Are millions of years adequate as a cause, when associated with all the
forces known in nature, to produce new species and extirpate old ones?
The teachings of Darwin require an answer in the affirmative.
The survival of the fittest is one of Darwin's emphasized laws of
natural selection. He says: "In all cases the new and improved forms of
life tend to supplant the old and unimproved forms. New varieties
continually take the place of and supplant the parent form. New and
improved varieties will inevitably supplant and exterminate the
older."--_Origin of Species, pp. 264, 266, 413._
Do the facts sustain this assumption? The little animals whose remains
compose the great chalk-beds are alive and working. Inarticulate or
molluscan life is seen in a sub-fossil condition in the Post Pliocene
clays of Canada. They are just as they were in the beginning of their
history. Species seem to be immutably fixed. The demand for millions of
years, in order to get old species out and new ones in, breaks down with
the mollusk of the Pliocene in the clays of Canada. The Pliocene species
are the more recent; such is, in fact, the meaning of the term in
geology. The mollusk of Canada Pliocene clay has undergone no change
since its first appearance upon our globe.
In order to account for ancient life, that passed away, as far back as
the carboniferous age, it is claimed that millions of years passed
before that age began. But here are the very first species of mollusca
in the more recent clays unchanged, and here are the same little animals
that floored so much territory in the bygone with chalk. How does this
look by the side of the last quotation from Darwin?
Crabs or lobsters, cuttle-fish, jelly-fish, star-fish, oysters, snails,
and worms lived contemporary with the first vertebrates. I have recently
read an article in which it is said by an advocate of the Darwinian
hypothesis, that man in his original condition was a cannibal, feasting,
ordinarily, upon snails and worms. Now, it is claimed that millions of
years have passed, and that millions of years inevitably destroy old
species and introduce new ones; and yet here are the same old pesky
snails and worms. If millions of years have passed the system is false.
And if millions of years have not passed the system is false; so it is
certainly false.
Hybrids are wonderfully in the way of the hypothesis. They can not be
saved. All artificial varieties return to their simple form. Mr. Huxley
recognizes this as an objection that can not be surmounted. He says,
"While it remains Darwin's doctrine, must be content to remain a mere
hypothesis;" that is, a mere guess.
In the latest productions of Agassiz we have this statement: "As a
palæontologist I have from the beginning stood aloof from this new
theory of transmutation, now so widely admitted; its doctrines, in fact,
contradict what the animal forms buried in the rocky strata of our earth
tell us of their own introduction and succession upon the surface of the
globe."
The first vertebrates are sharks, ganoids and garpikes, which are the
highest in structure of all known fishes. Darwin's hypothesis demands
this order _reversed_.
When you ask an evolutionist for the links connecting new and old
species, as he is pleased to denominate them, you receive the
satisfactory (?) answer, "They are lost." A painter presented a man with
a red canvass, claiming that it represented the children of Israel
crossing the Red sea. The question was asked, "Where are the
Israelites?" The painter answered, "They have crossed over." "But," said
the man, "where are the Egyptians?" "O, my dear sir," said the artist,
"they are under the sea." This is a very fine illustration of facts, if
Darwinism may boast of facts, for the connecting links between species
are "under the sea" of oblivion, never to be found, and the old species
"have passed over." Mr. Darwin's apology is in these words: "Every one
will admit that the geological record is imperfect; but very few can
believe that it is so very imperfect as my theory demands." This is a
grand concession. The "wild speculation" has no support from geology.
The blanket of oblivion, which Mr. Darwin and his friends spread over
the difficulty, is "millions of years." In that length of time the
missing species, or links, would, of course, all pass out of sight. Is
this true? No. In the geological record millions of specimens are
fossilized and laid away in nature's great cabinet. Why not find a few
of the missing links there? Just one. "One fact, gentlemen, if you
please." Science is certain knowledge. Is there certain knowledge of
missing links? Gentlemen, just bridge one gulf for us; the gulf lying
between any _two species_ will do. We get impatient, standing and
gazing. Look! Can you see across?
Mr. Darwin says, "Professor Haeckel, in his general Morphology and other
works, has brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he
calls phylogeny or the lines of descent of all organic beings."--_Origin
of Species, p. 381._
This author, Mr. Haeckel, has "lines of descent" which involves the idea
of a plurality of beginnings in the history of organic being; that is,
Mr. Haeckel claims a vertebrate series with a vertebrate lying at the
base of the series, and an articulate series with an articulate lying at
its base. So there must be A SPECIAL CREATION AT LAST. Hear him: "There
appears, indeed, to be a limit given to the adaptability of every
organism by the type of its tribe or phylum. Thus, for example, no
vertebrate animal can acquire the ventral nerve chord of articulate
animals instead of the characteristic spinal marrow of the vertebrate
animals."--_History of Creation, vol. 1, p. 250._ So the vertebrate must
forever remain a vertebrate, and the articulate forever an articulate.
Were they both evolved from the same unit? We are anxious to know, how
from a pulpy mass of flesh, from a moneron, a creature of one substance,
_vertebrates_ were evolved. We would like to know, also, how a creature
of more than one substance could be evolved from a creature of one
substance without more being gotten out of the thing than there was in
it. Here spontaneous generation passes into a wreck. Do you see? The
pulpy mass of flesh, or moneron, from which so much has been "evolved"
was the result of "the sun's rays falling upon the sea slime," and was
and is a creature of one substance, homogeneous. "Natural selection"
could not operate in the vertebrate type before it existed. It was
"limited to the type or phylum." That is to say, natural selection could
evolve new species without limitation from each type, but could never
evolve a vertebrate from an articulate, nor an articulate from a
vertebrate. Then, how are the two series from the same unit; or, if they
are connected with two different units, how are those units the effect
of the same unintelligent cause? How are we going to cross this chasm
lying between the sun's rays and the sea slime upon the one hand, and
the articulate and the vertebrate upon the other? Darwin says, "Judging
from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will
transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity." Well, how is it
with the past? We are told that millions of years are the demand for the
changes already brought about. Millions of years would certainly be
enough to constitute a "distant futurity." How is it now? Is there not
one species having its likeness represented by a species in the distant
past? Yes; the genus lingula, the species appearing in all the ages, was
"connected by an unbroken series of generations from the lowest Silurian
stratum to the present day."--_Origin of Species, pp. 293, 294, 428._
Darwin's "theory" claims that the first forms of all life still exist,
and are known and named. The ape, if it could talk like a man, would
boast of a history reaching all the way back to time prior to the
existence of the greater number of the mammals. To get rid of the
difficulty of first forms still existing, Mr. Darwin cuts off his unit
from the law of "the survival of the fittest," or "the inevitable
destruction of the parent form." He says: "A very simple form, fitted
for very simple conditions of life, might remain for indefinite ages
unaltered, or unimproved; for what would it profit an infusorial
animalcule, or an intestinal worm, to become highly organized?"--_Animals
and Plants, vol. 1, p. 19._ "Under very simple conditions of life a
higher organism would be of no service."--_Origin of Species, p. 100._
How are we to reconcile the conflicting ideas in this speculation? At
one time we are taught that all forms of life were, originally, very
simple forms, existing under very simple conditions. At another time we
are taught that "new and improved forms _inevitably_ supplant and
destroy parent forms." At another we are taught, at great length, the
doctrine of the survival of the fittest.
At another we are taught that all things have worked, and do work,
without designs upon the part of a present intelligence.
At another we are taught that very simple forms of life, under the very
simple conditions of life, have continued to the present day, because of
the fact that it would be of NO SERVICE for them to become highly
organized. No service to whom? To what end?
Out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee. What! Is there an end in
view that has governed in the great question of evolution of species,
and the survival of the fittest? Darwin seems to think so. The
wonderful "machine" that Strauss talked about in connection with the
"smashing" and "crashing" that destroys parent forms did not smash the
simplest forms of life. Why? The answer is, "It would be of no service
for them to become highly organized." Then all the smashing and crashing
known in the doctrine of "the survival of the fittest" and in "the
destruction of the parent form" was under the supervision of some
controlling power, having an end to accomplish.
* * * * *
If we see a member of the church of Christ living in obedience to the
"law of Christ," we say he is a Christian, and speak of him as such; on
the other hand, if we know he is in works denying Christ, being
disobedient, we tacitly assume that he is not a Christian, yet a
_mawkish charity_ keeps us, in too many instances, from speaking out in
this matter, and also keeps us from earnestly trying to distinguish the
true Christian; and this is one of the great sins of the church in our
times, for thus the wicked are not put to shame, and others are caused
to hesitate in their graces by the conduct of those whom, in mawk
charity, are called Christians.
* * * * *
"Mouth-glue is made of pure glue, as parchment glue, or gelatine and
coarse brown sugar. Take pure glue and add one-quarter or one-third of
its weight of brown sugar. Put both into a sufficient quantity of water
to boil and reduce the mass to a liquid, then cast into thin cakes on a
flat surface _very slightly_ oiled, and, as it cools, cut up into pieces
of a convenient size. When you wish to use it moisten one end in the
mouth, and rub it on any substance you wish to join; a piece kept in the
work-box is very convenient."--_Chambers._
* * * * *
The Christian's faith was not intended to sit him down in ease, but to
stimulate him to the discharge of his duties. So the work of faith is a
noble work, a life of labor.