical narrative4 ,no man who has pondered this motive can be ensnared in the net of science falsely so called4 ,he has seen its inwardness1 its fatal bias4 ,thus a ,christian may preserve an attitude of mental balance over against science4 ,the ,christian believer may admire the achievements of science without being carried away by the speculations of scientists4 ,great is the progress of modern medicine1 so great1 that even the past ten years have witnessed great advances in treating disease4 ,chemistry has developed greater marvels than was ever ascribed to the wizard's wand by ,oriental poets4 ,what astounding performances in applied science--the ,panama ,canal1 the ,hudson ,tunnels1 the development of the automobile and of the airplane1 and the perfection of the telephone and the moving picture6 ,we may exult in all these victories of mind over matter1 and yet stoutly oppose those theories which would make of the mind which created all these marvels merely a development of the instincts of the ape4 ,it is possible1 even1 to be a scientist and in no wise compromise one's ,christian faith and honesty of ,christtian tr4 note3 sic profession4 ,wherever men have contented themselves with purely scientific research1 with investigating and tabulating the phenomena of nature and establishing the laws of life and motion in the universe1 they have found no difficulty in retaining a child-like faith4 ,among those scientists of the first rank who1 far from being forced to the atheistic conclusion1 recognized a wonderful harmony between science and revelation1 was a ,kepler1 who was led by meditations on the harmony of theology with mathematics to follow those laborious calculations by which he first established the orbit of ,mars and then of other planets2 among them was a ,newton1 called by ,justus ,liebig the most sublime genius in a thousand years1 who asserted that his entire system of mechanics was untenable without the supposition of divine ,power2 a ,davy1 prince of chemists1 who saw in all the forces of matter the tools of ,divinity2 a ,linne1 called by ,prof4 ,fraas the greatest naturalist of all times1 who commences his ,system of ,nature thus3 ,awakening ,i saw ,god1 the ,eternal1 the ,infinite1 the ,omniscient1 the ,omnipotent1 and ,i was amazed4 ,i read some of ,his traces in creation4 ,what unspeakable perfection6 ,we find in the roster of scientists who believed in an inspired ,bible and a divine ,savior1 such men as ,hans ,christian ,oerstedt1 the great discoverer of electro-magnetism and the father of all modern electrical science1 who declared that he had but a desire to lead men to ,god by his books2 ,lavoisier1 father of modern chemistry1 a ,christian2 ,maedler1 who reached the front rank of modern astronomers without relinquishing his childhood faith and who said3 ,a real scientist cannot be an infidel2 ,ritter1 greatest of geographers1 who said3 ,all the world is replete with the glory of the ,creator2 ,virchow1 the surgeon of worldwide fame1 who all his life was an outspoken opponent of the evolutionary theory and whose last prayer1 uttered in the presence of his fellow-scientists1 was3 ,christi ,blut und ,gerechtigkeit 4 4 4 4 ,speaking of the triumphant ,redeemer the ,lord says ,isa4 #ec3 ,i will divide ,him a portion with the great and ,he shall divide the spoil with the strong4 ,the kings of the earth shall serve ,him4 ,the prophecy was fulfilled when kings not only on material thrones but kings in the world of intellect and giants of learning have paid homage to the ,god-man ,jesus ,christ4 ,throughout the record of modern science and erudition there are shining examples of the truth that great mental power and profound research are not incompatible with humble acceptance of ,bible teachings4 ,the spiritual blindness of natural man1 his intellectual pride1 and the depravity of his will account for the attitude of many scientists over against the facts of revelation4 ,from the shifting quicksand of their speculation we may rise unharmed on the pinions of a faith guided by the principle3 ,it is written4