Even a cursory study of such texts as Dana's _"Manual of Geology"_ will

reveal that the development of the plants and animals through the "ages"

of speculative geology does not move forward like a steadily rising

flood. There is rather a series of great waves, each rising abruptly,

new forms often appearing suddenly and together. The very simplest known

fossils, the trilobites, of which nearly a hundred species are known in

America alone, and certain cephalopods (sea snails) are animals highly

complex in structure and regarded by Le Conte as "hardly lower than the

middle of the animal scale." The trilobites possess well developed

compound eyes and the cephalopods have simple eyes, almost as complex as

the eyes of man, possess a well defined stomach, a systemic heart, a

liver, and a highly developed nervous system [tr. note: no period in

original] Observe, that these two highly organized forms of animals,

"hardly to be regarded as lower than the middle of the animal scale,"

are the very "oldest" animals found in fossil form! In other words, of

at least one half of the total progress of the animal kingdom every

vestige is lost. If we turn a few pages in Dana's _"Manual"_ we find in

the sandstone of the "Devonian Era" gigantic species of fish. The entire

record of evolution from the mollusk to the fish is lost! There is not a

single transitional form. These fishes have organs as complex and

perfect as the fishes of to-day. Suddenly, in the "carbonic age"

amphibia and reptiles appear, and then come, in the "Triassic" the huge

reptiles known as dinosaurs. Insects and scorpions have been found in

the "Silurian." [tr. note: sic on punctuation] They stand among the

highest of even _living_ articulates, and they are the "oldest" known

airbreathing animals. "We seek in vain for the progenitors of these

highly organized articulates or for some conceivable method by which

their wings and special breathing apparatus could have evolved. We do

not know that these first insects and scorpions have made any material

progress through all the ages." (Fairhurst.)

Professor Huxley in delivering the anniversary address to the Geological

Society for 1870, quotes the following from an address before the same

society in 1862: "If we confine ourselves to positively ascertained

facts, the total amount of change in the forms of animal and vegetable

life since the existence of such forms is recorded, is small. When

compared with the lapse of time since the first appearance of these

forms, the amount of change is wonderfully small. Moreover, in each great

group of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, there are certain forms which

I termed Persistent Types, which have remained, with but very little

apparent change, from their first appearance to the present time. In

answer to the question, 'What then does an impartial survey of the

positively ascertained truths of paleontology testify in relation to the

common doctrines of progressive modification, which suppose that

modification to have taken place by necessary progress from more to less

embryonic forms, from more to less generalized types within the limits of

the period represented by the fossiliferous rocks?' I reply, It negatives

these doctrines; for it either shows us no evidence of such

modifications, or demonstrates such modification as has occurred to have

been very slight. The significance of persistent types and of the small

amount of change which has taken place even in those forms which can be

shown to have been modified, becomes greater and greater in my eyes, the

longer I occupy myself with the Biology of the past."

From the fact that the trilobites, so highly organized, appeared in the

"primordial," or "oldest" strata, it would seem that they were specially

adapted to make progress. They lived through "Paleozoic" time, which,

according to Dana, represents twelve of the sixteen parts of all

geological time, beginning with the Primordial; or, calling the whole

geological time 48 millions of years, the trilobites lived 36 million of

years, or three-fourths of all geological time. From their great

persistence in time (accepting, for the sake of argument, the "ages" of

speculative geology) it would seem that they had a remarkably good

opportunity to make wonderful progress in structure. During that time

there were thousands of species, yet they made no progress. We do not

know that in all those "millions of years" a single higher form was

evolved from any one of the great multitude of species of trilobites. As

Darwin says of the goose, so one may say of the trilobite; it "had a

singularly inflexible organization." The remarkable thing about this,

however, is that previous to the "Primordial," while it was becoming a

trilobite, it must have had a singularly flexible organization, otherwise

it could not have obtained its complex structure; but when it reached the

"Primordial" it became very conservative.

Fairhurst says, in the work already quoted:

"It is a most remarkable fact that in the first geological period in

which undoubted fossils occur, all the sub-kingdoms except that of the

vertebrates are well represented, and that there is no evidence from

fossils that one sub-kingdom, or even that different classes of the same

sub-kingdom were evolved from each other. The great gulfs that separate

the animal kingdom into sub-kingdoms and classes existed then, and have

continued till the present time.... If we rely on known fossils as

evidence, we would be obliged to conclude that highly organized fishes

were suddenly introduced. The break in the supposed chain of evolution

between the invertebrates and the highly organized vertebrates of the

Lower Silurian is one of the greatest in the whole geological record. The

vast gulf between these structures must, I think, remain unbridged except

by the imagination."

The late Prof. Joseph LeConte, of the University of California, writes

in his book, "Religion and Science:" "The evidence of geology to-day is

that species seem to come in suddenly and in full perfection, remain

substantially unchanged during the term of their existence, and pass

away in full perfection. Other species take their places apparently by

substitution, not by transmutation."

Dr. Robert Watts uses these emphatic words: "The record of the rocks

know nothing of the evolution of a higher form from a lower form.

Neither the paleozoic age nor the living organisms of our world reveal

an authentic instance of such evolution. Both nature and revelation

proclaim it as an inviolable law that like produces like."

And Hugh Miller went one step further when he testified: "I would ask

such of the gentlemen whom I now address as have studied the subject

most thoroughly, whether, at those grand lines of division between the

Palaeozoic and Secondary, and again between the Secondary and Tertiary

periods, at which the entire type of organic being alters, so that all

on the one side of the gap belongs to one fashion, and all on the other

to another and wholly different fashion,--whether they have not been as

thoroughly impressed with the conviction that there existed a Creative

Agent, to whom the sudden change was owing, as if they themselves had

witnessed the miracle of creation?" (Presidential address before the

Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh, 1852.)

But we have not yet done with this part of our investigation. The

argument from geology is based on the assumption that the chronological

order of the earth's layers _has been determined_ at least with great

approximation to certainty, so that we may say with some assurance that

this layer of limestone or sandstone is of earlier, that, of later

origin. As a matter of fact, the textbooks do treat the various "ages"

of geology as if they corresponded to certain strata of the earth's

crust. _But by what method is the age of the various layers determined?_

James D. Dana in his "Manual of Geology" (Fourth edition, p. 398 f.)

says that there are four methods by which we may decide the relation of

one layer to another. The first is, naturally, the order in which the

layers rest upon one another; the lower strata, are, of course, older

than the upper. However, he points out in four "precautions" the

inability of the investigator to depend on this method, since "for the

comparing of rocks of disconnected regions, this criterion must fail."

Also the color and mineral composition can be used only "with distrust"

and must be "usually disregarded." Then the _Manual_ proceeds: "4

_Fossils_.--The criterion for determining the chronological order of

strata dependent on kinds of fossils takes direct hold upon time, and

therefore, _is the best;_ and, moreover, it serves for the correlation

of rocks all over the world." Now observe how, in the following, the

geologist leans upon the evolutionist: _"The life of the globe has

changed with the progress of time. Each epoch has had its peculiar

species, or peculiar groups of species._ Moreover, the succession of

life has followed a grand law of progress, involving under a single

system a closer and closer approximation in the species, as time moved

on, to those which now exist. It follows, therefore, that _identity of

species of fossils proves approximate identity of age."_ Let us bear

this in mind. Dana _takes for granted_ the evolutionary process. The

simpler forms of animal life indicate the older strata, the complex

forms, the more recent. We do not misunderstand Mr. Dana. Such

expressions as the following abound: "Where direct paleontological

observation has ascertained in particular cases the steps of progress in

the development of organs, as, for example, those of the teeth in

Mammals, the facts become a basis for further use in the same

direction." (p. 402.) "The grander divisions of geological time should

be based, in a comprehensive way, on organic progress" (from simple to

more complex structures) (p. 404.) "When the relations of the beds to

those recognized in other regions have been ascertained through

fossils..." (p. 405.)

The principle announced by Dana is accepted by geologists generally.

Angelo Heilprin in _"The Earth and its Story,"_ p. 153 ff. has the

following: "There has been a steady and progressive advance in the

general type of organization from the oldest to the newest periods; more

highly developed or more complicated forms have successively replaced

forms of simpler construction; and this advance is still continuing

to-day. Once more, the correctness of the evolutionary hypothesis is

taken for granted. In the oldest rocks, for example, no trace of

backboned animals has yet been detected; when such do appear for the

first time, they show themselves in their lowest types, the fishes;

these are succeeded later by the amphibians (frogs, newts, salamanders),

and these again by reptiles. And if we take the fishes by themselves, we

find that they, too, begin with their lower, if not absolutely the

lowest types, and progressively develop their higher ones. This history

is repeated in the cases of the reptiles and quadrupeds--in fact, with

every class of animals that is known to us. _Naturalists_ (evolutionists)

are to-day well agreed among themselves that all animal and vegetable

forms are derivatives from forms that preceded them..... Hence it is,

that, in following the geological record, we speak of progressive

evolution, the evolving of higher or more complicated types of organisms

from those simpler and more general in structure." Now read carefully

the following: _"This fact_ has permitted geologists to mark off

distinct eras or periods in the life-history of the planet, each of them

determined by certain characteristic animal or vegetable forms, which

either do not appear before or after such period, or else are by numbers

so distinctive of it as to typify it clearly." Evidently, the

Philadelphia professor, too, _assumes_ "progressive evolution" _as an

ascertained fact_ and in accordance therewith classifies the layers of

the earth's surface. "Almost every species of fossil has a definite

position in the geological scale, and would by itself serve to locate a

formation; but oftentimes the determination of species, owing to

insufficiency of knowledge of the obliteration of characters, is a most

difficult task, and then recourse is had to the aspect of the entire

group 'of fossils which a given rockmass contains. This generally _gives

the age_ or position without difficulty." Edward Clodd, in _"The Story

of Creation, a Plain Account of Evolution,"_ says, page 18. "The

relative _age and place of each stratum .... are fixed by the fossils."_

Now, is not this a most extraordinary situation? The evolutionist says:

The science of paleontology furnishes the basic argument for our

hypothesis,--the older the strata of the earths surface, the simpler the

fossils found therein. This sounds impressive. But we ask him: How do

you know the age of the strata,--and the answer is, that, of course, is

the business of the geologist to determine. We now turn to the geologist

and ask: How do you determine the age of the strata? And the geologist

answers: Why, evolutionary science has proven that the simplest animals

and plants appeared first; hence, where I find simple fossils, I know

that I have a more ancient bed of lime-stone or sand-stone than the

strata which contain more complex forms,--which appeared later. Note

well, the geologists which we have quoted assert that this is the best

and final proof for the position of a stratum in the scale of geological

history. The geologist depends on the fossils. But he believes these to

belong to an earlier or more recent age because he accepts _the

evolutionist's_ word for it. And the evolutionist says: the _geologist_

says these rocks are oldest; but in them I find the simplest forms;

hence the evolutionary theory is proven.

We repeat it,--is not this a very, very extraordinary situation? Have we

not here a perfect case of what logicians call "reasoning in a circle,"

or "begging the question?" How can the evolutionist quote the geologist

when the geologist asserts that he classifies his layers of rock

according to the fossils,--and that he accepts what the evolutionists

asserts [tr. note: sic] regarding these?

What, in view of this situation, becomes of the evolutionist's argument

from fossils? And what becomes of the "ages" of speculative geology?

CHAPTER FOUR.

The Fixity of Species.

A writer in the _"Lutheran Companion"_ recently said that his seven year

old boy brought home a text book some months ago, called _"Home

Geography for Primary Grades."_ On page 143 is found this statement

about birds: "Ever so long ago, their grandfathers were not birds at

all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings nor feathers.

These grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long tail and jaws with

teeth. After a time feathers grew upon their bodies and their front legs

become changed for flying. These were strange looking creatures. There

are none living like them now."

One is tempted to disgress, [tr. note: sic] for a moment, from the

subject at hand in order to draw, from this incident, an argument for

the Christian Day School; but we shall desist. The quotation is here

adduced to illustrate the vogue which evolution, specifically Darwinism,

still maintains in the literature, even in the school-texts of our day.

Babes and sucklings are introduced to the theory of evolutionary

development, and the theory is presented with an assurance as if it were

scientific truth. The words of Agassiz, prince of naturalists, apply

to-day. "The manner in which the evolution theory in zoology is treated

would lead those who are not special zoologists to suppose that

observations have been made by which it can be inferred that there is

in nature such a thing as change among organized beings actually taking

place." He adds: "There is no such thing on record. It is shifting the

ground from one field of observation to another to make this statement,

and when the assertions go so far as to exclude from the domain of

science those who will not be dragged into this mire of mere assertion,

then it is time to protest."

Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, more recently said:

"If the theory of evolution be true, during the many thousands of years

covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there would

certainly be known at least a few instances, or at least one instance,

of the evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known.

Abstract arguments sound learned and appear imposing, so that many are

deceived by them. But in this matter we remove the question from the

abstract to the concrete. We are told that facts warrant the

evolutionary theory. But do they? Where is one single fact?"

The hypothesis assumes that through environment, certain varieties of

species (both of plants and animals) arose, and that the varieties best

fitted, through their habits, structure, or color, to maintain

themselves in the struggle for existence, survived the species less

favorably endowed, and hence persisted. (We have quoted in our initial

chapter the classical illustration of the dipper-birds from Wallace's

_"Darwinism."_)

Now, as a matter of fact, we cannot prove that a single species has

changed. These are the words of Darwin himself, quoted from _"Life and

Letters,"_ Vol. III, p. 25: "There are two or three million of species

on earth, sufficient field, one might think, for observation. But it

must be said to-day that in spite of all the efforts of trained

observers, not one change of a species into another is on record." Dr.

N. S. Shaler, Professor of Geology in Harvard, asserts that "it has not

been proved that a single species has been established solely or even

mainly by the operation of Natural Selection." Professor Fleischmann, of

Erlangen, has gone so far as to say that "the Darwinian theory of

descent has, in the realms of nature, not a single fact to confirm it."

Dr. Ethridge of the British Museum says: "In all this great museum there

is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species. Nine-tenths

of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on

observation and wholly unsupported by facts." Prof. Owen declares that

"no instance of change of one species into another has ever been

recorded by man." Dr. Martin, Sanitaetsrat, of Germany, who has

conducted some highly technical experiments in the blood reactions of

various animals and man, on which he bases his conclusions, says: "Since

Darwin we have been accustomed to consider the concept 'species' as

something insecure and unstable. The whole organic world must be thought

of as fluid if the evolution theory is to find room for action. It

required, indeed, all the great investigator's keenness to fence his

theory against the difficulty which the lack of transitional forms

occasioned, and against the fact that the rise of a new species has

never been observed, much more against the fact that all processes in

artificial breeding have not sufficed to fix permanently the changes

which have been attained. We admire the clever structure of the theory,

but there is no doubt that the obstinacy with which the organism clings

to its species-characteristics is the point on which it is mortal. One

is, [tr. note: sic] in fact, as much justified in speaking of a struggle

to retain these characteristics as to speak of a struggle for existence."

Man has been able greatly to modify many vegetable productions. Witness

the comparatively recent changes in the potato plant. The small, almost

worthless tubers of the wild potato have changed, under the force of

intelligent cultivation, to the large, starchy, nutritious vegetables,

which furnish so many people a large portion of their food. Mind has

been at work; mind and nature have changed the size, the quality, the

productiveness of the _solatium tubcrosum;_ but neither mind nor nature,

nor both combined, have, so far as we know, ever in the slightest degree

changed the species. Potatoes are potatoes still, and always will be.

The present law of vegetation is that intelligent cultivation of almost

any plant will either change the original in one way or another, or,

what is more likely, will produce several distinct varieties; but that

all these changed forms are but mere modifications of the original

species, and that, when deprived of intelligent cultivation, they all

tend to revert to the original form. It is true that we see many and

very diverse varieties of certain species, especially those that have

received the most attention from the hands of man. The dog, for

instance, exists as the great, shaggy Newfoundland or St. Bernard, or as

the tight girted greyhound, as the petted poodle or the despised "yellow

dog;" but in every case he is a dog, and not a wolf, and his fellow dogs

recognize him as such, too. Hens differ amazingly; new breeds

periodically come into existence and into fashion; but turn them loose,

and they will all seek the barnyard, and soon your fancy breeds will

become corrupt. They "revert to type." By the exercise of intelligent

selection and training, man is able to emphasize certain points and to

produce new breeds, but not to change the essential structure nor to

alter the specific characteristics. The species are _fixed_. Huxley says:

"If you breed from the male and female of the same race, you of course

have offspring of the like kind, and if you make the offspring breed

together, you obtain the same result, and if you breed from these again,

you will still have the same kind of offspring; there is no check. But

if you take members of two distinct species, however similar they may be

to each other, and make them breed together, _you will find a check_. If

you cross two such species with each other, then--although you may get

offspring in the case of the first cross, yet, if you attempt to breed

from the products of that crossing, which are what are called hybrids--

that is, if you couple a male and a female hybrid--then the result is

that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at

all; there will be no result whatsoever.

"The reason of this is quite obvious in some cases; the female hybrids,

although possessing all the external appearances and characteristics of

perfect animals, are physiologically imperfect and deficient in the

structural parts of the reproductive elements necessary to generation.

It is said to be invariably the case with the male mule, the cross

between the ass and the mare; and hence it is that although crossing

the horse with the ass is easy enough, and is constantly done as far as

I am aware, if you take two mules, a male and a female, and endeavor to

breed from them, you get no offspring whatever; no generation will take

place. This is what is called the sterility of the hybrids between two

distinct species." (Huxley, _"On the Origin of Species."_ p. 212.) He

continues:

"Thus you see that there is a great difference between 'mongrels,' which

are crosses between distinct races, and 'hybrids,' which are crosses

between distinct species. The mongrels are, so far as we know, fertile

with one another. But between species, in many cases, you cannot succeed

in obtaining even the first cross; at any rate it is quite certain

that the hybrids are often absolutely infertile one with another.

"Here is a feature, then, great or small as it may be, which

distinguishes natural species of animals. Can we find any approximation

to this in the different races known to be produced by selective

breeding from a common stock? Up to the present time the answer to that

question is absolutely a negative one. As far as we know at present,

there is nothing approximating to this check. In crossing the breeds,

between the fantail and the pouter, the carrier and the tumbler, or any

other variety or race you may name--so far as we know at present--there

is no difficulty in breeding together the mongrels." However, he

continues, as soon as you remove the conditions which produced the new

variety,--as when you permit pigeons to mate promiscuously,--no matter

how different the varieties may have been, you will have, in a few

generations of pigeons, the same blue rock pigeon with the black bars

across the wings. No new species has originated. All varieties, in a

free state, revert to type. "This," says Huxley, "is certainly a very

remarkable circumstance."

Fairhurst points out the difficulties in which the evolutionist becomes

involved through the fixity of species. He writes: "It is well known

that as a rule distinct species will not cross, and that if they do

cross the offspring are not fertile. On the other hand, it is true that

all _varieties_ of a species readily cross, producing fertile offspring.

This has commonly been regarded as a well-defined distinction between

varieties and species. If the varieties of pigeons which are so

different from each other did not freely cross, and if the mongrel

offspring were not fertile, Darwin's argument as to the production of

new _species_ under domestication would be complete. The fact is, we do

not know of the origin of any two species of animals that do not cross

and whose offspring are not fertile; in other words, we do not know of

the origin of _species,_ but only of _varieties_. The origin of species

that will not cross and produce fertile offspring is _assumed_ from the

origin of varieties that do cross and produce fertile offspring. This

leaves the evolutionists to account for one of the most difficult things

in connection with this theory, namely, how did varieties of animals of

the same species become cross-sterile?* [[*So that they were unable to

interbreed. Only if such cross-sterility exists, could they exist

thereafter as independent new species.--G.]] Several things must occur

simultaneously before cross-sterility between parent and offspring

could occur and become effective, namely, a number of individuals must

be born at the same time possessing the same variation, the variation

must be useful, these individuals must be fertile with each other, they

must be cross-sterile with the parent form," as, otherwise, the

offspring would revert to type, "and, finally, the few, if any,

individuals thus produced and being widely scattered through the

species, must find each other before they could propagate. I regard it

impossible that these things could all occur simultaneously." (_"Organic

Evolution,"_ p. 333.)

Mr. Huxley is forced to this admission: "After much consideration, and

with assuredly no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear

conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven

that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species

in nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or

natural." And again. "Our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be

provisional so long as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting; and

so long as all the animals and plants certainly produced by selective

breeding from a common stock are fertile with one another, that link

will be wanting."

In a recent book, _"Creation or Evolution? A Philosophical Inquiry,"_

George Ticknor Curtis says: "The whole doctrine of the development of

distinct species out of other species makes demands upon our credulity

which the [tr. note: sic] irreconcilable with the principles of belief

by which we regulate, or ought to regulate, our acceptance of new

matter of belief."

CHAPTER FIVE.

Rudimentary Organs.

Darwinism does not account for the fact that the various organs of

animals while in process of evolution, must have through many

generations, been in a rudimentary, incomplete state. Since it is a

basic doctrine of evolution that useful variations were transmitted from

parent to offspring _because they were useful_; and since furthermore,

only the fully developed eye, the hearing ear, the actively functioning

poison glands of insects and reptiles, etc., as well as the fully

developed means of defense, were useful, it is not possible to

understand how these organs in their rudimentary state (the half

developed eye, not yet capable of vision; the rudimentary spinneret of

the spider, not yet capable of producing a thread, etc.) could serve

any purpose which would make their transmission advantageous to the

species.

Conversely, the existence of rudimentary organs in living species (the

rudimentary spurs of female birds, the rudimentary legs of skeleton of

serpents) proves that organs do not change by use or disuse, otherwise

they would long ago have disappeared.

With regard to this difficulty, Darwin says: "If it could be

demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly

have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my

theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case." Let

us see.

A difficult organ to account for is the electric organ of the skates. In

these fishes it has been shown to be a true electric battery, but the

discharges from this battery, even in the adults, are so feeble that

they are of no practical use so far as has been ascertained. It is well

known that the electric eel and the torpedo use their batteries for

stunning other animals. It is evident that, according to the theory of

natural selection, these batteries could not have been preserved through

their long functionless and useless stages, for that theory assumes that

they were preserved because they were useful.

It is asserted by evolutionists that wings as organs of flight have been

independently evolved in at least four different lines--namely, in

insects, the fossil pterodactyls, birds and bats. That an organ so

highly specialized as any one of these wings could be evolved seems

improbable; while the evolution of the four different kinds,

independently of each other, only increases the improbability. The

difficulty, however, is to account for the evolution of any known kind

of wing. In each case there exists the insuperable difficulty of

preserving the organ through the rudimentary stages. The wings of an

insect in the first generation of its evolution would be almost

imperceptible and entirely useless for any purpose whatever, and so it

would continue to be for a great number of generations. It is evident,

therefore, that they could not have been preserved through their long

rudimentary stage on the ground that they were useful, nor do we know of

any theory that will account for their evolution. To say that they were

evolved is easy, but to account for their evolution seems impossible.

Fairhurst refers to the delicate and complex organs of spiders. "The

organs which spiders possess for secreting material and for making a web

could not have been gradually evolved. The whole apparatus involved in

making the web would be useless until sufficiently developed to make a

web. The same is true," he continues, "of the sting of the scorpion, the

stings of bees, the mandibles of spiders with the gland of poisonous

fluid at the base, and the poison apparatus of serpents. All of these

glands for secreting poison would be useless until they could secrete a

harmful fluid. The spurs of birds present further difficulties to the

theory of evolution. Most birds have no spurs. When they possess them,

as a rule the males alone have them well-developed, while they are

rudimentary in the females. In some cases, however, both sexes possess

them in a well-developed form. But how could a spur be evolved in either

sex? As a rudiment, it would for many generations be entirely useless

for any purpose, and consequently it would not be preserved by natural

selection, nor in any other possible way, so far as I can see. The spurs

are in the best possible position on the legs for combat. Why did they

appear in the best place and nowhere else? As useless rudiments they

would be quite as likely to survive in one place as in another. If spurs

could not have been preserved by natural selection through their

rudimentary stage, why assume that they have been evolved according to

this law? If they could survive through the critical rudimentary period

till they became of use, why not assume that their evolution was

continued according to the same law? The fact is, however, that we know

of no law according to which they could have been evolved." The bat is

another highly specialized animal. In many respects it resembles the

mole, but its hands are, enormously expanded, and the exceedingly long

fingers are connected by a soft membrane, making a most serviceable wing.

It is not extremely likely, assuming the development theory to be true,

that both the mole and the bat sprang from a common ancestor? And was

not that ancestor probably a wingless, though not a legless mammal? Now,

how came the bat to acquire his wings? Did he attempt to spring into the

air and seize a passing insect, and reach out his paws to catch it? And

did those paws gradually become enlarged, till, after some generations,

they were real wings? But what happened in the meantime to those

connecting links whose wings were but partly developed? A bat with wings

only half grown would be a helpless creature, and would surely perish. A

mole with hands terminating in long, slender fingers, would be helpless,

and would perish. There is no middle ground. If the ancestor of the bat

was a terrestrial creature, with limbs fitted for walking, then it must

have given birth to a full-fledged bat, fitted for flying. There could

have been no middle stage, for such a creature would have been helpless,

and must have perished.

All this applies with equal force to the diversified and often highly

complex structure of plants. As the organs of the various plants are now

constituted, they most admirably serve their purpose. Given a slight

change, an underdevelopment, and the individual would perish. But such

underdeveloped stages must have occurred in the history of every

life-form on earth, if a change through slow adaptations is to be

accepted as a hypothesis to account for their present form. To our mind,

this matter of rudimentary structures presents an insuperable obstacle

to acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis even on scientific grounds.

CHAPTER SIX.

Instinct.

How the various instincts of animals, the homing instinct of birds and

insects, the building instincts, the migrating instinct, etc., could

have been developed though forces working by natural selection or any

other law, is a question which has called forth much discussion. It

cannot be said that the explanations contained in the pages of Darwin,

Romanes, and Spencer are satisfying. The difficulty that remains

unsolved is similar to that (already considered) of rudimentary

structures. On instinct depends the existence of most animals.

According to the theory these instincts have been developed by slow

degrees. Hence there must have been a time when these instincts,

because not yet completely developed, were useless to the animal. But

if useless, the animal must have perished. The strength of this

objection to the evolutionary hypothesis will become clear from a brief

study of the manner in which animal life is bound up with the proper

functioning of instinct.

Consider, for instance, the dependence of the honey bee and her hive on

the functions, every one instinctive, of queen, workers, and drones.

There is the queen, whose sole work is to lay eggs; the drones, or

males, whose function it is to fertilize the queen; and the workers,

which are females undeveloped sexually. In these three kinds of

individuals we see a combination of many most remarkable instincts and

peculiarities of structure which look to the good of the community. How

could they have been produced by evolution? The workers are sterile and

leave no offspring, consequently their instincts cannot be inherited

from bees of their own class. Each generation of workers is isolated

from all succeeding generations. A colony of bees is not like a

community of civilized human beings in whom many of the wants are

artificial, and which may remain unsupplied, with simply a certain

amount of discomfort, but the wants which the instincts of bees supply

are imperative, and, therefore, the instincts themselves, as a whole,

are necessary to the existence of the bees. Their instincts are all

linked together as a necessary chain, so that if one should fail the

community would perish. Each kind of work is perfectly done, and yet the

workers are totally unconscious as to what will be the result of their

labors. For the most part they work for future generations of their

colony, and not for themselves, and yet they are as careful and diligent

as if they were guided by the highest intelligence and the most selfish

motives [tr. note: sic no punctuation]. Fairhurst, whom we are quoting,

adds: "There is nothing more wonderful and mysterious in nature than the

instincts of bees. What can be more remarkable than that instinct of the

workers which causes them to prevent the queen from stinging to death

the young queens in their cells? Here we see the instinct of the workers

opposing that of the queen, and thus saving the colony and insuring the

propagation of the species. And yet at other but proper times the

workers permit the old queen to kill the young ones in their cells. How

could these instincts in the workers, which act in exactly opposite ways

by just the right times for the welfare of the community, have ever been

evolved? Or how could that instinct have arisen which causes two queens

when engaged in combat to refrain from inflicting the mortal sting if

they would mutually destroy each other, and thus leave the hive without

a queen?--acting as if they knew that the life of one of them was

necessary for the welfare of the community."

Concerning the modifications of structure and the instincts necessary to

produce the web of the spider, Fairhurst quotes the following from

Orton's _"Zoology."_ "Spiders are provided at the posterior end with two

or three pairs of appendages called spinnerets, which are homologous

(correspond structually) [tr. note: sic] with legs. The office of the

spinnerets is to reel out the silk from the silk-glands, the tip being

perforated by a myriad of little tubes through which the silk escapes in

excessively fine threads. An ordinary thread, just visible to the naked

eye, is the union of a thousand or more of these delicate streams of

silk. These primary threads are drawn out and united by the hind legs."

From this we see that two special glands, capable of secreting a soft

material that can be readily drawn into the finest threads of the

greatest strength, requiring no perceptible time for drying, and two to

four spinnerets perforated by more than a thousand of the smallest

apertures, and hind legs modified so that they can be used to draw out

the web through the spinnerets, and also the instincts which enable the

spider to use its web to advantage, must all have been evolved. To

evolve the silk glands would have required, as for most other organs, a

long period of incipiency, during which they would have been useless.

We can not assume that a substance so exceptional in its character as

the web of the spider could have been suddenly produced by evolution.

But the glands would be useless without spinnerets. The hypothesis asks

us to assume that two or three pairs of legs that were probably at one

time useful for locomotion became so modified that they could perform

the function of spinnerets. But in what conceivable way could

locomotive legs have become so modified and pierced with more than a

thousand apertures through which the web is drawn? And how could these

organs serve their purpose while the complex instincts required for

their functioning were only in course of development?

From a German monthly devoted to aquaria, we quote the following: "But

now, dear readers, we come to a fish which shows an exceptionally

peculiar and touching care for its young--the mouth-brooder,

_Haplochromis Strigigena_ (formerly _Paratilapia Multicolor_). This

fish is so much concerned about the safety of its young, that it knows

no better and no more secure place than its own mouth in which to

preserve them. In no other division of the animal kingdom can we find

such an interesting example of fostering care for the young as we find

in this species of fish. Immediately after emitting the spawn the female

again gathers up the eggs and packs them away in her mouth like herring

in a barrel. She naturally must employ the organs of the throat and also

the organs between the gills and thus the appearance of the animal is

greatly changed even to the extent that it looks very much like as if

she had a craw. Furthermore, during ths [tr. note: sic] entire period,

which is about fourteen days, the little animal cannot take food and is

hampered very much in her movements. Therefore in case of imminent

danger it becomes necessary for her to cast out the entire brood which

then wretchedly perish, and for this reason it is to be recommended to

disturb or disquiet these animals during this period as little as

possible. Even after the young leave the mother of their own accord,

they always flee to her protecting mouth, and thus they present an

exciting aspect, when they are first seen peacefully and contentedly

playing about the mother fish, until a shadow or a sudden thrust warns

them of danger and quick as lightning they dart into her mouth.

"If the fostering care of this mouth-brooding fish is regarded as

wonderful and singular, what should one then say, if another fish is

spoken of which does not regard this kind of protection as sufficient,

and which therefore causes its eggs to hatch outside the surface of the

water. The exceedingly adorned and elegant _Phyrrhylima Filamentosa_

performs this masterpiece of truest love. With great dexerity [tr. note:

sic] this fish darts from 5 to 7 cm. above the surface of the water and

there fastens its eggs on the walls of the aquarium--usually in one

corner. Even though one must and can preserve damp air by covering the

aquarium, the spawn would nevertheless surely dry up, if the fish itself

were not constantly concerned to keep the spawn damp by an extended

bombardment of little drops of water. In the performance of this act the

fish remains near the surface of the water and then by a quick upward

movement of the fins of the tail it throws a drop of water upon the

spawn in such an expert manner as is truly admirable. One must also

keep in mind here that the spawn require from three to five days for

hatching, and now one can understand what a huge task this little fish

performs and what efforts are required. Later on the young hatch and

then slide down the slick wall of the aquarium into their native

element." (V. Schloemp in _"Blaetter fuer Aquarien und Terrarienkunde,"_

Stuttgart, Sept. 1913.)

In all the domain of natural science there are no wonders more amazing

than those of instinct. The subject is simply inexhaustible. Moreover,

every animal is absolutely dependent on instinctively performed actions

and habits. The life-story of many wasps, of the various ants,--someone

has called the brain of the ant the most wonderful speck of protoplasm

in the world,--and of the insects generally, is bound up with instincts

that partly interlock marvellously with the life-story of plants, and

which are, even viewed in themselves, the greatest wonders of creation.

The questions insistently call for an answer: How could these instincts

preserve the animal when they were still in an incipient, undeveloped

state? How could they arise through natural selection (which is simply

_accident,_ of course), at all? Darwin says that there are instincts

"almost identically the same in animals so remote in the scale of

Nature, that we cannot account for their similarity by inheritance from

a common progenitor, and consequently must believe that they were

independently acquired through natural selection." Again he says "Many

instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear

to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overcome my whole theory."

And here, in the vernacular of the day, we would depose that Mr. Darwin

_"said something."_

CHAPTER SEVEN.

Heredity.

The subject of heredity is intimately bound up with the evolutionary

hypothesis and, it must be admitted, creates a new difficulty for the

acceptance of the theory. Indeed, the laws of heredity, so far as

understood, appear to contradict the theory of Lamarck and Darwin at a

vital point, if not at _the_ vital point of the entire structure raised

in the _"Origin of Species."_ It is necessary in order to appreciate the

strength of this objection, to recall once more the outstanding features

of the hypothesis by which scientists have attempted to account for the

variety of living forms. The various theories of organic evolution,

whether Lamarckian, neo-Lamarckian, or Darwinian, are based upon the

assumption that animals and plants have a tendency to perpetuate by

transmission to offspring a variation which has proven useful as an aid

to the particular species in its struggle for existence. We have just

discussed, in the chapters on the Fixity of Species and on Rudimentary

Organs, certain difficulties which loom up when the question is raised,

How did varieties become distinct species? However, even if it were to

be assumed that some satisfying answer might be found to this question

so far as the stages of incomplete organs are concerned, there is one

fact in heredity which, it would seem to me, strikes at the very heart

of the theory.

In his _"Philosophic Zoologique"_ (1809), Lamarck first explicitly

formulated his ideas as to the transmutation of species, though he had

outlined them as early as 1801. The changes in the species have been

wrought, he said, through the unceasing efforts of each organism to meet

the needs imposed upon it by its environment. Constant striving means

the constant use of certain organs, and such use leads to the

development of those organs. Thus a bird running by the sea-shore is

constantly tempted to wade deeper and deeper in pursuit of food; its

incessant efforts tend to develop its legs, in accordance with the

observed principle that the use of any organ tends to strengthen and

develop it. But such slightly increased development of the legs is

_transmitted to the offspring_ of the bird, which in turn develops its

already improved legs by its individual efforts, and transmits the

improved tendency. Generation after generation this is repeated, until

the sum of the infinitesimal variations, all in the same direction,

results in the production of the long-legged wading-bird. In a similar

way, through individual effort and _transmitted tendency,_ all the

diversified organs of all creatures have been developed--the fin of the

fish, the wings of the bird, the hand of man; nay, more, the fish

itself, the bird, the man, even.

Note well, the fundamental assumption is that such acquired

characteristics,--greater length of leg, or of neck, a coating of hair,

a protective coloring, etc.,--however acquired, can be transmitted

from the parent animal possessing them, to its offspring. The question

arises: Can such characteristics be transmitted? And the students of

heredity answer: They _cannot!_

I find in G. Archibald Reid _"Alcoholism, a Study in Heredity,"_ a

lucid exposition of this subject. (Reid is a F. R. S. E. His book was

published by T. Fisher Unwin, London, a few yars [tr. note: sic] ago.)

"All the characters of a living being, every physical structure and

every mental trait, may be placed in one of two categories. Either

they are inborn or they are acquired. An inborn or innate character is

one which, in common parlance, arises in the individual 'by nature.'

Thus arms, legs, eyes, ears, head, etc., and all inborn characters.

The child inherits them from his parent. But, if during its

development, or after the completion of the development any one of the

inborn characters of an individual is modified by some occurrence, the

change thus produced is known as an acquired character, or, shortly,

as an acquirement.

"Thus all the effects of exercise are acquirements; for example the

enlargement which exercise causes in muscles. The effects of lack of

exercise are also acquirements; for example, the wasting of a disused

muscle.

"The effects of injury are acquirements; for example, the changes in a

diseased lung or injured arm. Every modification of the mind is also an

acquirement; for example, everything stored within the memory.

"If a man be blinded by accident or disease, his blindness is acquired.

But if he comes into the world blind, if he be blind by nature, his

blindness is inborn. If a son be naturally smaller than his father, then

his inferiority of size is inborn; but if his growth be stunted by ill

health or lack of nourishment or exercise, his inferiority is acquired.

"Lamarck held, as people in all ages have held, that characters acquired

by parents are also transmissible to some extent, and that evolution

results from their accentuation during succeeding generations. _Lamarck's

theory is rejected totally by the modern followers of Darwin_.

"Ten thousand men might break their fingers, yet among their offspring

not one might have a crooked finger. Consider on the other hand for how

many generations women have bored their ears and noses in India. Yet

when is a girl born with ears and nose already pierced? For how many

generations have we amputated the tails of terriers, and yet their

tails are no shorter. It will then be perceived how overwhelming is the

case against the doctrine of the transmission of acquirements.

"The general question of the transmission of acquirements is too big

and too abstruse to be treated adequately here. Two arguments more I

may use, however, partly because they have not been developed, to my

knowledge, by other writers, and partly because they seem to me

well-nigh decisive. The more than normal development of the

blacksmith's arm is rightfully called an acquired trait, since it

arises from exercise, from use, not from germinal conditions. But no

infant's arm develops into an ordinary adult arm without exercise

similar in kind to that which develops the blacksmith's arm, though

less in degree.

"Every single thing contained within the memory of man, every single

word of a language, for instance, is an acquirement. But when are the

contents of a parent's mind transmitted to the child?

"Again, a man is capable of becoming a parent at any time between

extreme youth and extreme old age; a woman from the age of thirteen to

fourteen till nearly fifty. Between the birth of the first child and the

last such an individual changes vastly. Under stress and fear of

circumstances, under the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, all

sorts of acquirements are made. The body becomes vigorous and then

feeble, the mind grows mature, and then senile. He or she grows

wrinkled and bowed and perhaps very wise, or perhaps much the reverse.

Yet no one viewing a baby show, a children's party, or an assembly of

adults, of whom he has no previous knowledge, can say which is the

child of the youthful and which of aged parents.

"Apparently, therefore, the whole of the parent's acquirements have no

effect on the child. _Surely no evidence could be stronger."_* [[* The

undoubted transmission of siphilis [tr. note: sic] to off-spring might

be regarded as a case of transmission of an acquired characteristic. But

the case is not in point since congenital siphilis [tr. note: sic] is,

properly, due to a prenatal infection, the bacillus entering the very

germ-plasm of the human ovum (egg). Medical science, generally, has

become very cautious in the use of the word "hereditary." There is

almost unanimity among medical men in the denial of heredity as a factor

in tuberculosis and cancer. Most physicians are honest enough to say

that they know considerably less about these things than was "known" ten

and twenty years ago.]]

Herbert Spencer claims that "the inheritance of acquired characters" is

a necessary supplement to natural selection. "Close contemplation of

the facts impresses me more strongly than ever with the two

alternatives--either there has been inheritance of acquired characters,

or there has been no evolution." Again, "the inheritance of acquired

characters, which it is now the fashion of the biological world to deny,

was by Mr. Darwin fully recognized and often insisted on." "The

neo-Darwinists, however, do not admit this cause at all." He admits that

known facts which show that acquired characters are inherited are few,

but he thinks that they are "as large a number as can be expected,

considering the difficulty of observing them and the absence of search."

From the above, we see that the biological world is against Mr.

Spencer's view; that he would abandon the theory of evolution unless

acquired characters had been inherited, but that facts in support of

this theory are meager. "Biologists in the above instance, as well as in

others, differ in theory as to fundamental principles of evolution. He

who imagines that the theory of organic evolution has been proved to the

point of demonstration, has but to read the contentions of evolutionists

themselves with regard to the most important things involved in the

theory, in order to satisfy his mind that there is great diversity of

opinion." (Fairhurst.)

The general abandonment of the Darwinian hypothesis by biologists,

adverted to in our next chapter, is mainly due to the failure of

heredity to account for the gradual modification of organs and of

habits.

Various expedients are resorted to by Haeckel and a few others in their

attempts to bolster up a theory which has broken so signally on the

rock of heredity. Principal among these is the reference to unlimited

time. It is asserted that, after all, such minute differences might, in

the course of many ages, result in new and more perfect organs. However,

here a new and unexpected difficulty presents itself. The physicist, who

has measured the heat of the sun, rises up and says that the age of the

earth, as estimated by specialists like Lord Kelvin, is not nearly so

great as is demanded by the Darwinian. The period which the physicists,

in their mercy, appear to be willing to grant the inhabitable globe is

from twenty to forty million years. But the evolutionists maintain with

great fervor that this period is far too short for the production of

such complicated types of organism as now live on the earth; they demand

from two hundred to a thousand million years! And so these two groups of

scientists, the evolutionistic biologist and the physicists are

hopelessly at odds.

A new generation of evolutionists has within the past twenty years

arisen which holds that the changes in the organizations of plants and

animals do not come by slow growth of favorable characteristics, but

arise suddenly. Such is the "Mutation" theory of Hugo de Vries. But

science has failed to receive this and similar theories with the same

acclaim which once greeted Darwin's _"Origin of Species."_ Naturalists

have become cautious. They remember the inglorious collapse of the

Darwinian regime and they are slow to hail another "Abraham of

scientific thought." They are, in a general way, believers in some kind

of evolution; but they prefer not to specify exactly the laws which

have been operative in past "geological time." It is only in high-school

texts in physical geography, zoology, and botany, that the evolutionary

theory as propounded by Darwin is still treated as if it enjoyed among

scientific men the same respect as the multiplication table. Speaking in

the Darwinian dialect we should say that the authors of these

school-texts constitute a case of "arrested development."

CHAPTER EIGHT.

A Scientific Creed Outworn.

The preceding chapter concludes our investigation of that stage of

evolutionistic thought which owes its origin and name to Charles Darwin.

The question suggests itself, do scientists to-day believe as Darwin did?

A great many do. Darwin remains to many scientists what Huxley, I think,

called him, the "Abraham of scientific thought." But if we examine the

roster of these, we find that they belong, with a single exception

(Haeckel), to those whose departments of investigation have nothing to do

with the study of life forms (biology, zoology, botany), and who

consequently do not speak from first hand knowledge of the facts.

Anthropologists (students of the races of man), sociologists,

psychologists, and many educated persons generally, accept the Darwinian

scheme of evolution as a fact and build their theories on it in turn.

They accept the theory and ask no question. The vogue which Darwinism

still enjoys among writers of school-texts has already been noted.

However, the specifically Darwinian phase of evolutionistic thought, as

laid down in Spencer's interminable volumes, for instance, is given up

by reputable biologists the world over. There is pretty much of a Babel

among them, when it comes to a definition of evolution. There are dozens

of theories,--mutation, orthogenesis, Weismanism, Mendelianism, etc.,--

and each has its adherents,--but they agree in one thing, that "Natural

Selection" does not account for the forms of life on earth to-day.

The revolt against "Natural Selection" came some forty years ago. It was

announced in two famous declarations by Spencer and Huxley. This

constitutes one of the most remarkable and important, as well as one of

the most significant episodes, in the history of evolution. In two of

the most remarkable essays which ever appeared in the _"Nineteenth

Century"_ magazine, now over thirty years ago, Herbert Spencer stepped

on to the stool of repentance and read his recantation and renunciation

of the doctrine of natural selection and the survival of the fittest;

first doing vicarious penance (unauthorized, however) for Darwin, and

then, in no uncertain terms, for himself. There was no mistaking

Spencer's meaning. His language was explicit. "The phrases (natural

selection and survival of the fittest) employed in discussing organic

evolution," he told his readers, "though convenient and needful, are

liable to mislead by veiling the actual agencies." "The words 'natural

selection,' do not express a cause in the physical sense." "Kindred

objections," he continues, "may be urged against the expression into

which I was led when seeking to present the phenomena in literal terms

rather than metaphorical terms--'the survival of the fittest.' In the

working together of those many actions, internal and external, which

determine the lives and deaths of organisms, we see nothing to which the

words 'fitness' and 'unfitness' are applicable in the physical sense."

And he continues: "Evidently, the word 'fittest' as thus used _is a

figure of speech."_ Had the sun fallen from the heavens the shock to the

followers of Darwin could not have been more stunning than this open

apostasy from the Darwinian faith.

Nor was this all. New surprises were still in store for the faithful who

still clung to the cherished dogma. Now they find their faith itself

assailed, and this, too, by these very selfsame leaders, who had been at

such pains to make them proselytes. There can be little doubt that

misgivings regarding the truth of their claims began to haunt the

champions of the Darwinian hypothesis. They were just then masters of

the whole field of scientific thought. They had brought all science to

the feet of Darwin. The few benighted dissenters who still held out

against the doctrine were looked upon as not worthy even of contempt.

The whole world had adopted the creed of evolution. Was it wantonness

then, or was it conscience, that prompted Huxley in what is now a

historically famous speech, delivered at the unveiling of a statue to

Darwin in the Museum at South Kensington, to openly declare that it

would be wrong to suppose "that an authoritative sanction was given by

the ceremony to the current ideas concerning evolution?" Well might his

hearers be astonished! But they must have held their breath, when they

heard him add boldly and bluntly, in no uncertain tones, that "science

commits suicide when it adopts a creed." A creed, indeed! What had

science been doing in the field of evolution ever since Darwin has given

his doctrine to the world, but proclaiming its faith in the Darwinian

creed?

There was no blinking the inevitable conclusions. Both Huxley on the

platform and Spencer in the _"Nineteenth Century"_ had acknowledged

before the whole world that they had lost faith in the idol which for

thirty years they had so vociferously worshipped. It is true that both

Spencer and Huxley might have intended to warn biologists merely against

a too implicit faith in natural selection or the survival of the

fittest. But even so, the position of their followers was little to be

envied. Their leaders had confidently assured them that Darwin had given

to the world coveted knowledge never known until he had discovered it.

This had been loudly and confidently proclaimed from the housetops of

science; and now--strange reversal--those same leaders tell them that

their preachments were of a faith without foundation.

The words of Professor Osborn may be adduced: "Between the appearance of

_'The Origin of Species'_ in 1859 and the present time there have been

great waves of faith in one explanation and then in another; each of

these waves of confidence has ended in disappointment, until finally we

have reached a stage of very general scepticism. Thus the long period of

observation, experiment and reasoning which began with the French

philosopher Buffon, one hundred and fifty years ago, ends in 1916 with

the general feeling that our search for causes, far from being near

completion, has only just begun."

Sir William Dawson, of Montreal, the eminent geologist, said that the

evolution doctrine is "one of the strangest phenomena of humanity, a

system destitute of any shadow of proof," (_"Story of the Earth and

Man,"_ p. 317). Even Professor Tyndall in an article in the

_"Fortnightly Review"_ said: "There ought to be a clear distinction made

between science in the state of hypothesis and science in the state of

fact. And inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage the ban of

exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of Evolution. I agree with

Virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting, that the failures have

been lamentable, that the doctrine is utterly discredited."

One of the ablest evolutionists today is Professor Henslow, formerly

President of the British Association. In his book, _"Modern Rationalism

Critically Examined,"_ he shows that Darwinian natural selection is

absolutely inadequate to account for existing facts.

Professor Bateson, who gave the Presidential Address at the Meeting of

the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1914, bore

striking testimony to the modifications made by recent science in

connection with the Darwinian theory. This is what he said among other

things: "The principle of natural selection cannot have been the chief

factor in delimiting the species of animals and plants. We go to Darwin

for his incomparable collection of facts. We would fain emulate his

scholarship, his width and his power of exposition, but to us he speaks

no more with philosophical authority. We have done with the notion that

Darwin came latterly to favor, that large differences can arise by

accumulation of small differences."

St. George Mivart as long as thirty years ago wrote an exhaustive

treatise entitled, _"The Genesis of Species,"_ in which he subjects the

Darwinian hypothesis to a searching examination, and discards it as

unproven in every particular and contradicted by the facts of nature in

many points. He called it "a puerile (childish) hypothesis."

Professor H. H. Gran of Christiana University, an expert in biology,

says he believes in evolution, but declares Darwin's explanation of it

to be inadequate. His words are: "Darwin collected a great mass of stuff

both from the animal as well as from the vegetable kingdom, but these

collections were not thoroughly sifted and cannot be used as the basis

of theoretical conclusions as Darwin did."

Prof. Fleischman, of Erlangen, says: "There is not a single fact to

confirm Darwinism in the realm of Nature." Drs. E. Dennert, Hoppe and

von Hartmann; Profs. Paulson and Rutemeyer, and the talented scientists

Zoeckler and Max Wundt, have given Darwinism up. Men like our own H. F.

Osborn may still cling to the beloved theory and furnish imaginary

pictures of ape-men as proof, in recent books; but hear Prof. Ernest

Haeckel himself: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the

conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism,

is an error, and cannot be maintained." This was said some years before

the Great War. Other names (Friedmann, de Cyon) might be added.

The present attitude of naturalists toward the theory may be learned

from a symposium by a number of eminent writers in a recent number of

the "Biblical World" (February, 1913), on the theme, "Has Evolution

Collapsed?"

Prof. Moulton, of Chicago, says: "The essence of evolution is that the

order which exists one day changes into the order which will exist on

succeeding days, in a systematic manner, rather than in an irregular

and chaotic one." This states the theory, but adds a mere platitude,

for all believe that the universe is orderly and not chaotic. The real

question is, What is the nature and the cause of the prevailing order?

This question he does not attempt to answer.

Prof. Lillie, of Chicago, tells us that there are "differences in

opinion among recent investigators concerning the method of evolution,"

and says: "Opinion in reference to this matter is in a state of flux."

Prof. Mathews, of Chicago, says: "While the fact of evolution is

universally admitted, the means by which evolution is brought to pass

are uncertain."

Prof. Patten, of Darmouth, says: "As for biologists, they are now

farther from agreement as to what constitutes the processes and

conditions essential to organic evolution, * * * [tr. note: sic] than

they were a generation ago."

Prof. Mall, of Johns Hopkins, says: "It is true that gradual evolution,

as advocated by Darwin, is seriously questioned by those who believe

that it takes place by 'rapid jumps.'"

Prof. Williston, of Chicago, says: "The causes of organic evolution are

still an unsolved problem; and he will be a greater man than Darwin, who

finally demonstrates them."

Thus these recognized authorities, while accepting the theory, add many

limitations and admit that the "method," the "manner," the "process,"

the "conditions" and the "causes" of the movement are still unknown.

What, then, remains of the theory? Not much but the name.

CHAPTER NINE.

Man.

"There is no longer any doubt among scientists that man descended from

the animals." This sweeping statement was made in 1920 by Edwin Grant

Conklin professor of biology in Princeton University. And so

evolutionists generally, while giving up geology as hopeless in regard

to the evolution of plants and animals, cling to the doctrine that man

has ascended, through long ages of development, from the brute. We have

seen that Wallace and other profound students of the subject recognize

the essential difference between the faculties of man and the instincts

of animals. They admit that forces resident in matter do not account for

the origin of Thought. They believe that Spirit,--God,--created

something new when intelligence first entered the brain of man. But even

Wallace holds that the human body is a product of evolution; that there

was a common brute ancestor, both for apes and the men. The search for

the missing link between man and his animal ancestor is still going on.

As soon as any human remains are dug up in the earth, evolutionists

begin to measure the skull and bones, and to find how many points of

resemblance they have to the apes. If the brain-pan is a bit shallow, or

small, or the eyebrows prominent, or the slope of the face acute, or the

teeth and jaws large, they announce with much confidence that the

"missing link" has been found. But after a while they begin to grow more

modest and end in finding other points which show that the specimen was

an unmistakable ape, or an unmistakable man, and not something between

the two. One could fill a museum with discarded missing links; and yet

men refuse to learn caution, and repeat their shoutings every time a new

find is announced. It will be instructive to pass in review a few of the

more famous prehistoric remains of man which have at one time and

another been declared undeniable proof of a development, through

intermediate stages, of the human body from the body of a brute.

_Pithecanthropus Erectus_ is the name invented by Haeckel for the

"missing link," and given by Dr. Eugene Du Bois, a Dutch physician, to

certain remains discovered by him on the island of Java in 1891. The

remains consist of "an imperfect cranium, a femur bearing evidence of

prolonged disease, and a molar tooth." (Dana, _"Manual of Geology,"_ p.

1036.) The discoverer of these bones believed that they are the remains

of a being between the man-apes and man. Prof. Virchow and other

specialists in anatomy examined this find. It was established that the

femur was found a year after the cranium. Some regard the remains as

belonging to a low-grade man or to an idiot. (Dana, _I c_.) The cubic

measurement of the skull is 60 cubic inches, about that of an idiot,

that of a normal man being 90 cubic inches and that of an ape 30. These

specimens were found in separate places. The skull is too small for the

thigh-bone. The age of the strata in which they were found is uncertain.

An authority of the first rank, Prof. Klaatsch, of Heidelberg University,

says that the creature "does not supply the missing link."

Dr. Smith Woodward and Dr. Charles Dawson, in reconstructing a man from

the _Piltdown skull_, discovered in 1912 on Piltdown Common, near

Ucksfield, Sussex, England, built up something essentially monkey-like,

with receding forehead, projecting brows, and a gorilla-like lower jaw.

Prof. Keith, a renowned specialist, checking up on this reconstruction,

comes to an entirely different conclusion. He finds that the work of Drs.

Dawson and Woodward was done "in open defiance of all that scientists

know about skulls, whether ancient or modern." His words are: "I soon saw

that the parts of the reconstructed Piltdown skull had been apposed in a

manner which was in open defiance of all that was known of skulls,

ancient and modern, human and anthropoid. Articulating the bones in a

manner which has been accepted by all anatomists in all times, I found

that the brain-chamber, instead of measuring 1,070 cubic cm., as in Dr.

Smith Woodward's reconstruction, measured 1,500 cubic cm.,--a large brain

chamber for even modern man."

The _Neanderthal skull_ was found in 1856 in the neighborhood of

Duesseldorf by Dr. Fuhlrott, of Elberfeld. When the skull and other parts

of the skeleton were exhibited at a scientific meeting held at Bonn the

same year, a wide divergence of opinion at once developed among the

specialists. By some, doubts were expressed as to the human character of

the remains. Others held that the remains indicate a person of much the

same stature as a European of the present day, but with such an unusual

thickness in some of them as betokened a being of very extraordinary

strength. Dr. Meyer, of Bonn, regarded the skull as the remains of a

Cossack killed in 1814. Other scientists agreed with him. Modern science

accepts the antiquity of the Neanderthal man, but the controversy has

never ceased. The great Virchow declared the peculiarities of the bones

to be the result of disease.

Near Liege, in Belgium, not more than seventy miles from the Neanderthal,

the _Engis skull_ was found. After careful measurement it was proved not

to differ materially from the skulls of modern Europeans.

Such experiences should prevent us from making any assertions respecting

the primitive character, in race or physical conformation, of these

cave-dwellers. Indeed. Prof. Huxley, in a very careful and elaborate

paper upon the Neanderthal and Engis skulls, places an average skull of

a modern native of Australia about half-way between those of the

Neanderthal and Engis caves. Yes, he says that, after going through a

large collection of Australian skulls, he "found it possible to select

from these crania two (connected by all sorts of intermediate

gradations), the one of which should very nearly resemble the Engis

skull, while the other would somewhat less closely approximate to the

Neanderthal skull in size, form, and proportions." "The Engis skull,

perhaps the oldest known, is," according to Prof. Huxley, "a fair

average skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might have

contained the thoughtless brain of a savage." In this opinion Mr. Huxley

is supported by one of the greatest anthropologists of his time, Daniel

G. Brinton, who says concerning the cave-man of France and Belgium:

"Neither in stature, cranial capacity, nor in muscular development did

these earliest members of the species differ more from those now living

than do these among themselves. We have no grounds for assigning to

these earliest known men an inferior brain or a lower intelligence than

is seen among various savage tribes still in existence."

Every new find, upon investigation, proves the truth of Virchow's words:

"We must really acknowledge that there is a complete absence of any

fossil type of a lower stage in the development of man. Nay, if we gather

together all the fossil men hitherto found, and put them parallel with

those of the present time, we can decidedly pronounce that there are

among living men a much greater proportion of individuals which show a

relatively inferior type than there are among the fossils known up to

this time. . . . Every positive progress which we haw made in the region

of prehistoric anthropology has removed us farther from the demonstration

of this theory!"

Quite recently (in 1913) a remarkable fossil was found in the Oldoway

gulch in northern German East Africa, by an expedition of the Geological

Institute of the University of Berlin. The remains consist of a complete

skeleton, which was found deeply imbedded in firm soil. Unquestionably

ancient as these remains are,--the bones are completely fossilized,--they

contained lamentably few "primitive characteristics," and hence have not

been exploited in the interest of the evolutionary theory. A fragment of

skull, a tooth, a thigh-bone, offer much more inviting fields to the

evolutionists, since they permit his imagination to range without the

restraint of fact. The Oldoway fossil, which is in every essential

respect a normal human skeleton, possesses no special attractions for

those who would represent man as a descendant of brutish ancestors.

Says Prof. Virchow: "We seek in vain for the missing link; there exists

a definite barrier separating man from the animal which has not yet been

effaced--heredity, which transmits to children the faculties of the

parents. We have never seen a monkey bring a man into the world, nor a

man produce a monkey. All men having a Simian (monkey-like) appearance

are simply pathological variants, (abnormal varieties, due to some

diseased condition). It was generally believed a few years ago that

there existed a few human races which still remained in the primitive

inferior condition of their organization. But all these races have been

objects of minute investigation, and we know that they have an

organization like ours, often, indeed, superior to that of the supposed

higher races. Thus the Eskimo head and the head of the Terra del

Fuegians belong to the perfected types. All the researches undertaken

with the aim of finding continuity in progressive development have been

without result. There exists no proanthrope, no man-monkey, and the

'connecting link' remains a phantom."

Dr. Berndt, of Berlin, recently said in the _"Naturwissenschaftliche

Rundschau der Chemikerseitung"_ (April, 1914): "Max Weber, one of the

best authorities on mammals, regards the anthropoid apes of to-day as a

branch _parallel_ to the human branch. Scholars like Cope, Adloeff,

Klaatsch, prefer to push the origin of man back to the earliest age of

terrestrial life, whence he went his way _from the very outset_ separate

from the apes." This is a highly significant utterance. It means nothing

more than this: there is not one recognizable link which unites man with

the animal kingdom. All the intermediate forms between man and the

original jelly-fish, which according to Haeckel and Vogt was his

ancestor, have disappeared. For their existence we have nothing but the

word of speculative scientists.

Concerning the Neanderthaler, the Cro-Magnon man. etc., Dr. Dawson has

said: "Geological evidence resolves itself into a calculation of the

rate of erosion of river valleys, of deposition of gravel and

cave-earths, and of formation of stalagmite crusts, all of which are so

variable and uncertain that, though it may be said that an impression

of great antiquity beyond the time of received history has been left on

the minds of geologists, no absolute antiquity has been proved; and

while some, on such evidence, would stretch the antiquity of man to

even half a million years, the oldest of these remains may, after all,

not exceed our traditional six thousand. These skeletons tell us that

primitive man had the same high cerebral organization which he

possesses now, and we may infer the same high intellectual and moral

nature, fitting him for communication with God and headship over the

lower world." Similarly Figuier held that "we know of no archaeological

find (stone hatchets, etc.) that could not be pronounced only five

thousand years old as well as fifty thousand."

Lionel S. Beale, the famous microscopist, testifies: "In support of all

naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not at this

time the shadow of scientific evidence."

William Hanna Thomson, M.D., LL.D., Physician to the Roosevelt Hospital;

Consulting Physician to New York State Manhattan Hospital for the

Insane, who has held a professorship in New York University Medical

College; been president of the New York Academy of Medicine, etc, in

his recent book. _"What is Physical Life?"_ says concerning the doctrine

of evolution: "No contradiction could be greater than that between this

doctrine and the greatest truth which underlies this human world."

The Russo-French physiologist, M. Elie DeCyon, for many years professor

in the Faculty of Sciences and in the Academic Medico-chirurgicale at

the University of Petrograd, has lately published a book of essays in

which he says that the theory of evolution, especially in its relation

to the ancestry of man, is a "pure assumption." He quotes Prof. Fraas,

who devoted his long life to the study of fossil animals: "The idea that

mankind has descended from any Simian (ape) species whatsoever, is

certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the

history of man. It should be handed down to posterity in a new edition

of the Memorial of Human Follies. No proof of this baroque theory can

ever be given from discovered fossils." And to quote from another

address by Virchow, delivered at Vienna: "I have never found a single

ape skull which approaches at all the human one. Between men and apes

there exists a line of sharp demarcation."

One of the most recent authoritative publications by a German

anthropologist urges that "the apes are to be regarded as degenerate

branches of the pre-human stock." This means, in a word, that man is not

descended from the ape, but the ape from man. This is almost what may be

called _reductio ad absurdum,_ and yet it is one of the latest

pronouncements of scientific thought (Editorial in _"New York Herald,"_

December 30, 1916). To the same effect are the words of Professor

Wood-Jones, Professor of Anatomy in the University of London, England,

who recently pointed out that so far from man having descended from

anthropoid apes, it would be more accurate to say that these have been

descended from man. This was claimed not only by reason of the best

anatomical research, but to be "deducible from the whole trend of

geological and anthropological discovery." On this account Professor

Wood-Jones appealed for "an entire reconsideration of the post-Darwinian

conceptions of man's comparatively recent emergence from the brute

kingdom." (Quoted by W. H. Griffith Thomas in _"What about Evolution?"_

p. 10.)

It is refreshing to turn aside from speculation to revelation, from

conjectures and theories to proven facts, and no one has stated

ascertained facts, touching the origin of man, more succinctly and more

clearly than Prof. Dr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of Natural Science in

the University of Erlangen. He shows conclusively that the age of man is

comparatively brief, extending only to a few thousand years; that man

appeared suddenly; that the most ancient man known to us is not

essentially different from the now living man, and that transitions

from the ape to the man, or from the man to the ape, are nowhere found.

The conclusion he reaches is that the Scriptural account of man, which

is one and selfconsistent, is true; that God made man in his own image,

fitted for fellowship with himself and favored with it--a state from

which man has fallen, but to which restoration is possible through Him

who is the brightness of his Father's glory, and "the express image of

his Person."