PREFATORY.
I first read Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" in the library of my
sainted uncle, John Schaller, at New Ulm, Minnesota, in 1892. I did not
comprehend all of it then, a cause, to me, of considerable chagrin, for
which I later found some consolation in the opinion of Dr. Frederick
Lynch, who pronounces Darwin's epochal work "one of the two most
difficult books in the English language." But like many others, I
understood enough of Darwin's book to catch glimpses of the grandeur of
the conception which underlies its argumentation. It was then that my
beloved uncle, out of that wide and accurate reading which so
frequently astonished his friends, and with that penetrating dialectic
of his, opened my eyes to certain fallacies in Darwin's argument,
especially to the fatal weakness of the chapter on Instinct. The
reading of St. George Mivart's book "The Genesis of Species" later
convinced me of the accuracy of my uncle's judgment. But the fascination
of the subject persisted, and for a time Herbert Spencer's "Synthetic
Philosophy," by the comprehensiveness of its induction and its vast
array of data, exercised its thrall. Alfred Russel Wallace's
"Darwinism," Huxley's "Lectures on Evolution," Tyndall's "The Beginning
of Things," Grant Allen's "The Evolutionist at Large," Eimer's
"Orthogenesis," Clodd's "Story of Creation," occupied me in turn, until
the apodictic presentation of John Fiske's Essays on Darwinism, no less
than the open and haggard opposition to Christianity which prevails in
Huxley's "Science and Hebrew Tradition" and in Spencer's chapters on
"The Unknowable" (so the Synthetic Philosophy denominates God), caused
a revulsion of sentiment,--the anti-religious bias of evolution
standing forth the clearer to my mind, the longer I occupied myself with
the subject.
I determined to investigate for myself the data on which the
speculations whose mazes I had trod these years were built up. The
leisure hours of three years were devoted to the study of first-hand
sources of Comparative Religion. The result of this research was
deposited in two articles contributed to the _Theological Quarterly_ in
1906 and 1907. I fear that the forbidding character of the foot-notes
served as an effective deterrent to the reading of these articles. I
have now given, in several chapters of this little volume, in popular
language the argument against evolution to be derived from the study of
Religion. The reading of Le Conte's and Dana's text-books of geology
and various other treatises supplied the data on palaeontology embodied
in the first chapters of the book. The notable circulus in concludendo
("begging the question") of which evolutionists here are guilty was
first pointed out to me by Prof. Tingelstad of Decorah, Iowa, who was
in 1908 taking a course in Evolution at Chicago University, and who
called on me for discussion of the doctrine as he received it from
"head-quarters."
An an excursus in the subject of Pedagogy, I have treated in my
Seminary lectures the past years, under the head of natural sciences,
the argument against evolution, and the outlines of these lectures have
furnished the framework for the present volume. It is hoped that
especially our young men and women who take courses at our universities
will examine the case against the fascinating and in some respects
magnificent conception of evolution as this case is presented in the
following chapters. I realize that they, as well as intelligent readers
generally, may not meet with confidence the statements of a theologian
on a scientific question, least of all when he essays to treat such a
question from the standpoint of science. He is presumed to be at home
in theology, but a stranger in the domain of geology, astronomy, and
biology. It is for the purpose of obtaining a hearing at all that these
introductory remarks are written. But the argument must stand on its own
merits. The writer will now retire to the background. The facts shall
speak.
TH. G.
EVOLUTION.
CHAPTER ONE.
An Outline of the Theory.
Definition.
Evolution is a name comprehending certain theories which seek to account
for all operations of nature as carried on according to fixed laws by
means of forces resident in nature. Prof. J. LeConte of the University
of California defines evolution as: "Continuous progressive change
according to certain laws and by means of resident forces." Evolution is
a theory, a philosophy, it is not a science. The theory is called
_organic_ evolution in its relation to living forms (plant and animal
life), _cosmic_ evolution, inasmuch as attempts have been made to
account by certain laws and the working of resident forces for the
development of the universe,--the earth, the sun, and the starry
heavens. Also the development of society, of religion, morals, politics,
art, and mechanical inventions is accounted for on the theory that there
are forces which, acting according to certain laws, have through many
changes made human life and institutions as we see them today.
The doctrine of Evolution briefly stated, is as follows: That in some
infinitely remote period in the past, how or from whence science does
not affirm, there appeared matter and force; that within matter and in
association with force there also appeared a primordial cell, how or
from whence no man knoweth, in which there was a spark of life; and that
from this cell all things animate have emerged, being controlled by
certain laws variously stated by various evolutionists; that these laws
in connection with the modifying influences of environment
(surroundings,--soil, climate, etc.) account for and explain the various
species that have existed in the past and now exist upon earth, man
included. That there are no gaps in the process but that there is
demonstrable a steady ascent from lower to higher (simple to more
complex) forms of life, until man is reached, the acknowledged highest
product of evolution.
The extreme evolutionists hold that all the power and potency of the
universe was stored up in that primordial cell, and that all things have
been worked out without any superintending agency other than the forces
resident in matter. Every operation of God is ruled out, or deemed
unnecessary. This is sometimes called atheistic evolution.
The theistic evolutionist ("theistic" from "theism," the belief in a
personal God) makes place for God in the beginning and all along the
line of development, as overlooking the process, perhaps reinforcing and
to a certain extent directing the energy, but not interfering with the
fixed law or rule of evolution. According to theistic evolution, God did
not create plants and animals as separate species (as related in Genesis
1) but created matter as a crude form and placed it under certain laws,
by which this matter was, during untold ages, gradually evolved into
worlds. That out of this matter, called inorganic, plants came into
existence, from some germ or property existing in matter. The origin of
animal life is explained in various ways by the so-called theistic
evolutionists. Some hold that the primordial plant life contained
potentially the lowest and simplest principles of animal life, and from
it the simplest animal forms were evolved; that from these latter were
evolved forms a little higher, until, after long ages, all the
gradations were passed through until man, the highest form, was the
result. Others believe that there is such an essential difference
between plants and animals that the latter could not have come from the
former, that there must be a new start on the animal side of life.
Therefore they claim that when the evolutionary development of matter
reached a certain stage, God appeared on the scene and endowed certain
forms with the principle of animal life, in its lowest elements. These
lowest forms of animal life then entered upon a series of evolutionary
growth, each lower form evolving one a little more complex, each series
gaining the use of and developing organs which existed essentially in
the lower form but were small, imperfect, and useless, because not
needed. Thus the hand and arm in man are structurally or essentially the
same as the leg of the brute, the wing of the bird, the flipper of the
whale, and the fin of the fish; and the endeavor to adapt itself to the
water caused the bird to develop a fin, as by a similar process the
fore-leg of brutes developed into the human arm and hand.
For our present consideration, we need not distinguish between atheistic
and theistic evolution, as the latter is subject to the fundamental
objections urged against evolution in general, and is, like atheistic
evolution, without a single fact to support it and in direct
contradiction of all that is known of the laws in operation now, and as
far back as knowledge penetrates. Moreover, so-called "theistic"
evolution is universally approved by infidels and skeptics and is used
by them as a favorite means of assault on revealed Truth.
Historical Review.
While in our own day the names of certain English and German scientists
(Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Tyndall, Romanes, Buechner, Vogt, Haeckel) are
inseparably connected with a history of this hypothesis, its roots are
found far back in the early ages of Greek philosophy. A theory of
evolutionary development was first propounded by Greek thinkers living
about 600 years B. C. The human mind is ever on the search for unifying
principles, principles which account for entire groups of natural
phenomena, and not for isolated phenomena only. The Greek mind sought a
principle by which to account for the manifold and diverse forms of life
in nature. Whence do all things come? How have they come to be what they
are? Questions about the nature of the universe in which we live have
been asked from the very beginning. The moment the human mind began to
reflect the notion that the vegetation which covers the earth, the
animals which inhabit it, the rocks and hills, the mountains and valleys
which constitute its physical features, may have undergone changes in
past time, and that all the phenomena which constitute the animal,
vegetable and mineral worlds as they now exist, are but modifications of
other forms which have had their day and their philosophy, the idea of
development became prominent. The early Greek philosophers were the first
to attempt answers to these problems. Many of them held that all things
natural sprang from what they called the original elements--fire, air,
earth, water. Anaximander held that animals were begotten from the earth
by means of heat and moisture; and that man was developed from other
beings different in form. Empedocles had a fantastic theory, viz., that
the various parts of man and animals at first existed independently, and
that these--for instance, arms, legs, feet, eyes, etc., gradually
combined--perhaps after the manner in which automobiles are assembled;
and that these combinations became capable of existing and even of
propagating and reproducing themselves. Anaxagoras was of opinion that
animals and plants sprang from the earth by means of germs carried in
the atmosphere which gave fecundity to the earth. Aristotle held opinions
not very unlike those of our own day. All of which goes to show that
speculation about the origin of the universe and the why and wherefore of
living things did not come into existence with the Darwinian hypothesis
and that the doctrine of descent with modification as an explanation of
all biological phenomena antedates by over two thousand years the
publication of the "Origin of Species."
In modern times a theory of development was first suggested by Goethe in
his _"Italienische Reise."_ Acting under the same mental urge for seeing
diverse forms under a unifying principle, Goethe looked for the original
form of plant life, the _Urpflanze_, the plant which would be at once
simple enough to stand for a type of all plants and yet susceptible to
variation in so many directions that all plants might derive from it
their origin. Goethe has also clothed this conception in poetic form.
The first philosophic statement of the hypothesis is found in Immanuel
Kant's _"Kritik der Urteilskraft,"_ 1790. In paragraph 80 we find a
discussion of the similarity between so many species of animals, not
only in their bony structure, but also in the arrangement of their other
parts, a similarity which, says Kant, "casts a ray of hope," that all
forms may be traced back to original simple forms, to "a generation from
a common ancestor," rising from the lowest forms to man, "according to
mechanical laws." Kant assumes that, for instance, certain aquatic
animals by and by formed into amphibia, and from these after some
generations were produced land animals. A treatise of the same
philosopher entitled _"Presumable Origin of Humanity"_ suggests that man
in the early age of the world was developed from "mere animal creatures."
Even a universal law of world-formation (cosmic evolution) was set forth
by Kant in a work which he published anonymously in 1775.
In its relations to animal life a development theory was first
clearly set forth by Karl Ernst von Baer (died 1876). In his
_"Entwickelungsgeschichte der Tiere"_ (1828), the author explains
"Entwickelung" as a progress from simple to complex forms. He believes
that in evolution there is a fundamental idea that "goes through all the
forms of cosmic and animal development." A predecessor of von Baer had
been the Frenchman, Lamarck. From von Baer, Herbert Spencer, about 1850,
adopted the definition of evolution.
The hypothesis entered a new phase through Charles Darwin's epochmaking
work: _"The Origin of Species."_ The keynote of Darwin's theory is
Natural Selection, by which term the development of all living forms is
referred to the working of certain laws which in the reproduction of
plants and animals preserved those individuals which were best fitted to
survive the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory may be
summarized thus:
The Darwinian Hypothesis.
1. Every kind of animal and plant tends to increase in numbers in a
geometrical progression.
2. Every kind of animal and plant transmits a general likeness, with
individual differences, to its offspring.
3. Past time has been practically infinite.
4. Every individual has to endure a very severe struggle for existence,
owing to the tendency to geometrical increase of all kinds of animals
and plants, while the total animal and vegetable population (man and his
agency excepted) remains almost stationary.
5. Thus, every variation of a kind tending to save the life of the
individual possessing it, or to enable it more surely to propagate its
kind, will in the long run be preserved and will transmit its favorable
peculiarity to some of its offspring, which peculiarity will thus become
intensified till it reaches the maximum degree of utility. On the other
hand, individuals presenting unfavorable peculiarities will be
ruthlessly destroyed (_Survival of the Fittest_), [tr. note: sic
punctuation]
The basis of the theory then is that animals and plants multiply very
rapidly and, second, that the offspring always vary slightly from the
parents, though generally very closely resembling them. Mr. Alfred
Russel Wallace says: "From the first fact or law there follows,
necessarily, a constant struggle for existence; because while the
offspring always exceeds the parents in number, generally to an
enormous extent, yet the total number of living organisms in the world
docs not, and can not, increase year by year. Consequently every year,
on the average, as many die as are born, plants as well as animals;
and the majority die premature deaths. They kill each other in a
thousand different ways; they starve each other by some consuming the
food that others want; they are destroyed largely by the powers of
Nature--by cold and heat, by rain and storm, by flood and fire. There is
thus a perpetual struggle among them which shall live and which shall
die; and this struggle is tremendously severe, because so few can
possibly remain alive--one in five, one in ten, often only one in a
hundred or even in a thousand.
"Then comes the question, Why do some live rather than others? If all
the individuals of each species were exactly alike in every respect, we
could only say it is a matter of chance. But they are not alike. We find
that they vary in many different ways. Some are stronger, some swifter,
some hardier in constitution, some more cunning. An obscure color may
render concealment more easy for some, keener sight may enable others to
discover prey or escape from an enemy better than their fellows. Among
plants the smallest differences may be useful or the reverse. The
earliest and strongest shoots may escape the slug; their greater vigor
may enable them to flower and seed earlier in a wet autumn; plants best
armed with spines or hairs may escape being devoured; those whose
flowers are most conspicuous may be soonest fertilized by insects. We
can not doubt that, on the whole, any beneficial variations will give
the possessors of it a greater probability of living through the
tremendous ordeal they have to undergo. There may be something left to
chance, but on the whole _the fittest will survive." (_"Darwinism"_
p. 7)_.
The same writer gives a probable instance of the working of _Natural
Selection_ in the origin of certain aquatic birds called dippers. He
says: "An excellent example of how a limited group of species has been
able to maintain itself by adaptation to one of these 'vacant places' in
Nature, is afforded by the curious little birds called dippers or
water-ouzels, forming the genus _Cinclus_ and the family _Cindidae_ of
naturalists. These birds are something like small thrushes, with very
short wings and tail, and very dense plumage. They frequent, exclusively,
mountain torrents in the northern hemisphere, and obtain their food
entirely in the water, consisting, as it does, of water-beetles,
caddis-worms, and other insect-larvae, as well as numerous small
fresh-water shells. These birds, although not far removed in structure
from thrushes and wrens, have the extraordinary power of flying under
water; for such, according to the best observers, is their process of
diving in search of their prey; their dense and somewhat fibrous
plumage retaining so much air that the water is prevented from touching
their bodies or even from wetting their feathers to any great extent.
Their powerful feet and long curved claws enable them to hold on to
stones at the bottom, and thus to retain their position while picking
up insects, shells, etc. As they frequent chiefly the most rapid and
boisterous torrents, among rocks, waterfalls, and huge boulders, the
water is never frozen over, and they are thus able to live during the
severest winters. Only a very few species of dipper are known, all those
of the old world being so closely allied to our British bird that some
ornithologists consider them to be merely local races of one species;
while in North America and the northern Andes there are two other
species.
"Here, then, we have a bird, which, in its whole structure, shows a
close affinity to the smaller typical perching birds, but which has
departed from all its allies in its habits and mode of life, and has
secured for itself a place in Nature where it has few competitors and
few enemies. We may well suppose,* [[*Note characteristic phrase "We may
suppose that,--." G.]] that, at some remote period, a bird which was
perhaps the common and more generalized ancestor of our thrushes,
warblers, wrens, etc., had spread widely over the great northern
continent, and had given rise to numerous varieties adapted to special
conditions of life. Among these some took to feeding on the borders of
clear streams, picking out such larvae and mollusks as they could reach
in shallow water. When food becomes scarce they would attempt to pick
them out of deeper and deeper water, and while doing this in cold
weather many would become frozen and starved. But any which possessed
denser and more hairy plumage than usual, which was able to keep out the
water, would survive; and thus a race would be formed which would depend
more and more on this kind of food. Then, following up the frozen
streams into the mountains, they would be able to live there during the
winter; and as such places afforded them much protection from enemies
and ample shelter for their nests and young, further adaptations would
occur, till the wonderful power of diving and flying under water was
acquired by a true land-bird." (_"Darwinism,"_ p. 81-82.)
Lines of Evidence.
The evolutionary hypothesis (both in its atheistic and theistic or
"Christian" form) is understood to rest on the following lines of proof:
i. _Primary:_ The evidence of palaeontology (the study of fossil remains
in the rocks). The surface of the earth underneath the top soil consists
of layers of rock. Some of them are made up of lime deposits, others of
the shells of shell-fish, others of sand-stone, others of dead trees of
the forest (coal), all of them turned hard by the pressure of the weight
lying on top of them. Besides these sedimentary rock there are
formations like granite, showing the influence of heat. Digging among
the sedimentary rock (limestone, sand-stone, principally) we come across
preserved remains of all sorts of animals; some just like those which
live to-day, some similar but somewhat different, others quite
dissimilar from living animals of our day. These are the fossils. Now,
evolutionists assert that the oldest and simplest animal and plant
remains are found in the oldest layers of rock. This is said to prove
that in the history of plants and animals on earth, the simplest forms
are the oldest and that later the more complex forms were developed
from these. LeConte states the matter thus: "The farther back in time
we go, the simpler the forms of animal and plant life become, and these
forms occur in the order of their origination, just as if they were
developed one from another."
2. _Corroborative:_ a) The Argument from Morphology (Structure). The
resemblance of the structure of various animal types is asserted to
imply a community of descent. "Large groups of species, whose habits are
widely different, present certain fundamental likenesses of structure.
The arms of men and apes, the fore-legs of quadrupeds, the paddles of
whales, the wings of birds, the breast-fins of fishes, are constructed
on the same pattern, but altered to suit their several functions. Nearly
all mammals, from the long-necked giraffe to the short-necked elephant,
have seven neck-bones; the eyes of the lamprey are moved by six muscles
which correspond exactly to the six which work the human eye; all
insects and Crustacea--moth and lobster, bettle [tr. note: sic] and
cray-fish---are alike composed of twenty segments; the sepals, petals,
stamens, and pistils of a flower are all modified leaves arranged in a
spire." (Clodd, _"The Story of Creation,"_ p. 102.) These _resemblances_
are looked upon as evidence of a common origin.
b) The Argument from Embryology. The individual animal in embryonic
development passes through temporary stages which are similar to
permanent conditions in some of the lower forms in the same group.
Evolutionists believe that these forms were actually possessed by the
ancestors of these animals in the course of their evolution. They hold
that the changes which take place in the embryos epitomize the series of
changes through which the ancestral forms passed. Because the embryos of
some four-footed animals have gill-slits, this is pointed out as
evidence that land animals are evolved from fishes.
c) Geographical Distribution. In geological time, natural barriers have
sprung up which separated the species which have since developed. In
this way the existence of marsupials (pouched animals--kangaroo,
oppossum) [tr. note: sic] on certain limited areas, the limitation of
certain plants to certain islands, etc., are explained.
d) Classification. The so-called Tree of Life. All living forms can be
arranged in a diagram called the Tree of Life. The Tree has a short
trunk, indicating common origin of the living from the non-living, and
is divided into two large trunks representing plants and animals
respectively. "From each of these start large branches representing
classes, the larger branches giving off smaller branches representing
families, and so on with smaller and smaller branches representing
orders and genera, until we come to leaves as representing species, the
height of the branch from which they are hanging indicating their place
in the growth of the great life-tree." (Clodd, _"Story of Creation,"_
p. 103.) There is an exact gradation from the lowest life forms to the
highest. First such simple forms as the sponges and corals, then,
through the worms, crabs, oysters, and snail to the fish, and thence
through amphibia, reptiles, beasts of prey, ungulates (hoofed animals)
and apes to man. Evolutionists say that in this gradation of life we
see illustrated the evolution of complex from simple forms.
The Descent of Man.
According to the evolutionary hypothesis man is related to the animal
kingdom by descent from a brute ancestor, who, apelike in appearance,
is the common ancestor of ape and man. The evidence of such derivation
is believed to be:
i. Rudiments of structure which were useful in some brute ancestor.
There remain in man a few elementary muscles for twitching the skin, as
in the forehead; and it is pointed out that many animals have such
muscles at the present time, and it is argued that the ability of some
men to move the whole scalp points to the existence of muscles with such
function in our brute ancestors. The vermiform appendix in man is
termed rudimentary, being but a remnant of the much longer and more
complex appendix of the same nature in living animals today.
2. Embryonic Development. Because the young of all animals resemble one
another while in the embryo stage, and since such resemblances are
found in man, it is concluded that the evolution of man from some
related animal form must be accepted as the most reasonable explanation.
3. Some diseases are common to animals and man (tuberculosis, cholera,
hydrophobia, etc.).
4. The similarity in structure of man and the apes.
5. The fossil remains of man. Certain skulls and leg bones have been
found which are said to represent forms higher than the ape and lower
than man. On the strength of such finds it is said that the "missing
link" has now been supplied.
The Nebular Hypothesis.
The Frenchman de La Place (1827) first promulgated in modern terminology
the theory once held by Greek philosophers, that the earth and the
system in which it is a member originated from a primitive cosmic-vapor
or universal fire-mist filling all space with infinitely small atoms.
In this homogeneous mass _motion_ originated, resulting in a
concentration at one point. This condensation resulted in heat and
light. The planetary system at first consisted of a huge gas-ball which
gradually cooled, contracting into a molten mass which under the
influence of centrifugal force began to rotate. This rotation became
more rapid as the mass condensed, throwing off the planets, in which
the process was repeated (the moons being cast off), until the earth
became sufficiently cool to sustain life.
The Origin of Life.
When asked about the origin of life on earth, the evolutionists
generally reply that this is not a question for science but for
philosophy to answer. However, the question comes with such insistent
force that the biologist finds himself constrained to offer some
explanation of the origin of the simplest plant and animal life after
the globe had, according to the hypothesis, sufficiently cooled to
present areas in which life might arise. Necessarily, the assumption
must be that life was generated out of lifeless matter. Huxley says:
"If the hypothesis of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen
from not-living matter, for by the hypothesis, the condition of the
globe was at one time such that living matter could not have existed on
it, life being entirely incompatible with a gaseous state." (The earth
having been a ball of gases at the time.) Tyndall is a little more
specific; he says that the combination of electrical and chemical
forces acting on the primal ooze caused germs of life to originate in
small bubble-like forms, (vesicles). His words are: "The first step in
the creation of life upon this planet was a chemico-electric operation
by which simple germinal vesicles were produced." The vesicles
consisted of protoplasm, the simple substance (white-of-egg) which
exists in the cells of animal and vegetable tissues, and which is
composed of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and traces of other
elements. From this original protoplasm the great variety of living
things has been developed.
The Bearing of Evolution on Christianity.
It is evident that the evolutionary theory not only contradicts the
Bible story of creation but, if true, deprives Christianity of every
claim of being the true religion. If all things have come into being
through the action of forces residing in matter then the world did not
come into being through a divine fiat or command. As Haeckel says:
_"Every supernatural creation is completely excluded."_ (Quoted by John
Fiske in _"A Century of Science,"_ 1899, p. 51.) Thomas Huxley is quite
as definite: "Not only do I hold it to be proven that the story of the
Deluge is a pure fiction; but I have no hesitation in affirming the same
thing of the story of the Creation." (_"Science and Hebrew Tradition,"_
1896, p. 230.) Furthermore, the theory, by its implications, disposes
summarily of the _immortality of the soul_. The belief in an immortal
soul is termed by Haeckel as "quite excluded" by the bearing of
evolution on the origin of man. The _fall of man_ becomes a myth, since
man has not fallen from a high estate but has through many ages of slow
development arrived at the use of reason and the dominion over nature;
not a perfect man, made in the image of God, but a cousin to the
tail-less apes, newly accustomed to walking on two feet, is the ancestor
of our race. Without a fall of man there is no possibility nor even a
necessity of _redemption;_ our entire Christian theology would be
dealing with shadowy abstractions, unreasonable fears and hopes, and
purposeless strivings. The belief of the Christian is to the
evolutionist of some value as a phenomenon in the history of the mind,
but not the slightest intrinsic value is recognized in any of the
doctrines of Christian faith, not even in the belief in a _personal
God_. God is, according to Spencer, _the Unknowable_. Naturally, there
can not be _miracles,_ since all processes in nature are conceived as
governed by laws not directed by a Divine Intelligence but by forces
resident in nature. Hence, too, there can be no inspired _revelation_ of
God, since that would presume not only the existence of a personal God
but an intervention in natural processes of thought (miracle). John
Fiske wrote: The hypothesis of inspiration "conveys most certainly a
conception of Divine action as local, special, and transitory; and in
so far as it does this, it bears the marks of that heathen mode of
philosophy which was current when Christian monotheism arose."
(_"Darwinism and Other Essays,"_ 1895.) Evolution says: If there is a
God we have no means of knowing Him; and what we know of nature
certainly precludes the idea that God, if He exists, will concern
Himself about man or break down the laws of nature even for an instant
in his behalf. The conclusion is, that there is no inspired Bible. Nor
indeed an absolute religion. All religious truths are considered
relative, with no such distinction as true religion and false religion,
since there is no criterion revealed (according to the theory) by
which we can test a religion whether it be true or false. Finally,
there is no absolute _standard of morals_. Moral truths, like the
religious, are relative only. In other words, the teaching that "Christ
has atoned for sin," is as little to be accepted as an absolute truth,
as the command: "Thou shalt not steal" must be accepted as embodying an
absolute rule of conduct. Clodd says in _"The Story of Creation"_: "Man
by himself is not only unprogressive, he is also not so much immoral as
unmoral. For where there is no society there is no sin! Therefore the
bases of right and wrong lie in conduct towards one's fellow; the moral
sense or conscience is the outcome of social relations, themselves the
outcome of the need of living..... While the lower instincts, as hunger,
passion, and thirst for vengeance, are strong, they are not so enduring
or satisfying as the higher feelings which crave for society and
sympathy. And the yielding to the lower, however gratifying for the
moment, would be followed by the feeling of regret that he had thus
given way, and by resolve to act differently for the future. Thus at
last man comes to feel, through acquired and perhaps inherited habit,
that it is best for him to obey his more persistent impulses..... Morals
are relative, not absolute; _there is no fixed standard of right and
wrong_ by which the actions of all men throughout all time are
measured..... That which man calls sin is shown to be more often due to
his imperfect sense of the true proportion of things, and to his lack
of imagination, than to his willfulness." Clodd adds that if conduct has
been made to rest on _"supposed divine commands_ (!) as to what man
shall and shall not do," that is an assumption which at best serves to
restrain the "brutal and ignorant."
J. B. Warren, of the University of California, has well stated the
effects of the evolutionary theory on religion and morals:
"Its legitimate tendency is to degrade mankind from that mental and
moral dignity that is always recognized as belonging to them, and to
place them on an essential level with the brute creation--even with the
lowest forms of vegetable and animal existence. According to that
theory, man differs from the lower organisms not in kind so much as in
the degree of development. Mr. Darwin himself was troubled about the
value of his own convictions, on the ground that his mind was evolved
from that of lower animals. That is to say, he reckoned his own mental
actions as valueless and untrustworthy, because of the essential
identity between his mind and that of the lowest creatures that live in
the mud of our swamps. Thus we see the legitimate tendency of this
theory to degrade the mental dignity of man. And it also degrades the
moral nature and faculties of man, and undermines the very foundations
of moral and religious principle, in that it teaches that man is only a
better developed brute--the natural result being that man is no more
under moral obligation than the brute, or has no different basis of
moral obligation from the brute, but only a better idea of right and
wrong, because on a higher plane in the process of evolution. It
strikes at the root of the doctrine that men are, by their origin and
nature, under peculiar and special obligations to God. In the words of
the late Dr. Robert Patterson, such a theory tends to 'obliterate a
belief in the divine origin and sanction of morality, and in the
existence of a future life of rewards and punishments, and to promote
the disorganization of society, and the degradation of man to the level
of the brutes, living only under the laws of their brutal instincts.'
Such a theory is dishonoring to man and offensive to God."
When these discrepancies between a world-view governed by the
Christian's faith in Revelation and one governed by the theory of
evolution are once clearly understood, there will be no need to inquire,
why, on the one hand, enemies of the Bible in all ranks of life greeted
with such joyous acclaim the principle announced by Darwin and, why, on
the other hand, a chief purpose of Christian apologetics has become the
demonstration that Christianity _is justified even by reason_ in the
world-view which it inculcates, and that, on the other hand, _the
evolutionary hypothesis is contradicted by the facts of religion, of
history, and of natural science_.
CHAPTER TWO.
Unexplained Origins.
The evolutionary scheme of development is, by its originators and
defenders, accepted as a working hypothesis by which it is believed that
the origin of all forms which matter has taken, and of the activities of
living things, including man and human society, can be accounted for. It
is an attempt to answer the old question, suggested to the thinking mind
by a contemplation of nature: _Whence_ these things? It it a theory of
origins.
Now, a hypothesis, being "a theory, or supposition, provisionally
employed as an explanation of phenomena," must be verified before it can
be accepted as truth. Moreover, it can stand _even as a hypothesis_ only
if it meets the test of observation and experiment. It it can
demonstrate its adaption to explain all the facts, it may, until another
and better theory is propounded, be accepted as a theory. When it does
not explain the facts, it must be modified or abandoned.
Since the evolutionary hypothesis is employed as an explanation of
certain origins, a legitimate test of the theory is its adaptation to
explain these origins. This test we now shall apply. We shall try to
answer the question: Is the evolutionary theory entitled to the name of
a working hypothesis? Is it able to account for those things which it is
set forth by its spokesmen to account for? Does it account for the
origin of the universe, of life, and of the various forms of life?
Scientists as a rule disclaim any intention to account, on the basis of
their hypothesis, for the origin of matter. When it is suggested to them
that any theory of origins should also account for the FIRST ORIGIN, the
beginning of things, they direct us to philosophy: "Evolution is not
concerned with the origin of matter; it takes matter for granted; the
origin of matter is properly a philosophical and not a scientific
problem."
Let us note the fallacies of this position. In the first place it is not
proper to introduce the word "science" into this plea. Science is,
indeed, only concerned with things that can be demonstrated by
observation and from experience; and since no one has seen the beginning
of matter, science is very properly not concerned with it. But evolution
is not a science. It is a hypothesis, a theory. It is an explanation
proposed for certain phenomena. 'And we have a right to demand that, if
it wants recognition even as a theory, it must explain those phenomena.
Now the principle of evolution is: All things have developed through
certain forces which inhere in matter. In other words, without being
acted upon from the outside, (without a creative word of God, for
instance,) the unvierse [tr. note: sic] has come to be what it is
to-day. In matter there are from the beginning certain forces
inseparable from matter. These acted in such a way that very simple
plants and animals became very complex; and this without any directing
Intelligence. This is the evolutionary theory. Now, we hold that a
theory which claims to account for the beginning of all animal life
(and every species of animal life), for the beginning of plant life
(and of every species of plant life), for the beginning of life germs,
of the globe, of the sun and stars, cannot stop short when we press
our questions still farther and ask: Whence is matter? Whence is force?
Nor, indeed, do evolutionists hesitate to express an opinion concerning
the origin of matter and force. The universe, as it exists to-day, is
made up of matter disposed in various forms,--stars, rock, plants,
animals,--and endowed with energy in various forms; and from the
earliest age of speculation, as we have seen, the human mind conceived
of a time in which there was _unorganized_ matter, substance without
form. Like the ancient Greek philosophers, evolutionists to-day try to
formulate a working hypothesis to account for the origin of the
universe. It is believed that, in a broad way, the _Nebular Hypothesis_
put forth by La Place indicated the manner in which the earth and the
system to which it belongs have been evolved. We have outlined, briefly,
in our first chapter, the main features of this theory. We shall now
indicate the difficulties which stand in the way of its acceptance even
as a working hypothesis.
1. The Nebular Hypothesis assumes that during a past endless time there
has existed an incalculable number of original atoms. Let us understand
that according to the so-called atomic theory, matter is composed of
indivisible particles, called _atoms_. Since the discovery of radium
this theory has been considerably modified, each atom now being
understood to consist of many thousands of smaller particles, called
electrons. However, whether we call them atoms or electrons, the
smallest, indivisible particles of matter are assumed to have existed
during infinite past time. Now, the origin of these simplest component
parts of matter _remains an unsolved mystery_. The mind is unable even
to formulate a guess with reference to their organization.
2. A second postulate of the Nebular Hypothesis is the _origin of force
and motion_ in the huge gas ball which existed in the beginning. La
Place says that "at some point concentration took place in the
homogeneous mass, this contraction produced radiation of heat and light,
and through the differences in temperature, _motion_ and dynamic
reaction were produced." The difficulty which inheres in this postulate
is the unquestioned fact that all motion in nature follows certain
immutable _laws_*, [*These laws, so far as known, form the basis of what
we call physics and chemistry.] and _the origin of these laws_ is not
accounted for by the theory. Laws never make themselves, and their
complexity,--immeasurably beyond our power of exploration--yet
everywhere adjusted to a definite end, is so intricate that their origin
can by no means be accounted for by chance.
3. According to the theory matter was first in _"nebular" (gas) form,_
and that the gases existing diffused through space were, through the
motion which originated, changed from a huge ball of fire-mist to a
semi-solid sphere, which threw off smaller spheres (the planets) that
gradually became solid. Now, this is contrary to our knowledge of gases.
Gases may be produced from solids, but an incandescent gas will not,
through simple motion, become a solid substance. Gases may be solidified,
but only in two ways, by pressure or when greatly cooled,--when they
become ice. But they do not retain this form when the pressure or the
cooling agency is removed. Gases, as we know them, all have a tendency
to expand indefinitely. They have no tendency to solidify, as the
hypothesis presumes.
4. La Place assumed that the solar system when still in gaseous state,
began to revolve upon its axis, and that, as the gas ball continued to
revolve, it condensed. As condensation went on, the rotation became
faster, and a ring of matter was thrown off from the hardening core.
This ring again resolved itself into a rotating globe which, still in a
fluid state, threw off other balls, which revolved around their mother,
the first planet, even as the latter continued to follow an orbit around
the central body, the sun. In this way the planets of the solar system,
including the earth, (according to the theory), were evolved together
with their satellites or moons. The difficulty attending this view of
planetary evolution is found in the difference _between the movements of
a number of satellites_ around the planets. While the satellites of the
earth, of Jupiter and of Saturn revolve _from west to east,_ the moons
of Uranus and Neptune have an orbital movement _from east to west_. This
is regarded also by the friends of the Nebular Hypothesis as one of the
gravest difficulties, since no mechanical law will explain the reverse
movement of the satellites of the remotest planets when they, as well as
Jupiter, Saturn, and the rest are supposed to have been cast off by the
same central body.
5. According to the theory, the original atoms during the process of
world-making united into _molecules_. The laws according to which atoms
unite,--so that, for instance, the hydrogen atom each unites with two
atoms of oxygen, and so down the list of all known existences,--these
laws are among the assured results of scientific study. Now, the entire
science of chemistry in all its branches is built upon the axiom that
molecules are _absolutely unalterable_ and that molecules of the same
kind are always absolutely identical. A molecule of water is always and
invariably composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. A
molecule of sulphuric acid invariably contains two atoms of hydrogen,
one of sulphur, and four of oxygen. A molecule of potassium chlorate is
always composed of just one atom of potassium chloride and three atoms
of oxygen. Never is there any variation of these proportions in the same
element, and a chemist will, without handling the elements, merely by
mathematical calculation, unerringly produce new combinations, relying
on the absolute constancy of the relations of atoms and molecules. Now,
the theory that in the beginning of things, out of a mass of atoms
diffused without form through space, molecules came into being, each
kind or type composed of atoms according to a proportion peculiarly its
own, cannot be accepted unless it is shown in what manner the laws came
into existence according to which these combinations take place. Clerk
Maxwell concludes a masterly statement of this aspect of the hypothesis
by asking: "Who can restrain the ulterior question, Whence then these
myriad types of the same letter imprinted on the earth, the sun, the
stars, as if the very mould used here had been lent to Sirius, and
passed on through the constellations? No theory of evolution can be
formed to account for the similarity of the molecules throughout all
time, and throughout the whole region of the stellar universe; for
evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule (as
known to science) is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or
destruction."
The Origin of Life.
The origin of life on our globe is not accounted for on the basis of the
evolutionary hypothesis. At some time in the remote past, there must,
according to the theory, have been a development of living substance
from a mineral base. But if scientific experiment has shown anything it
has shown the unreality of what was called "spontaneous generation."
This term was very popular with the scientists of a century or two ago.
It was believed that certain animal and vegetable forms gave birth, in
the process of decay, to insect life. Putrefying meat gives rise to
maggots. The origin of these grubs was referred to the power of
"spontaneous generation." When the Italian naturalist Redi discovered
that an exclusion of flies from meat was all that was necessary to
prevent the production of grubs, the doctrine of spontaneous generation
was thoroughly upset, for his time at least. But the microscope revealed
in "pure" water the presence of thousands of small creatures, the
infusoria. Again spontaneous generation was appealed to in order to
explain their presence. But the famous experiments of Pasteur (related
by Huxley in his lectures on The Origin of Species, Lecture III), proved
conclusively that sterilized water will not produce living forms when
the germs floating everywhere about in the air are excluded. Since that
time all men of science agree that there is no such thing demonstrable
as spontaneous generation. It has become an axiom that "Life only comes
from life." But how the first germs of life originated, is a question
for which there is no answer. Huxley admits: "Of the causes which led to
the origination of living matter it may be said that we know absolutely
nothing." "The present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link
between the living and the not living."
However, while spontaneous generation is "absolutely inconceivable"
(Darwin), and while no experiments made on dead matter have ever
produced living (plant and animal) matter, life must have originated at
some time from non-life according to the evolutionary hypothesis. The
theory assumes that at some time the globe was in an incandescent stage.
At that time there could not have been any life on our earth. But as the
earth cooled, it is held that by some chemico-electric action (electric
force acting upon elements in favorable combinations), inert, lifeless
matter became endowed with the property which we call life, and this
original living substance is called protoplasm. From it, by successive
modifications, slow in their operation, the teeming variety of living
things is believed to have developed. Now it is a notable fact, that
many evolutionists (among them Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-discoverer
of the theory which goes under Darwin's name) frankly admit the
inability to account for the origin of protoplasm. From mineral
substances, protoplasm differs in that it possesses the power of growth,
development, and reproduction. The very first vegetable cell "must have
possessed altogether new powers," says Mr. Wallace, "that of extracting
carbon from the air and that of indefinite reproduction. Here,"--note
this admission,--"we have indications of _a new power_ at work." In
other words, forces resident in matter no longer suffice. The
evolutionistic principle breaks down.
Some fifty years ago it was thought that experimental proof had been
found for the presence on earth of the original, simple, unorganized
protoplasm; that the basis of all life on earth had been discovered,--in
the depths of the ocean. The story of this "discovery" is entertainingly
told by the Duke of Argyle in the _"Nineteenth Century"_ magazine. We
quote from his article.
"Along with the earlier specimens of deep sea deposits sent home by
naturalists during the first soundings in connection with the Atlantic
telegraph cable, there was very often a sort of enveloping slimy mucus
in the containing bottles which arrested the attention and excited the
curiosity of the specialists to whom they were consigned. It was
structureless to all miscroscopic examination. But so is all the
protoplasmic matter of which the lowest animals are found. Could it be a
widely diffused medium of this protoplasmic material, not yet
specialized or individualized into organic forms, nor itself yet in a
condition to build up inorganic skeletons for a habitation? Here was a
grand idea. It would be well to find missing links; but it would be
better to find the primordial substance out of which all living things
had come. The ultra-Darwinian enthusiasts were enchanted. Haeckel
clapped his hands and shouted _Eureka!_ loudly. Even the cautious and
discriminating mind of Professor Huxley was caught by this new and grand
generalization of the 'physical basis of life;' It was announced by him
to the British Association in 1868. Dr. Will Carpenter took up the
chorus. He spoke of 'a living expanse of protoplasmic substance,'
penetrating with its living substance the 'whole mass' of the oceanic
mud. A fine new Greek name was devised for this mother slime, and it was
christened 'Bathybius,'" (from two Greek words meaning "depth" and
"life,"), "from the consecrated deeps in which it lay. The conception
ran like wildfire through the popular literature of science. Expectant
imagination soon played its part. Wonderful movements were soon seen in
this mysterious slime. It became an 'irregular network,' and it could be
seen gradually 'altering its form,' so that 'entangled granules changed
their relative positions."
Such was Bathybius, which once raised such a commotion in the world of
science, but which is never heard of or even alluded to in scientific
circles today. And now for the issue of this discovery of such mighty
promise. In the year 1872, the "Challenger," commanded by John Murray,
set out on a voyage of deep-sea exploration. "The naturalists of the
'Challenger' began their voyage in full Bathybian faith. But the sturdy
mind of Mr. John Murray kept its balance--all the more easily since he
never could himself find or see any trace of this protoplasm _when the
dredges of the 'Challenger' came fresh from the ocean bottom_. Again and
again he looked for it, but never could he discover it. It always hailed
from England. The bottles sent there were reported to yield it in
abundance, but somehow it seemed to be hatched in them. The laboratory
in London was its unfailing source. The ocean never yielded it until it
had been bottled. At last, one day on board the 'Challenger,' an
accident revealed the mystery. One of Mr. Murray's assistants poured a
large quantity of spirits of wine into a bottle containing some pure
sea-water, when lo! the wonderful protoplasm Bathybius appeared! It was
_the chemical precipitate of sulphate of lime_ produced by the mixture
of alcohol and sea-water! Thereafter 'Bathybius' disappeared from
science."
The term "protoplasm" has, indeed, been retained by writers on biology.
The whole body of an animal, and the structure of plants, are understood
to consist of cells. The cells consist of a colorless substance, and
this is called "protoplasm." It is a substance of very complex chemical
and physical make-up, in fact, no chemist has yet been able to analyze
it and a famous biologist says that very probably it may never be
analyzed (David Starr Jordan.) Protoplasm, like the white of egg, is the
basic substance of life, yet in the variety of forms which it takes it
is of _"almost unlimited complexity"_ (Jordan). Now, a new difficulty
develops when this complex character of protoplasm as it is now found in
animals and plants is considered. Clear (unmodified) protoplasm, as
found in white of egg and in the white cells of the blood, is the
structureless substance called albumen. However, protoplasm varies
almost infinitely in consistency, in shape, in structure, and in
function. It is sometimes so fluid as to be capable of forming in drops,
sometimes semifluid, sometimes almost solid. In shape the cells may be
club shaped, globe shaped, threaded, flat, conical. Some protoplasm
produces fat, others produce nerve substances, others brain substances,
bone, muscle, etc., each producing only its own kind, uninterchangeable
with the rest. Lastly, there is the overwhelming fact that there is an
infinite difference of protoplasm in the infinitely different plants and
animals, in each of which _its own protoplasm but produces its own kind_.
"Here are several thousand pieces of protoplasm; analysis can detect no
difference in them. They are to us, let us say, as they are to Mr.
Huxley, identical in power, in form, and in substance; and yet on all
these several thousand little bits of apparently indistinguishable matter
an element of difference so pervading and so persistent has been
impressed, that of them all, not one is interchangeable with another!
Each seed feeds its own kind. The protoplasm of the gnat will no more
grow into the fly than it will grow into an elephant. Protoplasm is
protoplasm; yes, but man's protoplasm is man's protoplasm, and the
mushroom's the mushroom's." (Dr. Sterling, _"As Regards Protoplasm."_)
Hence we are compelled to acknowledge not an identity of protoplasm in
all substances, but an infinite diversity. It follows that the
derivation of all plant and animal forms from an original speck or germ
of living matter is not only un-proven, but is contradicted by
biological science.
Darwin himself, like his co-laborer Wallace, was constrained to admit
that the origin of life constitutes an unsolved problem. Matter and
force do not account for it. Darwin accepted a divine fiat somewhere in
the beginning. He says. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with
its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into
the first forms or into one." In other words, the creation of the first
living being was an exceptional kind of power. But if, as Mr. Darwin
says, life was breathed by the Creator into the first forms, this
constitutes a break in the sufficiency of natural causes alone to
produce life. If a special fiat was necessary at this point, why may it
not have been at others? If by divine omnipotence, life is believed to
have been originated, why shall we not believe that by divine
omnipotence the various species of plants and animals were brought forth
as related in the first chapter of the Bible? "If the Creator could
breathe life into a few forms or into one, as Darwin thinks he did,
without violating the law of his own being, and in accordance with the
laws which he has established, it seems evident that he might at other
times breathe life into other forms in accordance with his laws. I see
no necessity for a logic that would compel the Creator to confine the
number of his creative fiats to a few, or to one, nor which would limit
the fiats to one time." (Fairhurst, _"Organic Evolution Considered."_)
Biological Barriers.
The atom, the molecule, the life-germ,--these are the barriers which
stand against the evolutionistic conception of origins on the physical
side. We proceed to investigate the points at which _biology_ touches
our problem, and again three barriers call for notice and investigation:
The difference between plants and animals; the difference between
vertebrates and invertebrates; and the difference between mammals and
all other vertebrates.
1. _Whence the animal kingdom?_ This stage in the scale of life, the
advance from vegetable to the animal kingdom, is, to quote Mr. Wallace,
again "completely beyond all possibility of explanation by _matter,_ its
laws and forces. It is the introduction of _sensation or consciousness,_
constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and
vegetable kingdoms." Plants live, animals live _and feel;_ and they have
consciousness. At this point again, only a thorough-going materialist
will deny the working of an outside power, a power not resident in
matter, but altering and molding matter from without and endowing it
with new abilities. Only an act of this Power Without could endow living
substance with feeling and consciousness. No one can here any longer
appeal to that undefined chemico-electric action by which some attempt
to account for protoplasm. Mr. Wallace says: "Here all idea of mere
complication of structure producing the result is out of the question.
We feel it to be altogether preposterous to assume that at a certain
stage of complexity of atomic constitution, and as a necessary result of
that complexity alone, an _ego_ should start into existence,--a thing
that _feels,_ that is _conscious_ of its own existence. Here we have the
certainty that something new has arisen,--a being whose nascent
consciousness has gone on increasing in power and definiteness till it
has culminated in the higher animals. No verbal explanation or attempt
at explanation--such as the statement that life is 'the result of the
molecular forces of the protoplasm,' or that the whole existing organic
universe from the amoeba up to man was latent in the fire-mist from
which the solar system was developed--can afford any mental satisfaction,
or help us in any way to a solution of the mystery."
2. _Whence the backbone?_ All animals are divided into vertebrates and
invertebrates, the animals with a backbone and animals without. Between
these two groups the barrier of backbone stands impassable till it is
explained how a butterfly could become a bird, or a snail a serpent, or
a star fish acquire the skeleton of the shark. These two groups, the
vertebrate animals and the invertebrate, must be regarded as
fundamentally distinct.
3. _Whence the breast?_ Vertebrates are either mammals or submammals.
The breastless tribes are brids, [tr. note: sic] reptiles, and fishes.
These are far beneath in the scale, while the mammal, by its peculiar
endowment in that it gives suck to its young, stands elect, aloft, and
apart. Till it is shown how an animal that never got milk from its
mother stumbled on the capacity of giving what was never given it, _the
breast_ will stand, against all dreams of development, companion-barrier
to the backbone. Nor is there an animal that can be regarded as a
connecting link between these two master groups.
The "theistic" evolutionist, who believes that God at various times
"helped out" the forces residing in matter, by creating something new,
is inclined to say that at each of these points,--the origin of the
first sentient animal, the origin of the first vertebrate, and of the
first mammal,--God by his omnipotence caused a new type to originate.
Aside from the fact that "forces resident in matter," the basic idea of
the evolutionistic theory, here begins to become somewhat faint as a
background even for a "theistic" conception of development, it is
evident that we have already reached a point far down the scale of
organic evolution in which the admission must be made that no possible
working of forces within matter can account for the change. Again we
say, if we already admit that the various great types of animal life
could not originate without a special creative act of God, then why
should we not accept the record of Genesis which says that the various
species of plants and the various species of animals were created, each
a separate species, in the beginning? Once admit special creative acts,
and there is no longer any need for a hypothesis of evolution.
Man.
The difficulty which stands in the way of accepting, on purely
scientific grounds, the descent of man from a brute ancestor, is, first
of all a biological (physiological) difficulty. Among all the mammalia
(to accept the classification of man with that group), man alone has a
perfect brain. By this we mean the physiologically and structurally
perfect brain. It is present even in the lowest man--present in the
negro or the Australian Bushman as in the civilized American; and absent
in all living beings below man--absent in the ape or the elephant as
truly as in the lowest mammals, the kangaroo or the duckbill. Its sign
is _language,_ capacity of _progress, culture_. All healthy human
brains are structurally perfect; the highest brute brains are
structurally imperfect. The least cultivated human being is susceptible
of culture; a savage not only possesses the endowment of language but
may be educated to appreciate the art of a Raphael or a Shakespeare. The
brains of all other living beings are circumscribed by instinct, which
never progresses. The perfect brain thus introduces another impassable
biological barrier dividing the world of life.
However, the derivation of man from brute ancestry is attended by
another and even greater difficulty. The brain, after all, is but an
organ, it is the organ of _Mind_. Man possesses faculties of intellect
(reason, imagination, the artistic faculties, etc.) and, above all, a
moral nature, which raises him far above the brute. These faculties
could not possibly have been developed by means of forces resident in
matter or by means of the laws which are made to account for the
physical universe.
The very term "evolution" implies the development of something that was
at first involved, or essentially infolded, in that in which evolution
began. In man there are attributes and faculties not shown by lower
orders. Evolution, seeking to be consistent, answers: "It is true that
faculties cannot be evolved out of a thing unless they exist in a crude
and undeveloped state in that thing, but these higher faculties _do
exist_ in the lower orders, potentially, or in a germ form and are
developed and become operative only in the higher forms of life."
Evolutionists do not shrink from this application of their theory to the
human mind. The attributes of a Shakespeare and the moral nature of a
Paul were, essentially or potentially (capable of development), in the
star fish and the jelly fish. The difference is not one of kind but of
development and degree. Man has these faculties developed, the animals
have them undeveloped. In the _"Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,"_
published by his son, is a letter from Mr. Darwin to W. Graham, written
in 1881, from which I quote the following: "I have no practice in
abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless, you have
expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly
than I could have done. But then, with me, the horrid doubt always
arises _whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed
from the lower animals, are of any value, or are at all trustworthy."_
Again he says (p. 528), in another letter written to Sir C. Lyell:
"Grant a simple archetypal creature, like the mud-fish or lepidosiren
(mud eel) with five senses and some vestige of mind, and I believe
natural selection will account for the production of every vertebrate
animal, including, of course, man."
Observe that this language is very definite. It says that the mind of
man, with all its wonderful attributes and faculties, was evolved from
the mind of the lower animals--and he goes as low as the mud-fish and
the eel that live in the slime of the swamps. Now, whoever wishes to
believe such a preposterous assumption can do so. He is able to believe
almost anything, and to disbelieve everything. Mr. Darwin himself says
he looks upon man's convictions as of no value, because they are the
convictions of a mind derived from the mind of lower animals; nor can
one blame him for being skeptical. Our point, however, is that there is
such a tremendous difference between the intellectual and moral
faculties of man and the barely instinctive impulses of the lower
creatures, that no one can see any connection between the two, unless
there is some serious defect in his own mental or moral perceptions.
Every instinct and conviction of the human mind rises in indignant
repudiation of the theory of man's descent.
There are even among thoroughgoing Darwinians some who draw the line at
this (necessary) application of the development idea. Wallace says, at
the conclusion of his defense of Darwinism: "The faculties of man could
not possibly have been developed by means of the same laws which have
determined the progressive development of the world in general, and
also of man's physical organism"--the human body. He finds in the origin
of Mind clear indications of "an unseen universe--a world of spirit, to
which the world of matter is altogether subordinate." (_"Darwinism,"_ p.
320.) Yet the development of mind through merely physical forces is
upheld to the present day by the majority of evolutionists. The doctrine
is even found in public school texts. In Davis' _"Physical Geography,"_
a high-school text, we read page 341:
"The greater intelligence of many land animals than of sea animals
should also be regarded as a result of the development of land animals
amid a greater variety of geographical conditions than is found in the
seas. . . . The wonderful intelligence of man has been developed on the
lands, because only on the lands is to be found the great variety of
form, climate and products which can stimulate the development of high
intelligence. It would have been as impossible for man to develop as an
inhabitant of the dark and monotonous ocean floor as it has been for
civilization to arise out of the frozen and lonesome lands of the
Antarctic regions."
Thus even the children of our generation are taught a doctrine which is
not only unproven but so far falls short of explaining that which it was
invented to explain that it cannot, by any correct definition, even be
dignified with the name of a "working hypothesis." It is a theory of
origins which fails to account for one thing precisely--Origins.
CHAPTER THREE.
The Testimony of the Rocks.
We have seen that the principal argument for a development of the higher
types of life from lower organisms is based upon a study of fossil
remains (paleontology). The older the strata in the earth's surface, the
simpler the animal forms imbedded therein; the more recent the strata,
the more complex and highly developed the fossil remains. Popular
scientific works, and books of refence [tr. note: sic] generally, quote
it as an axiom: In the oldest rocks the simplest fossils are found,
hence the higher animals are developed from the lower. Davis "Physical
Geograhy" [tr. note: sic] says (page 17):
"Age of the Earth.--It is impossible to say what the age of the earth
and the solar system is, but it certainly should be reckoned in millions
and millions of years. There is every reason to believe that the sun and
the planets existed for an indefinitely long period before the condition
of the earth's surface was such as to allow the habitation of the planet
by plants and animals. It is well proved by the prints or fossils of
various plants and animals in ancient rock layers that these lower forms
of life existed upon the earth for a vast length of time, millions and
millions of years before man appeared."
Here, then, we are squarely confronted by the issue. Either the rocks
testify to a slow evolution of plant and animal life, or they supply no
such testimony. Professor Downing of Chicago University, says that this
is indeed, the one primary argument for evolution, the rest being simply
corroborative. On this _rock_ evolutionists build their scientific
Faith. Let us investigate.
We shall note, to begin with, that there are, indeed, a larger number of
species, both of animals and plants, preserved in the rocks,--thousands,
in fact. There are lowly organisms, of the crab and cuttle fish variety,
and more highly organized forms, fishes and birds, and there are the
prints and fossilized bones of great monsters, huge lizards and sloths
and other mammalia. It is possible to establish a gradation in this great
catalog of fossils, beginning with the largest or most perfectly
developed, and ending with the animals lower in the scale of life; or
vice versa. The evolutionists say, _vice versa,_ the simplest first, the
most complex last, and then they add: _So_ they have developed.
At this point we shall first quote one of the earliest palaeontologists,
and one of the most famous, Hugh Miller, whose _"Old Red Sandstone,"_
first published in 1841, has now been republished in the _"Everyman
Library."_ In this brilliant work, Miller pays his respects to the
evolutionists of his age. He refers to Lamarck and says: "The ingenious
foreigner, on the strength of a few striking facts which prove that to a
certain extent the instincts of species may be improved and heightened,
and their forms changed from a lower to a higher degree of adaptation to
their circumstances, has concluded that there is a natural progress from
the inferior order of being towards the superior, and that the off-spring
of creatures low in the scale in the present time may hold a much higher
place in it, and belong to different and nobler species, a few thousand
years hence. . . . He has argued on this principle of improvement and
adaptation,--which, carry it as far as we rationally may, still leaves
the vegetable a vegetable, and the dog a dog,--that in the vast course
of ages, inferior have risen into superior natures, and lower into higher
races; that molluscs and zoophytes have passed into fish and reptiles,
and fish and reptiles into birds and quadrupeds; that unformed gelatinous
bodies, with an organisation scarcely traceable, have been metamorphosed
into oaks and cedars; and that monkeys and apes have been transformed
into human creatures, capable of understanding and admiring the theories
of Lamarck.
"It is a law of nature," continues Mr. Miller, "that the chain of being,
from the lowest to the highest form of life, should be, in some degree,
a continuous chain; that the various classes of existence should shade
into one another, so that it often proves a matter of no little
difficulty to point out the exact line of demarcation where one class or
family ends and another class or family begins. The naturalist passes
from the vegetable to the animal tribes, scarcely aware, amid the
perplexing forms of intermediate existence, at what point he quits the
precincts of the one, to enter on those of the other. All the animal
families have, in like manner, their connecting links; and it is chiefly
out of these that writers such as Lamarck and Maillet construct their
system. _They confound gradation with progress_. Geoffrey Hudson was a
very short man, and Goliath of Gath a very tall one; and the gradations
of the human stature lie between. But gradation is not progress; and
though we find full-grown men of five feet, five feet six inches, and
six feet and a half, the fact gives us no earnest whatever that the race
is rising in stature, and that at some future period the average height
of the human family will be somewhat between ten and eleven feet. And
equally unsolid is the argument that from a principle of gradation in
races would reduce a principle of progress in races. The tall man of six
feet need entertain quite as little hope of rising into eleven feet as
the short man of five; nor has the fish that occasionally flies any
better chance of passing into a bird than the fish that only swims.
Geology abounds with creatures of the intermediate class. _But it
furnishes no genealogical link to show that the existences of one race
derive their lineage from the existences of another_. The scene shifts
as we pass from formation to formation; we are introduced in each to a
new dramatis personae. Of all the vertebrata, fishes rank lowest, and in
geological history appear first. Now, fishes differ very much among
themselves: some rank nearly as low as worms,--some nearly as high as
reptiles; and if fish could have risen into reptiles, and reptiles into
mammalia, we would necessarily expect to find lower orders of fish
passing into higher, and taking precedence of the higher in their
appearance in point of time. If such be not the case,--if fish made
their first appearance, not in their least perfect, but in their most
perfect state,--not in their nearest approximation to the worm, but in
their nearest approximation to the reptile,--there is no room for
progression, and the argument falls. Now, it is a geological fact, that
_it is fish of the higher orders that appear first on the stage,_ and
that they are found to occupy exactly the same level during the vast
period represented by five succeeding formations. There is no
progression. If fish rose into reptiles, it must have been by sudden
transformation. There is no getting rid of miracle in the case,--there
is no alternative between creation and metamorphosis. The infidel
substitutes progression for Deiety;--Geology robs him of his God."
Mr. Miller then relates his discovery of the winged fish (Pterichtys):
"Of all the organisms of the Old Red Sandstone, one of the most
extraordinary, and the one in which Lamarck would have most delighted,
is the Pterichtys, or winged fish. Had Lamarck been the discoverer, he
would unquestionably have held that he had caught a fish almost in the
act of wishing itself into a bird. Here are wings which lack only
feathers, a body which seems to have been as well adapted for passing
through the air as the water and a tail by which to steer. I fain wish
I could communicate to the reader the feeling with which I contemplated
my first-found specimen. It opened with a single blow of the hammer;
and there on a ground of light-colored limestone, lay the effigy of a
creature fashioned apparently out of jet, with a body covered with
plates, two powerful-looking arms articulated at the shoulders, a head
as entirely lost in the trunk as that of the ray or the sun-fish, and
long angular tail." Miller says that he at first thought he had
discovered a kind of turtle that partook of the characteristics of a
fish. But he continues: "I had inferred somewhat too hurriedly, though
perhaps naturally enough, that these wings or arms, with their strong
sharp points and oar-like blades, had been at once paddles and spears,
--instrument of motion and weapons of defence; and hence the mistake of
connecting the creature with the Chelonia (turtles). I am informed by
Agassiz, however, that they were weapons of defence only, which, like
the spines of the river bull-head, were erected in moments of danger or
alarm, and at other times lay close by the creature's side; and that
the sole instrument of motion was in the tail. The river bull-head, when
attacked by an enemy, or immediately as it feels the hook in its jaws,
erects its two spines at nearly right angles with the plates of the head,
as if to render itself as difficult of being swallowed as possible. The
attitude is one of danger and alarm; and it is a curious fact, that in
this attitude nine-tenth of the Pterichthyes of the Lower Old Red
Sandstone are to be found."
A century has passed since Miller thought he had discovered a turtle
which was so modified in structure as to be a link between the turtles
and the fish. But to the present day geology has failed to furnish
evidence that such a link at one time existed.
This _absence, in the geological record, of transitional forms,_ is one
of the greatest difficulties of the evolutionistic theory. According to
the theory, the fossils found in the various layers of rock ought to
show gradual modifications, linking the various species of animals and
plants in a finely graduated system, with thousands of forms showing in
rudimentary structure those organs which in the more advanced forms
have become fully developed. However, no such progress from more to
less generalized types has been demonstrated, although many trained
investigators have searched the fossiliferous rocks for such evidence
of evolution. Professor Huxley in his _"Lay Sermons"_ admits that an
impartial survey of the positively ascertained truths of paleontology
"Either shows us no evidence of such modification, or demonstrates
such modification as has occurred to have been very slight; and as to
the nature of that modification, it yields no evidence whatsoever that
the earlier members of any long-continued group were more generalized in
structure than the later ones." LeConte says: "Although the species
change greatly, and perhaps many times, in passing from the lowest to
the highest strata, we do not usually, it must be acknowledged, find the
gradual transitions we would naturally expect, if the change were
effected by gradual transitions." He further speaks of the absence of
connecting links as "the greatest of all objections" against the theory
of evolution. (_"Evolution,"_ p. 234.) This absence of transitional
forms between different species has always been recognized as a serious
difficulty; and Mr. Darwin, in the attempt to obviate it, succeeds only
in showing how very serious it is. These are his words: "Geology
assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
urged against my theory."
Alfred Fairhurst says, in his _"Organic Evolution Considered"_ (p. 93):
"According to the theory of evolution, and especially of natural
selection, if we start with any organism and trace its history backward,
we would find that through an endless number of generations it had been
very slightly changing, so that any individual is always a transitional
form between its immediate ancestors and its own offspring. This being
true, one would expect, if the theory of evolution is true, to find vast
numbers of transitional forms connecting earlier and later species in
the various periods where fossils are well preserved. This, however, is
not true. Species, when they first appear, stand sharply defined. Darwin
expresses his disappointment at the absence of transitional forms as
follows: 'But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how
poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not
the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which
lived at the commencement and close of each formation pressed so hardly
on my theory.'"