The embryo is built of certain chemical elements, namely: carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. See sec. 3, supra, and index, infra,
“Chemical elements.” It derives its properties and potentialities from
certain chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements of these
elements, and from life. All of these combinations and arrangements are
made after the formation of the fertilized ovum. Even if this ovum and
its daughter-cells could build up the embryo body, automatically, yet
it must grow anew for itself, independently of the growth of the bodies
of its parents, or any other person; for it must have its own body, and
not that of its father, mother, nor of any other person. It is composed
of new materials, except the fertilized ovum, which is too small to
be considered in comparison with the body of the embryo, as a whole.
These new materials are derived from the blood of the mother.
No embryo ever takes or uses any organ or part of the body of its
father, or mother, except the spermatozoön and the ovum, which form the
germ-cell and serve as a germ to start the growth of the body. Each
embryo is a new combination and a new arrangement of the atoms and
cells of which it is composed. It is produced by new forces and motions
peculiar to itself, which are similar to, but different from, those
which produce every other embryo body. It is admitted on all sides,
that every human being begins life as a fertilized ovum. It is well
known that this infinitesimal cell has no organs, whatever, it being
a mere atom. In no sense can it be called an embryo body. Each person
must have his or her own body. No one ever takes or uses the body of
any other person, nor any organ or part of such a body, such a thing
being unthinkable. It follows, necessarily, that each embryo body and
every organ and part of it, is produced anew, independently of every
other human body.
Do the atoms and cells of which the embryo body is built up,
spontaneously and automatically, form the chemical combinations and
make the mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to build up the
embryo body; or is it made by a supernatural psychic and creative
force? Which hypothesis is most plausible?
Sec. 31. Heredity has no Power to Generate a New Human Being; nor to
Evolve One from the Germ-Cell
Heredity is defined as: “The influence of parents upon offspring;
transmission of qualities or characteristics, mental or physical, from
parents to offspring.” (Cent. Dic. 4, p. 2802.)
Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion are necessary to group
two or more atoms into a prescribed chemical combination or into a
specified mechanical arrangement. It is a well-known fact that each
normal human body is composed of the same chemical elements; has
the same chemical combinations and the same mechanical arrangements
that are found in every other such body. Therefore, we may well say
that the atoms and cells in the body are grouped into prescribed
chemical combinations and into specified mechanical arrangements; and
that intellect, memory and will-power are necessary to make these
combinations and arrangements.
It is also well-known that every human being, begins life as a
germ-cell, stem-cell, or fertilized ovum, all of these phrases meaning
the same thing; that every such body develops and grows anew for
itself. Each body is a new combination of the atoms and cells, of
which it is composed. The forces and motions, which assemble and group
these atoms and cells into the chemical combinations and mechanical
arrangements, which build up a body, are new, unique and peculiar to
that body.
The theory of heredity is based on these facts: The father contributes
the spermatozoön and the mother the ovum, which form the germ-cell;
this cell and its daughter-cells develop and grow to be a man or a
woman, who has substantially the same form, size, structure, organs
and parts that one of its parents has, and generally has some of their
qualities, characteristics and traits.
But these facts do not prove that the child inherits anything from
either parent; they do not prove that the parents, or either of them,
caused the child to develop, grow and resemble them in any of these
particulars. The existence of a fact and the cause of that fact are
two different things. Thus, every body knows that a stone falls to the
ground; but nobody knows why. The child resembles its father--but why?
Do the parents cause this resemblance? Can they, or either of them,
cause their child to have blue eyes or black; a long or short nose; a
large or small foot?
Neither Darwin, nor any other man has ever shown how it is possible for
the bodies of the parents, or any part of either of them, to affect,
modify or determine the form, features, size, structure, qualities,
characteristics or traits of their children. It is admitted on all
sides that the parents have no voluntary control over these things.
Darwin, (Origin of Species, 1, p. 15), says: “The laws governing
inheritance are for the most part unknown.” Haeckel is voluminous in
describing the phenomena of reproduction, heredity, etc. But has
nothing to say about the cause, nor the mechanism of heredity.
It is undoubtedly true that the human body is a compound physical
structure; that each organ and part of every such body has to be made,
anew, of fresh materials, for that body; that the child does not “take
over,” bodily, any organ nor part of either parent, but has its own new
organs, unique and peculiar to itself; that neither the father nor the
mother has any voluntary power to select, assemble nor group the atoms
and cells, of which the embryo body is made; nor to generate, guide,
nor control the forces and motions by which this work is done. All this
being true, how is it possible for the parents, or either of them, to
transmit any of their qualities, characteristics or traits to their
child?
The notion of mankind in general appears to be the body of the child
is a sort of offshoot or branch of the bodies of the parents, as if
the child had budded out on the trunk of the mother; and finally
dropped off and become a distinct individual. But this view is wholly
erroneous. The embryo becomes a separate and distinct entity the moment
the germ-cell is formed; and it develops and grows, anew, for itself
independently of the bodies of its parents, which have no more to do
with its development and growth than the body of any other person has.
If we assume that each human being is a new direct and special creation
by Almighty God, we can readily understand the mysterious phenomena
called “heredity.”
At first, the germ-cell does not resemble either parent nor even a
human being, it being too small, even to suggest a human body, at all.
An infant at birth, is too rudimentary to resemble either parent more
closely than it does any other person of the same sex.
Whether the germ-cell and its daughter-cells are to develop and grow
to be a man, resembling its father; or a woman resembling its mother,
the same forces and motions are required to assemble and group the
necessary atoms and cells into the proper chemical combinations and
mechanical arrangements in order to construct its body. The fact that
the child may resemble its father or its mother or both of them, does
not dispense with the assembling of the atoms and cells; nor with the
grouping of them into the necessary combination and arrangements. It
is clear that the same or similar forces and motions are necessary to
construct any animal body, whatever its form, size or sex may be.
According to the evolutionist and materialist, the fact that the child
resembles its parents is adequate to account for, and explain all the
phenomena of reproduction. But the existence of this resemblance, and,
the cause of it, are two wholly different things. The fact that the
child resembles its parents only deepens the mystery; for it would
require less knowledge, skill and creative force to construct a body
with the qualities and characteristics of mankind in general, than it
would to group the atoms and cells of the body in such a manner as
to produce a body in the image of a particular man or woman. Thus a
portrait painter could make a fancy sketch of an imaginary person,
without any striking features, more easily than he could paint a
particular man with all his peculiarities; as, for example, his bald
head, high forehead, blue eyes, long aquiline nose, wide mouth, massive
lower jaw and tall, slender body. The closer the resemblance, between
the child and its parents, the greater the mystery.
It being a fact that the body of the child has identically the same
organs and parts that are formed in the body of its father, or in that
of the mother; and that the child closely resembles one or both of
them, we naturally inquire: “What force or agency causes the germ-cell
and its daughter-cells to develop and grow until they become a man,
like its father; or a woman like its mother?” We cannot even imagine
that this sameness of organs and parts, of structure, form and size,
and this close resemblance happens by chance or accident.
Every man has conscious knowledge that he had no voluntary part in the
production of his child, except that he placed the spermatozoön at a
point from which it could reach the ovum. The mother knows that she
had no voluntary part nor agency in the production of her child except
that she permitted the father to place the spermatozoön in reach of the
ovum. Neither of them has any voluntary power, nor any control over the
formation of the spermatozoön nor of the ovum; nor over the development
and growth of the child, nor over its structure, form, size nor over
its features.
The spermatozoön is a microscopic cell, 1/500th of an inch in length,
(Martin, Human Body, p. 651), the head, which is the largest part
of it, being, apparently about 1/10,000th of an inch in diameter,
(Haeckel, Evolution of Man, p. 53, fig. 22.) It consists of a
homogeneous mass of protoplasm, composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen
and oxygen; and sometimes has a trace of phosphorus and sulphur. (Cent.
Dic. 6, p. 4799; Huxley, Anat. Invert. An., pp. 9, 14.) See index
infra, “Spermatozoön.” Although the spermatozoön is not visible to the
naked eye, and has certain vital properties and potentialities, yet it
is a physical body with all the attributes of a brick or stone.
If any quality, characteristic or trait of the father passes from him
to his child, it is transmitted by, and through the spermatozoön, for
that is the only thing that passes from the one to the other. So, if
any quality, characteristic or trait of the mother passes from her to
her child, it is transmitted by and through the ovum, that being the
only thing that passes from her to it.
Whatever power or influence the father’s body, or any organ or part
of it, may have to affect or modify the body of his child or any part
of it, must be effected by and through the spermatozoön before it
leaves his genital organs; for it is clear that neither the father’s
body, nor any organ nor part of it, has any power to affect, modify or
differentiate the spermatozoön, nor any part of it, after it leaves his
body.
It is absurd to suppose that the father’s body, or any organ or part
of it, can affect, modify or differentiate the spermatozoön, or any
part of it, in such a manner that it shall cause the child to have
qualities, characteristics and traits resembling those of the father.
In fact he could not possibly know whether there is one, many, or none
in his genital organs, at any given time, for a stronger reason no
single organ nor any part of his body could possibly affect, modify nor
differentiate the spermatozoön in such a manner as to cause the child,
which arises from it to have organs and parts resembling those of the
father. Thus, suppose the father has blue eyes. How could the father,
or his eyes, possibly affect the spermatozoön in such a way as to
cause the child’s eyes to be blue? How could the father, or his nose,
modify the spermatozoön in such a manner as to cause the child’s nose
to resemble the father’s nose. It would be absurd to suppose that the
father’s brain and his vocal organs can affect the spermatozoön in such
a manner as to cause the child to be a notable singer.
Professor Weismann says:
“It is well known that many mental and physical qualities of parents
are transmitted to their children, such as the color of the eyes and
hair, the shape and size of the finger nails; and not only these, but
as everyone knows, even such minute and indefinable physical and mental
characteristics as likeness of features, bearing, gait, handwriting, a
mild and equable or passionate and irritable temperament.”--(Weismann
on Heredity, 2, p. 14.)
The color of the eyes depends on the coloring matter or pigment in the
irises. How could the father’s eyes possibly affect the spermatozoön in
such a manner as to make the child’s eyes blue? How could the father’s
red hair differentiate the spermatozoön so as to give the child red
hair? Can we imagine that the father’s finger nails can affect the
spermatozoön in such a way as to make the child’s nails of the same
“shape and size” as those of the father? How could such a thing be?
Can we believe that a man’s brain, nerves and muscles, can so affect
the spermatozoön that the child’s handwriting shall be like that of
the father? How could this be? How could the father’s brain modify
the spermatozoön in such sort that the child shall have the same
temperament that the father has?
Most of the resemblances between the child and its parents result from
education, association and environment. If a child’s parents die when
it is six months old; and it be placed in the hands of a stranger
and his wife; it is easy to see that many of the child’s qualities,
characteristics and traits would be borrowed from the man and his wife
with whom the orphan lives.
The infant, at birth, is merely a living creature without any physical
qualities, characteristics or traits peculiar to itself; nor has it
any mental qualities, characteristics nor traits, whatever. In fact,
it has scarcely any intellect, at all. It follows that most of the
physical qualities and characteristics of each person are acquired; and
that all of the mental qualities, characteristics and traits of every
one are acquired, they being the result of education, association and
environment. No doubt most of the resemblance between a child and its
parents are caused by education, imitation and association.
The evolutionist has invented divers theories to account for, and
explain the phenomena of reproduction on material and mechanical
principles, without the aid of any supernatural psychic or creative
force. For example, Darwin invented the theory of “gemmules” and
“pangenesis;” Spencer advanced the hypothesis of “physiological
units” or “constitutional units,” “structural proclivity,” or
“proclivity towards the organic form of the species;” Cope suggested
“bathmism (go-ism)” “simple growth-force,” “grade-growth-force” and
“excess-growth;” Weismann invented the “continuity of germ-plasm,”
“ids,” “iddants” and “determinants.” But none of these words or phrases
explain anything. If there is anything in nature corresponding to
these words none of these writers ever saw them, nor did they know
anything about them. These “gemmules,” “units,” “proclivities,” “ids,”
“bathmisms,” etc., are purely hypothetical--mere figments of the
imagination. Every body has rejected Darwin’s theory of “gemmules,”
and “pangenesis;” no one but Spencer ever adopted his hypothesis of
“physiological units” and “proclivities;” Cope was the only man that
over used “bathmism,” etc.; Spencer, Romanes and others gave many
reasons why Weismann’s “continuity of germ-plasm,” “ids,” “iddants”
and “determinants” were absurd and impossible. No two of them agreed
on anything, except the supposed fact of organic evolution. Spencer,
somewhere says, in substance, that there is a general belief that
organic evolution has occurred; but great diversity of opinion as to
the manner in which it has been effected.
The theory of the evolutionist is that the genital organs of a man
generate spermatozoä, with all their properties and potentialities,
spontaneously and automatically, without the aid of any extraneous,
psychic or creative force, and that those of a woman produce ova in
the same manner. He maintains that a spermatozoön and an ovum unite
and fuse into a germ-cell (fertilized ovum) and that this cell (germ)
then becomes, automatically, a living being; that it develops and grows
spontaneously and automatically, to be a man or a woman, without the
aid or guidance of any extraneous psychic or creative force, whatever.
As a fact the fertilized ovum does not develop into a man or woman at
all, but a vast number of daughter-cells are produced from it, which
are metamorphosed and molded by the Creator into a man or woman. The
evolutionist holds that the fertilized ovum inherits all its properties
and potentialities from its parents. In other words, he contends that
the germ-cell develops and grows as it does because its father and
mother developed and grew in the same manner. Is there any apparent
reason why the germ-cell should develop and grow at all? Why should
it develop and grow, spontaneously and automatically, as its father
and mother grew? The germ-cell is a new combination of the atoms of
which it is composed; the embryo is built up of new materials; wholly
different from those which compose the bodies of its parents; and by
new forces and motions, altogether different from those which built
up the bodies of its parents. How could the mode, in which the bodies
of the father and mother developed and grew, possibly affect the
development and growth of the child?
The fact that each normal body develops and grows in the same manner
that the bodies of its parents grew, and as every other normal body
grows, is conclusive evidence that the development and growth of
each human body is caused, guided and controlled by an extraneous
supernatural psychic and creative force, which is ubiquitous, all
over the earth. No other hypothesis can explain the uniform mode of
development and growth, which we observe, among all the mammals in
every age and country.
The fact that the child resembles its father or mother, or both of
them, is strong evidence that the same creative force made all three of
them. We cannot believe that the blind, unthinking cells, which build
up the body of the child, automatically, group themselves in such a
manner as to make the child in the image of the father or mother.
Everyone knows that each human body is built of atoms and cells, which
are assembled and grouped into certain chemical combinations and
mechanical arrangements by force and motion, and that there cannot
be any such thing as force and motion without, at least two physical
bodies, the one to transmit the force and the other to move. The word,
“heredity,” does not denote a physical body nor a physical force. It is
a mere name for a group of vital phenomena. How could heredity bring
two or more atoms or cells together? Such a suggestion is too absurd
even for the imagination.
Perhaps the orthodox churchman would maintain that the Creator endowed
Adam’s genital organs with the power to generate spermatozoä; and also
endowed those of Eve with the power to produce ova; that He endowed
these spermatozoä and ova with the power to produce new men and woman,
automatically; and that He ordained that they should have the power
to produce new spermatozoä and new ova, with the same properties and
potentialities that were possessed by the original spermatozoä and ova,
that were generated in the bodies of Adam and Eve and so on forever.
This brings us back to the proposition that every human body is a
compound physical structure, composed of atoms and cells, which
are grouped into certain chemical combinations and mechanical
arrangements; and that intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion
are necessary to make these combinations and arrangements. To do
this work, automatically, these atoms and cells must be endowed with
divine intellect, memory, will-power and creative force; and this is
equivalent to a special creation. So if it be said that each fertilized
ovum is endowed with the power to produce a new man or woman, the
answer is that this endowment is equivalent to a special creation.
The reader may argue that the Creator endowed Adam’s spermatozoä and
Eve’s ova with the power to develop men and women, who were endowed
with the power to produce new spermatozoä and new ova, with the same
properties and potentialities that were possessed by those of Adam and
Eve and so on forever to the nth. generation.
There are several insuperable objections to this theory:
_First._--It is inconceivable that a man could be endowed with the
power to produce spermatozoä before he is born; nor could a woman
produce ova before her birth; nor is it possible to endow a fertilized
ovum with the power to produce a man or woman before it is formed.
When Adam’s spermatozoä and Eve’s ova were made the men and women to
be produced from them had not come into being; and it was impossible
for even the Creator to endow them, at that time, with the power to
produce spermatozoä and ova. Intellect, memory, will-power, force and
motion were necessary to group the atoms and cells of which the bodies
of these new men and women were to be composed, into the necessary
chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements in order to construct
their bodies. Neither the spermatozoä, the ova nor the germ-cells
produced from them, had intellect, memory, will-power nor the necessary
force. Therefore it was impossible for Adam’s spermatozoä and Eve’s
ova, or germ-cell, resulting from their fusion, to produce Adam and
Eve’s children, automatically.
_Secondly._--Neither the children of Adam and Eve nor of any other
man or woman ever had the power to generate spermatozoä and ova,
voluntarily. It is inconceivable that the blind unthinking genital
organs of Adam’s children or of any other man or woman ever produced
spermatozoä and ova spontaneously and automatically. We are compelled
to believe that the Creator always generates, guides and controls the
forces and motions which assemble and group the atoms into the form of
the spermatozoä and ova; and that he directly and specially endows
each spermatozoön and ovum with such properties and potentialities as
it may possess.
_Thirdly._--Life is not a property of matter. If it were, there would
be no such thing as death; for matter and all its attributes and
properties are eternal. The atoms, of which a man’s body is composed,
are as old as the earth. But during his life, they are grouped
together; and this group of atoms is endowed with the properties and
potentials of a living being. The human body has identically the same
physical properties, whether it be living or dead. Thus, it has the
same weight, length, breadth and thickness after death that it had
while living, until disintegration sets in. Apparently, the living
human body is similar to a piece of iron, when charged with electricity
or magnetism. Neither of these adds anything to the weight of the iron;
nor do they change its structure, form, size, nor its appearance. When
they leave the iron it remains as it was before it was charged with
them. So it is with the human body for a time after life leaves it.
Life not being a property of matter, it must be directly and specially
conferred, by a supernatural creative force, upon the body in which it
resides.
It is agreed by all biologists that there is no such thing as
spontaneous generation of animals, nor of plants at this time. As
Huxley puts it: “_Omne vivum ex vivo_,” “all life comes of life.”
(Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) 8, p. 746.)
Now, if there be no such thing as spontaneous generation of animals,
nor of plants, why should there be spontaneous generation of life?
Neither the spermatozoön, nor the ovum can live alone. But when united
and fused together, under proper conditions, this combination takes on
the manifestations of life; and these manifestations continue until
death.
Any good chemist can analyze a fertilized ovum and learn, exactly, the
chemical elements of which it is composed, and the proportions in which
they are combined. He could then make a new combination of carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen in the same proportions, in which these
substances were combined in the fertilized ovum; and if life were a
property of that combination of atoms, this new chemical compound,
ought to become a living creature. But no such thing could ever happen.
As already remarked, neither the spermatozoön nor the ovum can live
alone. But when fused together, the combination becomes a living
creature. The atoms in the combination are identically the same that
were in the spermatozoön and ovum before the fusion occurred. Why
should the combination live when the two component parts of it could
not?
It is clear that no man can, voluntarily nor involuntarily endow a
spermatozoön with the power to develop, alone, into a human being;
for every one of them dies in a day, or within a few days, after it
matures; unless it be so fortunate as to unite and fuse with an ovum.
It is equally clear that no woman can endow an ovum with the power to
become a human being. Every ovum soon dies, unless it unite and fuse
with a spermatozoön under conditions favorable to growth. Haeckel
says: “there are calculated to be 72,000 [ova] in the sexually mature
maiden.” (Evolution of Man, p. 347.) The number of spermatozoä,
generated in the sexual organs of a man greatly exceeds the number
of ova produced by a woman. It follows that countless trillions of
spermatozoä and ova die daily, and disintegrate.
Now, if no man can endow a spermatozoön with the power to develop into
a new human being; and if no woman can endow an ovum with power to do
so; how is it possible for either parent to endow the fertilized ovum
with that power, when it is no part of the body of either of them?
But the evolutionist maintains that the child has in fact, many of the
qualities, characteristics and traits, both physical and mental, of its
parents; that the parents transmit these qualities, characteristics
and traits, to their child, by and through the spermatozoön and the
ovum; that this is the only means by which the child could acquire
the qualities, characteristics and traits of its parents. Hence, the
evolutionist infers that heredity is based on the physical qualities
and properties of the spermatozoön and ovum.
But, as I have already argued (Sec. 15) the spermatozoön and the ovum
are, themselves, new, direct and special creations, and so is the
embryo body. While the physical qualities and characteristics of the
spermatozoön may affect the body and mind of the child, to some extent;
yet the child remains a new, direct and special creation.
Neither Darwin, nor any other man, has ever shown how it is possible
for the father, his body or any part of it, to impress, modify or
affect the spermatozoön, or any part of it, in such a manner as to
cause the child to resemble him in any particular; nor has it been
shown how it is possible for the mother, her body or any part of it,
to impress, modify or affect the ovum, or any part of it, in such a
manner as to cause the child to resemble her. When we consider the
great number of spermatozoä and ova that are produced; their small
sizes and short lives; their location in the genital organs; and the
lack of intellect, memory and will-power in every organ and part of
the bodies of the parents, and the fact that the “gemmules” must reach
the spermatozoön and the ovum through the blood, we are compelled
to believe that it is impossible for the spermatozoön and ovum to
transmit, unaided and alone, any quality, characteristic or trait of
a parent to the child; and we are forced to infer that the Creator,
directly and specially, endows the spermatozoön and ovum with power to
convey to the child such qualities, characteristics, and traits of its
parents as they do, in fact, carry to it.
Assuming for argument that certain qualities, characteristics and
traits of the father and mother are transmitted to the child by and
through the spermatozoön and ovum; this fact does not militate against
my theory of special Creation; for it seems reasonable to suppose
that the spermatozoön and ovum are specially endowed by the Creator,
with such powers and potentialities as they possess. Moreover, the
evolutionist and materialist are in this attitude; they cannot show
how it is possible for the germ-cell (composed of the spermatozoön
and ovum) to produce, unaided and alone, a child with the qualities,
characteristics and traits of its parents; nor can they prove that the
germ-cell and its daughter-cells do, in fact, automatically, produce
the child without the aid of the Creator.
Assuming for argument that the spermatozoön, ovum, germ-cell and its
daughter-cells appear to do automatically all the wonderful things that
the evolutionist and materialist say they do, the question remains:
do these senseless, unthinking atoms and cells, spontaneously and
automatically build up the embryo body with all its organs and parts,
or does the Creator, in fact, generate, guide and control the forces
and motions, which group these cells into the embryo body? In other
words: when the atoms and cells, which go to build up the embryo body,
appear to act spontaneously and automatically, are they, in fact,
moved, guided, controlled and grouped into the form of the embryo body
by the Creator?
The facts in relation to the development and growth of the embryo are
easily described and understood. But the real question is this: “What
force or agency causes this development and growth?”
What force or agency causes the child to resemble its parents? Do the
germ-cell and its daughter-cells spontaneously and automatically cause
this resemblance; or does the Creator cause it?
Referring to the origin of life in the individual, Professor Martin
says:
“At present we know nothing in physiology answering to the match which
lights the furnace; those manifestations of energy we call life are
handed down from generation to generation, as sacred fire in the
temple of vesta from one watcher to another. Science may at some time
teach us how to bring the chemical constituents of protoplasm into
that combination in which they possess the faculty of starting the
oxidations under those conditions which characterize life; then we
shall have learnt to strike the vital match.” (Martin, Human Body, p.
312.)
I do not believe that life is handed down from generation to
generation. On the contrary the Creator strikes “the vital match” when
each fertilized ovum is formed; and every such human ovum is directly
and specially endowed by the Creator, with the power to develop into a
man or woman.
Sec. 32. Nature has no Power to Generate a New Human Being; nor to
Evolve one from the Germ-Cell
Nature is defined as: “The forces or processes of the material world
conceived of as an agency intermediate between the Creator and the
world, producing all organisms and preserving the regular order of
things; as in the old dictum, ‘nature abhors a vacuum.’ In this sense,
_nature_ is often personified.” (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3943.) It follows
that “nature” is not a substantial nor a material entity or thing,
like a man, a tree, or a stone; but is only a name for certain real
or imaginary “forces or processes.” The word does not indicate by
what agency these “forces or processes” are generated, guided nor
controlled. But we use the word to indicate or describe certain
phenomena, which we do not understand, in the same manner that we use
the word “gravitation.”
The naturalist or materialist would say that nature generates the
spermatozoön and ovum; that it unites and fuses them into the
germ-cell; and that it develops this cell into a man or woman. One
might as well say, historically, that the spermatozoön and ovum are
generated and fused; and that a man or woman is produced from it. But
this statement does not explain anything. It does not tell us what
force selects, assembles and groups the atoms into the spermatozoön
and ovum; nor what endows it with life; nor who nor what creates its
soul; nor what force or agency causes the embryo to develop and grow to
manhood or womanhood.
To say that “nature” generates and evolves new men and women, is no
explanation of the phenomena of reproduction. Nature has no physical
body, no weight, length, breadth, nor thickness, no intellect, memory
nor will-power; nor can it voluntarily generate force nor motion. It
follows that “nature” cannot form the spermatozoön nor the ovum; cannot
cause them to unite and fuse into a germ-cell; nor cause the necessary
atoms and cells to assemble and group themselves into the chemical
combinations and mechanical arrangements required to build up the
embryo body, its organs and parts.
In other words, “nature” works by and through the spermatozoön, the
ovum and germ-cell or fertilized ovum. It has identically the same
powers and potentialities that they have--no more nor less. It follows
that nature cannot, automatically, generate nor evolve, a new man, nor
a new woman.
Sec. 33. Every Human Being is a New, Direct and Special Creation by
Almighty God; this Question to be Determined, How
To determine this question it is necessary: _first_, to ascertain
what work has to be done in order to create a new human being;
_secondly_, to consider whether this work can be done, spontaneously
and automatically, by the germ-cell or fertilized ovum and its
daughter-cells, or whether a supernatural psychic and creative force is
necessary to do it.
Darwin ought to be accepted by the evolutionist and materialist as high
authority on any biological question, and specially on the subject of
special creation. I call him as my first witness. In his Origin of
Species, last edition, 1872, (vol. 2, p. 298) he says:
“I believe that [all] animals are descended from at most only four or
five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy
would lead one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and
plants are descended from some one prototype.”
Again, on page 299, he says:
“If we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organic beings,
which have ever lived on this earth may have descended from one
primordial form.”
The last ten lines in his Origin of Species (vol. 2, pp. 305-306) are
in these words:
“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted
object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of
the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of
life, with its several powers having been originally breathed by the
Creator into a few forms, or into one, and that whilst this planet has
gone cycling on, according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple
a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful, have been
and are being evolved.”
Thus, the reader will see that Darwin, himself believed that the first
one, or the first few, animals and plants were directly and specially
created by Almighty God.
I base the theory that every Human being is a new, direct and special
creation by Almighty God, on the following propositions:
Sec. 34. Proposition 1. Animals and Plants First Appeared on the Earth
at a Certain Time
There was a time when there were no animals, nor plants on our planet.
Therefore, they must have appeared at a definite period.
The rocks tell us that animals and plants first appeared on the earth
in the archæozoic or primordial geological age, which, according to
Haeckel, began 100,300,000 years ago. (Last words on Evolution, p.
165.) He also says that “life began to exist at a definite period,” “on
our planet;” that “no organism can exist or discharge its functions
without water. No water, no life!” and that the surface of the earth
had to cool down so as to convert “the envelope of steam into water”
before animals and plants could live. (Evolution of Man, p. 200.)
Sec. 35. Proposition 2. First Animal and Plant were Either Specially
Created; or Arose by Spontaneous Generation from Inorganic Matter
Mysterious and miraculous as it may seem, animals and plants have lived
on the earth during this eternity of time. The earth is now covered
with countless millions of them. We know that we, ourselves, are here.
How did they happen to be here? How did we get here? How did life
originate on the earth?
It is obvious that the first animal or plant that appeared on the earth
was either directly and specially made, by a supernatural psychic and
creative force, of inorganic matter; or that it arose, by spontaneous
generation, from such matter; for it must necessarily have originated
in the one manner or in the other. How else could it have come into
existence?
So far as I know, there are only two theories, among educated and
scientific men, as to the origin of animals and plants. The one is that
they were directly and specially made by the Creator; the other is that
they arose by spontaneous generation, from inorganic matter. Which of
these is most plausible? (Spencer, Principles of Biology, vol. 1, pp.
415-416.)
The evolutionist and materialist maintain that the course of nature is
“uniform, continuous and everlasting;” that the earth is now behaving
identically, as it has been ever since it came into existence; that
animals and plants are now being evolved, as in the past, while others
are becoming extinct, and that every animal and plant is merely a
co-ordinated term in natures “great progression.” (Huxley, Man’s Place
in Nature, p. 151.)
According to this view, if an animal or a plant was ever spontaneously
generated from inorganic matter, we would naturally expect to find them
arising in the same manner today, for there is no reason to suppose
that the nature of the “inorganic matter,” which they say produced the
first animal or plant, has been exhausted; nor that it has changed;
nor that the conditions have changed, nor that the forces which are
supposed to have caused the spontaneous generation of the first animal
and plant have ceased to exist.
Sec. 36. Proposition 3. No Spontaneous Generation of Animals; nor of
Plants
Professor Huxley (1825-1905) was a scientist and philosopher of the
first magnitude. He was an intimate friend to Darwin; an evolutionist
and materialist of the strictest sect and fully competent to speak for
these schools of philosophy. Among other works on evolution, he wrote,
“Man’s Place in Nature” (1863), in which he argued at great length that
man is a descendant of an ape. Hence the following quotations from
his works may be taken as authoritative admissions on the part of the
evolutionist and materialist.
He says:
“The fact is that at the present moment there is not a shadow of
trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis [spontaneous generation]
does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which the
existence of life on the globe is recorded.” (Huxley, Anat. Invert.
An., pp. 40-41.)
Writing in the Encyclopedia Britannica (9 ed., vol. 8, p. 746) he says,
in substance, that the aphorism: “omne vivum ex vivo” (“all life comes
of life”) is a “well established law of the existing course of nature.”
The theory of spontaneous generation assumes that certain inorganic
elements, spontaneously and automatically grouped themselves together
in such proportions and in such a manner, chemically and mechanically,
as to produce one or a very few animals or plants; and that all
other animals and plants have descended from this one, or these few
primordial forms. No one pretends to say that there is any direct
evidence that any such thing ever happened. On the contrary every
fact within our knowledge tends to negative the theory of spontaneous
generation. But, in order to dispense with the theory of special
creation, the evolutionist and materialist invented the theory of
spontaneous generation. There is not only no evidence to support the
theory of spontaneous generation, but after many trials scientific men
have wholly failed to produce any living substance, whatever. On this
point Professor Huxley says:
“To enable us to say that we know anything about the experimental
origination of organization and life, the investigator ought to be able
to take inorganic matters, such as carbonic acid, ammonia, water and
salines, in any sort of inorganic combination, and be able to build
them up into protein matter [nitrogenous or albuminoid bodies] and
that protein matter ought to begin to live in an organic form. That,
nobody has done as yet; and I suspect it will be a long while before
anybody does it.” (Huxley, Origin of Species, p. 69.) After discussing
the theory of spontaneous generation at length, and describing the
experiments which are supposed to have destroyed that theory, he says:
“For my part, I conceive that with the particulars of M. Pasteur’s
experiments before us, we cannot fail to arrive at his conclusions; and
that the doctrine of spontaneous generation has received a final _coup
de grace_” [stroke of mercy or death blow.]
After describing the experiments of a number of scientists the New
International Encyclopedia, published in 1905, (vol. 1, p. 463) says:
“The result of these experiments and conclusions is that the view
that spontaneous generation takes place at the present day, has been
entirely discarded.”
If there was ever any such thing as spontaneous generation of animals
and plants, from inorganic matter, why should it not continue to
happen, down to the present time?
We are therefore compelled to believe that there never was any such
thing as spontaneous generation from inorganic matters; and we know
that all the men of the earth, acting in concert, could not produce a
single live worm!
Sec. 37. Proposition 4. Creator Could Have Made a Million Animals or
Plants as Well as One
If it be admitted, as Darwin does, that the Creator made “one or a few”
animals and plants, in the beginning, we may well suppose that He could
have made a million, or a million of millions, as easily as one.
Sec. 38. Proposition 5. If the Creator Made the First Animal and the
First Plant He Made All Others
If it be admitted that He created the first one, or the first few,
animals and plants, why should we doubt that He created all of them? If
He began to create them, why should He cease to do so? His works are
uniform, continuous and everlasting.
But in his “Origin of Species” (vol. 2, p. 304-305) Darwin says:
“Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the
view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it
accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the
Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present
inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like
those determining the birth and death of the individual.”
What are “the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,” that have
anything to do with the reproduction of animals and plants? What
laws “impressed on matter” have any bearing on the question whether
animals and plants have arisen from inorganic matter, by spontaneous
generation or by special creation? Perhaps Darwin means to say that
he supposes the Creator would naturally make one or a few primordial
forms of animal and plant and turn them loose upon the earth to shift
for themselves subject to “secondary causes,” namely, the factors of
evolution. But he does not profess to have any special knowledge of the
Divine Mind; nor does he pretend to know more of it than any other man
does.
Perhaps Lamarck (1744-1829) was the first to suggest the theory of
spontaneous generation, in the sense in which these words are now used,
and the evolution of species. (Encyclopedia Britannica 14, p. 232.)
Down to his time, no one doubted the Mosaic story of the creation.
Belief in the theory of special creation was well nigh universal down
to the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, in 1859. This belief
was shared alike by both scientists and laymen. But shortly after the
publication of that work, belief in the theory of organic evolution
became a fad among educated people; and that belief was supposed to
indicate intellectual power and independence of thought.
Sec. 39. Proposition 6. Human Body is Either Specially Created or
Spontaneously Generated, Which?
According to the evolutionist and materialist, the reproduction of the
human body from a fertilized ovum is, in substance and effect, the same
thing as spontaneous generation of such a body from inorganic matter.
The work to be done in the one case is identically the same as that to
be done in the other. In fact the spermatozoön and the ovum are made
of dead matter; and if we consider the making of the spermatozoön and
the ovum as the first steps in the process of reproduction as they
are; and also assume that the Creator takes no part in that process,
we would then have to say that the human body arises by spontaneous
generation from inorganic matter; for it is undoubtedly true that the
spermatozoön and ovum are made of inorganic substances, namely: carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. It is equally true that the fertilized
ovum has no more intellect, memory nor will-power than its component
atoms of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen had; nor has it any more
power to generate, guide and control forces and motions than they had.
It follows that the same psychic and creative force is necessary to
produce a new human being whether it be made from a germ of inorganic
matter or from a fertilized ovum; the ovum being only one remove from
inorganic matter. Moreover, the entire human body is made of dead
matter except the infinitesimal fertilized ovum.
There is no middle ground between special creation on the one side and
spontaneous generation on the other; either the Creator generates,
guides and controls the forces and motions which build up the embryo
body, its organs and parts; or the atoms and cells, of which they
are made, do, spontaneously and automatically, assemble and group
themselves into the chemical combinations, and into the mechanical
arrangements, which are necessary to make them.
The reader may argue that “nature,” “heredity” or the germ-cell
(fertilized ovum) does this wonderful work of building up the embryo
body; and, therefore, that neither the Creator nor spontaneous
generation does it. But “nature” and “heredity” do all their work by
and through the germ-cell; so their powers are identical with those
of the germ-cell. This germ is a tiny bit of protoplasm composed of
carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, with a possible trace of sulphur
and phosphorus. It has no brain, eyes, ears, nose, touch, nor taste; no
intellect, memory, nor will-power; no knowledge of anatomy, chemical
elements, chemical affinity, form, size, time, nor space; nor any
constructive power nor force; has no power to generate forces nor to
guide and control motions.
Therefore, it is impossible for the germ-cell, or its daughter-cells,
to build up, automatically, the embryo body, with all its organs and
parts. It follows that this body must be directly and specially created
by Almighty God.
Again, every embryo body is made of cells (organic bricks) and
these are made of dead atoms. In order to construct this body it
is necessary to group a certain number of these atoms into certain
chemical combinations; next these combinations must be grouped into
certain mechanical arrangements. Thus, the skeleton is made of bones;
they are made of cells, which in turn are made of dead atoms of lime,
carbon, phosphorus, etc.; these cells must be grouped into phosphate
of lime, carbonate of lime, gelatin, etc. These combinations must then
be grouped into the two hundred and seventy-eight bones of the embryo
skeleton, giving each bone its proper form, size, structure and place
in the skeleton. It is clear that neither the father nor the mother
takes any part in making these chemical combinations nor in making the
mechanical arrangements. It is equally clear that they are not made by
chance nor by accident; nor by the “factors” of evolution.
It follows that the atoms and cells of which the embryo body is made,
do, spontaneously and automatically group themselves into the chemical
combinations and mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to
construct the several organs and parts of the embryo body without the
aid or guidance of any extraneous psychic or creative force; or that
every organ and part of the embryo body is directly and specially made
by the Creator.