,transcriber's note3 ,text enclosed by underscores is in italics 7italics74 ,small capital text has been replaced with all capitals4 99 99 99 99 99 ,illustration3 titlepage ,the ,other ,side of ,evolution ,its ,effects and ,fallacy ,,by ,,rev4 ,,alexander ,,patterson ,director1 ,presbyterian ,training ,school of ,chicago ,author of ,the ,greater ,life and ,work of ,christ1 ,the ,bible ,as ,it ,is1 ,bird's-,eye ,bible ,study and ,the ,bible ,manual4 ,illustration3 logo ,,chicago ,,the ,,bible ,,institute ,,colportage ,,association #hbf ,,north ,,la ,,salle ,,street ,,copyright1 #aijc ,,by ,,the ,,bible ,,institute ,,colportage ,,association ,,of ,,chicago ,,table ,,of ,,contents4 ,,preface4 ,claims of ,evolution4 -- ,interest in subject4 -- ,effect on ,christian belief4 -- ,opinion of eminent scholars4 -- ,effect on the common man4 -- ,evolution being accepted on exparte evidence4 -- ,question too important to be left to science4 -- ,the average man capable of understanding the arguments4 -- ,the court of last resort4 vii ,,introduction4 ,meaning of ,evolution4 -- ,conversational and scientific use of the word4 -- ,le ,conte's definition4 -- ,spencer's ,spheres of ,evolution4 -- ,theistic and ,atheistic ,evolution4 -- ,the origin of man1 the vital point4 -- ,the ,bible account and ,darwin's4 xix ,,chapter ,i4 ,,evolution ,,is ,,an ,,unproven ,,theory4 ,nearly all evolutionists admit this4 -- ,citations from ,tyndall1 ,spencer1 ,huxley1 ,prof4 ,conn1 ,whitney1 ,dr4 ,j4 ,a4 ,zahm1 ,dr4 ,rudolph ,schmidt1 and others4 -- ,evolution rejected by many and opposed4 -- ,complaint of ,prof4 ,haeckel on this4 -- ,prof4 ,virchow's opposition4 -- ,list of scientists who do not advocate ,evolution4 -- ,discarded theories of the past4 -- ,uncertainty of scientific theories in general4 #e ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,the ,,evolution ,,of ,,the ,,universe ,,and ,,earth4 ,the four problems facing ,evolution1 the origin of matter1 of force1 the formation and orderly adjustment of the universe and the origin of life4 -- ,evolution makes no attempt at the first two4 -- ,spencer admits it is the unknowable4 -- ,lord ,kelvin's testimony4 -- ,prof4 ,george ,frederick ,wright on the ,nebular ,hypothesis4 -- ,the solar system unique4 -- ,the fire-mist and its wonderful contents4 -- ,failure as to origin of life4 -- ,le ,conte's theory4 -- ,testimony of ,tyndall1 ,wilson1 ,conn1 against spontaneous generation4 #ag ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,evolution ,,of ,,species4 ,evolution's great field4 -- ,no case of evolution known --,no cause of evolution known4 -- ,how evolution originated species4 -- ,argument from ,geology4 -- ,geologists opposing it2 ,sir ,j4 ,w4 ,dawson1 ,sir ,r4 ,murchison1 ,barrande4 -- ,prof4 ,conn's admissions4 -- ,haeckel's admissions4 -- ,the argument from ,morphology4 -- ,rudimentary parts4 -- ,the ,eohippus1 ,old ,horse4 -- ,argument from classification of species4 -- ,no agreed classification4 -- ,evolution's phantom tree4 -- ,no changes in ,egypt's #d1jjj years or prehistoric man's longer time4 -- ,distribution of plants and animals4 -- ,argument from ,embryology4 -- ,the three-fold argument of ,evolution4 -- ,facts opposing ,evolution4 #bf ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,the ,,evolution ,,of ,,man4 ,the vital question4 -- ,all evolutionists agree here4 -- ,the two accounts of ,bible and ,evolution4 -- ,arguments from origin of species4 -- ,argument from similarity of structure4 -- ,argument from human characteristics4 -- ,rudimentary organs in man4 -- ,the gill-slits4 -- ,how the brute became man4 -- ,prof4 ,edward ,clodd's account of ,the ,making of a ,man4 -- ,edward ,morris' description of primeval man4 -- ,the ,theistic ,evolutionist's ,adam and how he fell4 -- ,the ,missing ,link4 -- ,the ,calaveras skull4 -- ,neanderthal skull4 -- ,haeckel's ,pithecanthropus-,erectus4 -- ,the ,colorado monkey's skeleton4 -- ,croatia skeletons4 -- ,argument from the brain4 -- ,prof4 ,clodd's story of how man got his brain4 -- ,argument from language4 -- ,prof4 ,max ,mueller's protest4 -- ,argument from prehistoric man4--,antiquity of man4 -- ,testimony as to man's recent origin from ,prof4 ,george ,frederick ,wright1 ,s4 ,r4 ,pattison1 ,prof4 ,friedrich ,pfaff1 ,winchell1 ,dr4 ,j4 ,a4 ,zahm4--,argument from uncivilized races4 -- ,argument from history of limits of man's history4 -- ,evolution and religion4 -- ,evolution's ethics4 -- ,christian experience4--,christ and evolution4 #fj ,,chapter ,v4 ,,evolution ,,unscientific ,,and ,,unphilosophical4 ,four steps necessary to proof1 ,facts1 ,classification1 ,inferences1 ,verification4 -- ,fails to account for facts4 -- ,has no classification4 -- ,false in inferences and has no verification4 -- ,rests on imagination4 -- ,tyndall's ,scientific ,use of the ,imagination4 -- ,evolution the ,doctrine of ,chance revamped and clothed in scientific terms4 #aab ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,evolution ,,and ,,the ,,bible4 ,evolution has no scriptural argument4 -- ,the two accounts mutually exclusive4 -- ,bible account appealed to by all ,scripture writers as ,fact4 -- ,evolution's interpretation of ,scripture4 -- ,christ's testimony to the facts of ,scripture4 -- ,evolution and ,bible doctrines4 -- ,importance of ,adam as basis of ,scripture doctrine4 -- ,man's state and remedy as given by ,evolution and by the ,bible4 -- ,the future of the ,bible and of ,evolution4 -- ,evolution in its logical form is ,atheism4--,evolution a relic of heathenism4--,testimony of ,james ,freeman ,clarke1 ,sir ,j4 ,william ,dawson4 #abj ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,the ,,spiritual ,,effect ,,of ,,evolution4 ,must affect the spiritual state4 -- ,effect on candidates for ministry4 -- ,latent effect on faith4 -- ,on experimental religion4 -- ,evolution as a state of heart4 -- ,a comfortable theory to the impenitent4 -- ,prepares for isms4 -- ,weakens pulpit power4 -- ,eliminates faith in the supernatural and eternal4 -- ,education's place in modern giving4 -- ,is this the last form of unbelief8 -- ,the common people and the ,gospel of the ,cross4 #acg ,,preface4 ,evolution is claimed by its advocates to be the greatest intellectual discovery of the past century1 and1 by some1 the greatest thought that ever entered the mind of man4 ,in the words of its greatest philosopher1 ,herbert ,spencer1 ,it spans the universe and solves the widest range of its problems1 which reach outward through boundless space1 and back through illimitable time1 resolving the deepest problems of life1 mind1 society1 history and civilization4 ,it has woven into one great philosophy the history of the material universe1 the entire organic creation1 man and all his faculties1 the whole course of human history and the origin and progress of all religion4 ,it also undertakes to account for the ,bible1 for what is popularly called higher criticism represents the biblical branch of ,evolution4 ,it has reconstructed the ,bible and remanded its miraculous narratives to the realm of myth4 ,it has formulated a theology in which the most sacred doctrines of evangelical belief are discarded4 ,in its central theory of the origin of man1 it vitally affects the doctrines of the nature of man1 of sin and penalty1 man's need and the work of ,christ4 ,it even touches the person of ,christ1 for many of its advocates say that ,he too comes within its scope4 ,in its radical and most consistent form1 it utterly discards belief in ,god4 ,most of the great teachers of ,evolution1 such as ,ernst ,haeckel of ,jena1 are and have been atheists4 ,it is true that many evolutionists are theistic4 ,but it is not enough to be theistic4 ,the devil is theistic1 so was ,thomas ,paine4 ,christianity is far more than theism4 ,it is the grossest sophistry to teach that because a belief has some truth in it we must therefore tolerate it4 ,all false doctrine is sugarcoated with truth4 ,that we are not overstating the dangerous nature of the theory will appear from the following opinions of competent scholars and observers4 ,prof4 ,george ,frederick ,wright1 the eminent geologist1 says of ,evolution3 ,it is the fad of the present1 which is making such havoc and confusion in the thought of the age1 leading so many into intellectual positions1 whose conclusions they dare not face and cannot flank1 and from which they cannot retreat except through the valley of humiliation4 7,bibliotheca ,sacra1 ,april1 #aijj47 ,prof4 ,george ,howison sounds this alarm3 ,it is a portent so threatening to the highest concerns of man1 that we ought to look before we leap and look more than once4 ,under the sheen of the evolutionary account of man1 the world of real persons1 the world of individual responsibility1 disappears2 with it disappears the personality of ,god4 7,limits of ,evolution1 pp4 #e1 #f47 ,there is a vital connection between ,facts1 ,doctrines1 ,experiences1 ,conduct and ,prospects4 ,these successively flow from each other4 ,christianity rests on facts1 from these we derive doctrines and from doctrines come experiences1 which give rise to conduct and that ends in suitable prospects4 ,facts form the basis of ,christianity4 ,when1 therefore1 ,evolution attacks the ,facts of the ,bible1 it attempts to undermine the very basis of all ,christianity4 ,president ,francis ,l4 ,patton has said3 ,you may put your philosophy in one pocket and your religion in another and think that1 as they are separate1 they will not interfere1 but that will not work4 ,you have to bring your theory of the universe and your theory of religion together4 ,this is the work of this age4 ,while all do not go the length of the radical evolutionists1 yet such is the natural working of the human mind1 that this will be its logical conclusion4 ,if this theory is accepted1 we must look for widespread lapse from all ,christian faith and1 as conduct follows belief in all intelligent creatures1 we shall see also great moral declension4 ,to the ordinary man1 the matter appears in this light3 ,if we cannot believe a man's statements we will not take his advice4 ,if we cannot believe the ,bible's narratives why should we believe its religion8 ,if it is not trustworthy as to facts of this world1 why depend upon it as to the other world8 ,if it cannot teach correctly the nature of insects and animals1 why should it be able to tell us the nature of ,god8 ,the common man reasons rightly4 ,the ,bible must stand or fall by its reliability all along the line of truth of every kind4 ,evolution is being taught1 or taken for granted to-day in high schools1 academies1 colleges1 universities1 and seminaries4 ,it meets the ,sunday ,school scholar at the first chapter of ,genesis4 ,a busy city pastor says he has been asked about it every day in the week4 ,it is a living question and must be met4 ,in every free library are the works of ,spencer1 ,darwin1 ,tyndall1 ,huxley and others1 and these are read continually4 ,it does seem as if the other side of such a question ought to be given and considered1 if there be another side1 and there certainly is4 ,the theory of ,evolution is being accepted to-day upon ex-parte evidence4 ,the books on ,evolution are numbered by hundreds1 those giving the other side are few4 ,many do not even read for themselves but rely upon the weight of noted names1 or the supposed consensus of scholarship4 ,it is even asserted that none but scholars have the right to discuss the subject4 ,dr4 ,lyman ,abbott says in his ,evidences of ,christianity that those who are not scientists must be content to await the final judgment of those who are experts on this subject1 and meanwhile accept tentatively their conclusions4 ,not to notice this demand that we rest on an unfinished theory1 might we not ask permission to accept1 tentatively at least1 the ,bible as it is1 while awaiting the conclusions of scientists as to what we shall think or believe about it2 especially in view of the fact that all that has been done so far by ,christianity on earth has been effected by the conservative belief in the ,bible4 ,but non-scientific people are able to comprehend ,evolution4 ,the scientist to-day is able to state conclusions in language the non-scientific can readily understand1 and the evolutionist himself tells us we can understand his facts and arguments4 ,so we who are not scientists may proceed to investigate a subject in which we have so much at stake4 ,the questions involved are too important to be left to the scientist alone4 ,the scientist is mainly a witness as to the facts of nature4 ,it is the duty of the whole body of the intelligent ,christian community1 lay and clerical1 to generalize and draw conclusions4 ,these form1 as they have in the past1 the court of last resort in such discussions4 ,the best generalizer will be1 not the scientist whose labors are necessarily confined to a single science1 or even to a department of it1 and who may be even more or less biased by his environment1 but the best juryman will be the intelligent non-scientific mind4 ,it is before the judgment seat of ,christian ,common ,sense that this and all other theories must appear4 ,it is the man in the pew who says to this pastor1 ,come1 and he cometh1 and to that professor1 ,go1 and he goeth4 ,nor is this examination premature4 ,evolution has been now for many years before the public and its writings fill libraries4 ,we may assume that the evidence is now before us and1 if not all in1 at least enough is given us by which to judge its nature and probable outcome4 ,this we may further assume in view of the fact that the advocates of the theory admit that an increasing number of facts are not giving increasing evidence but that their case is more beset with difficulties than in the day of ,darwin1 the father of the hypothesis1 or rather1 its step-father4 ,so we may proceed with our examination4 ,the author of this book makes no claim to being a scientist4 ,he is simply one of the great jury to whom this theory appeals4 ,he has1 therefore1 here simply considered the evidence and given herein his conclusions4 ,the facts and arguments of evolutionary writers will form the chief source of the examination4 ,nearly one hundred writers and works are cited4 ,out of its own mouth we will condemn it4 ,the citations in a book as small as this must be brief but care has been taken that they are fair as to the points they are given to show4 ,it is not claimed that the citations from evolutionary writers exhibit their opinion on the whole subject but that they do show their fatal admissions and their general uncertainty on the whole subject4 ,it will be shown that ,evolution is not accepted by all scientists and scholars2 that it is rejected by some of the greatest of these2 that it is admittedly an unproven theory2 that it has never been verified and cannot be2 that not a single case of evolution has ever been presented1 and that there is no known cause by which it could take place4 ,its arguments will be considered one by one and their fallacy shown4 ,it will be shown to be1 by its own principles1 unscientific and unphilosophical1 and simply a revamping of the old doctrine of ,chance clothed in scientific terms4 ,finally1 it will be shown that it is violently opposed to the narrative and doctrines of the ,bible and destructive of all ,christian faith2 that it originated in heathenism and ends in atheism4 ,much of the material in this book has been presented by the author in lectures upon the ,bible during ,bible institutes and conferences1 and he has been frequently requested to put it in printed form4 ,he hopes that where the arguments do not convince1 they will at least bring the reader to what ,mr4 ,gladstone called that most wholesome state1 a suspended judgment4 ,among others1 the following writers are cited3 ,agassiz1 ,abbott1 ,argyle1 ,askernazy1 ,balfour1 ,brewster1 ,ballard1 ,bruner1 ,barrande1 ,bunge1 ,brown1 ,bowers1 ,bixby1 ,bonn1 ,clodd1 ,conn1 ,cope1 ,clarke1 ,cooke1 ,de,rouge1 ,dana1 ,dawson1 ,dubois1 ,etheridge1 ,fovel1 ,fiske1 ,gladstone1 ,galton1 ,gregory1 ,hilprecht1 ,huxley1 ,howison1 ,haeckel1 ,haecke1 ,harrison1 ,herschel1 ,hartman1 ,harnack1 ,heer1 ,humphrey1 ,hoffman1 ,hamann1 ,ingersoll1 ,jones1 ,kelvin1 ,koelliker1 ,liebig1 ,lecky1 ,le,conte1 ,lang1 ,meyer1 ,max ,mueller1 ,monier1 ,murchison1 ,naegeli1 ,paulsen1 ,pfaff1 ,petrie1 ,pattison1 ,r4 ,patterson1 ,pfliederer1 ,patton1 ,parker1 ,ruskin1 ,romanes1 ,reymond1 ,renouf1 ,schliemann1 ,sayce1 ,starr1 ,schultz1 ,sully1 ,spencer1 ,schmidt1 ,sedgwick1 ,stuckenberg1 ,snell1 ,see1 ,townsend1 ,thomas1 ,tyndall1 ,thomson1 ,virchow1 ,von ,baer1 ,wallace1 ,winchell1 ,warfield1 ,wright1 ,whitney1 ,wagner1 ,woodrow ,wilson1 ,white1 ,wiseman1 ,zahm1 ,zoeckler4 ,i especially acknowledge indebtedness to ,prof4 ,george ,frederick ,wright1 of ,oberlin ,college1 in revising this book and for his valuable suggestions and corrections1 and especially his favorable introduction4 ,to his works confirming many of my conclusions ,i refer the reader1 as follows3 ,the ,logic of ,christian ,evidence1 ,the ,scientific ,aspects of ,christian ,evidences1 ,the ,ice ,age in ,north ,america1 ,man in the ,great ,ice ,age4 ,,alexander ,,patterson4 ,,preface ,,to ,,third ,,edition4 ,in issuing a third edition of this book it is proper to state what changes1 if any1 have occurred in the discussion4 ,while the belief in ,evolution is wide-spread1 no known cause or causes have yet been discovered by which the supposed changes in species occurred1 for ,evolution is not a force or energy of any kind1 but only the name of a theory by which the present order of nature is supposed to have come4 ,the method ,darwin proposed was by ,natural ,selection arising from the prodigality of production1 the small variations that occur in living things1 the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest1 aided by environment and other causes all of which by slow degrees during infinite ages have produced the progressive order of species4 ,this has been decided to be insufficient and has been abandoned by evolutionary writers4 ,it is now agreed that the changes must have occurred in variations originating in the embryo or in the germ1 or in the very substance of which that is composed4 ,but all this is far beyond human ken as all writers admit1 as follows3 ,we are ignorant of the factors which are at work to produce evolution4 ,we do not even know whether the life processes are conducted in accordance with the principles of chemistry and physics1 or are in obedience to some more subtle vital principle4 7,metcalf1 ,organic ,evolution47 ,president ,david ,starr ,jordan and ,prof4 ,vernon ,lyman ,kellogg1 both of ,stanford ,university1 say3 ,these changes or variations1 if they do occur1 cannot be explained4 7,evolution and ,animal ,life1 p4 #aab47 ,this is universally admitted by scientific writers and the search is now for some proof for ,evolution along these lines4 ,but as ,president ,jordan makes the still greater confession that science does not comprehend a single elemental fact of nature1 and such writers as the late ,lord ,kelvin1 president of the ,british ,association for the ,advancement of ,science1 agree thereto1 the required proof seems far off4 ,so the discussion is in even a less tangible state than in ,darwin's time1 for that had a theory supposed to be sufficient1 but now there is no known cause which can be demonstrated or offers the slightest explanation1 as admitted above by these leading writers4 ,the facts which are advanced to support the theory are dealt with in this volume and their fallacy shown1 that all may be explained without reverting to such an unproven theory as ,evolution4 ,,alexander ,,patterson4 ,chicago1 ,april #ae1 #aiab4 ,,introduction ,,by ,,prof4 ,,george ,,frederick ,,wright ,,of ,,oberlin ,,college4 ,the doctrine of ,evolution as it is now becoming current in popular literature is one-tenth bad ,science and nine-tenths bad ,philosophy4 ,darwin was not strictly an ,evolutionist1 and rarely used the word4 ,he endeavored simply to show that ,species were enlarged varieties4 ,the title of his epoch making book was1 ,the ,origin of ,species by ,natural ,selection4 ,on the larger questions of the origin of genera and the more comprehensive orders of plants and animals1 he spoke with great caution and only referred to such theories as things dimly seen in the distance4 ,herbert ,spencer1 however1 came in with his sweeping philosophical theory of the ,evolution of all things through natural processes1 and took ,darwin's work in a limited field as a demonstration of his philosophy4 ,it is this philosophy which many popular writers and teachers1 and some thoughtless ,scientific men have taken up and made the center of their systems4 ,but the most of our men of ,science are modest in their expressions upon such philosophical themes4 ,herbert ,spencer does not rank among the great men of ,science of the day4 ,lord ,kelvin's recent remarks upon the subject are most truthful and significant4 7,see below pp4 #ah1 #bd47 ,mr4 ,patterson does well to emphasize the fact that orderly succession does not necessarily imply evolution from resident forces4 ,the orderly arrangements of a business house proceed from the activity of a number of free wills1 each of which might do differently1 but act in a definite manner1 through voluntary adherence to a single purpose4 ,god is all wise and good as well as all powerful4 ,his plan of ,creation will therefore be consistent whatever be the means through which he accomplishes it4 ,mr4 ,patterson1 also1 does well to dwell upon the uncertainties of ,science4 ,inductive ,science looks but a short distance either into space or time1 and has no word concerning either the beginning of things or the end of things4 ,upon these points the ,inspired ,word is still our best and our only authority4 ,while not saying that all the points in this little volume are well taken1 ,i can say that ,i disagree with fewer things in it than with those in almost any other on the subject1 and that it is fitted to serve as a very needful tonic in these days of the confusion of bad ,philosophy and fragmentary ,science4 ,,george ,,frederick ,,wright4 ,oberlin1 ,ohio1 ,aug4 #aj1 #aijc4 ,,foreword4 ,before entering upon the discussion we need to enquire as to the meaning of the word ,evolution as applied to the theory4 ,we must also ask a definition of the theory as given by its best-known writers2 and also enquire as to the spheres it claims to cover4 ,to clearly state a question is often half the task of solving it4 ,,meaning ,,of ,,evolution4 ,we must distinguish between the ordinary conversational sense of the word ,evolution and the technical use of the term as designating a theory by that name4 ,we speak of the evolution of the seed into the plant and the further evolution of the flower and the fruit1 meaning by our words merely the natural progressive action of the life within the plant4 ,this principle the evolutionist applies to the whole universe which he says came in a similar way4 ,again we use the word ,evolution to describe any succession of things which show progress4 ,such an instance is given us in the change in appliances for the use of steam from the time when its power was first observed in the lifting lid of the tea-kettle to the time when it drives the latest ocean liner4 ,this is1 however1 simply the succession of a series of things in advancing order1 but without vital connection4 ,their real relation is outside of themselves in the minds of the inventors who1 in turn1 may be many and widely separated4 ,succession is not ,evolution nor does it prove or imply such a process4 ,that demands an intimate and genetic connection between the things as they appear1 the higher growing out of the substance of the lower in physical things and the intellectual likewise4 ,the theory of ,evolution asserts that from a nebulous mass of primeval substance1 whose origin it never attempts to account for1 there came by natural processes1 as a flower from a bud1 and fruit from the flower1 all that we see and know in the heavens above and the earth beneath4 ,tyndall's statement of the scope of the theory is as follows3 ,strip it naked and you stand face to face with the notion1 that not only the ignoble forms of life1 the animalcular and animal life1 not only the more noble forms of the horse and lion1 not only the exquisite mechanism of the human body1 but the human mind with its emotions1 intellect1 will and all their phenomena1 were latent in that fiery cloud4 7,christianity and ,positivism1 p4 #cj47 ,dr4 ,lyman ,abbott further defines its application to man thus3 ,evolution is the doctrine that this life of man1 this moral1 this ethical1 this spiritual nature has been developed by natural processes4 7,theology of an ,evolutionist47 ,herbert ,spencer's celebrated definition is as follows3 ,evolution is a progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous1 from general to special1 from the simple to the complex elements of life4 ,but we deny the right to apply this definition exclusively to the theory of ,evolution4 ,creation also proceeds on the same order1 so also does manufacture or any other intelligent operation4 ,the clearest account of the theory is that given by ,prof4 ,le ,conte1 as follows3 ,all things came 7#a7 by continuous progressive changes1 7#b7 according to certain laws1 7#c7 by means of resident forces4 7,evolution and ,religious ,thought47 ,it is the latter clause in which the real meaning of the theory lies4 ,these resident forces include exterior influences such as food1 climate1 etc4 ,the theories of ,evolution are as many as the respective writers4 ,each one has his own theory as to the scope and cause and operation of it all4 ,theistic ,evolution allows the intervention of ,god at the creation of the primeval fire-mist and at the origin of life and the production of man's spiritual nature4 ,the atheist denies any interference of a ,creator at all4 ,haeckel says the best definition of ,evolution is the non-miraculous origin and progress of the universe4 ,he and many others say that if the ,creator is admitted at any point1 ,he may as well be admitted all along4 ,this is consistent ,evolution4 ,the theistic and the atheistic evolutionist however agree in saying that man was descended from the brute1 as to his body at least1 and some even1 as above shown1 claim this descent for the whole man4 ,this doctrine as to man is the vital part of the whole theory and in this all evolutionists are practically agreed4 ,so that so far as their effect on ,christian doctrine and ,bible fact is concerned1 all may be classed together4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,evolution ,,as ,,an ,,unproven ,,theory4 ,with perhaps the exception of ,prof4 ,ernst ,haeckel of ,jena1 all evolutionists admit that ,evolution is unproven4 ,one of the latest writers1 and most impartial1 is ,prof4 ,h4 ,w4 ,conn1 who says in his ,evolution of ,to-day3 ,nothing has been positively proved as to the question at issue4 ,from its very nature1 ,evolution is beyond proof4444 ,the difficulties offered to an unhesitating acceptance of ,evolution are very great1 and have not grown less since the appearance of ,darwin's ,origin of ,species1 but have in some respects grown greater4 7pp4 #ajg1 #bjc47 ,he makes many such admissions4 ,dr4 ,rudolph ,schmidt writes1 ,all these theories have not passed beyond the rank of hypotheses4 7,theories of ,darwin1 p4 #fa47 ,prof4 ,whitney1 of ,yale ,university1 says1 ,we cannot think the theory yet converted into a scientific fact and those are perhaps the worst foes to its success who are over-hasty to take it and use it as a proved fact4 7,oriental and ,linguistic ,studies1 pp4 #bic-d7 ,tyndall said3 ,those who hold the doctrine of ,evolution are by no means ignorant of the uncertainty of their data1 and they only yield to it a provisional assent4 7,fragments of ,science1 p4 #afb47 ,dr4 ,j4 ,a4 ,zahm writes3 ,the theory of ,evolution is not yet proved by any demonstrative evidence4 ,an absolute demonstration is impossible4 7,popular ,science ,monthly1 ,april1 #ahih47 ,huxley said1 ,so long as the evidence at present adduced falls short of supporting the affirmative1 the doctrine must be content to remain among the hypotheses4 7,lay ,sermons1 p4 #bie47 ,down to the end of his life1 he said the evidence for ,evolution was insufficient4 7,quarterly ,review1 ,january1 #aija47 ,this universal admission will be a surprise to the non-scientific1 especially in view of the astounding and sweeping claims the theory has made4 ,it will seem strange that a confessedly unproven theory should be made the basis of all modern thinking1 the foundation of a universal philosophy1 the cause of a revolution in theology1 and the reason for rejecting the narratives of the ,bible1 and1 on the part of some1 of abandoning ,christianity and launching into atheism4 ,yet such is the case4 ,well may we draw a long breath here and say1 ,is this ,science8 ,is it scientific to accept as true an unproven theory and make it the basis of all belief8 ,we have even more startling facts to present as to this amazing form of unbelief4 ,in discussing ,evolution1 we must also continually distinguish between fact and theory1 between things proven and assumed4 ,for the writers continually intermingle these in a confusing way4 ,we need ever to ask concerning its statements1 ,is this proven or assumed8 ,the jury have a right to ask that everything be proved absolutely before rendering a verdict for ,evolution4 ,,evolution ,,is ,,not ,,accepted ,,by ,,all ,,scientists ,,and ,,scholars4 ,the statement is often made that ,evolution has the ,consensus of ,scholarship4 ,this carries force to the non-scientific1 indeed to all1 for we must rest our faith1 for facts at least1 on the opinion of scientists4 ,but while many have followed it1 there remain many scholars who have not bowed the knee to ,baal4 ,prof4 ,haeckel1 its greatest living advocate1 complains bitterly of the opposition of many of the scientists of ,europe1 and that many once with him have deserted him4 ,the late ,dr4 ,virchow1 the great pathologist and the discoverer of the germ theory1 was an active opponent of ,evolution4 ,he says3 ,the reserve which most naturalists impose on themselves is supported by the small actual proofs of ,darwin's theory4 ,facts seem to teach the invariability of the human and the animal species4 7,popular ,science1 pp4 #ej1 #eb47 ,dr4 ,groette1 in his inaugural address as rector of the ,university of ,strasburg1 rejected ,evolution4 ,dr4 ,d4 ,s4 ,gregory of ,new ,york1 editor of the ,homiletic ,review and in a position to know the facts1 vouches for the statement1 that1 ,it is a strange fact that no great scientific authority in ,great ,britain in exact science1 science that reduces its conclusions to mathematical formulae1 has endorsed ,evolution4 ,the late ,dr4 ,j4 ,h4 ,w4 ,stuckenberg1 of ,cambridge1 wrote me1 that many of the scientists of ,germany reject the extreme views of ,evolution1 and the inferences which men like ,prof4 ,haeckel1 of ,jena1 have drawn from ,darwinism4 ,he quotes ,dr4 ,w4 ,haecke1 a zoologist of ,jena1 the home of ,prof4 ,haeckel1 as saying3 ,we the younger men must free ourselves from the ,darwinian dogma1 in which respect quite a number of us have been quite successful4 ,prof4 ,paulsen1 of ,berlin1 has exposed some of ,haeckel's fallacies and regards his reasoning as a disgrace to ,germany4 ,he said the mechanical theory for which ,darwinism was held to stand1 is rejected by such scientists as ,naegeli1 ,koelliker1 ,m4 ,wagner1 ,snell1 ,fovel1 ,bunge1 the physiological chemist1 ,a4 ,brown1 ,hoffman and ,askernazy1 botanists2 ,oswald ,heer1 the geologist1 and ,otto ,hamann1 the zoologist4 ,of ,carl ,ernst von ,baer1 the eminent zoologist and anthropologist1 ,haecke affirms1 that in early years he came near adopting the hypothesis of ,evolution into his system1 but that at a later date he utterly rejected it4 ,the same change occurred in the late ,du ,bois ,reymond and ,prof4 ,virchow1 the eminent scientist of the ,university of ,berlin4 7,see also articles of ,dr4 ,stuckenberg in ,homiletic ,review1 ,january1 #aija1 ,may1 #aijb47 ,sir ,j4 ,william ,dawson1 the great geologist of ,canada1 utterly rejected it and says3 ,it is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity2 it is utterly destitute of proof4 7,story of the ,earth and ,man1 p4 #cag47 ,dr4 ,etheridge1 examiner of the ,british ,museum1 said to ,dr4 ,george ,e4 ,post1 in answer to a question1 ,in all this great museum1 there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species4 ,this museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of these views4 ,thomas ,carlyle called ,evolution the gospel of dirt4 ,ruskin said of it1 ,i have never yet heard one logical argument in its favor4 ,i have heard and read many that are beneath contempt4 7,the ,eagles ,nest1 p4 #bef47 ,prof4 ,zckler writes3 ,it must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its defenders at the outset4 ,a mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand4 ,such utterances are now very common in the periodicals of ,germany1 it is said4 ,it seems plain the reaction has commenced and that the pendulum that has swung so strongly in the direction of ,evolution1 is now oscillating the other way4 ,it required twenty years for ,evolution to reach us from abroad4 ,is it necessary for us to wait twenty years more to reverse our opinions8 ,why may we not pass upon facts for ourselves without awaiting the ,consensus of ,european ,scholarship1 which is after all so subject to perplexing reversals8 ,it makes plain people dizzy to attempt to follow leaders of opinion who change with every wind that blows across the ocean4 ,many citations will appear in the following pages which show the strong exceptions taken by leading scholars against the theory in whole or in part4 ,indeed1 as said already1 the arguments to be given herein against ,evolution are drawn from the statements of leading evolutionists themselves4 ,some of these are earlier opinions and some their latest utterances4 ,in every case the state of the discussion will be shown to be far from that ,consensus of ,scholarship so airily claimed by the writers on the subject and so unhesitatingly accepted by their followers4 ,it may be objected that some of these authorities are dead and that later scholars differ from them4 ,not to mention the names of still living writers named above1 let us remark that all wisdom is not left to our day4 ,socrates and ,bacon are dead1 yet their opinions are still of value4 ,moses is dead1 yet the ,ten ,commandments are still believed if not obeyed4 ,our present evolutionary writers will also one day be dead1 yet they hope even then to be given some credit for sense and science4 ,the consensus of scholarship ought to include wisdom past as well as present4 ,it is also to be remembered that there are thousands of quiet thinkers who have never given in their adhesion to this startling theory1 and more1 that the great masses of the church at least1 have no confidence in it4 ,those preparing to launch their ships upon this current had better1 as a matter of common prudence at least1 wait a while at least till the mists have rolled away4 ,,discarded ,,theories ,,of ,,the ,,past4 ,prof4 ,george ,frederick ,wright says1 ,the history of science is little else than one of discarded theories4444 ,the so-called science of the present day is largely going the way so steadily followed in the past4 ,the things about which true science is certain are very few and could be contained in a short chapter of a small book4 7,the ,advance1 ,may #ab1 #aijb47 ,it is sometimes charged to the church that it has held theories which the discoveries of science have shown to be untrue4 ,but it must be borne in mind that these false theories were just as firmly held by the scientists of the day as by the church4 ,dr4 ,andrew ,white has written two great volumes on the warfare between science and theology4 ,he might write many and larger volumes on the wars between the theories of science4 ,every one of these discarded theories1 and they are numbered by thousands1 has been the center of terrific conflicts4 ,galileo's discovery of the satellites of ,jupiter was opposed by his fellow astronomers1 who even refused to look at them through his telescope4 ,dr4 ,j4 ,a4 ,zahm quotes ,cardinal ,wiseman as saying that the ,french ,institute in #ahfj could count more than eighty theories opposed to ,scripture1 not one of which has stood still or deserves to be recorded4 ,at a meeting of the ,british ,association1 ,sir ,william ,thomson announced that he believed life had come to this globe by a meteor4 ,his theory lived less than a year4 ,mr4 ,huxley said that the origin of life was a sheet of gelatinous living matter which covered the bottom of the ocean4 ,this theory had even a shorter life4 ,among the most recent reversals of this kind is that of a universally held theory1 namely1 that coral reefs are built up by the coral insects in their desire to keep near the surface as the ocean's bottom sinks4 ,prof4 ,a4 ,agassiz has just demolished this theory4 ,scholars were unanimous a short time ago that ,troy was a myth4 ,but ,dr4 ,schliemann's great discoveries have overthrown that consensus of scholarship4 ,prof4 ,harnack1 one of the greatest of critics in his great work1 ,the ,chronology of the ,christian ,scriptures1 admits that science1 meaning ,higher ,criticism1 has made many mistakes and has much to repent of4 ,joseph ,cook said1 ,within the memory of man yet comparatively young1 the mythical theory of ,strauss has had its rise1 its fall1 its burial4 ,the thirty thousand citizens of ,st4 ,pierre on ,martinique1 trusting in the assurances of the scientists1 remained in their fated city and the next day were overwhelmed in the most awful calamity of modern times4 ,we may consider in this connection the dissatisfaction of some of the greatest minds of evolutionary circles with the results of their own theory4 ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer is thus quoted1 writing in his eighty-third year3 ,the intellectual man1 who occupies the same tenement with me1 tells me that ,i am but a piece of animated clay equipped with a nerve system and in some mysterious way connected with the big dynamo called the world2 but that very soon now the circuit will be cut and ,i will fall into unconsciousness and nothingness4 ,yes ,i am sad1 unutterbly sad1 and ,i wish in my heart ,i had never heard of the intellectual man with his science1 philosophy and logic4 7,facts and ,comments47 ,prof4 ,frederic ,harrison1 the agnostic1 thus writes3 ,the philosophy of evolution and demonstration promised but it did not perform4 ,it raised hopes1 but it led to disappointment4 ,it claimed to explain the world and to direct man1 but it left a great blank4 ,that blank was the field of religion1 of morality1 of the sanctions of deity4 ,it left the mystery of the future as mysterious as ever and yet as imperative as ever4 ,whatever philosophy of nature it offered1 it gave no adequate philosophy of ,man4 ,it was busy with the physiology of ,humanity and propounded inconceivable and repulsive guesses about the origin of ,humanity4 7,north ,american ,review1 ,december1 #aijj1 p4 #hbe47 ,from the opposite side of the field1 ,president ,woodrow ,wilson writes3 ,this is the dis-service scientific study has done for us2 it has given us agnosticism in the realm of philosophy1 scientific anarchism in the field of politics4 ,it has made the legislator confident that he can create and the philosopher sure that ,god cannot4 7,forum1 ,december1 #ahif47 ,,uncertainty ,,of ,,scientific ,,theories ,,in ,,general4 ,another feature which strikes the non-scientific mind curiously is the wide differences among great scientists as to the facts of nature4 ,the age of the earth is variously declared to be ten million years by some1 and by others equally able1 a thousand million years4 ,the temperature of its interior is stated to be #a1ecj degrees by one1 and #cej1jjj degrees by another4 ,herschel calculated the mountains on the moon to be half a mile high1 ,ferguson said they were fifteen miles high4 ,the height of the ,aurora ,borealis is guessed from two and a half to one hundred and sixty miles1 and its nature is still more widely described4 ,the delta at the mouth of the ,mississippi was calculated by ,lyell to have been #ajj1jjj years in forming4 ,gen4 ,humphrey1 of the ,united ,states survey1 estimated it at #d1jjj years1 and ,m4 ,beaument at #a1cjj years4 ,the deposits of carbonate of lime on the floor of ,kent ,cavern in ,england have been estimated by different scientists to have been from a thousand to a million years in forming4 ,the discovery of radium and other similar substances1 it is said1 is almost revolutionizing the theories of the constitution of matter and affecting all physical science4 ,these facts are not cited to discredit science4 ,no one in his senses would fail to acknowledge our great debt to the earnest and laborious workers in these varying fields4 ,but these instances of many such are cited to show that there is need for caution in accepting proposed theories4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,evolution ,,of ,,the ,,universe ,,and ,,earth4 ,in undertaking to account for the universe1 ,evolution faces four problems4 #a4 ,the origin of matter4 #b4 ,the origin of force4 #c4 ,the formation and orderly arrangement of the universe4 #d4 ,the origin of life4 ,in all of these it fails2 it confesses its failure in the first two and last1 and makes ludicrous attempts to explain the third4 ,we will consider each in turn4 #a4 ,evolution fails to account for the origin of matter4 ,spencer says this is the ,unknowable4 ,so that ,spencer's great philosophy rests on what he doesn't know and cannot find out4 ,darwin said as to the origin of things1 ,i am in a hopeless muddle4 ,prof4 ,edward ,clodd wrote3 ,of the beginning of what was before the present state of things1 we know nothing and speculation is futile1 but since everything points to the finite duration of the present creation1 we must make a start somewhere4 7,story of ,creation1 p4 #acg47 ,science is what we know4 ,therefore ,evolution rests upon an unscientific foundation4 ,nor is there any other account conceivable than that the ,bible gives4 ,as long as this first and fundamental fact is not solved1 the theory must be content to be at most a limited one1 and far from being that sweeping discovery which its advocates assert it to be4 #b4 ,evolution fails to account for the origin of ,force4 ,the great forces which animate the universe1 such as gravity1 heat1 motion and light1 must be accounted for by this theory to give it the standing it demands4 ,it makes no attempt to do this4 ,evolution is silent when we ask1 ,whence came these mighty forces8 ,calling them ,laws of ,nature does not answer the question4 ,laws need law makers and enforcers also4 ,laws do not enforce themselves4 ,as forces1 they show the ceaseless giving out of energy4 ,where is the dynamo from which this perpetual energy originated and still proceeds8 ,in this connection1 let us notice the reticence and limitations of really great scientists as to the nature of these energies4 ,lord ,kelvin1 the greatest living scientist1 said at the meeting of the ,british ,association for the ,advancement of ,science1 of which he was president3 ,one word characterizes the most strenuous of the efforts for the advancement of science that ,i have made perseveringly for fifty-five years4 ,that word is failure4 ,i know no more of electric and magnetic force1 or of the relation between ether1 electricity and ponderable matter1 or of chemical affinity1 than ,i knew and tried to teach to my students of natural philosophy fifty years ago in my first session as professor4 ,haeckel himself1 the greatest living evolutionist1 admits3 ,we grant at once that the innermost character of nature is just as little understood by us as it was by ,anaximander and ,empedocles #b1djj years ago4444 ,we grant that the essence of substance becomes more mysterious and enigmatic the more deeply we penetrate into the knowledge of its attributes4 7,riddle of the ,universe47 #c4 ,evolution fails to account for the orderly movements of the heavenly bodies which have the accuracy of a chronometer1 aye1 which are the standards by which all chronometers are regulated1 so that the astronomer can calculate to a second when the heavenly bodies shall pass any particular point of view or form their many conjunctions4 ,there is no collision1 no noise4 ,there is no speech nor language1 their voice is not heard4 ,our ,solar ,system is unique in the heavens4 ,prof4 ,see tells us there is no other like it in the regularity of its orbits1 and in its distant position from the powerful attractions of the mighty systems of the heavens4 ,the earth1 too1 is the only world so far known to be advanced enough for the production of life4 ,its situation is far enough from the sun to be beyond its powerful heat and electric energy and yet near enough to preserve and continue all life4 ,the arrangement of its surface into land and water proportions gives the requisite amount of moisture over the land areas4 ,the atmosphere is mixed of gases in just the right proportions for life4 ,all this speaks as loudly as any mechanism can speak1 of intention and benevolence and control and careful adjustment2 far from that haphazard effect which comes from the undirected working of resident forces4 ,evolution declares the universe began with a nebulous mass1 which ,tyndall says was fire-mist1 and contracted as it became cold2 but ,spencer says it was a cold cloud which became heated as it contracted4 ,we are left to the perplexity of deciding for ourselves which theory we will accept4 ,this is only one of many such contradictions we shall meet4 ,but however1 or whatever it was1 it organized itself into the wonderful universe of stars by a rotary motion which the contraction produced1 and this threw off portions as a carriage wheel throws off mud1 each portion taking up a similar motion and cooling in a similar fashion until it became cool enough for living things4 ,proof for all this is supposed to be seen in a nebula which is seen in the constellation ,orion1 which has a spiral form and is supposed to be a world in the making4 ,but in ,february1 #aija1 a new star appeared surrounded by a nebula and this in rapid motion from the center4 ,this sudden appearance of a world in a nebulous state seems like the reversing of the evolutionary process or indeed like a world being destroyed and reduced to its first estate4 ,other facts are also contradictory1 such as the motion or revolution of some of the satelites in a reverse order from that demanded by the theory4 ,indeed the whole nebular theory is now being called in question4 ,prof4 ,george ,frederick ,wright of ,oberlin ,university1 thus writes of it3 ,the nebular hypothesis1 which all forms of evolution now assume for a beginning1 involves the supposition that the molecules of matter composing the solar system were originally diffused through space like the particles of mist in a vast fogbank1 and that then1 under the action of gravitation1 they began to approach each other and to collect in masses1 which began to revolve about their axes and to move in orbits around the center of attraction4 ,every step in this supposition involves an added mystery4 ,the existence of the molecules in their original diffused state is but the beginning of the mystery1 though that is utterly incomprehensible4 ,the power of gravitation which compels the separated particles to approach each other is an utter mystery1 which has completely baffled all efforts at explanation by scientific men4 ,the revolution of the various masses of the solar system on their axes and in their orbits is another mystery for which there is no solution4 ,thus is the thorough-going evolutionist at every point confronted with an insoluble mystery1 and he deceives himself if he fancies that he has discovered anything which will take the place of the ,christian's conception of ,god as the creator1 sustainer and ruler of all things4 7,record-,herald1 ,chicago1 ,dec4 #bd1 #aijb47 ,other facts are even more perplexing to this theory4 ,the moon is moving from her place at an increasing rate and astronomy cannot account for it4 ,the earth's axis of revolution has varied from time to time4 ,only one star in a thousand has ever been catalogued4 ,of only about a hundred is the calculation of the parallax possible1 so distant are they4 ,as to our earth1 a well-known writer says3 ,no one of standing in the scientific world of to-day is willing to go on record as having a theory of his own regarding the internal fires of this planet or attempting to account for their origin4 ,in view of this state of uncertainty1 it seems to the non-scientific mind hazardous to project across these vast ages a guess as to what the conditions were and how the universe originated4 ,and above all to found on this guess a vast philosophy of the universe affecting all we hold precious for this life and that to come4 ,well may we hesitate before such demands4 #d4 ,the origin of life is a problem ,evolution has sought in vain to solve or account for by its natural or resident forces4 ,prof4 ,le ,conte labors hard to show that it might have come from the union of the four gases1 carbon1 hydrogen1 nitrogen and oxygen1 under some peculiar circumstances4 ,if he had said under the direct act of the ,creator we could assent cheerfully4 ,for these do enter into the substance which forms the bodies of living things4 ,but the claim of ,evolution is that all came by resident forces1 self-operating4 ,once admit the direct act of the ,creator1 and1 as ,haeckel says1 they might as well admit it along the whole process1 for the argument for a single instance is valid for the whole4 ,so they will have none of it4 ,prof4 ,le ,conte labors to show that protoplasm might be self-originating1 but ,prof4 ,conn says1 ,protoplasm is not a chemical compound but a mechanism4444 ,unorganized protoplasm does not exist4444 ,it could never have been produced by chemical process4 ,chemistry has produced starches1 fats1 albumens1 but not protoplasm4 7,method of ,evolution47 ,lord ,kelvin1 in writing to the ,london ,times1 said3 ,forty years ago ,i asked ,liebig1 walking somewhere in the country1 if he believed that the grass and flowers which we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces4 ,he answered1 ',no1 no more than ,i could believe that a book of botany describing them could grow by mere chemical forces4' ,tyndall1 after laborious experiments during eight months1 thus candidly states the result1 in an address before the ,royal ,institute1 ,london3 ,from the beginning to the end of the inquiry1 there is not1 as you have seen1 a shadow of evidence in favor of the doctrine of spontaneous generation4444 ,in the lowest1 as in the highest of organized creatures1 the method of nature is1 that life shall be the issue of antecedent life4 ,and ,mr4 ,huxley also admitted1 ,the doctrine that life can only come from life is victorious all along the line4 ,prof4 ,conn states1 ,there is not the slightest evidence that living matter could arise from non-living matter4 ,spontaneous generation is universally given up4 7,evolution of ,to-day1 p4 #bf47 ,wilson1 the great authority on the cell says1 ,the study of the cell has seemed to expand rather than narrow the enormous gap that separates even the lowest forms of life from the inorganic world4 7,the ,cell in ,development and ,inheritance1 p4 #ccj47 ,here then1 is the greatest chasm of all3 ,evolution fails at the very start in the story of life4 ,yet this is its chosen field4 ,on this depends the whole theory4 ,if there was a ,creator at the origin of life1 why not at the origin of all living things8 ,it is simply a question of degree4 ,the making of a single cell1 the simplest creature that lives1 is as great a mystery as that of man4 ,conceptually the one is as possible as the other4#a #a ,see these points discussed more fully in ,wright's ,scientific ,aspects of ,christian ,evidences4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,the ,,evolution ,,of ,,species4 ,this is ,evolution's great field of labor4 ,it was this which mainly occupied ,darwin's labors and is the basis of the whole sweeping theory4 ,this suggested man's animal origin and all that follows as to man's history and religion and civilization4 ,so that this is the basal part of ,evolution4 ,yet against this fundamental argument1 two great charges are made and admitted3 ,first1 not a single case of evolution of species is known1 and1 second1 no law or force by which such changes could take place has been discovered4 ,we will consider these two fatal defects4 ,,not ,a ,,single ,,instance ,,of ,,evolution ,,is ,,known4 ,in support of this assertion we might quote the admissions of nearly every evolutionary writer4 ,prof4 ,winchell writes upon this point as follows3 ,the great stubborn fact which every form of the theory encounters at the very outset is1 that notwithstanding variations1 we are ignorant of a single instance of the derivation of one good species from another4 ,the world has been ransacked for an example1 and occasionally it has seemed for a time as if an instance had been found of the origination of a genuine species by so-called natural agencies1 but we only give utterance to the admissions of all the recent advocates of derivation theories1 when we announce that the long-sought experimentum crucis has not been discovered4 7,the ,doctrine of ,evolution1 p4 #ed47 ,prof4 ,conn1 in one of the most recent works upon ,evolution1 says3 ,it is true enough that naturalists have been unable to find a single unquestioned instance of a new species4444 ,it will be admitted at the outset on all sides1 that no unquestioned instance has been observed of one species being derived from another4444 ,it is therefore impossible at present to place the question beyond dispute4 7,evolution of ,to-day1 p4 #bc47 ,here then is a fatal defect4 ,the world has been ransacked for evidence1 the museums are full of specimens1 the secrets of nature have been explored in every land1 the minutest creatures discovered and analyzed4 ,we have the remains of animals and plants of many kinds thousands of years old1 such as the mummied remains from ,egypt1 and yet not a single instance of the change ,evolution asserts has ever been known6 ,yet this change of species is the fundamental argument of ,evolution4 ,on this rests its theory of the origin of man and all that flows from that assertion1 and this basal assertion is absolutely without an actual instance of fact4 ,the changes in certain species such as roses1 primroses1 tomatoes1 pigeons and dogs1 are not new species1 but only varieties1 having none of the traits of species1 easily intermingling1 propagating1 and readily reverting to their original forms1 changes which true species are not susceptible of4 ,darwin admitted that the continued fertility of these varieties was one of his greatest difficulties4 ,one of the definitions of species is that they will not interbreed and propagate4 ,so that hybrids are sterile4 ,after its kind1 is the primal law of nature1 and as ,dr4 ,jesse ,b4 ,thomas says1 ,the stubborn mule still blocks the way of ,evolution4 ,,no ,,cause ,,of ,,evolution ,,is ,,known4 ,evolution is not a force4 ,there is no power or cause which is known as ,evolution4 ,the word simply describes the order in which things have been supposed to come4 ,we must draw a clear line of distinction between ,cause and ,order of ,appearance4 ,there is a certain order in the succession of living things as they came1 but what caused that order is the very question at issue4 ,the ,duke of ,argyle warns against confusing these when he says1 ,evolution puts forward a visible order of phenomena as a complete and all-sufficient account of its own origin and cause4 7,theories of ,darwin47 ,the absence of an agreed cause is admitted by evolutionists4 ,huxley says1 ,the great need of ,evolution is a theory of derivation4 7,man's ,place in ,nature47 ,darwin admits1 ,our ignorance of the laws of derivation is profound4 7,descent of ,man47 ,the laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown4 7,origin of ,species47 ,prof4 ,conn in ,evolution of ,to-day1 says1 ,no two scientists are agreed as to what is the cause of the supposed changes of species4 7p4 #ccg47 ,prof4 ,clodd traces it to the protoplasm which forms the germ and ends his exhaustive treatise by saying the cause is still unknown4 7,method of ,evolution47 ,darwin's theory was ,natural ,selection4 ,it is this which is technically called ,darwinism1 although some writers apply that name to the general subject of ,evolution4 ,natural selection is the theory that inasmuch as minute variations occur in the struggle of living things for existence1 the variations which would prove favorable to the welfare of the animal would be transmitted to its progeny and be increased and so1 in many generations1 the accumulating effects1 aided by climate1 food1 sexual selection1 and other causes1 would amount to a new species4 ,prof4 ,conn says of this theory1 ,natural selection is almost universally acknowledged as insufficient to meet the facts of nature1 since many facts of life cannot be explained by it4 7p4 #bdc47 ,mr4 ,huxley said long before3 ,after much consideration1 and with assuredly no bias against ,mr4 ,darwin's views1 it is our clear conviction that as the evidence now stands it is not absolutely proved that a group of animals1 having all the characteristics exhibited by species in nature1 has ever been originated by selection1 whether natural or artificial4 7,lay ,sermons1 #bie47 ,the theories as to what produced the supposed changes are as many as the writers on ,evolution4 ,prof4 ,conn says1 ,all agreement disappears4 ,each thinker has his own views4 ,and adds1 ,thus far we have seen no indication of the manner in which this evolution has been manifested4 7p4 #bj47 ,prof4 ,j4 ,arthur ,thomson1 lecturer on zoology in the ,school of ,medicine1 ,edinburgh1 said3 ,unless we can give some theory of the origin of variations we have no material for further consideration4 ,unfortunately we are very ignorant about the whole matter4 ,the various writers ascribe the changes to food1 climate1 sexual selection1 extraordinary births1 isolation and many other supposed causes4 ,all these have been in turn combatted by other evolutionist writers1 and the war goes on and has produced libraries of volumes4 ,it is around this that the conflict rages and the war is a merry one4 ,,how ,,evolution ,,originated ,,species4 ,it is when ,evolution gives the particulars of these changes that it becomes especially interesting4 ,we will1 by way of lighting up the examination1 consider a few of the stories it tells us as to how things came4 ,spencer tells us how the backbone came to be1 for the primitive animals had none4 ,prof4 ,conn quotes his account as follows3 ,he thinks the segmentation1 the division of the spinal column into vertebrae1 arose as the result of strains4 ,originally the vertebrate was unsegmented1 but in bending its body from side to side in locomotion through the water1 its spinal column became divided by the action of simple mechanical force4 7,evolution of ,to-day1 p4 #fe47 ,thus what we usually consider a serious calamity1 the breaking of one's backbone1 became one of the greatest blessings1 for what would we be without flexible backs1 with which to follow the meanderings of ,evolution8 ,evolution also tells us how legs originated4 ,the earliest animals were without legs4 ,some animal in this legless state found on its body some slight excrescences or warts1 which aided materially its progress as it wiggled along1 and thus it acquired the habit of using these convenient warts4 ,this habit it transmitted to its posterity and they increased the habit until the excrescences1 lengthened and strengthened by use1 became legs of a rudimentary kind1 which by further use developed a system of bones and muscles and nerves and joints such as we have ourselves4 ,spencer's account of the origin of quadrupeds is that the earliest animals propagated by dividing into two parts1 and in some of these the division was not perfectly made1 and so the animal had duplicated ends1 each of which had legs1 forming finally the present quadruple arrangement4 ,eyes originated from some animal having pigment spots or freckles on the sides of its head1 which1 turned to the sun1 agreeably affected the animal so that it acquired the habit of turning that side of its head to the sun1 and its posterity inherited the same habit and passed it on to still other generations4 ,the pigment spot acquired sensitiveness by use and in time a nerve developed which was the beginning of the eye4 ,from this incipient eye came the present wonderful combination of lenses1 nerves and muscles1 all so accurately adjusted that1 of the sixteen possible adjustments of each part1 only once in a hundred thousand times would they come together1 as they now are1 by chance4 ,land animals began thus1 according to ,evolution3 ,in a time of drought some water animals1 stranded by the receding waters1 were obliged thenceforth to adopt land manners and methods of living4 ,although1 strangely1 the whale by the same cause was forced to the water1 for it was once a land animal1 but in a season of drought was obliged to seek the water's edge for the scant remaining herbage1 and1 finding the water agreeable1 remained there and its posterity also1 and finally1 the teeth and legs no longer needed1 became decadent and abortive as we see them now4 ,darwin inferred the history of the whale's marine career from seeing a bear swimming in a pool and catching insects with its wide-open mouth as it so skimmed the water's surface4 ,the same drought produced another and wonderful change1 for it is to this that the giraffe owes his long legs and neck4 ,the herbage on the lower branches withering up1 he was obliged to stretch his neck and legs to reach the higher branches4 ,this increased1 as all such changes increased1 in his posterity1 and finally after many generations produced the present immense reaching powers of the giraffe4 ,so that the same drought deprived the whale of his legs and conferred them upon the giraffe4 ,the mere recital of these speculations will be enough for all who have not surrendered their judgment to the keeping of others4 ,it seems scarcely necessary to assure readers unacquainted with the theory1 that this is not exaggeration or caricature4 ,we have simply abbreviated1 and rendered into untechnical language1 the accounts of evolutionary writers given in all seriousness and with high-sounding scientific terms4 ,any such work will give many specimens of similar accounts4 ,reply seems unnecessary1 yet must be made4 #a4 ,all this is pure speculation4 ,not a single such change is known1 or has been observed4 #b4 ,all is based on ,natural ,selection1 which evolutionists have themselves discarded2 yet for want of any other theory they are constantly obliged to fall back upon it4 #c4 ,such acquired traits are not transmitted1 as ,prof4 ,thomson of ,edinborough1 tells us4 ,only characteristics inherited1 or congenital in the fertilized egg cell1 are so transmitted4 7,outlines of ,zoology1 p4 #ff47 ,the sports such as the white robins and crows occasionally seen1 disappear as individuals and do not propagate as distinct types4 ,let us pause here to contemplate the spectacle of a theory1 which its own advocates admit is unproven1 and which has been opposed by some of the greatest minds1 a theory which has not a single direct fact of evidence1 and has no way of accounting for the changes which it declares have taken place2 such a theory accepted as the basis of every science1 the foundation of a universal philosophy1 taught in educational institutions to youth as if demonstrated1 demanding immediate and universal submission1 undertaking to revise ,scripture1 to revolutionize theology1 and to prescribe what we must do to be saved and to save others6 ,surely it is safe to hesitate before such demands4 ,we will not discount the great service done humanity in the patient research in the realms of nature by laborious students4 ,all this should be given weight4 ,we also admit the value of a theory as a means to the ascertaining of truth4 ,but we cannot consent that the vast interests affected by ,evolution shall be decided by the balancings of probabilities1 or the mooted value of a theory4 ,this is no place for theories1 which must be held tentatively1 if at all4 ,this is a matter which affects the belief and lives and hopes of millions1 their welfare here and hereafter4 ,religion is too sacred to be made a shuttlecock tossed about in the arena of intellectual amusement4 ,sir ,j4 ,william ,dawson said of some writers and their theories3 ,to launch a clever and startling fallacy1 which will float a week and stir up a hard fight1 seems as great a triumph as the discovery of an important fact or law2 and the honest student is distracted with the multitude of doctrines and hustled aside by the crowd of ambitious groundlings4 7,story of the ,earth and ,man1 #cac47 ,evolution has much to say for itself1 but1 as we see1 it is all of the nature of circumstantial evidence4 ,this seems to the non-scientific mind as strange for anything called science1 which we have been accustomed to think means something known or proven4 ,we have been accustomed to see cases thrown out of court when presenting no evidence and to fare badly in general on mere circumstantial evidence4 ,however1 as ,evolution is so persistent for a hearing1 we must examine what it has to advance for our consideration4 ,its arguments are drawn from ,geology1 ,classification1 ,distribution of ,plants and ,animals1 ,morphology and ,embryology4 ,,the ,,argument ,,from ,,geology4 ,the argument from this science is that the fossils appear in the strata of the earth in advancing order1 the simplest first1 and more complex afterwards4 ,the assumption is that the higher came from the lower1 by a chain of infinitesimal changes1 through a long series of ages4 ,now the facts are not as claimed4 ,we will show this later4 ,but admitting that they are1 the argument is wanting4 #a4 ,all this is pure assumption4 ,no such changes are known in existing species to have ever taken place1 and the assumption that these changes took place in geologic ages is wholly unwarranted4 ,if it cannot be predicated of the animals we see and know1 how can it be asserted of a period millenniums ago8 #b4 ,mere succession is not evolution4 ,the coming in orderly succession is evidence of some plan but not necessarily of evolution4 ,an intelligent ,creator would work in the same way1 especially if he had intelligent beings to instruct thereby1 at the time or afterwards4 #c4 ,evolution in comparing the successive comings of the rocky strata and the fossil creatures1 compares two kinds of things that cannot be made analogous4 ,rocks are not produced by evolution1 the higher growing out of the lower1 as is claimed of species4 ,that certain species appeared with the lower rocks and strata1 and higher orders with later rocks and strata only proves of one1 as of the other1 an advancing order of production but tells nothing of the cause of either4 #d4 ,we are supported in these doubts as to the value of ,evolution's argument from ,geology by the fact1 that many of the most eminent geologists deny any proof of evolution in their chosen science4 ,sir ,roderick ,murchison said1 ,i know as much of nature in her geologic ages as any living man1 and ,i fearlessly say that our geologic record does not afford one syllable of evidence in support of ,darwin's theory4 ,the great ,swiss geologist1 ,joachim ,barrande states1 ,one cannot conceive why in all rocks whatever and in all countries upon the two continents1 all relics of the intervening types should have vanished4444 ,the discordances are so numerous and pronounced1 that the composition of the real fauna seems to have been calculated by design for contradicting everything which the theories 7of ,evolution7 teach us respecting the first appearance and primitive evolution of the forms of life upon the earth4 7,quoted by ,winchell1 in ,doctrine of ,evolution1 p4 #adb47 ,prof4 ,conn1 an evolutionist1 admits the presence of many facts disclosed by geology which oppose the theory of ,evolution4 ,he says1 ,in the earliest records geology discloses1 we find not a few generalized types but well differentiated forms1 nearly all the sub-kingdoms as they now exist1 five-sixths of our orders1 nearly an equal proportion of sub-orders1 a great many families and some of our present species4 ,all this is a surprise and an unexplained problem4 ,such a result1 he says1 is not what ,evolution would lead us to expect4 ,all the important classes of animals made their appearance without warning4 7,evolution of ,to-day1 pp4 #f1 #ajj1 #ajc1 #aah47 ,haeckel writes1 ,we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that various groups have from the time of their first appearance1 burst out into an exuberant growth of modification of form1 size and members1 with all possible1 and one might almost say1 impossible shapes1 and they have done this within a comparatively short time1 after which they have died out not less rapidly4 7,last ,link1 p4 #add47 ,the testimony of geology1 as adduced by geologists and even by evolutionists1 is that it does not sustain the claims of ,evolution4 ,species existed in present form from the earliest times4 ,geologic species came in suddenly and went out suddenly4 ,some of the simplest remain unchanged through all earth's transformations to the present time4 7,dr4 ,robert ,patterson1 ,errors of ,evolution1 p4 #bba47 ,the great fossil cemeteries show that the living creatures fell in serried ranks1 overtaken by cataclysms1 in every act of life4 ,le ,conte tries to explain this by saying that there were paroxysmal eras1 but what the paroxysms were1 or whence they came1 he does not say4 ,the whole testimony is against ,evolution and reverts to proof of the ,bible story of ,creation4 ,professor ,adam ,sedgwick says3 ,at succeeding epochs1 new tribes of beings were called into existence1 not merely as the progeny of those that had appeared before them1 but as new and living proofs of creative interference4 ,,the ,,argument ,,from ,,classification ,,of ,,species4 ,this is one of the strong points of ,evolution4 ,it is claimed that plants and animals can be so classified in an ascending order that it is evident the higher came out of the lower4 ,we object as follows3 #a4 ,there is no classification agreed upon by scientists4 ,this comes largely from want of agreement as to what a species is4 ,scientists differ widely and radically4 ,spencer presents a review of all these schemes of classification and ends by saying1 ,it is absurd to attempt a definite scheme of relationship4 ,his own plan of the scheme he says is the figure of a laurel bush squashed flat by a descending plane4 7,principles of ,biology1 p4 #chi47 ,this agrees with his statement as to the absurdity of such schemes4 ,some arrange the whole in a continuous straight line from the lowest up4 ,darwin thought the whole came from half a dozen germinal forms4 ,where these came from he did not say4 ,dr4 ,j4 ,clark ,ridpath said1 ,the eagle was always an eagle1 the man always man4 ,every species of living organism has ,i believe come up by a like process from its own primordial germ4 7,arena1 ,june1 #ahgi47 ,haeckel insists that the theory demands but a single primeval germ as the ancestor of all living things4 ,he presented a tree1 showing twenty or more stages between primeval protoplasm and man1 but this has been now rejected by evolutionists4 ,prof4 ,d4 ,kerfoot ,schults represents the classification as follows3 ,if all the animals that have ever existed on the earth be represented by a tree1 those now existing on the earth will be represented by the topmost twigs and leaves1 and the extinct forms will be represented by the main trunk and branches4 7,first ,book on ,organic ,evolution1 p4 xiv47 ,but the source of all1 the primeval protoplasm1 is wanting4 ,the missing primeval germ or germs leaves the tree without a root1 and ,prof4 ,conn tells that even the sub-kingdoms are not united by fossils4 ,spencer admits that not a single species has been traced to its source or its family tree completed1 and even the ancestors of our living species are wanting4 ,prof4 ,dana admitted as follows1 ,if ever the links 7upon which the doctrine of ,evolution depends7 had an actual existence1 their disappearance without a trace left behind is altogether inexplicable4 ,here then is a tree without root or trunk or branches1 and having only the tips of outer twigs and leaves1 in other words1 a phantom tree1 a fit representation of the theory for which it stands4 ,the present orders of plants and animals give a strong argument against ,evolution4 ,it has been seen that ,succession is not ,evolution4 ,the mere coming of animals in orderly succession shows only plan1 but the means of executing that plan is not shown thereby4 ,but further1 while in the geologic ages there was ,succession1 here in our age is ,simultaneousness of species1 two very different and contradictory phenomena4 ,why has ,succession ceased8 ,why have not the higher orders pushed the lower out1 as in the geologic ages1 if ,evolution was the cause8 ,yet here they all exist quietly together as if they knew nothing of ,evolution or its requirements4 ,nor have any such changes occurred in thousands of years1 as the mummied remains of cats and crocodiles and ibises in ,egypt show4 ,surely #d1jjj years would show some evolution if there had been such a thing2 but it is not seen in all the #d1jjj years1 or even in the more distant period since primeval man existed1 for we have the remains of animals found with man in his early history4 ,out of #ih species1 #eg are the same as we have to-day unchanged1 and still others1 as the lingula1 the same as in ages past4 ,thus ,evolution's trusted argument from ,classification utterly fails of demonstration4 ,,distribution ,,of ,,plants ,,and ,,animals4 ,the distribution of plants and animals is another favorite argument of this theory4 ,certain animals are said to be found only in certain regions1 the bison only in ,north ,america1 the kangaroo only in ,australia1 the armadillo only in ,mexico4 ,evolution triumphantly asks1 ,were they created only in these places8 ,we now simply remark that difficulties as to ,creation do not prove ,evolution4 ,evolution says the ancestors of these came from other parts ages ago and by long isolation and environment became what they are4 ,facts again are against the theory4 ,huxley himself says that in the neighborhood of ,oxford are animal remains like those of ,australia2 that ,britain was once connected with the continent1 and so these animals passed over4 ,the same is true he says of the isolated fauna of ,new ,zealand and ,south ,america4 7,address in ,daily ,post1 ,march #bg1 #ahga47 ,this argument might be used against ,evolution as well as the previous arguments4 ,two islands in the ,pacific1 only fifteen miles apart1 have the animals of ,asia in one and of ,australia in the other4 ,one of the ,bermudas has lizards like those of ,africa and another like those of ,america4 ,in fact it is evident that animals and plants have scattered widely4 ,,the ,,morphological ,,argument4 ,the comparative study of plants and animals presents another argument for ,evolution4 ,it is found1 for example1 that there is a similarity of plan in the fin of the fish1 the wing of the bird1 the flipper of the whale1 the leg of the animal and the arm of the man4 ,so also in a measure with all other corresponding parts4 ,this ,evolution says1 shows that all these animals are genetically connected and all came from the same ancestors4 ,huxley himself replies to this argument in these words1 ,no amount of purely morphological evidence can suffice to prove that things came into existence in one way rather than another4 7,study of ,zoology1 p4 #hf47 ,another great scientist1 ,prof4 ,quatrefages1 professor of anthropology in the ,museum of ,natural ,sciences1 ,paris1 writes on this as follows3 ,without leaving domain of facts1 and only judging from what we know1 we can say1 that morphology itself justifies the conclusion that one species has never produced another by derivation4 ,prof4 ,conn admits1 after going through the whole subject with the latest facts1 that unless some further explanation can be found1 homology does not prove descent4 7,evolution of ,to-day1 p4 #gf47 ,this resemblance of parts is just what we should expect in things originating from one intelligent operator1 whether ,creator or manufacturer4 ,it is found in every factory4 ,the wheel is the same in the wheelbarrow1 the cart1 carriage and locomotive4 ,in fact1 uniformity of plan proves unity in the cause1 and not the diversity of chance causes claimed by ,evolution4 ,if ,evolution were true1 there would be as much diversity among organs as there is among the forms of organs4 ,if the operation of chance conditions has resulted in radical changes in the forms of organs1 why then is there not this similar diversity among the organs themselves8 ,evolution has no reply4 ,creation has such reply2 ,god is one and his plan one4 ,why should not the forms of all these things be alike1 seeing they are to live in the same climates1 eat the same food and propagate in the same manner8 ,the rudimentary1 abortive and discarded parts found in some animals form one of the strongest arguments ,evolution advances4 ,the favorite instance it presents is found in the horse4 ,the horse walks on one toe and has splints further up the leg1 which they tell us are the remains of the other toes1 and the callosities on the leg are the remains of thumbs4 ,the remains have been found of an animal as large as a dog which resembles the horse and has two toes1 and another older animal1 as large as a fox1 which has four toes4 ,putting these side by side1 ,evolution calls them all horses1 and says the one-toed animal came from the two-toed1 and he from the four-toed1 and that this proves the evolution of the horse from the ,eohippus 7,old ,horse7 as it is called4 #a4 ,bearing in mind that this conclusion is pure assumption1 and only inference at best1 let us remark that it violates the primal law of evolution laid down by ,spencer1 that of evolution from the simple to the complex4 ,it should have shown first the one-toed horse1 then his development into a two-toed animal1 and so on up to a horse having five toes4 ,this would be evolution4 ,as it is1 we see the opposite of evolution1 degradation1 which often occurs in nature1 and we see few if any instances of any subsequent restoration to primal conditions4 #b4 ,besides all this1 that most necessary thing to a good horse1 a pedigree1 is wanting4 ,the connecting links are all missing in his ancestral tree4 ,for the ancestors of that first of horses are unknown4 ,but he is not alone in this1 for even his owner has the same sad want of proven descent1 as we will see later4 ,just how the horse lost his appendages1 and why he dropped toe after toe in this extraordinary manner the story leaves untold4 #c4 ,but another great objection exists4 ,it takes time to breed horses4 ,it required all of the ,tertiary period to produce the one-toed animal from the four-toed ancestor and much longer time was required to develop him from a totally different animal1 where more than a mere question of toes comes in4 ,for we have to face the difficulty1 and the time necessary1 to develop a good horse1 say from an alligator1 and the still greater task of producing him from an animal without toes at all1 or even legs1 or anything to hang legs on1 and simply a bag of jelly-like substance1 which the evolutionist assures us was the ancestor of all horses and their riders4 ,if it appears to the reader that life is too short for such business we can say the geologist agrees with him1 for he tells us the age of the old earth itself was not one tenth long enough to produce ,evolution's horses1 and still less their riders4 ,another instance of ,evolution's proofs is the swim-bladder of fishes4 ,this ,evolution sometimes states is an incipient lung1 and that the fish learned in a drought to breathe air4 ,sometimes1 as the need of the theory demands1 the swim-bladder is claimed as the relic of a discarded lung4 ,these however are two different and opposing claims4 ,either as a prophecy or a relic the swim-bladder is fatal to the claims of ,evolution4 ,if it is an incipient lung1 then here is intention1 which ,evolution rejects4 ,if a relic1 here is retrogression1 the opposite of evolution4 ,the abortive organ is one of the difficulties of the theory which ,darwin admitted1 and ,prof4 ,conn tells us1 is not yet answered4 ,prof4 ,huxley said1 ,either these rudiments are of no use to the animal1 in which case they ought to have disappeared1 or they are of some use to the animal1 in which case they are arguments for teleology4 7,darwinism1 p4 #aea47 ,,the ,,argument ,,from ,,embryology4 ,evolution derives its greatest argument from the study of the embryo4 ,it makes three claims4 ,first1 that the germ of everything1 plant and animal1 is the same1 neither chemical analysis nor the microscope showing any difference4 ,if therefore1 such vast variety could come from origins so alike1 why could not all we see come from a similar origin1 the primitive animal1 which was also such a simple cell8 ,second1 in the growth of the embryo it recapitulates the ancestral history of that particular organism4 ,third1 all this when compared with the geologic record1 and the present orders of living things as classified1 presents the full succession of the forms of life1 the one supplying what the other lacks4 ,these claims must be examined separately4 #a4 ,the claim that the germs of all living things are alike is not true4 ,the resemblance is only superficial4 ,protoplasm1 of which the germ is composed1 differs and is not homogeneous material4 ,that which builds the muscles is one kind1 and that which builds brain and nerves is entirely different4 ,prof4 ,clodd tells us it is not a chemical compound but a mechanism4 ,nor could the germs be alike4 ,for the plant breathes carbon1 the animal oxygen4 ,the one oxidizes1 the other deoxidizes4 ,there are still greater and deeper differences4 ,tyndall says1 ,under the most homogeneous material1 there lie structural energies of such complexity1 that we must question whether we have the mental elements with which to grapple with them4444 ,the most trained and disciplined imagination retires in bewilderment from the problem4 ,in that realm1 inaccessible to everything but mind1 the wonders of ,creation are wrought out4444 ,here is determined the germ and afterwards the complete organization4 7,fragments of ,science1 p4 #aec47 ,so that these cells or germs1 which appear so alike1 contain each in itself the entire plan and life of the coming creature1 to the color of a feather1 the trick of a hunting dog and the smile and dimples of a child4 #b4 ,the second claim that the course of each embryo traverses its ancestral history1 is not nearly so vociferously made as some years ago4 ,prof4 ,a4 ,agassiz writes1 ,anything beyond a general parallelism is hopeless4 ,prof4 ,conn admits ,embryology alone is not a safe guide1 and only when verified by the fossils can it be relied upon4 ,it seldom gives a true history4444 ,the parallel is largely a delusion4444 ,it often gives a false history4 7,evolution of ,to-day1 pp4 #abe1 #acd1 #acg1 #aej47 ,prof4 ,thomson writes1 ,recapitulation is due to no dead hands of the past1 but to physiological conditions which we are unable to discover4 7,outline of ,zoology1 p4 #fc47 ,he also says that the young mammal was never like a worm1 a fish1 or reptile4 ,it was at the most like the young of these in their various stages4 ,so far from the course of all being alike1 ,baer says he can tell the difference between the embryo of the common fowl and duck on the second day4 7,principles of ,biology1 p4 #a47 ,so far as this claim holds good1 it forms an argument against evolution4 ,for here is a goal or ideal to which all things strive4 ,this is intention1 and plan and purpose1 all of which is opposed to the main idea of ,evolution4 ,it is in line with ,creation4 #c4 ,the culminating argument for ,evolution is given by arranging in ascending classification the geologic orders of life 7which we have seen do not appear as ,evolution demands71 and placing alongside of these the classification of present animals 7which we have seen is not agreed upon1 and is as diverse as the writers themselves71 and then laying alongside of these two artificial arrangements1 the embryonic recital 7which is now doubted and is often false to the past history71 and triumphantly pointing to the three-fold combination4 ,the gaps geology shows are thus filled by present forms and what both lack1 by the embryonic recital4 ,here are compared three things which radically differ4 ,the geologic record shows progress from lower to higher1 although not that complete nor unvarying record necessary to the theory1 while the present orders of life exist simultaneously4 ,both show the existence of separate things having no individual connection4 ,the embryo is a single individual1 designed from its conception on a predetermined plan1 animated by internal forces1 and limited to a certain end and life4 ,it is as ,dawson says1 a closed series4 ,the worlds of living and fossil creatures consist of myriads of individuals1 under many widely different conditions1 and aimed at widely different ends and lives4 ,the two are contradictory for the uses of ,evolution4 ,what we do see in these three facts are three marks of personal intelligence4 ,in embryonic growth we see the plan of production4 ,in the coming of the fossil creatures we see the progress of the plan in historical appearance4 ,in the present display of nature we see the ultimate purpose of the whole4 ,it all forms one great consistent plan and bears all the marks of personal and creative work4 ,so that summing up the argument from comparison of the three facts1 the geologic order1 the present classification1 and the embryonic growth1 we find in the first absolute separation of species1 in the second no genetic connection as already shown under that argument1 and in the third different phenomena having no points in common with the other two4 ,the whole argument then fails of conclusion and reverts as the former do1 to proof against ,evolution4 ,,facts ,,opposing ,,evolution ,,of ,,species4 ,a theory to be proven must meet the facts and account for them4 ,the theory in question fails lamentably in this4 ,there are countless facts not only unaccounted for but diametrically opposed to it and antagonizing it4 ,we cite some of these3 #a4 ,degeneration in nature4 ,nature shows a constant tendency downward4 ,prof4 ,e4 ,d4 ,cope1 an eminent evolutionist1 writes3 ,the retrogradation in nature is as well or nearly as well established as evolution4 ,the wild varieties of plants and animals are far inferior to the cultivated kinds4 ,the older species are far superior to the present4 ,the saber-toothed tiger is far superior to the present animal4 ,so also is the ,mammoth as compared with the elephant4 ,plants show degeneration in colors4 ,the order of superiority is from yellow1 the lowest1 to white1 pink1 red1 purple and blue1 the highest4 ,when they drop from blue to yellow1 it is degeneration4 ,some now having green flowers once had colored blossoms4 ,progress is not seen to be upward in the flowers4 ,so also parasitism is degeneration both in plants and animals4 ,the course of nature is not1 as it has not been1 constant development upward4 ,the scripture statement ,the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain1 describes accurately the condition of nature 7,ro4 #h3bb47 #b4 ,continued unchanged species for ages4 ,the crustacea1 for example in ,lake ,tanganyika1 ,africa1 remain as the receding ocean left them ages ago4 #c4 ,species instead of increasing in number have decreased4 ,there were #ejj species of trilobites4 ,they have all disappeared4 ,there were #ijj species of ammonites2 all are gone4 ,of the #dej species of nautilus1 only three remain4 ,indeed whole families have become obliterated4 ,all this is antagonistic to ,evolution4 #d4 ,species continue the same under the most diverse environments4 ,environment is claimed as a cause of the changes demanded by ,evolution4 ,but the same species exist in the most diverse regions1 e4 g41 mosquitoes1 whales and oaks4 #e4 ,adaptation of one species to another4 ,darwin says that a single case of the adaptation of one species to another would be fatal to his theory4 ,yet he himself gives the data for hundreds of such adaptations4 ,he adduces the fact that a hundred head of red clover produced #b1gjj seeds4 ,a similar number protected from insects produced none4 ,the fertilization of plants by insects is well known4 ,the ,smyrna fig is said to owe its value to its fertilization by the piercing of an insect4 ,some of these insects have been introduced into ,california for that purpose4 ,there is an orchid which can be fertilized only by an insect falling into a cup of liquid which the flower has1 and escaping through a side opening in which it touches the pollen4 ,dr4 ,andrew ,wilson writes3 ,the colors of flowers--nay1 even the little splashes of a hue or tint seen on a petal--are intended to attract insects that they may carry off the fertilizing dust1 or pollen1 to other flowers4 ,it is to this end also that your flowers are many of them sweet-scented4 ,the perfume is another kind of invitation to the insect world4 ,the honey they secrete forms a third attraction--the most practical of all4 #f4 ,complex adjustments of nature4 ,evolution in vain attempts to account for the wonderful complex adjustments we see in nature1 such as the mimicry of animals and plants2 the walking stick so closely resembles a twig that it deceives the closest observer4 ,the withered leaf butterfly1 with spots and wrinkles1 is exactly like the thing it imitates4 ,this is true also of the leaf butterfly and of another which exactly resembles a bird's dropping4 ,evolution cannot account for the ventriloquism of insects1 such as the cricket and tree toad2 the battery of the electric eel2 the beauty of insects and fish and shells and birds and flowers1 especially the harmony of their colors4 ,edible insects are plainly colored1 the poisonous kinds highly colored4 ,some butterflies have scare-heads on their wings1 exactly resembling an owl's head1 and other insects have similar frightful appearances which they thrust out when attacked4 ,all this tells of design and interest and often has the appearance of humor in the creation of these numerous creatures4 #g4 ,the mathematical adjustments of nature are as exact as the multiplication table4 ,illustrations of this are the accuracy of the orbits of the heavenly bodies and the law of gravitation4 ,the growth of the cell proceeds on geometrical progression in the division of parts into #b1 #d1 #h1 #af1 etc4 ,the climbing plants form their coils with mathematical accuracy and proportion4 ,the proportions in which chemicals will mix is mathematically fixed4 ,prof4 ,tyndall thus calls our attention to crystallization3 ,by permitting alum to crystallize in this slow way we obtain these perfect octahedrons2 by allowing carbonate of lime to crystallize1 nature produces these beautiful rhomboids2 when silica crystallizes we have formed the hexagonal prisms capped at the end by pyramids2 by allowing saltpeter to crystallize1 we have these prismatic masses1 and when carbon crystallizes we have the diamond4 7,fragments of ,science1 p4 #ceg47 ,looking at it mentally we see the molecules of sulphate of soda like disciplined squadrons under a governing eye1 arranging themselves into battalions1 gathering around distinct centers and forming themselves into distinct solid masses1 which after a time assume the visible shape of the crystal now held in my hand4 ,here then is an architect at work1 who makes no chips nor din1 and who is now building the particles into crystals similar in shape to these beautiful masses we see upon the table4 7,belfast ,address47 #h4 ,the structure of living things shows the true principles of architecture4 ,a ,mr4 ,mc,laughlin1 a noted ,scotch mathematician1 tried by mathematical calculation to ascertain the shape of a building which would contain the most room with least material and yet embody the greatest architectural strength in its retaining walls4 ,after many laborious calculations1 he found after he had arrived at a conclusion that the honey bee had long before given the same plan of structure in its cell4 ,the human skull is a true dome1 and the spinal column a true pillar4 ,the ribs of the ship are copied from the fish1 the yacht from the duck1 and its deep fin from the fish4#b #b ,see ,number in ,nature1 ,hastings1 ,boston1 for further illustrations of this4 ,evolution pretends to account for every one of these facts by chance changes1 extending through countless ages as has already been shown in its amazing account of the origin of legs1 eyes1 backbones and other members4 ,surely this is an appeal to credulity6 ,the faith of the ,christian is sometimes taxed but what shall we say of the faith of the evolutionist8 ,which is more credible1 the simple account of miraculous creation or this long1 involved and absolutely unseen and unknown process8 #i4 ,the age of the earth4 ,prof4 ,george ,frederick ,wright1 the geologist1 tells us that geologic time is not one-hundredth part as long as it was supposed to be fifty years ago1 and the popular writers who glibly talk of the antiquity of man are behind the times and ignorant of the new light which as a flood has come from geology4#c #c ,see ,man in the ,glacial ,period1 by ,prof4 ,geo4 ,frederick ,wright4 ,summing up the case1 ,prof4 ,francis ,m4 ,balfour tells us3 ,all these facts that fall under our observation contradict the crude ideas of those so-called naturalists1 who state that one species can be transmitted into another in the course of generations4 ,so also ,sir ,david ,brewster declares3 ,we have absolute proof of the immutability of species1 whether we search for it in historic or geologic times4 ,dr4 ,etheridge1 the famous ,english authority on fossils1 says3 ,nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense1 not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact4 ,men adopt a theory and then strain their facts to support it4 ,i read all their books1 but they make no impression on my belief in the stability of species4 ,some men are ready to regard you as a fool if you do not go with them in all their vagaries1 but this museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,the ,,evolution ,,of ,,man4 ,the central point in the whole theory is the descent of man from the brute4 ,it is this which1 as stated1 gives it importance to the ,christian4 ,but for this1 the hypothesis would be but a curious scientific theory4 ,it is a matter of comparatively minor interest how the universe or the various species came4 ,it is only because these theories are used to assert the animal origin of man that they are dealt with here4 ,it is in this claim as to the origin of man that all the various theories of ,evolution agree1 however they may vary in other matters1 and1 as this is the vital point1 these theories are considered as one in this discussion4 ,this is a question merely of fact4 ,did or did not man descend from the brute or was he specially and divinely created8 ,this is the question in a nut-shell4 ,the two accounts are as follows placed side by side4 ,darwin's account is accepted substantially by all evolutionists4 ,,the ,,bible ,,account4 7,gen4 i3#bf1 #bg2 ii3#g2 v3#a1 #b47 ,and ,god said1 ,let us make man in our image1 after our likeness4444 ,and ,god created man in his own image1 in the image of ,god created he him2 male and female created he them4444 ,and the ,lord ,god formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul4444 ,in the day that ,god created man1 in the likeness of ,god made he him3 male and female created he them2 and blessed them and called their name ,adam4 ,,evolution',s ,,account4 7,from ,darwin's ,descent of ,man1 ii1 #cgb47 ,man is descended from a hairy quadruped1 furnished with a tail and pointed ears1 probably arborial in its habits and an inhabitant of the ,old ,world4 ,this creature1 if its whole structure had been examined by a naturalist1 would have been classed among the ,quadrumana1 as surely as would the common and still more ancient progenitor of the ,old and ,new ,world monkeys4 ,the ,quadrumana and all the higher mammals are probably derived from an ancient marsupial animal1 and this through a long line of diversified forms1 either from some reptile-like1 or some amphibian-like creature1 and this again from some fish-like animal4 ,in the dim obscurity of the past1 we can see that the early progenitor of the ,vertebrata must have been an aquatic animal1 provided with branchia1 with the two sexes united in the same individual4 ,the ,bible account is circumstantial1 with mention of places and rivers of undoubted historical character4 ,it is accepted by subsequent ,scripture writers and made the basis of their historical and spiritual teachings4 ,the evolutionary account is lacking in all of this4 ,there are no exact data nor any attempt to give any4 ,no description save an imaginary one is ever given4 ,as no one was there to see1 the whole is fanciful4 ,the two accounts are utterly irreconcilable4 ,whatever the ,scripture account means it does not mean ,evolution1 and literary justice demands that we do not impose upon a writer a meaning he did not intend or give4 ,prof4 ,pfliederer writes1 ,there is only one choice4 ,when we say ,evolution we definitely deny ,creation4 ,when we say ,creation we definitely deny ,evolution4 ,prof4 ,james ,sully says1 ,the doctrine of ,evolution is directly antagonistic to that of ,creation4 7,bible ,student1 ,july1 #aija1 quoted by ,prof4 ,warfield47 ,how anyone can accept both accounts passes all understanding4 ,the late ,dr4 ,john ,henry ,barrows1 president of ,oberlin ,university1 tells of meeting a ,hindu boy in his visit to ,india1 who had attended the mission schools and learned there the shape and situation of the earth4 ,he had of course previously been taught the ,hindu cosmogony that the earth was surrounded by salt water and that by a circle of earth and that by successive circles of buttermilk1 sweet cane juice1 and other soft drinks with intervening circles of land4 ,dr4 ,barrows asked the boy which belief he would hereafter hold4 ,he replied that he would believe both4 ,this might be possible to the ,hindu boy1 but it surpasses all previous intellectual feats that any intelligent person can accept both the ,bible account and ,darwin's account of the creation of man4 ,we will review the arguments for and against the evolutionary account of the origin of man from the following spheres and subjects3 #a4 ,the ,argument from the ,evolution of ,species4 #b4 ,from ,similarity of ,structure in ,animals and ,man4 #c4 ,rudimentary ,organs in ,man4 #d4 ,human ,characteristics in ,animals4 #e4 ,history of the ,evolution of ,man from the ,brute4 #f4 ,the ,missing ,link4 #g4 ,the ,brain4 #h4 ,man's ,mind and ,consciousness4 #i4 ,language4 #aj4 ,pre-historic ,man4 #aa4 ,antiquity of ,man4 #ab4 ,savage ,races4 #ac4 ,history of ,mankind4 #ad4 ,religion4 #ae4 ,ethics4 #af4 ,christian ,experience4 #ag4 ,christ4 #a4 ,,argument ,,from ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,species4 ,on this argument rests the theory of man's animal origin4 ,but for the desire to prove that such is man's origin1 the argument would never have been conceived4 ,we introduce it here again to call special attention to this fact4 ,we have seen that there is decided difference of opinion on this theory2 that many object to it2 that there is not a single case of such origin of species known2 that there is no law or force or cause agreed upon or known by which such origin of species could take place2 that there are countless objections and facts against it2 that its arguments are confessedly insufficient2 and they are at best but inferences and only the balancing of probabilities4 ,if therefore the proofs of the ,origin of ,species are wanting the whole theory of ,evolution falls in ruins to the ground4 ,there would seem no need to proceed further4 ,yet ,evolution lightly steps over the ruins of its previous claims and proceeds to further assertions4 ,some of the greatest of the exact scientists stop here4 ,prof4 ,dana1 the great geologist1 says3 ,man's origin has thus far no sufficient explanation from science4 ,the abruptness of transition from preceding forms is most extraordinary and especially because it occurs so near the present time4 7,elements of ,geology47 ,prof4 ,virchow1 the most eminent pathologist of ,europe1 wrote as follows3 ,there always exists a sharp line of demarcation between man and the ape4 ,we cannot pronounce it proved by science that man descends from the ape1 or from any other animal4 ,whoever calls to mind the lamentable failure of all attempts made very recently to discover a decided support for the 'generatio aequivoc' in the lower forms of transition from the inorganic to the organic world will feel it doubly serious to demand that this theory1 so utterly discredited1 should be in any form accepted as the basis of our views of life4 ,many more such expressions might be quoted from eminent scientists to the same effect4 ,but as we will use these under the respective heads of the foregoing order of argument1 we pass on here to the arguments as stated4 #b4 ,,similarity ,,of ,,structure ,,in ,,animals ,,and ,,man4 ,it is well known that the internal and external form of man is like that of the lower animals4 ,this1 ,evolution claims1 is an argument for genetic connection4 ,the same argument would prove that a locomotive was born from a stage coach1 and that from a cart1 and that from a wheelbarrow4 ,similarity of structure proves only uniformity of design4 ,an intelligent maker of any nature would so operate1 and man himself so manufactures now4 ,why should not ,god make man on the model of the lower animals1 seeing he is to live in the same world1 under the same conditions1 eat the same food and propagate in the same way8 ,there is no reason for departure from a form which has proved useful and appropriate4 ,all the parts in the human form have been thus tested in the lower forms and found right for their purpose and are now1 as we would expect1 applied to man4 ,man is the climax of all4 ,all is for his use in the lower worlds of plants and animals2 then why not use their frame and inner organs also8 ,the mechanic uses the same appliance such as the wheel in his most complex construction as well as in the simplest engine4 ,but there are parts in the human frame not found in the lower orders4 ,wallace1 one of the greatest evolutionists1 says the soft human skin cannot be accounted for by natural causes1 nor the valves in the human veins which are in different position from those of the brute1 nor the human foot nor larynx1 nor the human voice1 especially the female voice1 nor the absence of hair on the body1 nor why man is short armed and long legged1 while his ape-man ancestor is the reverse4 ,many more such problems vex the evolutionist4 ,creation accounts for all this1 and does so by one simple1 sweeping argument in place of ,evolution's complex and bewildering maze of speculations4 ,ruskin teaches us in this extract that ,god works by law and does not deviate therefrom even where it seems to us that ,he might have wrought differently3 ,but ,god shows us in ,himself1 strange as it may seem1 not only authoritative perfection1 but even the perfection of obedience1 an obedience to his own laws2 and in the cumbrous movement of those unwieldiest of ,his creatures1 we are reminded1 even in ,his divine essence1 of that attribute of uprightness in the human creature1 'that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not4' 7,seven ,lamps of ,architecture1 ,,ii41 p4 #gh47 #c4 ,,rudimentary ,,organs ,,in ,,man4 ,evolution points to certain features in man which it claims came from his brute ancestry1 such as the long hairs in the eyebrow1 which they say came from the ape-man1 the tips of the ear1 and the hair on the forearm1 which slants from the hand to the elbow4 ,the whole outside ear is also claimed as a relic from that brute and is unnecessary for hearing4 ,so also of the five toes when a solid foot would have been better1 although most of us think not4 ,they also point to some evidences of a tail which they say was rubbed off when the ape-man learned to sit down4 ,this1 however1 many apes do now with no signs of decreasing tails4 ,many internal members and organs are pointed to1 which are too numerous here to mention4 ,one instance is as good as the whole catalogue1 and one reply also4 ,all this proves too much for the theory4 ,here is the loss of useful organs and the survival of others not needed4 ,this is not evolution1 at least not the kind we have been asked to build our hopes upon for progress4 ,further1 these so-called relics of the brute are counted as having no use save to support ,evolution4 ,the gill-slits in the neck of the human embryo are the favorite instance of this kind of fact4 ,haeckel and1 after him others1 picture the forms of fish1 dog and man in embryonic state1 and say in triumph1 ,there is proof of the descent of the man from the dog and of him from the fish2 and this resemblance has survived to tell the tale1 there being no other use for it4 ,but this is not the only feature that survives4 ,heads and mouths and eyes also survive4 ,why are these not pointed to as proofs of descent8 ,because we can see use for them1 while there appears to be no use for the gill-slits except to prove ,evolution4 ,if we could see some use in the gill-slits in the neck of the embryo1 the argument of ,evolution would fall to the ground4 ,evolution's argument from the gill-slits and all other relics of the brute rests therefore on ignorance1 a very unsafe foundation for a scientific theory1 for knowledge is constantly increasing1 especially of the human frame1 and there is not the slightest doubt1 reasoning from analogy and past experience1 that there is use for these peculiar embryonic features4 ,we repeat the argument of ,huxley as to these rudimentary parts3 ,either these rudiments are of no use1 in which case they should have disappeared2 or they are of use1 in which case they are arguments for teleology4 7,darwinism and ,design1 p4 #aea47 ,evidences of this nature are of that kind called circumstantial1 and in law are least relied upon1 for on such evidence some innocent men have been hung4 ,shall we condemn the whole race to a bestial origin on the same evidence8 ,all arguments founded on such facts are weak1 puerile and unworthy of scientists4 ,no wonder that ,prof4 ,paulsen said ,haeckel's speculations are a disgrace to the philosophy of ,germany4 ,shall we suspend a philosophy of the universe upon a few long hairs8 ,shall we allow the guess as to the origin of the tip of the outer ear to revolutionize theology8 ,shall we risk our eternal destiny on the supposed uselessness of the so-called gill-slits in premature puppies8 ,yet this is the demand of ,evolution reduced to plain ,english4 #d4 ,,human ,,characteristics ,,in ,,animals4 ,the human characteristics found in animals form an argument for ,evolution4 ,we find the animals have memory1 love1 hatred1 jealousy2 that they can think and plan1 use means and weapons1 admire things of beauty1 and some have sports4 ,all of this1 so ,evolution claims1 points to genetic connection with man4 ,but all this only shows uniformity in the inner as in the outer being4 ,there is as much reason for the one as for the other4 ,life is the same wherever we find it4 ,the forces which operate in the rain drop are the same as in the universe of boundless space4 ,the intellectual nature of man is the same as that of angels who have no genetic connection with us4 ,even devils are the same in the intellectual nature as ,god himself4 ,mind is the same thing wherever it exists4 ,to say therefore that because animals have certain characteristics like those of man1 they are the ancestors of man1 is a leap to a conclusion entirely unwarranted by either facts or logic4 ,yet it is on such conclusions that ,evolution rests4 ,creation would proceed on the same comprehensive plan1 and we have seen that man does also4 ,he applies his forces as he does his materials to the most varied uses4 ,nor has any instance of the development of a brute or his faculties to any approach to man's faculties ever been known4 ,the highest animal is still immeasurably below the lowest and most bestial man1 not only in the grade of the faculties that they have in common1 but in others which the animal does not possess and cannot acquire4 ,there is a great gulf fixed which they do not pass over--as our next section will show4 #e4 ,,history ,,from ,,the ,,brute ,,to ,,the ,,man4 ,many have essayed the relation of the story of the change from the brute to the man4 ,in doing so1 some have covered themselves with ridicule1 yet the attempts continue to be made as do others to produce perpetual motion4 ,to bridge this chasm is necessary in order to sustain ,evolution1 for this is the heart of the question4 ,it is said that a famous professor of history abandoned his chair because of the uncertainty of the facts of history4 ,one would expect that the attempt to relate what happened before man had any history1 or even existed1 would be even more hazardous4 ,yet we are given the account with such assurance as sometimes to deceive the very elect--who abandon their ,bibles4 ,haeckel's attempt was the most impressive1 and swept all before it1 for a year or two4 ,he presented a many-branched tree1 whose roots were protoplasm1 its trunk protozoa1 its successive branches sponges1 fish1 reptiles1 birds1 marsupials1 monkeys1 apes1 man-apes1 and the topmost branches1 man4 ,of the twenty-one stages1 half have been proved to be wrong by evolutionists and the rest are doubtful4 ,the home of the primeval man1 or ascending-ape1 whichever it or he was1 is one of the difficult facts to settle4 ,haeckel locates it at the bottom of the ,indian ocean4 ,he can thus defy disproof4 ,another says it was in the tropics somewhere4 ,this is also a safe assertion4 ,the difficulty is that the remains of the pre-historic man are found in the northern regions1 while the ancestor animal was a denizen of the tropics4 ,so another declares that the original home was in the northern regions1 to which a pair of wild animals of the ancestor kind were driven by something or somebody1 and their retreat cut off1 and so they were forced to the life in caves and adopted the habits we find among cave dwellers4 ,but although our ancestor cannot be located we are told just who and what he was4 ,thus ,prof4 ,edward ,clodd1 an authoritative evolutionist1 tells us in his book1 ,the ,making of a ,man1 as follows3 ,whichever among the arboreal creatures possessed any favorable variation1 however slight1 of brain or sense organ1 would secure an advantage over less favored rivals in the struggle for food and mates and elbow room4 ,the qualities which gave them success would be transmitted to their offspring4 ,the distance in one generation would be increased in the next2 brain power conquering brute force and skill outwitting strength4 ,while some for awhile remained arboreal in their habits1 never moving easily on the ground1 although making some approach to upright motion1 as seen in the shambling gait of the manlike apes1 others developed a way of walking on their hind legs1 which entirely set free the fore limbs as organs of handling and throwing4 ,whatever were the conditions which permitted this1 the advantage which it gives is obvious4 ,it was the making of a man4 7p4 #abf47 ,it seems difficult1 indeed unfair1 to take this seriously4 ,we must assure the reader that the author of this description shows no intention of humor either here or elsewhere in his work1 or indeed any consciousness of it4 ,all is given in perfect sobriety4 ,we must therefore accept it as a profound scientific deliverance of the most authoritative kind and deal with it accordingly1 and believe that walking on the hind legs and throwing things with the fore limbs was the making of a man4 ,how easily men are made6 #a4 ,this argument rests on the theory of ,natural ,selection now discarded by most evolutionists4 #b4 ,apes have done all he here claims and far more4 ,the chimpanzee has been taught to sit at a table1 to drink out of cups1 to eat with a knife and fork1 to wipe his mouth with a napkin and use a toothpick1 but has got no further in the ways of good society1 and as to increase of cranial development1 has obtained none save as the effects of undue potations have produced an enlarged feeling4 #c4 ,the whole account is purely imaginary as no professor of ,evolution was there to observe the facts4 ,it is in short an intrusion into the realm of fiction1 which clearly belongs to ,mr4 ,kipling in his wonderful jungle stories4 ,again in his book on ,man and ,his ,ancestor1 7p4 #fg47 ,prof4 ,morris gives us a full description of this unseen and purely hypothetical ancestor as follows3 ,it was probably much smaller than existing man1 little if any more than four feet in height1 and not more than half the weight of man4 ,its body was covered1 though not profusely1 with hair2 the hair of the head being woolly or frizzly in texture and the face provided with a beard4 ,the face was not jet black1 like a typical ,african1 but of a dull brown color2 the hair being somewhat similar in color4 ,the arms were long and lank1 the back being much curved1 the chest flat and narrow1 the abdomen protruding1 the legs rather short and bowed1 the walk a waddling motion somewhat like that of the gibbon4 ,it had deep set eyes1 greatly protruding mouth with gaping lips1 huge ears and general ape-like aspect4 ,prof4 ,john ,fiske thought it was much more than a million years since man diverged from the brute4 ,during an active geologic age before the cave-man appeared on the scene1 a being erect upon two legs and having the outward resemblance of a man wandered hither and thither upon the face of the earth4 7,destiny of ,man1 p4 #ee47 ,we read all this with astonishment that anyone could penetrate the dim vista of millions of years ago and transcribe such a detailed and circumstantial account of what then existed4 ,it reads like a picture from life4 ,yet not only was the writer not there1 but no one else was present1 for this was the father of us all1 according to ,evolution4 ,we are told that1 given time enough1 all this series of changes from the primeval cell to the modern philosopher or scientist is possible4 ,but time for this is limited by the age of the earth4 ,for ,lord ,kelvin has stated that only a few million years are possible on any calculation and this would all be needed for the change from ape to man to say nothing of the interminable ages necessary for the change from the protozoa to the fish and then to land animals and so on to mammals and up to the ape4 ,the after life of the ape-man is described with the same circumstantiality as the coming to manhood's estate4 ,dr4 ,robert ,patterson combines the various features of ,evolution's description and this creature's history in the following extract3 ,it is a fearful and wonderful picture they give us of the origin of marriage from the battles of baboons1 of the rights of property established by terrible fights for groves of good chestnuts1 of the beginning of morals from the instincts of brutes1 and of the dawnings of religion1 or rather of superstition1 from the dreams of these animals2 the result of the whole being that civilization and society and law and order and religion are all simply the evolution of the instincts of the brutes and that there is no necessity for the invoking any supernatural interference to produce them4 7,fables of ,infidelity47 ,it is here we meet the theistic account of the origin of man4 ,it was to this creature we are told ,god imparted a soul or spirit supernaturally4 ,for this strange creature was the ,adam of theistic ,evolution4 ,eve they say nothing about4 ,nor are we told how or when the soul was imparted1 whether in a single animal1 a pair1 or a herd2 whether awake or asleep4 ,nor are we told what they did next1 or how the soul-ape got along with the rest of the species4 ,nor are we told what particular state1 or act1 or habit1 entitled him to the new nature he received4 ,it seems as if the ability to stand on the hind legs and throw things with the fore limbs1 which ,prof4 ,clodd tells us was the making of a man1 scarcely entitled him to such a divine inheritance as an immortal soul4 ,this also was the ,adam who fell according to the theistic evolutionist1 though how such a creature could fall seems difficult to conceive4 ,it was this thing whose sin1 ,paul tells us1 brought death on the whole race4 ,it was this who is a type of ,christ who is the ,second ,adam4 ,out and out ,evolution has but a fraction of the difficulties1 either physical or spiritual1 to face that this make-shift compromise theistic theory has before it4 ,it is not surprising that the thorough-going evolutionist rejects this strange compound of fiction and theology4 ,we appeal to the common1 every-day man of fair judgment3 ,which takes more faith1 or if preferred1 credulity1 the accepting of that strange1 complex1 unauthenticated account of man's origin or the simple and1 with an omnipotent ,god in mind1 entirely possible account of the ,bible8 ,the ,lord ,god formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life3 and man became a living soul4 ,which is the more noble1 the more satisfying to our desires for a high and divine origin as well as high and divine destiny8 #f4 ,,the ,,missing ,,link4 ,the ,missing ,link is the great desideratum of ,evolution1 for the evolutionist indignantly disclaims the present apes or monkey as ancestors4 ,he tells us the connecting link was a creature superior to these4 ,but of which he is unable to show any specimen4 ,it is purely mythical4 ,we have the remains of millions of animals reaching through all the ages and why is this particular specimen wanting8 ,dr4 ,rudolph ,virchow1 the great discoverer of the germ theory1 has for thirty years1 according to ,haeckel1 opposed the theory of man's descent from the brute4 7,last ,link1 p4 #bg47 ,he himself says3 ,the intermediate form is unimaginable save in a dream4444 ,we cannot teach or consent that it is an achievement that man has descended from the ape or other animal4 7,homiletic ,review1 ,january1 #aija47 ,dr4 ,friedrich ,pfaff1 professor of natural sciences in the ,university of ,erlangen1 writes on the question as follows3 ,nowhere in the older deposits is an ape that approximates more closely to man1 or man that approximates more closely to an ape1 or perhaps a man at all4 ,the same gulf which is found to-day between man and the ape goes back with undiminished breadth and depth to the tertiary period4 ,this fact alone is sufficient to make its unintelligibleness clear to every one who is not penetrated by the conviction of the infallibility of the theory of the gradual transmutation of and progressive development of all organized creatures4 ,if1 however1 we now find one of the most man-like apes 7gibbon7 in the tertiary period1 and this species is still in the same low grade1 and side by side with it1 at the end of the ice period1 man is found in the same high grade as to-day1 the ape not having approximated more nearly to man1 and modern man not having become further removed from the ape than the first man1 every one who is in a position to draw a right conclusion can infer1 that the facts contradict a theory of constant progression1 development and ceaselessly increasing variation from generation to generation1 as surely as it is possible to do4 7,age and ,origin of ,man1 ,am4 ,tr4 ,soc41 p4 #eb47 ,from time to time the discovery of the missing link is announced and telegraphed through the civilized world1 only to be remanded to its place among the remains of brutes or men4 ,we will consider the instances of such as they have been presented3 #a4 ,the ,calaveras ,skull now in the ,california ,state ,museum4 ,this has been shown recently to be a hoax4 ,it was placed in a mine shaft #aej feet deep1 by ,mr4 ,r4 ,c4 ,scribner1 a storekeeper at the mine1 as a practical joke4 ,this he lately acknowledged to the ,rev4 ,w4 ,h4 ,dyer1 of ,los ,angeles1 a clergyman of the ,episcopal church4 #b4 ,the ,neanderthal ,skull4 ,this was found in #ahef in ,prussia4 ,it had narrow receding forehead and thick ridges over the eyes4 ,it was claimed by the evolutionists as from two to three hundred thousand years old4 ,dr4 ,meyer of ,bonn examined the evidence1 and found it to be the skull of a ,cossack killed in #ahad4 ,many other scientists agreed with him4 7,bible ,science and ,faith1 p4 #bgh47 #c4 ,the ,colorado specimen4 ,prof4 ,stephen ,bowers of the ,mineralogical and ,geological ,survey of ,california1 gives this account of another such discovery3 ,a few years ago the newspapers contained an account of the discovery of a skeleton in ,colorado1 by a ,columbia ,college professor1 which he was pleased to call the 'missing link' between man and the apes4 ,he gave this remarkable creature an antiquity of a million and a half of years4 ,the friable bones were carefully wrapped in cotton and shipped east4 ,but scarcely had the learned professor gotten away with his prize when certain cowboys came forward and claimed the bones to be that of a pet monkey which they buried but a dozen years previously4 #d4 ,the late find of skeletons at ,croatia1 ,austria1 is heralded as the discovery of a connecting link4 ,but these are skeletons of men and not of brutes4 ,they are degraded men and nothing is better known than the possibility of degeneracy in man4 ,we have degenerates now with all the peculiarities of these low specimens1 retreating brows and jaws and flat faces4 ,degeneracy does not prove evolution4 ,while the shape of these skulls is low and long it has not been shown that their cubical capacity is much less than that of normal man4 #e4 ,the ,pithecanthropus ,erectus4 ,this is the most popular relic with ,evolution4 ,it consists of a piece of a skull from the eyes upward1 a leg bone and two teeth4 ,these were found in ,java by ,dr4 von ,eugene ,du ,bois in #ahia4 ,the cubic measurement of the skull is #fj inches1 the same as that of an idiot1 that of a normal man being #ij inches1 and of an ape #cj4 ,these specimens were found at separate places and times4 ,the skull is too small for the thigh bone4 ,the age of the strata in which they were found is uncertain4 ,authorities are divided as to the nature of these4 ,haeckel admits that the belief that this is the missing link is strongly combatted by some distinguished scientists4 ,at the ,leyden congress1 it was attacked by the illustrious pathologist ,rudolph ,virchow4 ,the assumptions based upon this specimen and necessary for evidence are as follows3 ,first1 that it is as old as claimed1 a hundred thousand years at least1 or a million as stated by some4 ,second1 that these bones belong to the same individual4 ,third1 that they are the remains of a full-grown individual4 ,fourth1 that they are the remains of a human or semi-human being4 ,fifth1 that they are not the remains of an idiot whose capacity the brain represents4 ,with all these unproven assumptions1 and against the opinion of many of the finest scientists in ,europe1 ,haeckel and some evolutionists have declared this is the missing link4 ,they place this piece of a skull of one creature upon this leg of another and insert these teeth belonging to a third1 all so far separated in life that they probably did not even know each other1 and rechristen the whole ,pithecanthropus ,erectus1 which may be freely translated ,the ape that walked like a man1 being thus the first that arrived at that point which ,prof4 ,clodd tells us was the making of a man4 ,and this specimen is ,haeckel's ,last ,link1 and this he says demonstrates the truth of ,evolution4 ,the evidence of bones and other remains is now generally suspected4 ,it has been found that even in the case of recent remains1 as in criminal trials1 experts are often unable to decide whether they are human or brute1 recent or remote1 and what part of the frame they occupied4 ,it is said that ,wallace1 the great cotemporary with ,darwin in the promotion of the theory1 now admits there is no evidence of an evolutionary link between man and the lower animals4 #g4 ,,the ,,argument ,,from ,,the ,,brain4 ,the brain forms the principal difference between man's body and the brute's4 ,the brain is especially used as proof by the evolutionist4 ,it is the organ of mind4 ,its size corresponds with the intellectual state of the creature4 ,it is the theory of ,evolution that there was an increase in the size of the brain in some of the man-apes of that day1 although none such is seen now4 ,prof4 ,edward ,clodd thus describes these supposed brain changes after the ,ice ,age3 ,the changes by which he met these new conditions were in a very small degree physical4 ,they were almost wholly mental4 ,the principal physical change was in the growth of the brain and the expansion of the cranium1 giving rise to a less bestial physiognomy and an advanced mental power4 7,man and ,his ,ancestor1 p4 #aha47 ,how could man adapt himself by increasing the size of his brain8 ,why should the passing away of the ice age increase the size of the brain8 ,however1 he disposes of the whole matter1 after arguing through pages of supposition and assumption1 by stating1 ,the absence of facts forces us to confine ourselves largely to suggestions and probabilities4 7,making of a ,man1 p4 #ahh47 ,but probabilities are not science and we have a right to ask from those claiming to be scientists actual facts and not guesses1 for so great an assertion as the descent of man from the brute4 ,the capacity of the ape brain is #cj1 of the human #ij cubic inches4 ,there is no evidence of change in either the ape or the man4 ,the prehistoric man has as good a head on his shoulders as his modern descendants4 ,bruner says the most ancient skulls even exceed ours4 ,dr4 ,pfaff says the stone age men are equal to the present generation4 ,so if education does not increase the size of man's brain1 why should the new tricks of ,prof4 ,clodd's ancient arboreal creature enlarge that individual's brain #bjj per cent8 ,on the other hand1 the ape of to-day and the ape of #c1jjj years ago as mummied and preserved in ,egypt are the same4 ,the big-brained ape of ,evolution has unaccountably disappeared and even his skull is missing4 #h4 ,,man',s ,,mind ,,and ,,consciousness4 ,evolution claims that all man's faculties have been derived from the brute1 as was his physical frame4 ,it is fair to say that this is met at the door by the protest of some of the greatest scientists1 themselves sympathetic with ,evolution4 ,prof4 ,john ,fiske wrote on the origin of mind3 ,we can say when mind came on the scene of evolution1 but we can say neither whence nor why4444 ,it is not only inconceivable how mind should have been produced from matter1 but it is inconceivable that it should have been produced from matter4 7,darwinism1 pp4 #fc1 #fi47 ,prof4 ,dana has said1 ,the present teaching of geology is that man is not of nature's making4444 ,independently of such evidences1 man's high reason1 his unsatisfied longings1 aspirations1 his free will1 all afford the fullest assurance that he owes his existence to the special act of the ,infinite ,being whose image he bears4 7,geologic ,story1 p4 #bij47 ,prof4 ,george ,h4 ,howison writes on this theme3 ,to make evolution the ground of the existence of mind in man1 is destructive to the reality of the human person and therefore1 of the entire world of moral good and of unqualified truth4 7,limits of ,evolution1 p4 #f47 ,lord ,kelvin1 the most eminent living scientist1 wrote in a letter to the ,london ,times1 ,every action of human free will is a miracle to physical and chemical and mathematical science4 #i4 ,,language4 ,evolution has long tried to create an argument for the derivation of man's speech from the cries of animals4 ,this is met however by the philologist with positive denial4 ,prof4 ,max ,mueller says3 ,there is one barrier which no one has yet ventured to touch1--the barrier of language4 ,language is our ,rubicon and no brute will dare to cross it4444 ,no process of ,natural ,selection will ever distill significant words out of the notes of birds and animals4 7,lessons on the ,science of ,language1 pp4 #bc1 #cdj1 #cgj47 ,false claims have been made for the languages of savage people and ancient races4 ,darwin said that the people of ,terra del ,fuego were the lowest in the scale1 so far as discovered1 and their language correspondingly crude4 ,but further investigation shows that they have #cb1dcj words2 over twice as many as ,shakespeare used4 ,the language of some of the tribes of the ,congo is described by a missionary as more complex than ,greek4 ,the history of languages shows the same want of evidence for an evolutionary origin4 ,the oldest forms are the most complex4 ,modern ,greek and ,latin are simpler than the ancient forms4 ,english is an improvement in this respect on the old ,anglo ,saxon1 whose grammatical forms it has largely cast off and reduced the language to greater simplicity4 ,a scientist is now endeavoring to ascertain the speech of monkeys4 ,he has ascertained that these animals have different sounds for different wants1 a fact as to other creatures that he could have ascertained by a visit to the nearest poultry yard4 ,the hen has as many calls as the monkey1 and as many meanings too4 ,her call for food is one sound4 ,her cry of alarm at a passing hawk is another1 and her brood perfectly understands all1 and without previous education4 ,all animals and birds1 and many insects too1 have sounds with meaning in them1 but language is another matter4 #aj4 ,,prehistoric ,,man4 ,the remains of early races form an argument used by ,evolution4 ,these remains are found in many places in caves and are accompanied by tools of stone and vessels of pottery and the remains of animals4 ,these degraded peoples are pointed to by ,evolution as man in a state of development4 ,if the preceding arguments were well founded this would appear reasonable enough4 ,but in view of the fallacious character of the prior reasoning1 we must halt at this claim4 ,there are many and conclusive reasons for rejecting this unproven claim4 ,for it is unproven4 ,it is only inference and assumption4 #a4 ,these men of the cave do not necessarily represent man in a course of progress1 for we find to-day the same classes of people with their stone tools and pottery and living as prehistoric man lived4 ,there to-day exist men in every stage of the supposed progress from the cave man to the highest in civilization4 ,such remains could be had in any burial place of these savage peoples4 ,prehistoric man1 so-called1 is still with us and we can interview him as to his state and history4 #b4 ,we have seen that modern man has not developed in brain capacity above prehistoric man4 ,it is also true that he has not developed physically4 ,dana tells us that the skeleton found at ,mentone compares favorably with the best modern men4 ,indeed we have degenerated in many respects4 ,we have almost lost the sense of smell as compared with savage peoples or even animals4 ,our teeth are certainly not improving4 ,if we are to find perfect specimens we do not look at the most advanced classes but to the reverse4 ,those who live to extreme old age are generally in the lowly ranks4 ,but why has physical development ceased at all8 ,why are there not some superior beings by this time8 ,but alas1 there are no marks or indications of wings or halos on either the great saints or scientists of the day4 ,we are told that while physical evolution has ceased among men1 evolution now works along mental lines of progress4 ,this is a radical shifting of the ground of evolution1 for heretofore all this has been not only omitted but discarded4 ,if evolution is anything1 it is physical4 ,nor does ,evolution give any account of the causes of the stoppage of physical development and the change to mental evolution4 ,we will also show later that this supposed progress has not been such as claimed4 #aa4 ,,antiquity ,,of ,,man4 ,evolution asserts that a vast antiquity for man has been proven by remains that have been found4 ,it is commonly said that these remains are hundreds of thousands of years old4 ,but the claims for these vast periods are now being greatly reduced and generally discredited4 ,dr4 ,zahm says of these speculations3 ,we could not give a better illustration of the extremes to which the unguided human intellect is subject than the vacillating and extravagant notions of the antiquity of man4 7,bible ,science and ,faith1 p4 #cae47 ,the age of the peat beds of ,abbeville1 in ,france1 in which human remains were found1 was once estimated at #bj1jjj years4 ,the estimate has been reduced to a fifth of that age4 ,the remains of the animals found with man are supposed to prove his extreme antiquity4 ,the remains of the mammoth were once cited as such proof4 ,but the mammoth has been found in such a state of preservation that its flesh has been fed to the dogs4 ,the enormous ages which have been credited to these remains are well illustrated by the discovery of a skeleton at ,new ,orleans while digging for the gas works4 ,from the depth of the stratum in which it was found it was estimated by scientists at the age of #eg1jjj years4 ,soon after1 the gunwale of the skeleton's ,kentucky flat boat was found in the same stratum1 and the age therefore of the remains was reduced from #eg1jjj to #ej years4 ,the evidences from peat bogs1 stalagmite formations1 stone1 iron and bronze tools are all now considered unreliable by scientists4 ,so many exposures of mistakes in the estimate of age from these have been made1 that the whole is looked upon with suspicion4 ,instance after instance might be given4 ,it has been claimed that we can arrange these past races in an ascending order as they worked in stone1 bronze1 or iron1 in their successive history4 ,this is a false theory4 ,we have all these ages existing to-day4 ,on the other hand1 ,dr4 ,livingstone found no stone age in ,africa4 ,dr4 ,schliemann found in the ruins of ,troy the bronze age below the stone age4 ,the early ,egyptians used bronze1 the later ones stone tools4 ,in the ,chaldean tombs all these are found together4 ,europe had the metal age while ,america had the stone age4 7,creation and ,evolution4 ,prof4 ,townsend47 ,these prehistoric races to which ,evolution points us as representing man in his early state1 do not represent that early world4 ,they are found at the outer limits of the world and not at the acknowledged center whence man came4 ,they are1 in short1 what we find to-day at the outlying regions of earth4 ,they therefore1 are exceptional peoples and not representative of the world at that time1 or now4 ,the dynasties of ,egypt were once cited against the ,bible narrative1 but these have been reduced to moderate figures4 ,a thousand years was taken off by one discoverer recently from the age of the middle kingdom4 ,there is a question whether the ,egyptian dynasties were successive or in some cases contemporary4 ,there is also the well-known fact that the ,egyptians had years of varying length4 ,they often counted dynasties by years of three months and also of a month6 ,dr4 ,flinders ,petrie lately discovered in the tombs of the kings1 preceding the first dynasty of ,egypt at ,abydos1 ,grecian pottery of ,mycean clay1 and this in a tomb estimated to date from #e1djj ,b4 ,c46 7,atlantic ,monthly1 ,october1 #aijj47 ,the same kind of estimating is now being done from the ,assyrian tablets and their records4 ,we must remember these old kings were great boasters and liars1 too4 ,we don't know the basis of their calculations4 ,perhaps ,assyria also had three month years4 ,if their method was like ,egypt's1 and they were connected as we know by much intercourse and literature1 we may expect like inaccuracy4 ,the ancient dates given in the inscriptions found in ,nuffar recently1 are already suspected by scholars4 ,the date for the temple uncovered there was #c1bjj ,b4 ,c4 ,this number is the product of forty multiplied by eighty2 evidently a round number for eighty generations1 and not at all a careful or exact chronological statement4 ,however1 let us compare the two accounts1 the ,bible and the ,assyrian4 ,the one precise in statement1 accurate in ten thousand points as demonstrated1 with us for thousands of years1 trusted and tried4 ,the other inexact1 mythical in its legends1 having all the marks of inaccuracy1 just discovered1 made by people we know nothing of and having no character to speak of1 and full of vain boastings and absurd claims4 ,which is the true and which the false8 ,let the jury decide4 ,we will abide the verdict4 ,prof4 ,a4 ,h4 ,sayce of ,oxford1 writes3 ,the light that has come from the remnants of the past has been fatal to the pretenses of critical skepticism4 ,the discoveries of ,abydos have discredited its methods and results4 ,they have shown that where they can be tested they prove to be absolutely worthless4 ,it is only reasonable to conclude that methods and results1 that thus break down under the test of monumental discovery1 must equally break down in other departments of history where no such test can be applied4 ,it is not the discoveries of the higher critics1 but the old traditions which have been confirmed by archaeological discovery4 7,homiletic ,review1 ,march1 #aija47 ,this statement is made by one of the most able archaeologists and semitic scholars in the world4 ,the age of man on earth has much testimony from science agreeing with the ,bible account4 ,from many the following are cited3 ,dr4 ,j4 ,a4 ,zahm1 the distinguished scholar1 says1 ,i am disposed to attribute to man an antiquity of about ten thousand years4 ,it seems likely that the general consensus of chronologists will ultimately fix on a date which shall be below rather than above ten thousand years as the nearest approximate to the age of our race4 7,the ,bible1 ,science and ,faith1 p4 #caa47 ,he quotes many other authorities4 ,prof4 ,winchell tells us1 ,the very beginnings of our race are still almost in sight4 7,sketches of ,creation47 ,dawson thinks man has been on earth about seven thousand years4 ,geology agrees that man did not exist before the ice age4 ,the stone age is fixed at about seven thousand years ago by others4 ,professor ,george ,frederick ,wright tells us1 ,the glacial period did not close more than ten thousand years ago4 ,this shortening of our conception of the ice age renders glacial man a comparatively modern creature4 ,the last stage of the excessive unstability of the earth was not so very long ago and continued down to near the introduction of man4 7,bibliotheca ,sacra1 ,april1 #aijb47 ,s4 ,r4 ,pattison1 ,f4 ,g4 ,s41 tells us1 ,science shows to us a number of converging probabilities which point to man's first appearance along with great animals about #h1jjj years ago4 7,age and ,origin of ,man ,geologically ,considered1 ,am4 ,tr4 ,soc41 p4 #bi47 ,dr4 ,friedrich ,pfaff1 professor of natural science in ,erlangen1 thus sums up the evidence from geology as to man3 7#a7 ,the age of man is small1 extending only to a few thousand years4 7#b7 ,man appeared suddenly3 the most ancient man known to us is not essentially different from the now living man4 7#c7 ,transitions from the ape to the man1 or the man to the ape1 are nowhere found4 ,the conclusion we are led to is that the ,scripture account of man1 which is one and self-consistent1 is true4444 ,this account of man we accept by faith1 because it is revealed by ,god1 is supported by adequate evidence1 solves the otherwise insoluble problems1 not only of science and history1 but of inward experience1 and meets our deepest need4444 ,the more it is sifted and examined the more well founded and irrefragable does it prove to be4 7,age and ,origin of ,man1 ,am4 ,tr4 ,soc41 pp4 #ee-ef47 #ab4 ,,savage ,,races4 ,evolution delights to compare savage peoples alternately with present civilized races and with the brute4 ,prof4 ,conn says1 ,there is a greater difference between a ,newton and a ,hottentot1 than between the ,hottentot and the orang-outang4 ,he fails to notice1 or state1 that the first is a difference of degree only1 and the latter a difference of kind4 ,it would be possible to develop a ,hottentot into a philosopher1 but no attempt is ever dreamed of1 to change an orang-outang into a ,hottentot4 ,on the other hand1 the lowest savages have under culture shown their human inheritance of faculties beyond the brute4 ,two pigmies taken to ,italy learned to speak ,italian in two years with fluency4 ,they showed themselves superior to many ,european children1 and one became proficient in music4 ,the skill of this race with poisoned arrows1 pits for game1 and cultivation of various kinds1 is well known4 ,the savage races show the opposite of evolution4 ,they are races in ruins4 ,max ,mueller says1 ,what do we know of savage tribes beyond the last chapter in their history8 ,they may have passed through ever so many vicissitudes1 and what we consider as primitive may be for all we know a relapse into savagery1 or corruption of what was something more rational and intelligible in former ages4 ,this estimate of this great scholar is attested by facts4 ,where to-day is the ,hindu race that could build the ,taj ,mahal8 ,what ,greek race to-day could reproduce the architecture or statuary of their ancestors8 ,the ruins of all eastern and many western lands point to fallen races as well as ruined structures4 ,the world's history is that of the fall of great nations such as ,egypt1 ,babylonia1 ,greece1 ,rome1 in all of which are sad examples of architecture and peoples alike in decay4 #ac4 ,,the ,,argument ,,from ,,history4 ,history is appealed to to show the progress of man and his continuance in the evolutionary line since his origin in the brute4 ,our present civilization is pointed to and compared with the past and we are told that this is the result of evolution4 ,some remarks of a preliminary kind are called for here4 ,it is to be remembered that history does not cover a very long period1 that the record is often broken1 and that the facts are often very uncertain4 ,large sections of the world we know historically nothing or little of1 such as ,asia and ,africa4 ,we must remember that progress is confined mostly to ,europe and ,america and these form but a third of the population of the world4 ,also that ,european progress is a comparatively recent matter4 ,we are now considering the entire history of the race and must take in these vast outside regions to arrive at correct conclusions4 ,to judge the entire progress of mankind from a short-sighted view of a limited portion is as unscientific as it is unscriptural4 ,we must also remember that ,europe owes its progress to the influence of ,christianity4 ,for to-day it is the ,christian nations only that have progress and the most ,christian have the most progress4 ,no fact is better seen or proven4 ,lange states1 ,among human tribes left to themselves1 the higher man never comes out of the lower4 ,apparent exceptions do ever1 on close examination1 confirm the universality of the rule in regard to particular peoples1 while the claim1 as made for the world's general progress1 can only be urged in opposition by ignoring the supernal aids of revelation that have ever shown themselves directly or collaterally on the human path4 7,commentary on ,genesis1 p4 #cee47 ,we have seen that so far as present savage races are concerned they have made no progress1 and semi-civilized races1 such as the ,egyptians1 ,chinese and ,hindus have retrograded4 ,we need also to consider the vast and great civilizations which existed in remote antiquity as is now revealed by archaeology4 ,the recent discoveries in ,assyria and ,babylonia and ,egypt show vast empires of culture as well as national extension and power1 and that their earlier culture was the greatest4 ,so ,prof4 ,hilprecht1 of the ,university of ,pennsylvania1 testifies of ,babylonia3 ,the flower of ,babylonian art is found at the beginning of ,babylonian history4 7,recent ,researches in ,bible ,lands1 p4 #hh47 ,horace ,bushnell tells us1 ,all great ruins are but a name for greatness in ruins4 ,it is to ,egypt we must go for the earliest records of human civilization4 ,here the account of ,prof4 ,sayce1 of ,oxford1 gives us the facts3 ,the earliest culture and civilization to which the monuments bear witness was in fact already perfect4 ,it was full-grown4 ,the organization of the country was complete4 ,the arts were known and practiced4 ,egyptian culture as far as we know at present has no beginning4 7,recent ,researches in ,bible ,lands1 pp4 #aja1 #ajb47 ,the older the culture1 the more perfect it is found to be4 ,the fact is a very remarkable one1 in view of modern theories of development and of the evolution of civilization out of barbarism4 ,whatever may be the reason1 such theories are not borne out by the discoveries of archaeology4 ,instead of the progress one should expect1 we find retrogression and decay4 ,is it possible the ,biblical view is right after all and that civilized man has been civilized from the outset8 7,homiletic ,review1 ,june1 #aijb47 ,prof4 ,flinders ,petrie tells us that the ,great ,pyramid bears on its stones the marks of the solid and tubular drill1 edged with stone as hard as diamond1 and cutting one-tenth of an inch at a revolution1 and showing no sign of wear4 ,they had also straight and circular saws4 ,the same building reveals scientific and astronomical knowledge equal in some respects to modern science4 ,not only were the past civilizations great1 but1 in many respects1 far above the present4 ,so that the race has even fallen from higher levels4 ,lecky thus writes of the ,greeks3 ,within the narrow limits and scant populations of the ,greek states1 arose men1 who in almost every conceivable form of genius1 in philosophy1 in epic1 dramatic and lyric poetry1 in written and spoken eloquence1 in statesmanship1 in sculpture1 in painting1 and probably in music1 attained the highest levels of human perfection4 7,history of ,european ,morals1 p4 #djh47 ,galton says of the same civilization3 ,the millions of ,europe1 breeding as they have for two thousand years1 have never produced the equal of ,socrates and ,phidias4 ,the average ability of the ,athenian race is1 on the lowest possible estimate1 nearly two grades higher than our own2 that is1 about as much as our race is above the ,african negro4 7,hereditary ,genius1 p4 #cbj47 ,it does seem as if such testimony of these great scholars should make us not only chary of the theory which claims ever upward and onward progress1 but also more modest in our boasted modern progress and position4 ,prof4 ,frederick ,starr of the ,anthropological department of ,chicago ,university1 says that the ,american race is reverting to the ,indian state4 ,he bases this on measurements of faces of #e1jjj children4 ,this is a dismal outlook4 ,it is not what ,evolution has promised us4 ,the followers of ,evolution have reason to be indignant at such a turn in its course4 ,however1 we may comfort them and ourselves with the hope that if ,evolution fails us we have other resources4 ,,evolution ,,and ,,religion4 ,consciousness of ,god and the hereafter is the great distinction between man and brute4 ,this is the basis of all religion4 ,of this ,evolution gives the origin in the dreams of animals4 ,according to that department of the evolutionary theory popularly called ,higher ,criticism1 all religion1 including ,israel's and ,christianity1 was derived from fetishism and from that it developed to animism1 and so to polytheism and finally monotheism4 ,but the lowest savages have1 according to anthropology1 the belief in a ,supreme ,being4 ,andrew ,lang says1 ,it is among the lowest savages that the ,supreme ,beings are regarded as eternal1 moral1 powerful4 7,making of ,religion1 p4 #bjf47 ,fetishism and animism are processes of decay1 says ,dr4 ,john ,smith1 quoting ,hartmann1 ,de,rouge1 ,renouf1 ,lang and others4 7,integrity of ,scripture1 p4 #fh47 ,traces of monotheism are found in ,china1 ,india1 ,egypt and elsewhere4 ,in all nations is this decay found save in one1 ,israel4 ,it is further found that mankind had an original theistic religion common to the race1 which is just what the ,bible teaches4 ,all the evidence is to the effect that the further back we go1 the purer the religions are found to be4 ,the earliest ,romans were more pure in religion than the later people4 ,the early ,greeks more so than the more recent4 ,the early handwritings give a purer and more theistic religion than the later books4 ,dr4 ,jacob ,chamberlain thus sums up the evidence for the ,hindu ,vedas3 ,they all teach the ,godhead is one1 that he is good1 that man is in a state of sin1 not at peace with the ,holy ,one1 that man is in need of holiness and purity1 that there can be no harmony between sinful man and a holy ,god unless sin is in some way expiated and expurgated1 and that this is the greatest and most worthy end of existence4 7,northfield ,echoes1 ,august1 #aijj1 p4 #bef47 ,the ruins of ,assyria and ,egypt point to a religion resembling that of the ,israelites4 ,so far is this noticed that some have said that ,moses copied much of what he taught ,israel from them4 ,this conclusion is not necessary4 ,the fact is that man had a deposit of truth at the beginning1 and all men had the same4 ,both ,moses and ,egypt and ,assyria therefore1 had much of what survived from that early revelation4 ,the fact here stated agrees with the ,bible account and not with ,evolution4 ,the study of the mythology and philosophy of the heathen world does not show an evolutionary progress to a higher state1 but the reverse4 7,francis ,m4 ,bruner in ,the ,evolution ,theory47 ,christianity has not been a development of these religions1 for it is and was1 antagonistic to them at every point4 ,it was an opposing force introduced suddenly and utterly at variance in every particular with all about it4 ,sir ,m4 ,monier said in an address in #ahhg3 ,there can be no greater mistake than to force these non-christian writings into conformity with some scientific theory of development1 and then point to the ,christian's ,holy ,bible as the crowning product of religious evolution4 ,so far from this1 these non-christian books are all developments in the wrong direction4 ,they begin with some flashes of true light and end in utter darkness4 ,,evolution ,,and ,,ethics4 ,evolution has a system or systems of ,ethics4 ,it traces the beginning of the sense of right and wrong to the instincts of animals1 such as the parental instinct1 the recognition of marital rights1 and the right to respective properties such as nests and burrows4 ,so that the animal1 or man1 came to see that it was best on all accounts to be good to oneself and others4 ,so ,mr4 ,spencer's definition of right is the happiness of oneself1 one's offspring and others4 ,acts are good or bad as they increase happiness or misery4 ,he ignores the moral instinct and exalts expediency and utility4 ,this is the level of the uncivilized or savage races4 ,dr4 ,james ,thompson ,bixby of ,leipsic1 makes humanity the goal of ,evolution's ethics4 ,the test of what is morally good is the tendency of the given motive to help forward the progress of the race toward the ideal humanity4 7,ethics of ,evolution1 p4 #bab47 ,every ,bible believer will see how far short these fall of the standard of holiness and happiness the ,bible places before us4 ,but when or where did any people ever aim to help forward the ideal perfection of humanity who did not have the mighty impulse which the ,bible1 and only the ,bible1 gives to that object8 ,there is not even the sense of brotherhood necessary for the motive4 ,to point natural man to that is to ask him to act outside his nature4 ,the law of the ,struggle for ,existence never taught ,christian ethics4 ,the self-sacrificing ,christian has something which never came from ,evolution4 ,the ,cross is the final test of ,evolution4 ,by it that theory and all other false theories are weighed in the balances and found wanting4 ,the struggle for existence is the law of self and is the antithesis of the ,cross1 which is the very opposite of the struggle for existence4 ,nor is the struggle for existence the law of the lower creature4 ,that law is to bring forth fruit1 to propagate their species4 ,that is the plant's goal2 when it has so done it retires or dies4 ,the little bird will struggle more fiercely for its young than for its food1 or even for its life1 which it imperils often to save its brood4 ,below the unfallen creation and regenerated humanity is the unregenerated selfish man4 ,not ,evolution but ,revolution can create ,christian ethics4 ,history does not present an instance of progress in ethics save as aided by the ,bible4 ,,evolution ,,and ,,christian ,,experience4 ,in undertaking to account for man1 ,evolution must account for the fact of ,christian experience4 ,conversion revolutionizes a man4 ,it turns him against his natural likes and dislikes4 ,he even turns against himself and the selfish becomes unselfish4 ,this is not development1 for that operates according to the nature of the thing4 ,develop a wolf and you may get a dog4 ,develop man from the savage state and you may have the condition of the ,greek in the highest state of culture and yet in the lowest state of vice4 ,introduce ,christian experience and you have ,christianity with all the civilization which proceeds and flows from it4 ,there is no such consistent body of testimony for any fact1 science or truth as there is for ,christian experience4 ,it is the same in all ages1 in all lands and in all classes of society1 and in all circumstances of life4 ,this evidence is perfectly legitimate and must be considered by the student of human life and character4 ,let ,evolution then account for ,conversion which changes man's inner nature1 and gives a life which lives contrary to natural human instincts and conduct2 and ,christian hopes which yearn for deliverance from sin and self and long for the highest spiritual state and hasten to meet the holy and all-seeing ,god4 ,the missions of our great cities as well as those of the foreign field are full of witnesses for the transforming effect of ,christian experience4 ,the author of this book can vouch for the following from personal knowledge4 ,a business man in ,illinois became addicted partly from use in disease to alcohol and the use of morphine and also cocaine4 ,he used all these and in excessive quantities2 as much as forty grains of morphine in a day4 ,he tried seven cures4 ,he visited ,europe to consult specialists4 ,he spent in all over #ae1jjj in seeking a cure and all in vain4 ,by the persuasions of ,christians he was led to seek relief in prayer and experienced what ,christians call conversion and was immediately delivered from all his appetites4 ,the author of this saw him three months after and found him a sober man and without any desire for drink or drugs4 ,he saw him again a year after and he was still rejoicing in full deliverance4 ,since beginning this book1 a correspondence was had to verify the case still further1 and he is reported as follows3 ,in ,january1 #ahii1 his weight was #aac pounds4 ,in ,january1 #aija1 his weight was #ahc pounds4 ,he is an official member of a prominent church1 a director of the ,young ,men's ,christian ,association and a great worker in both4 ,no evolution can account for such a change4 ,it is as great a miracle as cleansing the leper4 ,prof4 ,george ,romanes of ,oxford1 was1 it is said1 brought back from infidelity to faith by the letters of a ,japanese missionary friend1 dealing with experimental and practical religion4 ,evolution asks for facts4 ,here are facts1 and they tell not of ,evolution but of ,regeneration4 ,,evolution ,,and ,,christ4 ,evolution cannot account for ,christ4 ,without entering here on an argument for ,his divinity1 we simply present him and ask the evolutionist to account for such a character and life4 ,let us listen to what the enemies of ,christianity say of ,christ4 ,renan said3 ,the incomparable man to whom the universal conscience has decreed the title of the ,son of ,god1 and that with justice4444 ,between thee and ,god there will be no longer any distinction4 ,jean ,paul ,richter said3 ,the holiest among the mighty1 the mightiest among the holy1 ,he lifted with pierced hands empires off their hinges and turned the stream of centuries out of its channel and still governs the ages4 7,dr4 ,liddon's ,bampton ,lectures47 ,rousseau testified as follows3 ,what sweetness1 what purity in his morals6 ,what force1 what persuasion in his instructions6 ,his maxims how sublime6 ,his discourses1 how wise and profound6 such presence of mind1 such beauty and precision in his answers1 such empire over his passions6 ,it would be much harder to conceive that a number of men should have joined together to fabricate this book than that a single person should furnish out the subject to its authors4 ,jewish writers would never have fallen into that style1 and the gospel has such strong and such inimitable marks of truth that the inventor would be more surprising than the hero4 7,emilius and ,sophia1 or ,an ,essay on ,education1 pp4 #gi1 #hj1 #ha47 ,thomas ,paine3 ,the morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind4 ,it has never been excelled4 7,age of ,reason1 p4 #e47 ,robert ,ingersoll1 to ,m4 ,d4 ,landon1 in a letter giving permission to print his speeches3 ,in using my speeches do not use any assault ,i may have made on ,christ which ,i foolishly made in my earlier life4 ,i believe ,christ was the perfect man4 ',do unto others' is the perfection of religion and morality4 ,it is the summum bonum4 7,homiletic ,review1 ,november1 #ahii1 p4 #dge47 ,theodore ,parker3 ,shall we be told such a man never lived--the whole story is a lie8 ,suppose that ,plato and ,newton never lived1 that their story is a lie8 ,but who did their works and thought their thoughts8 ,it takes a ,newton to forge a ,newton4 ,what man could have fabricated ,jesus8 ,none but a ,jesus4 7,discourses on ,religion1 pp4 #cfb-c47 ,napoleon ,bonaparte3 ,everything in ,jesus ,christ astonishes me4 ,his spirit overawes me4 ,between him and whoever else in the world there is no possible line of comparison4 ,i search in vain in history to find the similar to ,jesus ,christ1 or anything which can approach the ,gospel4 ,in him we find a moral beauty before unknown1 and an idea of the ,supreme superior even to that which creation suggests4 ,to say that ,jesus was an evolution of that age1 as some evolutionists do say1 and that we may look for even a greater in the future1 is to be guilty not only of blasphemy but of gross ignorance as to the age in which ,jesus came4 ,there was nothing in that age to give rise to such a character4 ,he came as a flash of lightning in a dark sky1 or1 according to the ,bible figure1 as the rising of the sun in the world's night4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,evolution ,,unscientific ,,and ,,unphilosophical4 ,before making so serious a charge against a scientific theory as that it is both unscientific and unphilosophical1 we will show that others have held a similar view and that among these are many scholars4 ,we have already seen ,prof4 ,paulsen's remark that ,haeckel's reasonings are a disgrace to the philosophy of ,germany4 ,prof4 ,george ,frederick ,wright calls ,evolution a fad1 the cast-off clothing of the evolutionary philosophy of fifty years ago4 ,the ,duke of ,argyle says1 ,it is such a violation of and departure from all that we know of the existing order of things as to deprive it of all scientific base4 ,,evolution ,,fails ,,in ,,all ,,the ,,steps ,,of ,,scientific ,,proof4 ,there are four stages of proof necessary for a full demonstration4 #a4 ,observation of facts4 #b4 ,classification of these facts4 #c4 ,inferences legitimately drawn therefrom4 #d4 ,verification of these conclusions4 #a4 ,it fails in its facts4 ,that this is true is evident from the reticence of the exact scientists to commit themselves to the theory4 ,if the facts were all that they say1 these laborious and faithful laborers in the laboratory and field would acknowledge the case4 ,in the presentation of facts1 the theoretical evolutionist culls out and magnifies those looking his way and passes in silence or minifies those antagonistic to the theory4 ,it makes much of the change of a low salt water animal into its fresh water form1 and passes over the immutability of all the great species4 ,evolution dwells upon the splints in the leg of the horse and passes over lightly the vast unbridged gaps between organic and inorganic matter1 the origin of the vertebrates1 the countless missing links between the species4 ,it rests its argument on the gill-slits in the necks of embryonic fish1 puppies and infants1 and passes airily over the origin of matter1 of life1 of consciousness and of ,christian experience4 ,it presents ex-parte evidence4 #b4 ,evolution fails in classification4 ,we have seen the testimony of ,evolution itself on this point4 ,nor is there any agreed definition of species4 ,not a single species has been traced to its origin4 ,the species defy chronological classification4 ,the most primitive species exist to-day and the most advanced were in existence almost at the first4 ,nor can the classifications which are attempted be advanced as proof of evolution4 ,they are as evidential of manufacture or of creation or of any other process of intelligent mind4 #c4 ,evolution rests on inferences4 ,as its great philosopher1 ,spencer1 has said1 no inference is warranted unless it accounts for all the facts4 ,not only does no inference of ,evolution do this1 but it admits again and again that it is beset with countless difficulties4 ,nor are these inferences the only ones that might be drawn4 ,it is not only necessary to draw an inference but to show that no other inference is possible4 ,some of these are the wildest possible deductions from the facts1--as for example1 the theories as to the origins1 already cited1 as to whales and giraffes4 ,sir ,j4 ,william ,dawson1 the eminent geologist1 says of ,evolution's deductions as follows3 ,it seems to indicate that the accumulated facts of our age have gone altogether beyond its capacity for generalization1 and but for the vigor which one sees everywhere1 it might be taken as an indication that the human mind has fallen into a state of senility and in its dotage mistakes for science the imaginations which are the dreams of its youth4 7,story of the ,earth and ,man1 p4 #cag47 ,the works of writers on ,evolution abound in such phrases as seems to be--,i infer--it is conceivable--it might have been--it is probable--,i think--apparently--must have been--no one can say--not difficult to conceive1--and other unscientific terms1 and on such deductions they project other inferences1 and so leap skilfully from one supposition to another across the quagmire of ,evolution4 ,evolution is undertaking a philosophical impossibility--the proving of a negative1 that there could be no other method than derivation4 ,this is the philosophical basis of the whole theory4 #d4 ,finally ,evolution fails in the fourth step4 ,it admits again and again that it has not demonstrated its case4 ,not a single instance of evolution of species has been shown or produced1 and no law of the change is given4 ,the gaps it does not bridge are many4 ,we specially need to notice that it gives no account of the origin of matter or force4 ,it can give no account of the origin of life4 ,it utterly fails to account for man's self-consciousness or intellectual1 moral or spiritual nature4 ,it takes no account whatever of the other world or life and entirely disregards the facts of ,christian experience4 ,in short1 so far from being a great universal philosophy1 it is simply a disjointed combination of unproven theories4 ,the evolutionist1 ,prof4 ,conn1 admitting the missing factors1 says candidly1 ,it is therefore impossible to make ,evolution a complete theory4 7,evolution of ,to-day1 p4 #f47 ,sir ,j4 ,william ,dawson thus sums up the evidence3 ,the simplicity and completeness of the evolutionary theory entirely disappear when we consider the unproved assumptions on which it is based and its failure to connect with each other some of the most important facts in nature2 that in short1 it is not in any true sense a philosophy1 but a mere arbitrary arrangement of facts in accordance with a number of unproved hypotheses4 ,such philosophies1 falsely so-called1 have existed ever since man began to reason on nature1 and this last of all is one of the weakest and most pernicious of all4 ,let the reader take up either ,darwin's great book or ,spencer's ,biology and merely ask1 as he reads each paragraph1 ,what is here assumed and what is proved8 and he will find the fabric melt away like a vision4 ,spencer often exaggerates or extenuates with reference to facts and uses the art of the dialectician where argument fails4 7,story of the ,earth and ,man1 p4 #ccj47 ,prof4 ,william ,jones tells us ,evolution is a metaphysical creed and nothing else2 an emotional attitude rather than a system of thought4 7,homiletic ,review1 ,august1 #aijj47 ,,evolution ,,rests ,,on ,,imagination4 ,the evolutionist not only uses his imagination but claims the right to do so4 ,tyndall has written an essay on the ,scientific ,use of the ,imagination4 ,now when the pictures of an evolutionist's imagination are held up as facts1 as in the description of man's development from the brute1 he leaves the realm of science and enters that of fiction4 ,mr4 ,gladstone has said of this3 ,to the eyes of an onlooker their pace and method seem to be like a steeple-chase4 ,they are armed with a weapon always sufficient if not always an arm of precision1 'the scientific imagination4' ,they are impatient of that most wholesome state a ,suspended ,judgment4 7,homiletic ,review1 ,october1 #aijj1 quoted by ,dr4 ,jesse ,b4 ,thomas47 ,,evolution ,,is ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,chance4 ,the language used by the evolutionist is peculiar for persons claiming to believe in law as the great agency of nature and to base their conclusions on the operation of fixed causes4 ,the changes which together make up the birth of a new species are occasioned they say by chance happenings1 undesigned variations1 accidental variations1 utterly undetermined antecedents1 unintentional variations1 and other like expressions4 ,the synonyms of this idea are exhausted by them in describing the way in which the changes first occurred1 by which one species began the journey up to another stage of existence4 ,it is simply a revival and revamping of the old doctrine of chance4 ,prof4 ,frank ,ballard says of this3 ,chance manufactured protoplasm out of nebulosity4444 ,to accept this after rejecting faith on the ground of its difficulty1 is to quibble and cavil4 ,an illustration of the appeal to chance and its use is found in the following account as given by ,prof4 ,ernst ,haeckel1 the greatest living teacher of ,evolution1 of how tree-frogs became green3 ,once upon a time there were among the offspring of ancestral tree-frogs some which among other colors exhibited green1 not much1 perhaps not even perceptible to our eyes4 ,the occurrence of this color was spontaneous1 a freak4 ,the descendants of these greenish creatures1 provided they did not pair with frogs of the ordinary set1 became still greener and so on1 until the green was pronounced enough to be of advantage when competition set in4 7,last ,link1 p4 #agf47 ,here the origin of greenness in the tree-frog begins with a chance happening and is promoted by a chance union of the greenish frog with one not in the ordinary set1 but of the more select circle of the green1 and the favoring chances continued in this same remarkable way until the color became of use in protecting them4 ,it was with similar chance happenings1 ,evolution tells us1 that all the great kingdoms1 classes1 orders1 families1 genera and species originated4 ,it was by chance happenings that the present beautiful and infinite variety of nature came4 ,it was by unintended accidents that the wonderful adjustments in the universe came4 ,it has been calculated that the possibility of the letters of the alphabet1 if thrown promiscuously1 coming together in the present order is once in five hundred million million million times4 ,what would be the chances of the innumerable combinations of nature coming together in the order in which they are by the chance happenings to which ,evolution attributes them8 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,evolution ,,and ,,the ,,bible4 ,the interest in the question of how things came to be centers for the believer in the ,bible narrative and doctrine4 ,we have been accustomed to bring all things to ,bible testing and so far with assured results4 ,the ,bible has never failed and we believe will not fail now4 ,we therefore ask1 ,what does it teach as to ,evolution8 ,we are amazed to find ,evolution makes no appeal to the ,bible1 and the ,bible makes no allusion to ,evolution4 ,they are strangers to each other4 ,the argument from ,scripture for ,evolution has not yet been written4 ,the best the theistic evolutionist can say as to the ,bible account of the origin of man is an apology for its narratives1 or some explanation which vaporizes its facts into figures of speech4 ,we have heretofore given the ,bible account and that of ,evolution printed in parallel columns 7p4 #fa74 ,the reader is again referred to these1 and asked to notice the differences in these two accounts4 ,the ,bible account is not the description of the slow transformation of an ape into a man-like ape1 and that into an ape-like man1 and that into a cave man1 and he into a stone-tool man1 and that again into a pottery-making savage1 and he into a weapon-making barbarian1 and he into a ,chinese and after that into a ,roman or ,greek1 and last into an ,englishman and ,american and he into a spiritual being in the image and likeness of ,god4 ,common literary honesty demands that we give an author his own intended meaning4 ,if the ,bible meant ,evolution why did it not give it8 ,two accounts more utterly dissimilar could scarcely be given than the ,bible account of man's creation and the account of ,evolution4 ,we may take one or other and be consistent but the rules of literary exegesis and common sense and ,scripture alike forbid taking both4 ,to call it poetry or an allegory is no explanation4 ,why did not the writer make poetry or allegory which had some agreement with facts8 ,why lead us into a perplexing situation when he might as well have given us some other account or omitted it altogether8 ,the differences between these two accounts are obvious4 ,the ,bible account describes a definite act1 the ,evolution account a long-continued process through millions of years4 ,the ,bible account is a production de novo of a new and original creature2 the ,evolution account gives one of a numerous line of ancestors2 the ,bible account presents us with a perfect creature in the likeness of ,god2 the ,evolution account with a brute slightly raised above the common herd4 ,the ,bible account gives a descriptive narrative with accompanying events2 the ,evolution account leaves all the events unknown save as guessed at by the imagination of the various writers4 ,the ,bible account gives a high and noble origin by a special and creative act of his ,creator2 ,evolution tells of a degraded origin from a brute by the operation of blind forces4 ,the ,bible account is noble and satisfying and1 to one who believes in an omnipotent ,god1 credible1 calling for belief in one creative act2 the ,evolution account is filled with difficulties and paradoxes calling for the wildest stretch of imagination and the utmost application of credulity4 ,the ,bible account is frequently referred to as an actual history by other ,scripture writers2 the evolutionary account has not one ,scripture reference or the slightest hint from ,scripture of its having any place whatever in fact4 ,the ,bible account agrees with and is the basis of the spiritual teachings of the ,bible2 the evolutionary account has no such agreement and needs to be explained away to be allowed any place whatever in sacred writings4 ,if the ,bible is the book the common consent of the wisest of all mankind and of every age has affirmed it to be1 it should have some intimation of this greatest discovery of the human mind4 ,for the ,bible does touch on the greatest problems of the world and life4 ,not only does the ,bible give a very different account of the origin of man1 but also of nature4 ,its definition of the beginning of things is as follows3 ,by faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of ,god1 so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which do appear4 7,heb4 #aa3c47 ,the term it applies to this is ,creation4 ,it gives also a circumstantial account of the coming of the present order as we have it1 closing with man's creation4 ,,evolution',s ,,interpretation ,,of ,,the ,,bible4 ,in order to bring the evolutionary theories within the possibility of ,bible sanction1 a theory of interpretation is adopted which calls the narratives of ,creation and the ,fall myths1 legends1 allegories1 parables1 scenic representation1 or idealized history according to the theological bias of the interpreter4 ,these all amount to the same thing1 for they do away with the historical value of the accounts4 ,it is only a play upon words to say they are parables for parables are not unhistorical4 ,every one of ,christ's parables is true to life and facts4 ,it is claimed that the ,bible narratives are poetry and therefore are not historical4 ,the evolutionist for his purpose confounds poetry and fiction4 ,they are not synonymous4 ,a poetical form does not imply fictitiousness4 ,the ,psalms have much history under their poetical form4 ,but the first chapter of ,genesis is not poetry4 ,hebrew poetry has a well-defined form as seen in the poetical books4 ,this chapter does not conform to that form1 and accordingly it is printed not in poetical form but as prose in the ,revised ,version4 ,the mere repetition of certain phrases is not the mark of poetry1 but is characteristic of the oriental languages in which the ,bible was written4 ,but who is to decide what in the ,bible is historical and what is not8 ,what is to hinder anyone from so discarding any fact whatever in the ,bible8 ,why has not the enemy of ,christianity the same right to apply this reasoning to the accounts of the death and resurrection of ,christ8 ,where will this process end8 ,the proclaimer of such theories is putting a weapon into the hands of the opponent of ,christianity that he will use one day to the destruction of the faith of many4 ,once having permission to apply these terms1 it is easy to make these narratives1 or anything else in the ,bible1 mean anything or nothing as is desired4 ,as an ancient writer said1 ,twenty doctors can make a text read twenty different ways4 ,we protest against this loose method of interpretation for many reasons3 #a4 ,we object to every new theory interpreting the ,bible to suit itself4 #b4 ,there is not the slightest warrant in these narratives or elsewhere for such interpretation4 ,they are given as facts and are always so treated4 ,creation and the ,fall are everywhere spoken of as actual facts both by ,christ and all other ,scripture writers4 #c4 ,it is on this system of interpretation that every false system rests1 such as ,mormonism4 ,all the modern vagaries support themselves from ,scripture by accommodation of its language to their doctrines4 #d4 ,the ,bible is not a book of puzzles1 a delphic oracle1 to be read in any way suited to the occasion or desires4 ,it has a plain meaning and is for everyday people and everyday needs4 #e4 ,the acceptance of the ,bible account as unquestioned fact and the literal interpretation of it by ,christ and his apostles ought to be enough for anyone calling himself ,christian or even for any other who will accept good human testimony4 ,these writers were #aijj years nearer the date of the events in question than we4 ,they had access to knowledge now lost to us4 ,from any standpoint1 we may rest our view of these narratives on the testimony of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures4 ,the references of the ,new ,testament to the ,old are numbered by hundreds4 ,any ,bible with references1 or any text book or ,bible with ,helps will show these4 ,it is enough here to give those ,christ refers to4 ,christ himself cites from twelve books and about twenty-four narratives as follows3 ,creation1 ,matt4 #ai3d2 ,law of ,marriage1 ,matt4 #ai3e2 ,cain and ,abel1 ,matt4 #bc3ce2 ,the ,deluge1 ,matt4 #bd3cg2 ,abraham1 ,john #h3ef2 ,sodom and ,gomorrah and ,lot's wife1 ,luke #ag3bh-cb2 ,manna1 ,john #f3di2 ,brazen ,serpent1 ,john #c3ad2 ,shew ,bread1 ,matt4 #ab3c1 #d2 ,elijah and his ,miracles1 ,luke #d3be1 #bf2 ,naaman1 ,luke #d3bg2 ,tyre and ,sidon1 ,matt4 #aa3bb2 ,jonah and ,the ,whale1 ,matt4 #ab3ci2 ,the ,books of ,moses1 ,john #e3df2 ,the ,psalms1 ,luke #bj3db2 ,moses and ,the ,prophets1 ,luke #bd3bg2 ,isaiah1 ,matt4 #ac3ad2 ,daniel's ,prophecies1 ,matt4 #bd3ae2 ,malachi1 ,matt4 #aa3aj2 ,the entire ,old ,testament1 ,luke #bd3dd4 ,of not one of these does he convey the slightest hint of aught but trustworthiness and literal interpretation4 #f4 ,the still more serious issue is presented of asserting that both ,paul and ,christ either did not know that these were myths1 or knowing so gave no intimation that they used them in any way other than as true narratives4 ,this would not only shake all confidence in ,christ as divine and his apostles as inspired1 but would shake all confidence in any fact or teaching from ,scripture whatever4 ,for ,scripture rests on facts and these facts on witnesses4 ,to these1 appeal is constantly made4 ,on the truth of these all depends4 ,here then is a mythical ,adam made the basis of marriage2 a mythical ,adam and his fall1 the argument for man's need and ,christ's work1 and the same mythical ,adam made the proof of the resurrection4 ,in short the whole system of ,bible truth is attacked by these theories1 from credibility in ,christ himself to the last hope of the believer in the world to come4 ,whom shall we believe8 ,shall we credit ,evolution which admits that its theory is unproven and full of difficulties1 with not a single case of ,evolution to support it1 nor a power which could produce it1 and with countless facts to antagonize it1 or shall we believe ,jesus ,christ who was never mistaken1 or false in his facts1 or teachings1 and who believed these chapters1 cited them and accepted their narratives without question8 ,,evolution ,,and ,,bible ,,doctrines4 ,we have arrived at the vital point in this discussion4 ,if ,evolution were only a scientific question1 it would interest a limited circle4 ,as a deeply religious question it interests all4 ,that ,evolution affects vitally all evangelical belief is apparent to the most superficial inquirer4 ,it is not only a matter of historic fact but of doctrinal teaching4 ,man's nature and need as a descendant from the brute is one thing1 and as a spiritual being1 fallen from the likeness of ,god1 another4 ,the responsibility in either case is very different and therefore has to do with eternal destiny for weal or woe1 and also with the work of ,christ4 ,the theology of the ,higher ,criticism which is also the theology of ,evolution1 of which it is the ,biblical branch1 is thus summed up by an evolutionary writer1 in a recent article giving the articles of belief of the theology of ,evolution3 ,the ,bible can no longer speak with unquestioned authority4444 ,poor old ,adam disappears4444 ,christ's divinity is only such as we may possess 444 the atonement is only such as we see in all life and nature4444 ,as to the future life we find ourselves left very much in the dark4444 ,we no longer regard going to heaven as the center of our interest4 7,theodore ,d4 ,bacon quoted in ,homiletic ,review1 ,nov4 #aijb47 ,evolution teaches1 as stated by ,dr4 ,george ,a4 ,gordon1 of ,boston3 ,man's state and fate is on account of the irrationality he has brought up with him from the animal world4 7,immortality and the ,new ,theodicy1 p4 #ajj47 ,the future of man according to ,evolution is that as he has risen from the brute state he ought not to be punished for his defects but rather rewarded for having done so well4 ,evolution teaches that man has in himself the elements of his salvation4 ,these if developed will produce the change he needs for this world and that to come4 ,he will proceed on the same lines as he has traveled to reach his present state4 ,development is the ,saviour of ,evolution4 ,the ,bible says that to develop man is to develop sin and1 ,sin when it is finished bringeth forth death4 ,it requires the intervention of the ,supernatural in ,regeneration to save man4 ,evolution is self-saving4 ,the future is radically affected by the theory of ,evolution4 ,the development of mankind is its objective point4 ,to bring man to a point of development will bring the ,kingdom of ,heaven4 ,the fate of the individual is not made much of4 ,he is sacrificed for the race or species4 ,but while not much is made of the individual the general teaching is that somehow it will be well with all at last4 ,it is a fact that all universalists are evolutionists4 ,evolution makes ,heaven and ,hell terms which mean little or nothing4 ,the present social state of man is the great quest4 ,evolution is a bridge which reaches neither shore4 ,it knows not whence man came nor where he goes4 #a4 ,the ,bible rests its doctrines upon its facts4 ,there is no character in ,scripture aside from ,christ upon whose historical character so much ,scripture doctrine depends as upon ,adam4 ,the creation of man is made the basis for the sanctity of marriage by ,christ1 who quotes the words of the account in ,genesis4 7,matt4 #ai3d-f2 ,mark #aj3f-i47 ,paul makes this narrative the basis of his great argument for the state and need of man and the work of ,christ4 ,through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin4444 ,death reigned from ,adam to ,moses4444 ,by the trespass of the one the many died 444 the judgment came of one unto condemnation 444 as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners1 even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous4 7,rom4 #e3ab-ba1 ,r4 ,v47 ,here the actuality of the narrative is the very basis of the declaration of man's state in sin and a type of the extent and nature of ,christ's work4 ,so also the use by ,paul in the account of the resurrection doctrine3 ,as in ,adam all die1 so also in ,christ shall all be made alive4 7#a ,cor4 #ae3bb-de47 #b4 ,the ,bible teaches that man was made in the image of ,god4 ,that image was ,christ who is elsewhere declared to be the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance4 7,heb4 #a3c47 ,in this image man was made4 ,this is a very different picture presented to us from that given by the evolutionist of a brute which could stand on its hind legs and throw things with its forelegs4 #c4 ,the ,bible teaches that all are guilty and condemned and lost1 and without excuse4 ,it teaches that man fell from a high state as a race and as a race is responsible for his condition4 ,it cites death as the proof of this4 ,it teaches that man is inherently averse to ,god by nature and wilfully continues to do wrong and in short is condemned and lost4 ,it teaches that he once had the truth and wilfully gave it up for sin4 ,that he does so now in spite of the law of ,god written in his conscience and that out of ,christ he is lost and without hope4 7,rom4 #a-e2 ,ep4 #b3a-c1 #aa1 #ab47 #d4 ,the ,bible teaches that what man needs is a pardon1 a reconciliation with ,god1 a ransom1 a regeneration1 a resurrection4 ,he must be translated from death to life1 from the kingdom of darkness to that of light4 ,if he has not all this he is lost and doomed4 #e4 ,the ,bible teaches that in order that man might enjoy this1 ,christ had to come and die1 the just for the unjust that he might bring us to ,god4 ,he died as a sacrifice1 as an offering1 as a ransom1 as a propitiation1 as a reconciliation4 ,his death made it possible in justice as well as in mercy to save man4 #f4 ,the ,bible gives a description of man's means of salvation which is most opposite to the hope held out by ,evolution4 ,it is by a radical and supernatural change that he becomes right and only as all men so change or are changed will the world become right4 ,conversion is not ,evolution but regeneration1 the implanting of a new and opposite nature4 #g4 ,the ,bible teaches a different outcome of human life and history4 ,it points to an end by supernatural means to the world and a judgment for mankind and the establishment of the ,kingdom of ,heaven by supernatural means4 ,it cites the destruction of ,sodom and ,gomorrah and the ,deluge as examples of the world's end4 ,it gives the most awful combination of earthly figures as the picture of the doom of the impenitent and the most beautiful figures earth and sky can furnish or the mind of man conceive as the home of the saved4 ,nothing could be more different than the theologies of ,evolution and of the ,bible4 ,many well-meant volumes have been written to reconcile ,evolution and evangelical belief4 ,none are satisfying1 although the eagerness with which some were at first received are witness to the desire to retain both beliefs4 ,the theistic evolutionist thinks that to find a place for the ,creator somewhere along the line is enough4 ,st4 ,james rebukes this insufficient theology in these words3 ,thou believest that there is one ,god2 thou doest well3 the devils also believe1 and tremble4 7,jas4 #b3ai47 ,so also ,christ himself said3 ,ye believe in ,god believe also in me4444 ,i am the way1 the truth and the life4444 ,no man cometh unto the ,father but by me4444 ,he that honoreth not the ,son honoreth not the ,father which hath sent him4444 ,for as the ,father hath life in himself even so gave he to the ,son also to have life in himself4444 ,he hath committed all judgment unto the ,son that all men may honor the ,son even as they honor the ,father4 ,he that honoreth not the ,son honoreth not the ,father4 ,theism then is not enough in the opinion of ,jesus ,christ4 ,the whole ,christian system is in question in this theory4 ,the whole aim of ,evolution is to dispose of the supernatural as much as possible4 ,the radical evolutionist gets rid of ,god entirely he thinks4 ,the theistic evolutionist limits the interference of the supernatural to the creation of matter1 of life1 of man's spiritual nature1 and the incarnation and work of ,christ4 ,the tendency of evolution is to make the miracles of ,christ mythical and the phenomena of conversion natural4 ,the theistic evolutionist is on a side hill4 ,he must go up or down4 ,he is not consistent1 and1 as the human mind asserts its right to consistency1 he is forced1 willingly or unwillingly1 often unconsciously1 to the one side or the other1 and he finds himself led along lines which take him far from evangelical belief4 ,in its consistent form1 ,evolution leaves no room for a ,creator4 ,indeed ,haeckel1 the greatest of living evolutionists and the legitimate successor to ,darwin's place and greatness1 states1 as already quoted1 thus3 ,it entirely excludes supernatural process1 every prearranged and conscious act of a personal character4 ,nothing will make the full meaning of the theory of descent clearer than calling it the non-miraculous theory of creation4 7,history of ,creation1 pp4 #cig1 #dbb47 ,another evolutionist1 ,carl ,vogt1 says3 ,evolution turns the ,creator out of doors4 ,infidels all accept of it gladly4 ,every atheist is an evolutionist4 ,,evolution ,a ,,relic ,,of ,,heathenism4 ,james ,freeman ,clark thus writes3 ,in the system of the ,greek and ,scandinavian mythology1 spirit is evolved from matter2 matter up to spirit works4 ,they begin with the lowest form of being2 night1 chaos1 a mundane egg1 and evolve the higher gods therefrom4 7,ten ,great ,religions1 p4 #bca47 ,sir ,j4 ,william ,dawson1 the late eminent geologist of ,canada1 writes of the theory as follows3 ,the evolutionist doctrine is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity4 ,it existed most naturally in the oldest philosophy and poetry1 in connection with the crudest and most uncritical attempts of the human mind to grasp the system of nature2 but that in our day a system destitute of any shadow of proof1 and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech and by arbitrary and artificial coherence of its own parts1 should be accepted as a philosophy and should find able adherents to string upon its thread of hypothesis our vast and weighty stores of knowledge1 is surpassingly strange4 7,story of the ,earth and ,man1 p4 #cag47 ,evolution is working towards a pantheistic atheism4 ,this is expressed in the creed of the late ,cecil ,rhodes1 the late magnate of ,south ,africa1 as follows3 ,i believe in ,force ,almighty1 the ruler of the universe1 working scientifically through natural selection to bring about the survival of the fittest and the elimination of the unfit4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,the ,,spiritual ,,effect ,,of ,,evolution4 ,it is apparent that the adoption of such a theory as ,evolution must affect the spiritual state of the person receiving it4 ,man's mental and spiritual natures are intimately connected4 ,while those in a settled previous spiritual experience may carry ,evolution as a working theory only1 those in an immature state will be vitally affected4 ,especially is this true of youthful minds4 ,it is indeed a fact that many young men have started with high purposes to prepare for the ministry1 and even for foreign missions1 and have1 after adopting these modern theories1 abandoned their purpose1 and thousands have abandoned all personal religion4 ,pastors can tell of many such instances4 ,some have said that the adoption of ,evolution has helped their faith4 ,they fail to see that bringing the ,bible down to their faith is not bringing their faith up to the ,bible4 ,it is a weakening of faith and not a strengthening of it4 ,this apparent increase of faith simply prepares the way for its utter ruin4 ,the first step leads to a wider divergence1 as many have shown1 that leads to wreck of all faith in a supernatural ,god or world or ,bible4 ,the mind will follow its natural workings4 ,loss of faith in the facts of the ,bible leads to loss of faith in its truths4 ,the acceptance of this theory still further leads to a lessening of the sense of our need of ,christ that the ,bible teaches and man should feel4 ,and further the acceptance of this theory1 while it may not affect materially the minds of experienced ,christians1 will through them affect others4 ,there is also a latent unconscious loss of faith that is realized only in some great emergency1 when in the storm and stress of life the soul looks out for something to hold to4 ,it is then that the rotting platform of unbelief goes down in wreck4 ,the other extreme is also a cause of ruin4 ,in the time of great prosperity when all the allurements of life and time and sense present themselves1 it requires all the purpose one has to stem the tide of temptations4 ,it is here that a false belief will work havoc4 ,the mind conceives that after all sin is not so hateful or salvation so needed or doom so fearful4 ,the effect on experimental personal experience is evident4 ,instead of looking for a regeneration1 a revolution of the inner state1 the believer in ,evolution necessarily looks for a change from education or other form of development4 ,such a thing as conversion or a baptism of the ,holy ,ghost he will cease to look for or desire4 ,there will come declining feeling1 lessening devotion1 prayer will become perfunctory and there will come increasing occupation with and love for other things4 ,evolution as a belief makes right many things that were before held to be wrong4 ,it is an easy religion to hold4 ,it strikes the world at the angle of least resistance and enables the holder to accept almost anything that the natural man desires4 ,the conflict of the flesh and the spirit ceases2 the flesh1 that is the natural man1 has conquered4 ,these theories in many seem to be but evidences of a previous wrong state of heart4 ,the wish is father to the thought4 ,the theory is accepted because it allows the laying aside of views that restrain the desires4 ,such persons are willing to admit the existence of ,god and his contact with man at ,creation if relieved from any nearer relationship4 ,it is therefore worse than unbelief4 ,it is antagonism4 ,it is enmity4 ,christ said1 ,men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil4 ,the heart and life are the basis of their opinions4 ,it is evident that argument here fails4 ,a man convinced against his will remains an unbeliever still4 ,evolution is a comfortable theory to the world4 ,it elevates man4 ,it hides the presence of ,god4 ,it calls for no repentance or consecration4 ,it boasts of human progress and claims merit therefor4 ,in short it is the worship of man rather than the worship of ,god4 ,it deifies man and it ignores ,christ4 ,once committed to this theory1 there is no extreme the person may not reach4 ,some have abandoned ,christ and ,christianity because of it4 ,it is in fact in doctrine and experience and conduct1 the antithesis of ,christianity4 ,such a theory as ,evolution and its vaporizing method of ,bible interpretation1 prepares the way for isms of every kind4 ,it is to this we are indebted for the swarm of these that afflicts the church to-day4 ,once allow that the ,bible may be interpreted to suit such theories and any heresy or absurdity can prove its position from the ,bible as all of them by this same process do4 ,it is already weakening the power of the pulpit1 and this in turn is one great reason for the declining effect of the preached word4 ,once received into a minister's heart the edge of his sword is dulled if indeed the sword is not itself sheathed4 ,he may not preach ,evolution either as a method of creation or a method of salvation1 but his own inner faith is weakened in the old truth which had such power to convert the souls of hearers4 ,when openly advocated and taught1 it is useless to seek revivals among those so taught4 ,so it is the fact that conversions to-day are mainly confined to the young and others not affected by the error4 ,all the indications point to the further weakening of the hold upon men of the supernatural and the eternal4 ,to eliminate the former and1 while acknowledging the latter1 to disparage all reference to the future life1 seems to be the tendency of the day4 ,as already cited1 one of its chief advocates tells us1 ,heaven is no longer the center of the ,christian's hope4 ,the consequence is the material and intellectual interests receive chief attention and other agencies take the chief place religion should have4 ,education received in the ,united ,states over #bjj1jjj1jjj in gifts during the last few years1 to say nothing of the many fold more received from incomes and public funds4 ,meanwhile the causes of ,christ are languishing1 missions are dwarfed1 small churches in great masses of the population are struggling for existence against fearful odds1 while the money of professed ,christians pours in these mighty streams for all other purposes4 ,no sensible person will disparage education1 but ,religion is the chief concern of mortals here below4 ,further it is the few who can take advantage of the higher education for which these millions are given4 ,but five per cent of the common school scholars can attend college4 ,the many must toil for existence4 ,it is to the poor the gospel was preached by its ,founder4 ,it is to the poor it means most4 ,to those who have little else it is the all in all4 ,it is to these it should be preached in its freedom and fullness4 ,the principles of natural selection of the fittest which sends millions to higher institutions and neglects the masses of the people is the opposite of the gospel4 ,cardinal ,newman wrote3 ,there is a special effort made almost all over the world1 but most visibly and formidably in its most civilized and powerful part1 to do without religion4444 ,truly there is at this time a confederacy of evil marshalling its hosts from all parts of the world1 organizing itself and taking measures enclosing the church of ,christ as in a net and preparing the way for a general apostasy4 7,quoted in ,christianity and ,anti-,christianity4 ,s4 ,j4 ,andrews1 p4 #d47 ,whether this is the final form of unbelief is difficult to say4 ,it bears the marks of anti-christianity the apostle speaks of4 ,the unbelief of the latter days will rest on belief in the unvarying stability of nature4 7#b ,peter #c3d47 ,the coming of this theory is aimed to dissipate any looking for supernatural changes such as the ,scriptures teach are coming to earth1 such as the last day1 the coming of ,christ1 the resurrection and all the vast series of changes therein declared4 ,hence that wholesome fear of ,god so operative in deterring evil and stimulating good is removed4 ,based on this unbelief1 the enemy of ,god and man can advance to the accomplishment of his purposes as never before4 ,all satanic methods before this have been crude and coarse compared with this last invention4 ,it is the most subtle and sweeping of all evil methods to ensnare the mind of man4 ,based on what is called science1 promoted by the scholars of the day1 taught in the fountains of learning and preached from pulpit and platform1 it must have a widespread effect4 ,heretofore attacks on ,christianity have been made from without4 ,this is from within4 ,it is the trusted leaders who are now undermining the fortress in which they live4 ,but revivals always begin at the bottom4 ,it was a few poor fishermen who commenced the gospel age4 ,it is their successors to whom we must look as we have in the past for return of apostolic power4 ,god chose the foolish things of the world that ,he might put to shame them that are wise2 and ,god chose the weak things of the world that ,he might put to shame the things that are strong2 and the base things of the world1 and the things that are despised did ,god choose1 yea and the things that are not1 that he might bring to naught the things that are3 that no flesh should glory before ,god4 7#a ,cor4 #a3bg1 #bh1 ,r4 ,v47 ,so we look hopefully to ,god for that only which will deliver the church from this and all other pestilent evils1 theoretical and practical1 a revival of true religion by the power of the ,holy ,spirit1 and the preaching of the old gospel of the cross of ,christ4 ,,index4 ,page ,abbeville1 peat beds1 #ij ,abbott1 ,dr4 ,lyman1 xi1 #c ,abydos tombs1 #ib ,adam1 #gg-abg ,adjustments1 complex1 #ef ,adaptation of species1 #ee ,agassiz1 #ac1 #ej ,age of earth1 #ae ,antiquity of man1 #ij ,ape-man1 #ge ,ape1 relics of1 #fh ,assyrian antiquity1 #ic ,assyrian religion1 #ajc ,armadillo1 #dc ,architecture of body1 #eh ,askenazy1 #i ,aurora ,borealis1 #af ,authors1 list of1 xiv ,babylonian civilization1 #ii-ajc ,backbone1 origin of1 #ca ,baer1 ,carl ,ernest von1 #i ,balfour1 ,prof4 ,francis ,m41 #ei ,ballard1 ,prof4 ,frank1 #aah ,barrande1 ,joachim1 #ch ,barrows1 ,dr4 ,john ,henry1 #fb ,beaument1 ,m41 #af ,bee1 cell of1 #eg ,bermuda lizards1 #dd ,bible account1 #fa ,bible interpretation1 #aba1 #abc ,bible theology1 #aca ,bonaparte1 ,napoleon1 #aaa ,bowers1 ,prof4 ,stephen1 #ha ,brain1 argument from1 #hd ,brewster1 ,sir ,david1 #ei ,brown1 ,a41 #d ,bruner1 ,f4 ,m41 #ajd ,bunge1 #i ,calavaras skull1 #hj ,carlyle1 ,thomas1 #i ,chamberlain1 ,dr4 ,jacob1 #ajc ,chance1 #aae ,chimpanzee1 #gd ,christ1 #aji ,christ and the ,old ,testament1 #abf ,christian experience1 #ajg ,classification1 #da ,clodd1 ,edward1 #ag1 #bi1 #gc1 #ge1 #hc1 #hd1 #he ,colorado skeleton1 #ha ,conn1 ,prof4 ,h4 ,w41 #e1 #be1 #bg1 #bi1 #cj1 #ci1 #db1 #dh1 #ej1 #if1 #aae ,consensus of scholarship1 #aj ,congo languages1 #hg ,cook1 ,dr4 ,joseph1 #ac ,cope1 ,e4 ,d41 #ec ,coral theory1 #ac ,croatian skeleton1 #ha ,cross1 test of evolution1 #ajf ,crystallization1 #eg ,dana1 ,prof41 #db1 #fd1 #hf1 #hi ,darwin1 ,chas41 #e1 #ag1 #bi1 #da1 #ee1 #fa1 #hg ,darwinism1 #bi ,dawson1 ,sir ,j4 ,w41 #i1 #cf1 #ie1 #aad1 #aaf1 #ace ,degeneration1 #ec ,de ,rouge1 #ajb ,distribution1 #dc ,du,bois1 ,dr4 ,von ,eugene1 #hb ,earth1 age temperature1 #ae1 #bj1 #bc1 #eh ,egypt1 mummied animals1 #eh1 #he ,egyptian dynasties1 #ib ,egyptian civilization1 #ajj ,embryology1 #di ,eohippus1 #df ,etheridge1 ,dr41 #i1 #ei ,ethics1 #aje ,evolution--,meaning1 #a ,definitions1 #c ,unproven1 #e ,scientists reject1 #g ,cause of1 #cj ,no case of1 #bf ,geology against1 #ch ,phantom tree1 #db ,mental1 #hi ,unverified1 #aab ,chance1 #aae ,bible1 #abj ,conversion1 #ajg ,eyes1 origin of1 #cb ,fiske1 ,prof4 ,john1 #he ,force1 origin of1 #ah ,fossils1 #ei ,foval1 #h ,french ,institute1 #ab ,galileo1 #ab ,galton1 #aja ,geology1 argument from1 #cg ,geologist1 testimony of1 #ch ,germ1 the1 #ej ,giraffe1 origin of1 #cc ,gladstone1 #aag ,green frogs1 #aah ,great ,pyramid1 #ajj ,greeks1 #aja ,gregory1 ,dr4 ,d4 ,s41 #h ,grote1 ,dr41 #h ,haeckel1 ,ernst1 xiv1 #c1 #e1 #h1 #i1 #ai1 #bc1 #ci1 #da1 #aah ,haecke1 ,dr4 ,w41 #h ,harmann1 ,otto1 #i ,harnack1 ,prof41 #ac ,harrison1 ,frederick1 #ad ,hartmann1 #ajb ,heathen origin1 #ace ,heer1 ,oswald1 #i ,herschell1 #ae ,hilyrecht1 ,prof41 #ai ,hindu ,vedas1 #ajc ,history1 #ih ,higher ,criticism1 #ac1 #id ,hoffmann1 #i ,home of primeval man1 #gb ,howison1 ,prof4 ,geo41 xiv1 #hf ,human characteristics1 #gj ,humphrey1 ,gen41 #af ,huxley1 #f1 #ac1 #be1 #bi1 #cj1 #dd1 #de1 #dh1 #fi1 #gb ,ingersoll1 ,robt41 #aaj ,jones1 ,prof4 ,wm41 #aaf ,kelvin1 ,lord1 #ah1 #bd1 #gd1 #hf ,kangaroo1 #dc ,kent ,cavern1 #af ,kipling1 #gd ,koelliker1 #h ,land1 animals1 origin of1 #cc ,lang1 ,andrew1 #ajb ,lange1 #ii ,language1 #hf ,lecky1 #aja ,le ,conte1 ,prof4 ,joseph1 #c1 #bc1 #bd1 #dj ,legs1 origin of1 #cb ,liebig1 #bd ,life1 origin of1 #bc ,livingston1 ,dr41 #ia ,lyell1 #af ,making of a man1 #gc ,mathematical adjustments1 #ef ,matter1 origin of1 #ag ,mental changes1 #ij ,mentone skeleton1 #hi ,meyer1 ,dr41 #ha ,mind and consciousness1 #he ,missing link1 #gh ,mississippi ,delta1 #af ,molecular creation1 #ej ,monier1 ,sir ,m41 #ajd ,monkey language1 #hh ,moon1 mountains of1 #ae ,morphological argument1 #dd ,mueller1 ,prof4 ,max1 #hf1 #hg1 #ig ,murchison1 ,sir ,roderick1 #ch ,mc,laughlin1 #eg ,naegeli1 #h ,natural selection1 #bi1 #cd ,neanderthal ,skull1 #hj ,nebular ,hypothesis1 #ba ,new ,orleans skeleton1 #ia ,newman ,cardinal1 #adb ,origin of life1 #bc ,orion1 ,nebula1 #ba ,paine1 ,thomas1 viii1 #aaj ,parker1 ,theodore1 #aaj ,patterson1 ,dr4 ,robert1 #dj1 #gj ,pattison1 ,s4 ,r41 #ie ,patton1 ,prest4 ,francis ,l41 xiv ,paulsen1 ,prof41 #h ,petrie1 ,prof4 ,flinders1 #aaj ,pfaff1 ,dr4 ,frederick1 #gi1 #he1 #ie ,pfliederer1 ,prof41 #fb ,pithecanthropus-,erectus1 #hb ,poetry1 #aba ,post1 ,dr4 ,geo4 ,e41 #i ,prehistoric man1 #hi ,protoplasm1 #di ,quatrefages1 #de ,religion1 #ajb ,renan1 #aji ,renouf1 #ajb ,reymond1 ,du,bois1 #i ,rhodes1 ,cecil1 #acf ,richter1 ,jean ,paul1 #aji ,ridpath1 ,j4 ,clark1 #da ,rocks1 origin of1 #cg ,romans1 #ajc ,rousseau1 #aaj ,rudimentary organs1 #fg ,ruskin1 #i1 #fg ,savage ,races1 #if ,st4 ,pierre1 #ac ,sayce1 ,prof4 ,a4 ,h41 #ic1 #ajj ,schliemann1 #ac1 #ia ,schmidt1 ,dr4 ,rudolph1 #e ,schults1 ,d4 ,kerfoot1 #da ,scientific theories1 #ae ,sedgwick1 ,adam1 #dj ,see1 ,prof41 #ai ,simultaneousness1 #db ,snell1 #h ,solar ,system1 #ai ,species1 evolution of1 #bf ,spencer1 ,herbert1 xv1 #b1 #ad1 #ag1 #bj1 #ca1 #da1 #aje1 #aad ,spiritual effect1 #acg ,star1 ,prof4 ,f41 #aja ,stone age1 #ia ,stuckenburg1 ,dr4 ,j4 ,h4 ,w41 #h ,succession1 #b1 #cg ,sully1 ,prof4 ,james1 #fb ,swim-,bladder1 #dh ,taj ,mahal1 #ig ,terra ,del ,fuego1 #hg ,theistic ,evolution1 #d1 #gg ,theistic1 ,adam1 #gg ,theology of ,evolution1 #abh ,thomas1 ,dr4 ,jessie ,b41 #bh ,thomson1 ,sir ,wm41 #ac1 #cd ,thomson1 ,dr4 ,j4 ,arthur1 #cj1 #ea ,thompson1 ,dr4 ,james1 #aje ,troy1 #ac ,tyndall1 #b1 #e1 #bj1 #bd1 #ej1 #eb ,universe1 evolution of1 #ag order of1 #ai ,varieties1 #bh ,vedas1 ,hindu1 #ajc ,virchow1 ,dr4 ,rudolph1 #g1 #i1 #fe1 #hb ,wagner1 ,m41 #h ,wallace1 #ff1 #hc ,whales origin1 #cc ,white1 ,andrew1 #ab ,whitney1 ,prof41 #e ,wiseman1 ,cardinal1 #ab ,wilson1 ,woodrow1 #ae ,wilson1 on the cell1 #be ,wilson1 ,andrew1 #ee ,winchell1 #bf1 #id ,wright1 ,geo4 ,frederick1 xv1 #ab1 #ba1 #eh1 #ie1 #aab ,zahm1 ,dr4 ,j4 ,a41 #f1 #ab1 #ij1 #id ,zoeckler1 #i ,books by ,rev4 ,alex4 ,patterson ,,bird',s-,,eye ,,bible ,,study ,with ,introduction by ,dr4 ,j4 ,wilbur ,chapman ,a synopsis of all the books of the ,bible1 with statement as to their classification and interrelation2 a summary of the broad teachings of the ,scriptures1 with general view of the development in the revelation of divine truth4 ,also suggestive chapters on ,how to ,study the ,bible1 ,the ,way of ,salvation1 ,how to ,win ,souls to ,christ1 ,power in ,prayer1 ,the ,work of the ,holy ,spirit1 etc4 ,especially adapted for use by pastors1 evangelists1 ,sunday-school teachers1 ,bible class leaders1 and ,christian workers generally4 #abh ,pages4 ,paper1 #ae cents1 #h for #a4jj4 ,cloth1 #cj cents net ,,the ,,greater ,,work ,,and ,,life ,,of ,,christ ,as ,revealed in ,scripture1 ,man and ,nature ,i4 ,christ in the ,eternal ,past4 ,,ii4 ,christ in ,creation4 ,,iii4 ,christ in the ,old ,testament ,age4 ,,iv4 ,christ in ,his ,earthly ,life4 ,v4 ,christ in ,his ,present ,state and ,work4 ,,vi4 ,christ in the ,day of the ,lord4 ,,vii4 ,christ in the ,eternal ,future4 #djh ,pages4 ,cloth4 #a4ej ,,the ,,other ,,side ,,of ,,evolution ,an ,examination of ,its ,evidences ,with an introduction by ,george ,frederick ,wright1 ,d4,d41 ,,ll4,d41 ,oberlin ,college4 ,this book undertakes to show that ,evolution is not accepted by all scientists and gives names of many who oppose it2 that it is admittedly an unproven theory2 that it has never been verified and cannot be2 that not a single case has ever been known1 or any cause by which such changes could take place4 ,its arguments are fairly stated and considered one by one4 ,over a hundred writers are cited1 including all the great evolutionists4 #agd ,pages4 ,cloth1 #fj cents net4 ,,the ,,bible ,,institute ,,colportage ,,association #hbf ,north ,la ,salle ,street1 ,chicago 99 99 99 99 99 ,transcriber's note3 ,minor typographical errors have been corrected without note4 ,irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as printed4 ,mismatched quotes are not fixed if it's not sufficiently clear where the missing quote should be placed4 ,the cover for the e,book version of this book was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain4 ,in the index1 the transcriber has changed the following names to match the text3 ,beaumont to ,beaument ,chamerlain to ,chamberlain ,kerfort changed to ,kerfoot ,muller to ,mueller ,naegali to ,naegeli ,pflieder to ,pfliederer ,quatrafoges to ,quatrefages