EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE AND EARTH.
In undertaking to account for the universe, Evolution faces four
problems. 1. The origin of matter. 2. The origin of force. 3. The
formation and orderly arrangement of the universe. 4. The origin
of life. In all of these it fails; it confesses its failure in the
first two and last, and makes ludicrous attempts to explain the
third. We will consider each in turn.
1. Evolution fails to account for the origin of matter. Spencer
says this is the Unknowable. So that Spencer's great philosophy
rests on what he doesn't know and cannot find out. Darwin said as
to the origin of things, "I am in a hopeless muddle." Prof. Edward
Clodd wrote: "Of the beginning of what was before the present state
of things, we know nothing and speculation is futile, but since
everything points to the finite duration of the present creation, we
must make a start somewhere." (_Story of Creation_, p. 137.) Science
is what we know. Therefore Evolution rests upon an unscientific
foundation. Nor is there any other account conceivable than that
the Bible gives. As long as this first and fundamental fact is not
solved, the theory must be content to be at most a limited one, and
far from being that sweeping discovery which its advocates assert it
to be.
2. Evolution fails to account for the origin of Force. The great
forces which animate the universe, such as gravity, heat, motion and
light, must be accounted for by this theory to give it the standing
it demands. It makes no attempt to do this. Evolution is silent when
we ask, Whence came these mighty forces? Calling them Laws of Nature
does not answer the question. Laws need law makers and enforcers
also. Laws do not enforce themselves. As forces, they show the
ceaseless giving out of energy. Where is the dynamo from which this
perpetual energy originated and still proceeds?
In this connection, let us notice the reticence and limitations of
really great scientists as to the nature of these energies. Lord
Kelvin, the greatest living scientist, said at the meeting of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, of which he was
president: "One word characterizes the most strenuous of the efforts
for the advancement of science that I have made perseveringly for
fifty-five years. That word is failure. I know no more of electric
and magnetic force, or of the relation between ether, electricity
and ponderable matter, or of chemical affinity, than I knew and
tried to teach to my students of natural philosophy fifty years ago
in my first session as professor."
Haeckel himself, the greatest living evolutionist, admits: "We
grant at once that the innermost character of nature is just as
little understood by us as it was by Anaximander and Empedocles
2,400 years ago.... We grant that the essence of substance becomes
more mysterious and enigmatic the more deeply we penetrate into the
knowledge of its attributes." (_Riddle of the Universe._)
3. Evolution fails to account for the orderly movements of the
heavenly bodies which have the accuracy of a chronometer, aye,
which are the standards by which all chronometers are regulated,
so that the astronomer can calculate to a second when the heavenly
bodies shall pass any particular point of view or form their many
conjunctions. There is no collision, no noise. "There is no speech
nor language, their voice is not heard."
Our Solar System is unique in the heavens. Prof. See tells us
there is no other like it in the regularity of its orbits, and in
its distant position from the powerful attractions of the mighty
systems of the heavens. The earth, too, is the only world so
far known to be advanced enough for the production of life. Its
situation is far enough from the sun to be beyond its powerful heat
and electric energy and yet near enough to preserve and continue all
life. The arrangement of its surface into land and water proportions
gives the requisite amount of moisture over the land areas. The
atmosphere is mixed of gases in just the right proportions for life.
All this speaks as loudly as any mechanism can speak, of intention
and benevolence and control and careful adjustment; far from
that haphazard effect which comes from the undirected working of
"resident forces."
Evolution declares the universe began with a nebulous mass,
which Tyndall says was "fire-mist," and contracted as it became
cold; but Spencer says it was a cold cloud which became heated
as it contracted. We are left to the perplexity of deciding for
ourselves which theory we will accept. This is only one of many such
contradictions we shall meet. But however, or whatever it was, it
organized itself into the wonderful universe of stars by a rotary
motion which the contraction produced, and this threw off portions
as a carriage wheel throws off mud, each portion taking up a similar
motion and cooling in a similar fashion until it became cool enough
for living things.
Proof for all this is supposed to be seen in a nebula which is seen
in the constellation Orion, which has a spiral form and is supposed
to be a world in the making.
But in February, 1901, a new star appeared surrounded by a nebula
and this in rapid motion from the center. This sudden appearance
of a world in a nebulous state seems like the reversing of the
evolutionary process or indeed like a world being destroyed and
reduced to its first estate. Other facts are also contradictory,
such as the motion or revolution of some of the satelites in a
reverse order from that demanded by the theory.
Indeed the whole nebular theory is now being called in question.
Prof. George Frederick Wright of Oberlin University, thus writes of
it:
"The nebular hypothesis, which all forms of evolution now assume
for a beginning, involves the supposition that the molecules of
matter composing the solar system were originally diffused through
space like the particles of mist in a vast fogbank, and that then,
under the action of gravitation, they began to approach each other
and to collect in masses, which began to revolve about their axes
and to move in orbits around the center of attraction. Every step
in this supposition involves an added mystery. The existence of the
molecules in their original diffused state is but the beginning of
the mystery, though that is utterly incomprehensible.
"The power of gravitation which compels the separated particles
to approach each other is an utter mystery, which has completely
baffled all efforts at explanation by scientific men. The revolution
of the various masses of the solar system on their axes and in their
orbits is another mystery for which there is no solution.
"Thus is the thorough-going evolutionist at every point confronted
with an insoluble mystery, and he deceives himself if he fancies
that he has discovered anything which will take the place of the
Christian's conception of God as the creator, sustainer and ruler of
all things." (_Record-Herald_, Chicago, Dec. 24, 1902.)
Other facts are even more perplexing to this theory. The moon is
moving from her place at an increasing rate and astronomy cannot
account for it. The earth's axis of revolution has varied from time
to time. Only one star in a thousand has ever been catalogued. Of
only about a hundred is the calculation of the parallax possible, so
distant are they.
As to our earth, a well-known writer says: "No one of standing in
the scientific world of to-day is willing to go on record as having
a theory of his own regarding the internal fires of this planet or
attempting to account for their origin."
In view of this state of uncertainty, it seems to the non-scientific
mind hazardous to project across these vast ages a guess as to what
the conditions were and how the universe originated. And above all
to found on this guess a vast philosophy of the universe affecting
all we hold precious for this life and that to come. Well may we
hesitate before such demands.
4. The origin of life is a problem Evolution has sought in vain to
solve or account for by its natural or resident forces.
Prof. Le Conte labors hard to show that it might have come from the
union of the four gases, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen,
under some peculiar circumstances. If he had said under the direct
act of the Creator we could assent cheerfully. For these do enter
into the substance which forms the bodies of living things. But
the claim of Evolution is that all came by "resident forces,"
self-operating. Once admit the direct act of the Creator, and, as
Haeckel says, they might as well admit it along the whole process,
for the argument for a single instance is valid for the whole. So
they will have none of it.
Prof. Le Conte labors to show that protoplasm might be
self-originating, but Prof. Conn says, "Protoplasm is not a
chemical compound but a mechanism.... Unorganized protoplasm
does not exist.... It could never have been produced by chemical
process. Chemistry has produced starches, fats, albumens, but not
protoplasm." (_Method of Evolution._)
Lord Kelvin, in writing to the _London Times_, said:
"Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country,
if he believed that the grass and flowers which we saw around us
grew by mere chemical forces. He answered, 'No, no more than I could
believe that a book of botany describing them could grow by mere
chemical forces.'"
Tyndall, after laborious experiments during eight months, thus
candidly states the result, in an address before the Royal
Institute, London: "From the beginning to the end of the inquiry,
there is not, as you have seen, a shadow of evidence in favor of
the doctrine of spontaneous generation.... In the lowest, as in the
highest of organized creatures, the method of nature is, that life
shall be the issue of antecedent life."
And Mr. Huxley also admitted, "The doctrine that life can only come
from life is victorious all along the line." Prof. Conn states,
"There is not the slightest evidence that living matter could arise
from non-living matter. Spontaneous generation is universally given
up." (_Evolution of To-day_, p. 26.)
Wilson, the great authority on the cell says, "The study of the
cell has seemed to expand rather than narrow the enormous gap that
separates even the lowest forms of life from the inorganic world."
(_The Cell in Development and Inheritance_, p. 330.)
Here then, is the greatest chasm of all: Evolution fails at the
very start in the story of life. Yet this is its chosen field.
On this depends the whole theory. If there was a Creator at the
origin of life, why not at the origin of all living things? It
is simply a question of degree. The making of a single cell, the
simplest creature that lives, is as great a mystery as that of man.
Conceptually the one is as possible as the other.[1]
[1] See these points discussed more fully in Wright's Scientific
Aspects of Christian Evidences.