Evolution at the Bar by Philip Mauro.


Evolution
at the Bar
by
Philip Mauro.

CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD . . . . . . . 7
CHAPTER I . . . 11
T h e T h e o r y D e f i n e d . ’
Cosmic Evolution
Organic Evolution
CHAPTER II . . .17
Breaks in the Continuity . ’
The Origin of Life
Other Origins
Permanence of Species
Development of Varieties
Reproduction
CHAPTER III .27
“Science” as aI; Anthcrit.~ . ’ ’
Reasons Given in Support of Evolution
Embryology
Succession of Species
Species Appears Suddenly
Great Gaps between Species Existed from
the First
The Fragmentary Character of the Geological
Record
CHAPTER IV 38
Specific Objectidns th E&.&n: . .
The Wings of Fowls
The Bat and the Mole
The Water Spider
Organs and Instincts: The Beehive, The
Beaver.6 CONTENTS
CHAPTER V . . . . . . . 52
The Origin of Man
Distinguishing Characteristics of Man
I’Missing Links”
Ancient Human Remains-Scientific
Authorities Quoted
CHAPTER VI. . . . . . . 58
Theistic Evolution
Evolution and Christianity
The Law and the Gospel not Evolved
Evolution and Christ
CHAPTER VII . . . . . . 6’7
Estimates of Darwinism
Darwinism Rejected by Men of Science
The Existing Danger
Darwinism in the Schools
CHAPTER VIII . . . , . . 73
Evolution in Human Affairs
Evidences of Evolution in all Human Ac-tivities
Mr. Wallace on Human “Progress”
The Spread of the Theory Accounted For
The “Fatal Bias”
“The Law of Sin and Death”.
FOREWORD
The writer of this article was for upwards of twen-ty
years a believer in and student of the philosophy
of materialism; but after his conversion to faith in
Jesus Christ he rejected it in toto! first because it was
found to be contrary to the Scriptures, and. second,
because, upon careful investigation, it was also found
to be opposed to every pertinent fact of history and
natural science.
As regards “evidence” in support of the theory
there is none that would be admitted in any court of
law. It rests wholIy upon unprovable assumptions,
and upon highly speculative and far-fetched infer-ences.
The evidence against it is abundant :and con-vincing
; and while the subject is so vast and com-plex
that we can present, in an article like this, only
a small part of the counterproof, yet we can give all
that is needed in order to show that the theory is not
only unsupported by proof, but is opposed both to the
facts of science and to statements of Holy Scripture.
Our design, in writing these pages (originally pre-pared
for use in the compiIation of a Bible Cyclopedia
by the Bible Union of China) was to set forth the main
features of the theory of Evolution in such a way as
to make it easy to be understood by the unlearned.
The exponents of science and philosophy usually
adopt a style and vocabulary which effectually hide
their meaning from “the common people,” and which
are well calculated to produce the impression that the
subjects they discuss are too mysterious and profound
to be understood by any but the few who (like them-selves)
are gifted with intellects of a superior order,
and possessed of knowledge unattainable by the ordi-nary
man.
But the truth is that-when we disregard mere re-.8 FOREWORD
finements of detail, and technicalities of a non-essen-tial
character-the doctrine of Evolution in general,
and that of the Origin of Species (the Darwinian
hypothesis) in particular, can be set forth “in words
easy to be understood,” and can be understood by
persons of ordinary intelligence and of common
school education. And furthermore, the scientist and
philosopher have no facts upon which to base their
conclusions except such as are matters c’f common
knowledge, or are accessible to all men through text-books
and cyclopedias. We fully concede to experts
their special competence in investigating, clarifying,
and setting forth the facts; but, in the all important
matter of drawixg conclusions from those facts, the ex-pert
has no greater ability than the ordinary persons,
of whom juries-which in common-law cases are the
sole judges of the facts-are composed. It is for the
benefit of these that we are now writing; and in sum-moning
Evolution to stand trial at the bar of ordinary
common sense, our own function will be mainly to
present the pertinent facts as fully and concisely as
possible.
As regards the reasons commonly advanced in sup-port
of the doctrine of Evolution it is one of the
most palpable weaknesses of the case that the alleged
“evidences” for it have to be sought in the darkest
corners of creation and in the remotest regions of time
and space; and further t,hat, when brought into the
light of honest inquiry, they cannot be reco;gnized, by
ordinary persons, as having any relation at all to the
doctrine they are cited to sustain. For Evolution is
set forth as a cosmic process-that is, a law operating
always and everywhere. It is either that 01’ nothing.
But, if so, then the evidences of it, would ‘be always
and everywhere apparent. Whichever way we might
look they would force themselves upon our notice, in
countless numbers and endless varieties of forms.
The proofs would be so abundant that the demon-.FOREWORD 9
strator of the doctrine would never get to the end of
them; whereas, as the case actually stands, the efforts
and the ingenuity of the evolutionist are mai&’ OCCu-pied
in trying to account with plausibility for the total
lack of evidence in nature for the support of his dot-trine.
Another thing which must impress every fair-minded
investigator of this modern theory is the fal-lacious
character of the reasoning often employed by
its advocates. Take the case of the now extinct varie-ties
of horse having three and four toes. Appeal is
often made to the remains of those creatures as if they
proved the whole case of Evolution; whereas they do
not even prove that the existing variet,ies of the equine
species were derived from those extinct forms. There
is nothing whatever to forbid the idea that the present
varieties of the species existed at the same time with
those now extinct forms. Proof of connection between
them, and of derivation of the one from the other, is
wholly lacking. But even if such connection were es-tablished,
it would not tend in the least to p’rove the
evolution of one species from another, which is the
matter in dispute. That many varieties of a common
species can be produced is a fact so abundantly in
evidence in both vegetable and animal kingdoms as
to create a strong presumption that, if it were pos-sible
to cross the l~ou?adary lines of a species, there
would be abundant evidence of that also. But the fact
is that, with all nature under observation, and with
the plain records of the fossiliferous rocks, not one
transitional form to help bridge the gulf between one
species and another has ever been found. The four-toed
horse is as much a “horse” as the one-toed varie-ty.
And Mr. Darwin was himself compelled to con-cede
all that we here point out. He said (Life and
Letters, Vol. III. p. 25) : “There are two or thee mil-lion
of species on earth-suficient field, arm might
think, for observation. But it must be said tod.ay that,.1 0 FOREWORD
in spite of all the efforts of trained observers, not one
change of a species into another is on record.” This
statement can be made with even greater confidence
now, after a lapse of over half a century since Mr.
Darwin made the above admission.
It is vain, therefore, for the evolutionist to think he
can ride upon the four-toed horse to a succ~essful dem-onstration
of his theory.
The Wisdom of This World
The doctrine of Evolution is doubtless thLe culminat-ing
effort and fruit of “the wisdom of this world”;
and our thought about it is that God will make use of
it thereby to exhibit the utter “foolishness” of human
wisdom. Never has there been a cosmic philosophy set
forth with such pretentiousness, or backed with such
authority by “Science”; and never has there been a
doctrine so audaciously proclaimed in direct and de.
fiant opposition to the truth of Creation, revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Therefore the theory of Evolu-tion
is pre-eminently suited to exemplify the Scrip-ture,
“Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
worZd9” (1 Cor. 1:20.)
Framingham, Mass.
April, 1922..Evolution at the Bar
CHAPTER I
The Theory “Evolution” is a philosophical and
Defined speculative theory, of recent origin,
whereby it is sought to account for the
various elements and compounds of the inorganic
world, and also for the countless species of living
creatures in the organic world.
By the “inorganic world” is meant the elements
and compounds, as minerals and gases, which are
without life; and by the “organic world” is meant
organisms (plants and animals) which have life.
AIthough sometimes spoken of as a “scientific”
theory, Evolution is not scientific ; for science has to
do only with facts. Evolution belongs wholly in the
realm of speculative philosophy.
The basic assumption of this theory is that all
things in nature-living and not living-had a com-mon
origin; and that all the diverse elements, com-pounds,
and organisms were developed by the cumu-lative
effect of changes, in themselves imperceptibly
small, all of which changes were brought about by the
energy of “forces resident in nature.”
The theory assumes the existence of Matter and
Force, without attempting to account for the origin of
either. Matter is supposed to have existed originally
in a perfectly simple and undifferentiated condition.
Its form is supposed to have been that of an exceed-ingly
tenuous, highly heated mist or vapor, filling all
space. Force is also assumed to have been exeeeding-ly
simple at the first, being nothing more than a ten-.1 2 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
dency on the part of the entire mass of undifferen-tiated
Matter to keep in motion. As to where Matter
came from, and Force, and the tremendous uniform
Heat, necessary to keep Matter in a gaseous state, the
theory is silent.
The theory further assumes that, at some time, and
for some unexpIained reason, the motion of the par-ticles
of matter began to take diferent dimtions, and
also that, by the radiation of the heat of parts of the
mass, liquefaction and ultimately solidification re-sulted.
Where the heat so radiated could have gone-seeing
that all parts of infinite space were supposedly
heated alike -i s not explained ; nor how, in a perfectly
uniform mass, parts could assume a permanently
solid form, and other parts a normally li q u i d form,
while other parts remained normally gaseous. Upon
the theory of Cosmic Evolution all gases and liquids
should long ago have evolved into solids.
These great changes in Matter are supposed to have
been accompanied by equally notable changes in
Force. Differences of “ Environment” having now
arisen, of which differences the theory has no explana-tion,
the effects of Force or Energy would be in-fluenced
thereby, in such wise as to produce diversi-ties
of forms, until, by the continuous operation of
those processes, with ever increasing ramifications and
complexities, the infinite varieties of creatures, ani-mate
and inanimate, which now compose the universe,
came to be what they are.
Such are the words by which the theory of Evolu-tion
is set forth; but the only clear thing about them
is that they do not explain the origin of the universe
or of any of its parts.
Other principles are called to the aid of Evolution
at different stages of the cosmic process ; e. 8. Heredi-ty,
Environment., Natural Selection, Struggle for Ex-istence,
Survival of the Fittest, Transmission of Ac-quired
Characters, etc. With these auxiliary factors.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 1 3
we have but little concern, our object being to inquire
what, if any, foundation i n fact them is for the basic
theory. If that falls, the auxiliary factors must of
necessity fall with it.
According to Mr. Herbert Spencer, the leading ex-ponent
of the theory, evolutionary changes’ are of
three principal sorts : (1) a change from a less coher-ent
to a more coherent state; (2) a change from a
more homogeneous to a less homogeneous state; (3) a
change from a less definite to a more definite state.
Le Conte defines Evolution as “ (1) continuous pro-gressive
change, (2) according to fixed laws, (3) by
means of resident forces.”
It is important to note the expression r e s i d e n t
forces,”which excludes the idea of a Creator acting
in or upon the universe.
Such is the theory in its broad outlines; and it is
evident that thus far it is wholly imaginative and
speculative, every essential feature being assumed
without a particle of proof.Indeed it may be clearly
seen that the theory is self-contradictory, as in assum-ing
that (under the supposed conditions) latent heat
could discharge so as to permit concentration. to take
place, when there were no cooler regions into which it
could discharge.
Further it is self-evident that the action of Infinite
Wisdom and Power would be as much needed for the
creation of the supposed Matter and Force, with their
supposed capacity for development and diversifica-tion,
as for the creation of separate elemems, com-pounds,
and living species. In fact both Darwin and
his co-laborer Wallace had to admit that it was neees-sary
to concede, at various points in the supposed evo-lution
of the world, as well as at the starting point,
the working of an outside power, a power not resident
in matter. From this admission it follows that there
is nothing“ unscientific ’ ’ in the doctrine of Creation
by an intelligent Creator..1 4 EVOLUTION A T T H E BAR
“Cosmic” Nature is seen to exist in two great
and ‘ ‘ Organic departments, one comprising things
Evolution having life, the other things not hav-ing
life. The former is the “organ-ic”
department of nature, the latter the “inorganic.”
Between these two departments is an impassable gulf.
Evolutionists have to concede this ; for as Mr. Huxley
said,“The present state of knowledge furnishes us
with no link between the living and the not-living.”
This is a fatal admission ; for assuredly, if the en-tire
organic kingdom emerged out of the inorganic,
there would be innumerable “links” between the two.
It is simply impossible that all traces of such a stupen-dous
transformation should have been obliterated.
To accommodate the theory to this state of the divi-sion
of nature, Evolution has been correspondingly
divided into “Organic Evolution” and “Inorganic”
or ‘ ‘ Cosmic Evolution. ’ Thus we have, at present,
two distinct Evolutions, each rigidly confined to its
own department of nature. The original evolution,
which evolved living creatures out of inanimate mat-ter,
no longer exists.It has gone entirely out of busi-ness,
and has ceased to exist from the time, whenever
it was, that the world of living creatures was sepa-rated,
by an impassable barrier, from the not-living.
It would follow that Evolution is not what it once
was. Having once crossed the line which separates
the living from the not-living it has lost the power to
do so again.
Cosmic Cosmic Evolution, or Evolution. as it, is
Evolution supposed to operate in the universe at
large-the starry heavens, the earth and
sea and air-calls for but brief notice in this article.
Proof of the existence, either now or in past. ages, of
any such “law” as that of Evolution, is altogether
lacking. Suffice it, therefore, to say that if, anywhere
in the universe, at any stage of its existence, undif-.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 1 6
ferentiated matter has been gradually transformed by
means of resident forces, into the various substances
of earth, sea, and sky, with their widely different and
often antagonistic properties, there has never been
discovered by mortal man the shadow of a shade of a
proof thereof. The results of all investigations that
have been made up to the present hour bear accordant
witness to the fact that stability of forms and of the
properties of inorganic substances, is the fixed rule of
nature. Those who accept the idea of Cosmic Evolu-tion
must needs do so without any evidence whatever
to support it, for none exists.
Organic How then stands the case with respect to
Evolution “Organic Evolution”? Is it any better
supported than “Cosmic Evolution”?
In this field it will be necessary to make a closer ex-amination
of facts and phenomena; for living crea-tures
do undergo changes. In fact their existence is
one of continuous change.
What characterizes the organic department of na-ture
is the existence of individuals, each living an in-dependent
life of its own, and each having its own
life-history. Each of these individual organisms
comes suddenly into being; it goes through various
stages of growth until maturity is reached ; it repro-duces
its kind; it declines and suddenly ceases to exist.
This is what we find throughout the entire organic
field. But there is nothing in the inorganic depart-ment
of nature which even remotely resembles; this
life-story of individuals. That field will be searched
in vain for anything out of which the details of the
organic world, comprising several millions of species,
each with an infinitude of structural and other pecu-liarities,
could conceivably have been evolved. Yet;, the
theory of Evolution, as an universal or cosmic proc-ess,
requires us to believe that the entire organic
world emerged, at some past era, from the inorganic..1 6 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
Surely, if such were indeed the ease, then the latter would contain abundant evidences thereof, showing
how individual entities, with their characteristic life-changes,
c ame into existence. And not only SO, but
we should also find everywhere inorganic groupings of
atoms gradually reaching forth towards organic ex-istence
; and most certainly it would be possible by
laboratory methods to transform the o ne into the
other.
Due notice should also be taken of the striking fact
that the beginning of the existence of each living crea-ture
is sud d en, that its term of life is short, and that
its changes are rapid. Whereas Evolution requires a
very gradual coming into existence, exceedingly long
histories, and changes of prodigious slowness. The
fact then is that, in the field of the living., as in that
of the not-living, there is no evidence whatever in sup-port
of evolution; but on the contrary every fact and
phenomenon cognizable by the senses strongly contra-dicts
that theory. This will become more and more
apparent as we proceed..CHAPTER II
breaks in the As we trace in imagination the Sup-continuity
posed course of evolution from its as-sumed
beginning in undifferentiated
matter onward and upward to the infinite diversities
of the organic kingdom, we not only encounter diffi-culties
at every step and in connection with every de-tail,
but we also find certain gaps, deep and wide, for
which evolutionists themselves can offer no definite ex-planation.
The first and greatest of these is the gap
between the living and the not living. The entire
world of living creatures is assumed to have emerged,
sometime and somehow, and through “resident
forces,”out of the inorganic realm. Yet no trace of
this marvellous process remains, and the inorganic
world exhibits no progressiveness at all, no power or
disposition to advance one hair’s breadth.
The next gap is that between the vegetable and ani-mal
kingdoms.If the latter, in its entirety, arose out
of the former through gradual and infinitesimal
changes, no trace of that marvellous development re-mains;
nor can there be found in the vegetable king-dom
anything from which the characteristic features
o.f animal life could be evolved.
Next we encounter the great gap between the ver-tebrates
and the invertebrates ; then that between the
mammals and other vertebrates; then the gaps be-tween
each of the two million or so of distinct species
of organisms and every other ; and finally the immense
gap between Man and the highest of the brutes.
In considering the ese great gaps, and the many lesser
ones, it should be borne in mind that Evolution is set,
forth expressly as a theory of origins, that is to say,.1 8 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
as an explanation of how all the infinite varieties of
things, livingand not-living, came into existence.
But origins, including those of the very broadest
kind, are just what the theory conspicuously fails to
explain. Thus, to begin with, the evolutionist makes
no pretence that. his theory can explain the origin of
either Matter or Force. The existence of these he must
take for granted, and attribute them to an Unknow-able
First Cause.
The origin going on further we come to creatures
of Life having that mysterious thing c a l l e d Life.
Does Evolution account for the origin of
that? Quite the contrary; Darwin himself declared
that spontaneous generation is “absolutely incon-ceivable.
’ ’ His co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace,
says that “the very first vegetable cell must have pos-sessed
altogether new powers”; and he adds, “Here
we have indications of new power at work.” Hux-ley
admits that there is no evidence of an y link be-tween
the living and the not living; and other leading
evolutionists could be quoted to the same effect. So,
just where an explanation of the origin of a new and
extraordinary thing is needed, Evolution–that great
theory of origins-completely breaks down. Matter
and force do not account for the origin of life. There-fore
Darwin had to accept the truth of divine fiat to
explain it. He seems, in accepting this truth, to seek,
by the use of fine language, to disguise the fact that it
is fatal to his theory. Note his words: “There is a
grandeur in this view of Life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into
the first forms or into one.” If so, then is there not
the same “grandeur”in the view of the direct action
of the Creator in the origin of every substance and
species? Mr. Darwin admits (because he must) that
there is nothing “unscientific” in assuming the direct
intervention of the Creator in originating the first liv-.EVOLUTION AT T HE BAR 1 9
ing forms ; and if so there is nothing unscientific in as-s-
kg His intervention to create all living Species.
The Origin of the Going still further, we come to
Animal Kingdom the animal kingdom, whose spe-cies
have powers (as locomotion,
feelings, etc.) not possessed by the vegetable. What
has Evolution to say as to the origin of that? Not a
word. Here again Mr. Wallace admits that the ad-vance
from the vegetable to the animal kingdom is
“completely beyond all possibility of explanation by
Hatter, its laws and forces. It is the introduction of
sensation or consciousness, constituting the fundamen-tal
distinction between the animal and vegetable
kingdoms. ”
Thus, in respect to the origins of the major divi-sions
of nature, the theory of Evolution is a confessed
failure. It cannot even pretend to account for them.
This fact will be emphasized when we come to point
out, later on, that the foremost evolutionists, includ-ing
Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death,
utterly repudiated the Darwinian theory of the Origin
of Species. It would be difficult or impossible to find
a naturalist of the first rank who would support that
theory today.Haeckel alone, of the older naturalists,
stood for its defense ; and he was utterly discredited
because of his audacious and unscrupulous conduct
in forging evidences to support the theory. But we
would at this point ask, what is the value of, and what
credence should be given to, a Theory of Origins
which admittedly is unable to account for the origin
of Matter, Force, Life, the Animal Kingdom, and the
Species 1
Other Passing on, in our general survey of nature,
Origins and without further reference at present to
the Origin of Species (of which we have
more to say later), we come to the Vertebrates, that is.2 0 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
to say, that large and superior order of living crea- tures which have a back-bone.Does Evolution give us
any explanation of that P None whatever. While the difference between the vertebrates and invertebrates is
not so conspicuous and notable as that between the liv-ing
and not-living, or that between the vegetable and
animal kingdom, yet Evolution is just as impotent to
explain the one as the other. There is not the slight-est
evidence to show that creatures having no back-bone
“evolved” the many species of vertebrates, nor
is there even a plausible suggestion as to how such a
thing could be brought to pass.
Looking further, we come to the large and impor-tant
class of Mammals, that is to say, species whereof
the female imparts nourishment to its young from the
breast. Certain species of vertebrates-the birds, rep-tiles
and fishes-have not this peculiarity, nor any-thing
approaching it.These, however, are far inferior
to those creatures which have the nourishing breast.
So we ask again the question : Does Evolution account
for it ? And again the answer must be in the nega-tive.
There is no connecting link between the two
classes ; nor are there any groups of non-mammals
that are reaching out to enter the great class of Mam-malia.
We would at this point dispose of an unwarranted
inference which is often urged (in the total absence
of proofs) in support of the theory of Evolution.
That inference is that because there are many spe-cies
which have features in common-as back-bones,
and nourishing breasts-those species must have had
a common origin. That is to say, resemblances are sup-posed
to point to an ancestor common to all.But the
inference is without warrant. Such resemblances are
just as consistent with the dogma of Creation as with
the theory of Evolution. Resemblances are to be ex-pected
in the works of an all-wise Creator.For when
He has devised a contrivance, as a back-bone, to serve.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 2 1
a certain purpose, He would inevitably use the same
device in whatever place that purpose was to be
served, with only such modifications and adaptations
as the varying needs of individual species might re-quire.
We need not continue any further, for our present
purpose, our general survey of the field of the organic
kingdoms of nature.We deem it sufficient under this
heading to say that, in not one of these orders and
species, and in not one of the count1ess billions of or-ganisms
comprised in them, has there ever been seen
the slightest tendency to advance, or to depart from its
type. On the contrary, there is found in every living
creature the most stubborn and unconquerable deter-mination
not to evolve. The whole universe, there-fore,
and every member of it, is a witness against Evo-lution.
Furthermore, if Evolution were the law of progress
of the universe, it is manifest that there would be no
species or other lines of division. There would be only
individual forms, shading imperceptib1y one into an-other,
each in the process of becoming something else,
so that classification would be an impossibility. The
world that lies before us, composed of clearly marked
divisions, orders, classes, species, all sharply defined
and separated one from another by impassable bar-riers,
is just the opposite of such a world as the sup-posed
law of Evolution would produce. We can, there-fore,
summon heaven and earth, land and sea, and all
the hosts of them to bear witness, that Evolution is
a myth.
Permanenceof The matter of the permanence of
the Specie5 species deserves special considera-tion.
It is admitted on all hands
that there is no Evolution in the individual organism
-but that the contrary rule holds everywhere. For
the individual comes into being suddenly, matures.2 2 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
quickly, reproduces, and suddenly ceases to be. The
evolutionist, however., claims that it is the species, not
the individual organism, that has come into existence
through Evolution. The species, says he, is governed
by the “law” of Evolution, though (strange to say)
the individuals which compose the species are exempt
from it.
There is, however, a serious and obvious flaw in the
logic which would distinguish thus between the in-dividual,
and the species to which it belongs ; for the
species cannot exist apart from the individuals com-posing
it, any more than a river can exist apart from
its water. The species is merely an abstraction ; and
there is obviously no way a species can evolve, except
by the evolving of all the individuals composing it.
Strictly speaking, and for the purposes of a discus-sion
like this, “species” do not exist. What exist in
nature are simply innumerable individuals each hav-ing
its own life. Individuals which have life of the
same sort are said to constitute a “species..” There-fore,
evolutionary changes, if they take place at all,
must needs begin and continue in individuals.
It follows that, if there be no inherent tendency in
individual organisms to depart from their ancestral
types, there could not be any development of new spe-cies.
If, on the other hand, the immense number of
existing species did come into their present state of
being through evolutionary changes, effected by res-ident
forces (as distinguished from the act of a Crea-tor
from without) then we should find no distinct spe-cies
of plants and animals, but a very different state
of things; for, instead of definite and persistent
types, we should have a confusion of nondescript in-dividuals,
each in process of becoming something dif-ferent
from what its ancestors were.
Evolution assumes that all things in the organic
world are endowed with two opposite and. mutually
antagonistic tendencies, first a tendency to depart.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 2 3
from its ancestral type under the influence of changes
in“ environment, ”and second, a tendency to hold
ti g h tly all its pecularities, and to transmit them to its
offspring. These two tendencies could not exist in
the same creatures. The former is purely imaginary.
It is contrary to all the observed facts of nature. For,
so far from there being any tendency on the part of
individuals to depart from the ancestral type, and so
far from there being any evidence of “resident
forces” in them, impelling them to do so, the fact is-a
l w a y s and everywhere-that individual organisms
evince a most stubborn tendency to cling to the an-cestral
type, despite all influences to the contrary.
This important fact can be stated very strongly;
for scientific men, like Luther Burbank, have sought
by every conceivable means to develop new species.
But, notwithstanding some remarkable results in the
way of“varieties,” it has been found (1) that the
barrier of species cannot be crossed, (2) that every
“variety” produced artificially, if left to itself for a
few generations, reverts to the original type. In a
word, what we find in each and all the thousands of
species of living creatures is, perfect obedience to the
primal law of their being, given to them by their Crea-tor
when he said,“Let the earth bring forth grass
and herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding
fruit after his kind* * * and the living creature,
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of
the earth, after his kind; and it was so” (Gen. 1:11,
24).It was “so” then; and beyond all question it is
“so” now.
Here we see that Evolution comes into direct col-lision
both with the facts of nature and with th e state-ments
of the Word of God.
Development A “species”may embrace many dis-of
“Varieties” distinct “varieties,”and man has in-deed
been able to produce artificially
many varieties ofexisting species. But it is always nec-.2 4 EVOLUTION AT T H E BAR
essary to maintain by artificial means the modtications
thus produced, else the individuals speedily revert to
the original ancestral condition. Thus, upon consid-eration
of these modifications of type, it is found that,
so far from lending any support to the theory of Evo-lution,
they furnish a strong argument against it.
For it is essential to that theory that modifications,
when of advantage to the possessor, should become
fixed in the family, and be carried forward to all suc-ceeding
generations. But what we find in actual ex-perience
is just the reverse.
Moreover, while varieties without number can be
easily produced, it has been found impossible, even in
a single instance, to cross the line of species. Thus,
we see many varieties of dog. The canine species in-cludes
the great shaggy St. Bernard, and the diminu-tive
smooth skinned terrier.But in every case it is a
dog, and is recognized by his fellow dogs as such.
No amount of breeding, or cross-breeding, could ever
make him anything but a dog.
Indeed it is demonstrable that the species are abso-lutely
fixed; and that so far from there being a gen-eral
tendency on the part of all animate creatures to
depart from the ancestral type, there is, on the con-trary,
found to be an invariable and inexorable law,
which absolutely forbids such departure. Since we
regard this fact as fatal to the Darwinian theory of
the origin of species, we will give the explanation of
it in the words of a famous evolutionist, Mr. Huxley, who says :
“If you breed from the male and female
of the same race, you of course have off-spring
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.EVOLUTION AT THB BAR 2 6
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, 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 mate 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.”
We need not inquire the explanation of this,
though Mr. Huxley says,“the reason is quite obvious
in some cases”;for the fact is admitted on all hands.
Now what, we would ask, is the inference to be
drawn from this fact P Certainly it follows that the
evolution of one species from another is an impos-sibility;
so that, at this point again, the theory breaks
down completely. Indeed we can read as much be-tween
the lines of the admission which Mr. Huxley
himself is constrained, though with manifest reluc-tance,
to make. He says:
“After much consideration, and assuredly
with 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 arii-ficial
or natural.” And again; “Our accept-ance
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. ’ ’.2 6 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
Later on Mr. Huxley definitely r e j e c te d the Dar-winian
theory, as we will point out hereafter.
Repro- We have referred in the foregoing pages to
duction the power, inherent in all living creatures,
to reproduce their kind. This universal
fact, which obviously is essential to the continuance
of every species, raises the important question, how
did the power of reproduction originate? It 1s evi-dent
that the very first (as well as all subsequent) or-ganisms
must have possessed this marvelIous power.
Whence then did it come? Manifestly it could not
have arisen by a gradual process of Evolution; for the
very first organisms must have had it in the same per-fection
as their offspring.Here again t he doctrine of
Creation appears to great advantage in comparison
with the defective theory of Evolution; for, as a prom-inent
part of the inspired description of Creation, are
the words:“Grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind” etc. Those words fully account for the power
of reproduction possessed by all living creatures.
In concluding under this heading we want to say
that it would suffice to put the case for Evolution en-tirely
out of court that there should be found no evi-dence
sufficient in character and amount to establish
it. But the case against it is far stronger than that.
For even those who give no weight to the testimony of
the Bible on this point, have to admit that there are
no observable tendencies on the part of any one of
the billions of living creatures to depart from the an-cestral
type, but that, per contra, where variations
have been produced artificially, they are but sIight
in character, and the tendency is invariably to go
backward and not forward.This is a strong disproof
of Evolution..CHAPTER III
Science not In this chapter we propose to examine
an, Authority the reasons usually advanced in SUP-p
o r t o f t h e t h e o r y of Evolution.
Those reasons relate entirely to Organic Evolution,
or the Origin of Species and the “Descent of Man”;
for there is (so far as we are aware), no pretence
that any facts are known from which the theory of
Cosmic Evolution could be inferred.
It should be pointed out, before entering upon this
examination, that it is easy to impose upon the ma-jority
of people by an appeal to “Science” as an au-thority.
Thus, we often hear it said, “Science has
discovered this,” or“Science tells us that,” as if
the matter were thereby conclusively settled. But
it would be well to ask, who is “Science”? and where
does he live 1 And how comes he to know these things ?
The fact is there is no “Science” in this sense. It is
true that a few capable men have attempted to ex-plore
the field of Nature in various directions, and
have ascertained a fact or two, to which they have
added a thousand guesses. But they have left a mil-lion
questions unanswered, without which no safe
conclusions can be drawn. It is the commonest
thing for “Science” to contradict one day what it
most positively asserted the day previous.; so that, in
view of the existing state of complete scientific igno-rance
on the subject of origins, it would be absurd to
accept as true any statement on that subject in the
name of “ Science. ”
A few years ago Mr. Thomas A. Edison, comment-ing
upon the boasted progress of Science, said that
if the same rate of progress were maintained for the
next two thousand years, mankind might then be in a
position to begin to draw conclusions..28 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
Reasons Given In examining the reasons that are
in support of commonly given in support of the
Evolution theory, we shall select those which
are deemed, by its advocates, to be
the strongest. These are (1) the changes which are
observed to occur in the embryo of the human spe-cies
from its first beginning to its full development.
which changes are assumed to be, in their order and
character, a recapitulation of the changes through
which the species itself is supposed to have passed in
the course of its development; (2) the succession of
living forms in time; it having been ascertained from
geological researches, that the more simple forms of
life are, generally speaking, found in the lower strata
of rocks, and those more complex higher up.
Embryology We put this argument first because
(a) it is generally deemed the strongest,
and (b) it is from out of the studies of changes in
the embryo (embryology) that the idea of Evolution
sprang. So we have now the opportunity to exam-ine
the theory at its point of origin.
The argument from embryology consists of two
suppositions, for neither of which is there any proof
whatever. Firsl it is assumed that the human species
did evolve by gradual changes, passing from a simple
uni-cellular creature, such as the Amoeba, through
successiveIy higher species until it became Man; and
second, it is assumed that the human embryo passes through the some changes in its prenatal history of
about nine months.Manifestly we have here no proof
of Evolution; for in this argument, Evolution is taken
for granted. It cannot be possibly known whether the
changes of the embryo are a resume of the history of
development of the species, until it is known what
that h i s t o ry was. Therefore we are thrown back up-on
the question, can Evolution be certainly inferred
from the changes of the embryo7.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 29
First let it be observed that there is no proved or
necessary relationship between the growth of the em-bryo
and the history of its species.If indeed the em-bryo
does perform, in the short space of nine months,
the stupendous feat of changing from Amoeba to Man,
passing swiftly through all the intervening species,
it would be a most miraculous and supernatural thing,
whereof it were vain to seek an explanation in the
sphere of nature. Evolution, however, is exceedingly
slow. It demands millions of years to effect slight
changes. It denies and excludes the miraculous from
the sphere of nature. It cannot, therefore, assume a
prodigious miracle in its own support. The supposed
transformations of the embryo tend not in the slight-est
to prove the truth of the theory. Those changes,
like all others in the history of a living creature, be-long
in the category of the mysteries of life, concern-ing
which science has been able thus far to give no
explanation whatever.“The way of the tree of life”
(Gen. 3 :24) has been effectually kept from all prying
investigators.
But let us go deeper into the subject, and ask, what
are the changes which take place in the human em-bryo
1 And do they really constitute an evolution4
upon pressing this inquiry we find first, that the like- *
ness of the human embryo to that of other creatures
at different stages of its growth is a mere superficial
resemblance ; for even the evolutionist would not pre-tend
that there is any essential likeness between them ;
and second, that even in those superficial and tran-sient
resemblances the growth of the embryo does not
go through the stages of the supposed development of
man. These objections are fatal.
1. In a case of this sort, superficial resemblances
count for nothing ; for beneath them there are, in fact, vital differences. The human embryo is, at all
stages of its growth, the human embryo.It is at every
stage, essentially different from that of the worm, the.30 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
fish, and from that of every other mammal. Prof.
Fairhurst says :
“It is evident that while all eggs, from that Of
the sponge to that of man, may seem to be alike
in structure, they are really as far apart in their
essential nature as are the fully developed sponge
and the full-grown man. Taking the embryos of
man and fish the argument of the evolutionist is
as follows :The embryos of man and fish, at a
certain stage of development, are closely alike
in appearance ; therefore, man and fish had a
common ancestral origin. The conclusion which
the evolutionist draws is based upon a mere seem-ing
and very transient resemblance, while the
fact that the two embryos are essentially unlike
is shown by the vast distance apart at which
they arrive by development. It is true that the
embryos of vertebrates look much more alike than
do the adults, and that the eggs are still nearer
alike in appearance than are the embryos; but I
insist again that the embryos are no nearer to-gether
in essential structure than the adults.
The egg which can be developed into a man is
just as different in nature from the egg of a fish,
as the man is from the fish. The eggs are essen-tially
unlike. The essential qualities of eggs are
beyond the power of the microscope to reveal.
The human embryo is produced by human be- ings only; and whatever may be its miscroscopic
appearance, it is at every stage of its develop-ment
strictly human. Embryology, as applied to
Evolution, fails in that it deals only with the
surface of things.”
Thus the strongest argument of the evolutionist
breaks down completely for the reason that the facts
are the reverse of what his theory calls for.
2. Furthermore, even the superficial changes of.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 3 1
the human embryo do not represent anything like
the complete line of the supposed human ancestry.
Prof. Fairhurst says that the entire first half of the
history of Evolution is not even hinted at in the epi-tome
(Organic Evolution Considered, p. 147).
Further he says:
“There are radical differences between the em-bryos
of vertebrates and invertebrates. Worms
and other articulates in embryo lie doubled
backwards around the yolk, while all vertebrates
are doubled in the opposite direction. According
to the theory that the embryonic condition is a
recapitulation of the stages of organic evolution,
this fundamental fact of invertebrate embryology
ought to have been preserved by the vertebrate.
Evolution gives no account of this reversal. of
position by the vertebrates.”
There are other gaps in the succession of changes
through which the embryo passes; but it is needless
to speak of them. Enough has been said to show that
the argument from embryology is not only a far-fetched
inference, but that the facts are the reverse
of what the inference calls for.
It is of interest to note that Dr. Romanes, one of
the most extreme of evolutionists, declared the facts
of embryology to be “the most important of the lines
of evidence”in support of Evolution. While hold-ing
those views he wrote strongly against the Bible
doctrine of Creation, and against supernaturalism in
general. “But later he changed his views entirely,
and died in 1894, confessing his faith, not only in the
providence of God, but in the deity of Christ.” (Fair-hurst
: Theistic Evolution, p. 11.)
Succession The evolutionist also appeals, in support
of Species of his theory, to the fact that the fossils
preserved in the sedamentary rocks in-dicate
that the various species did not come into exist-.32 EVOLUTION AT THE B A R
ence all at once, but successively ; and that (general-ly
speaking) the simpler forms came first into
existence, and the more complex later in point of time.
To this argument the obvious answer is that the fact
of the successive appearance of the several species
does not tend in the least to prove that the later were
derived from the earlier by a process of evolution, or
by any other process. The succession of the species
can be explained by Creation, as well as by Evolution.
In fact the record of Creation in Genesis 1, declares
that vegetation first appeared on earth,, then fishes,
then birds, then land animals, and finally Man. The
geological remains show the same order. Manifestly
then the argument from succession of species lends no
support whatever to the theory we are discussing.
But we can go further than this ; for ,when the de-tails
of the geological records, as presented by the
science of paleontology, are examined, it is found
that they bear heavily against the theory. This is
conceded by the very foremost evolutionists, insomuch
that, to escape the force of the paleontological proofs,
they are driven to the pitiful expedient of supposing
that there have been millions of extinct species and
transitional forms which have left no trace of their
existence, and that if by any means the Iost evidence
could be recovered, it would prove their case.
The fact is that an enormous mass of evidence has
been accumulated by means of geological researches.
Here we have the foot-prints of the distant past, the
records of the periods which would certainly be rich in the evidences of the evolutionary origin of the va-rious
species, if such were indeed the nature of their
beginning. The evolutionist examines this great mass
of facts and finds nothing which supports his theory,
but much to the contrary. His only comment on the
situation is that Nature has, with invidious discrim-ination,
destroyed the great bulk of the evidence, in-cluding
every trace of the operation. of Evolution, and.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 3 3
every one of the thousand billion variant forms which
must have existed, and has preserved only such evi-dences,
and those in great abundance, as oppose his
theory.It may be said of this explanation that it is
even harder to understand and to accept than that
which it purports to explain-the absence of all trace
of a “law” which is said to have operated universally
and from the very beginning of time.The great god,
Evolution, is indeed as difficult to locate or find a trace
of as the Olympian Zeus.
Imagine a litigant in court upon whom rests the
burden of proof. He insists that the averments of
his declaration are true, and demands a verdict in his
favor; but he has no proofs to sustain his allegations. In fact all the evidence presented in court is against
him. He demands, nevertheless, that judgment be
rendered in his favor upon the supposition (a) that
volumes of proofs, which once existed, have been de-stroyed,
leaving no trace ; and (b) that if those proofs
could now be produced they would be found to be in his favor! Such is the absurd plight in which the
theory of Evolution now finds itself, as matters stand
at present.
As to this important feature of the discussion it is
enough to say that, considering the great mass of f os
silized remains which have been collected from every
stratum, and from every part of the world, the pre-sumption
is that, if the records were complete, the
parts now missing would confirm what we have.
Species The first fossil remains of organisms we
Appeared found in the Primordial period. Le Conte
Suddenly says that in it are found “the representa-tives
of all the great types of animals,
except the vertebrates. ”Thus, according to the evi-dence
(which, by Le Conte’s statement, is massive in
quantity and clear in character), numerous highly or-ganized
creatures-about half the entire animal k ing-.3 4 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
dom in fact-came suddenly and virtually simulta-neously
into existence. Of their supposed progenitors,
of whom, if Evolution be true, countless billions must
have existed, not a trace survives in the earlier forma-tions.
This is the more impressive because those ear-lier
formations are estimated to have occupied about
half the entire period of geological time.
(In this discussion we are giving the evolutionist
the advantage of supposing, for the purpose of the ar-gument,
that his theory of immense ages of geological
time is correct. That theory is, in fact, quite destitute
of supporting proof, and we wish it to be understood
that we do not accept it as true.)
Great Gap Another very striking fact which
Between Species this earliest record of living crea-Existed
From tures presents is that, “from the
the First very beginning the great gulfs
which separate the animal kingdom
into sub-kingdoms and classes existed then, and have
continued till the present time” (Fairhurst). Con-sidering
that the interval from the Primordial period
until now is estimated by physicists at fifty millions
of years, we have in this fact of stability of the spe-cies
a conclusive proof that Evolution is a myth,
Another striking fact, to which these records bear
witness, and which is fatal to the theory, is that every
species, as it suddenly appears, has its complete or-ganism;
that is to say, it is fully developed in every
feature of its structure, however complex.
If, therefore, we place ourselves in imagination in
the Primordial period, amidst the immense number
of varieties of living creatures then existent, whether
we look backward i n to the past, or forward into the
future, we see that Evolution had nothing whatever
to do with their origin or development. In one direc-tion
we see no long ancestral line from which they
were graduaIly evolved ; for the species, like each in-.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 36
dividual member thereof, came into being Suddently
This may be termed “negative” evidence. But such
evidence is sometimes conclusive, as when a thorough
exploration of an island reveals no remains what-ever
of man or human implements, it may be CON
cluded with certainty that it was never inhabited by
man. But on looking forward the evidence is positive, as
well as concIusive. For the very same species found
in the Primordial era, and appearing suddenly, are in
existence today without substantial change of struc-ture
or habit of life. Evolution requires, and of course
would produce, life-forms quite flexible and plastic, structures such that every part of every organ and
surface would be liable at all times to variation, and
would be subject to change whenever a change of en-vironment
occurs. But we find, on the contrary, ab-solute
rigidity of both structure and habit. On this
evidence we are bound to conclude that living crea-tures
originated in a manner very different from that
assumed by the evolutionist.
As has been already stated, the earliest geological
remains of organisms show lower and higher forms
of life existing side by side. Now, according to Evo-lution,
the former would be the progenitors of the lat-ter
; and upon that supposition there must have been
already at that early period an immense evolutionary
advance, which would imply that such lower forms
were exceedingly progressive in character. But this
supposition (and with it the entire theory) is, com-pletely
negatived by the fact that those self-same
forms have persisted without change to this very day. Instead of being progressive, as Evolution demands,
they are proven to be absolutely unprogressive. Every
one of those million forms is a venerable witness (50
million years old, if our geologists are right) against
the theory of Evolution.
What reply has the evolutionist to these facts?.3 6 EVOLUTION AT T H E BAR
Worse than none. Mr. Huxley, one of the ablest of
them all, and one who openly devoted his great tal-ents
to the destruction of faith in Divine revelation,
has faced these facts in his address to the Royal
Geological Society in 1870. He puts the question
thus :
“What then does an impartial survey of the
positively ascertained truths of paleontology testify in relation to the common doctrines of
progressive modification (i, e. Evolution), which
suppose that modification to have taken place
from more to less embryonic forms, from more to
less generalized types, within the limits of the
period represented by the fossiliferous rocks?”
And he answers the question by saying, “I reply,
it negatives those doctrines; for it either shows
us no evidence of such modifications, or it demon-strates
such modification as has occurred to have
been very slight. The significance of persistent
types, and 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” (quoted by Th.
Graebner, in “Evolution“).
The Fragmen- The disappointed lutionist leads
tary Character the- imperfecion of t e.. gee oa;lcal 9h–p– of the Record r&ZFds?IiI–o%er that his theory
mt be dismissed for lack of
proof, he asks us to believe that much of the pertinent
evidence has been lost, and that what has been lost
was in. favor of his theory.But Le Conte says : “We
think the fragmentariness of the geological record has
been overstated.” And the Duke of Argyll, in his
Organic Evolution Cross-Examined, shows conelu-sively
that, in certain periods, the plea of ilmperfee-tion
of the record is completely ruled out..EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 3 7
“There are,” says he, “some tracts of time re-garding
which our records are as Complete as we
could desire. In the Jurassic rocks we have a
continuous and undisturbed series of long and
tranquil deposits, containing a complete record
of all the new forms of life which were intro-duced
during those ages of oceanic life. And
those ages were as a fact long enough to see not
only a thick (1300 feet) mass of deposit, ‘but al-so
the first appearance of hundreds of new spe-cies.
These are all as definite and distinct from
each other as are existing species. No less than
1850 new species have been counted, all of them
suddenly born, all of them lasting only for a
time, and all of them in their turn superseded by
still newer forms. There is no sign of mixture
or of confusion, or of infinitesimal, or of inter-mediate
variations. These ‘Medals of Creation’
are all, each of them, struck by a new die, which
never failed to impress itself on the plastic ma-terials
of this truly creative work.”
Could it be shown that but only one species origi-nated
otherwise than by slight modification of the
structure of pre-existent species, that would suffice to
overthrow the theory of Evolution. But the science
of paleontology presents us with clear evidences of
thousands of species coming suddenly into existence ;
and on the other hand there is not the faintest indica-tion
that there was ever a species that came into be-ing
in any other way.
We have, therefore, found that what evolutionists
put forward as the strongest proofs of their theory-Embryology
and Paleontology-yield, when closely
examined, convincing, indeed conclusive, evidence
against it..CHAPTER IV
Specific Objections Evolution undertakes’ to account
to Evolution for every part of every living
organism, by progressive modifi-cations
caused by resident forces. Hence it is not an
exaggeration to say that every organ and member of
every living creature supplies us with an objection to
Organic Evolution. Our difficulty, therefore, is not
for lack of illustrations, but rather which to select
from the number available. Several out of the many
at our disposal will suffice to show how completely the
theory breaks down, when we leave the realm of vague
generalities and bring it to the test of concrete facts.
Before applying this test we should perhaps state
that, according to the Darwianian theory, every organ
was evolved from what was originally a very slight
variation (due to accident or other cause unknown),
which variation, because it proved useful to its pos- sessor, was transmitted to its offspring; and it is sup-posed
that the departure continued through many
generations until at last it became an organ-such as
an eye, an ear, a wing, with a distinct and valuable
function. Thus “Natural Selection” attempts to
account for the preservation, of certain variations
from the original stock, but not for their poduction.
The main point of the doctrine is that only such acci-dental
variations are preserved as are advantageous to their possessor. We cannot state the theory more
definitely because its authors themselves are utterlv
unable to suggest how Natural Selection worked in
any concrete case-as, for example, in evolving the
wings of fowls and insects. Mr. Darwin says : “Our
ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not
in one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 3 9
any reason why this or that part has varied.” Thus
we are left, as Prof. Fairhurst says, “in almost total
darkness as to the cause of the most important factor
in Organic Evolution. ”
The evolutionist, leaves us to think out for ourselves
how the limitless number of diversities of organs,
members, instincts, etc., in all the millions of living
species, came into being. We see in all of them spe-cific
organs upon which their existence or welfare
depends. Natural SeIection tells us that, at a. time
far back in the past, their ancestors had none of those
organs, not even those that are vital. But it d o es not,
nor does it attempt to, trace the development of a sin-gle
organ, or tell us what the intermediate creatures
were like, or how they lived during the long stretches
of years during which those vital organs were being
evolved. The question is: How did many generations
of species live without organs whose functions are
vital? That is a hard question even for an evolu-tionist.
Here then we are in a position to state an objection
to which, so far as we are aware, no reply has ever
been made. It is this: Inasmuch as the evolution of
an organ, such as the wing of a fowl, would require
many centuries of time, and many generations from
parent to offspring to bring it to a useful stage of de-velopment,
how is it possible to account for its pres-ervation
during the long period when it was an un-developed
and useless appendage P Natural Selection
purports to account for the preservation only of such
variations as are useful to the possessor in “the strug-gle
for existence. ”The facts of nature force that
limitation upon the theory, inasmuch as the existing
organs and members are such as are of some use or
advantage. The theory cannot admit of the perpetua-tion
of useless organs a nd structural features, for such
do not exist. But, upon looking closely at the matter,
we perceive that every organ-such as an arm, an eye,.4 0 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
an ear-however advantageous when fully developed,
must have been preceded (if the theory be true) by
an exceedingly long period during which it would
have been not merely useless, but often a positive dis-advantage.
It follows that Natural Selection, by its
own necessary limitations, cannot account for the de-velopment
of any organ which must needs pass
through a period of non-usefulness.Hence the theory
breaks down completely.
3$;Oz;ga Consider, for example, the wing of a
fowl (an illustration used most effective-ly
by Prof. Luther T. Townsend, and
quoted in Dr. Leander S. Keyser’s Contending for the
Faith.). Here is a very highly organized structure,
certainly most important to its possessor.It is a won-der
of design, and the very perfection. of workman-ship
in every detail, down to the tiniest feature of the
smallest feather. Whether we regard the design, or
the construction, or the material, we see perfection in
each and all. But we find on the back of every bird
not one wing, but two, practically identical in. every
feature. Moreover, they are symmetrically placed,
and in the most advantageous position for the purpose
for which, upon the theory of Creation, we should say
they were intended. But, according to Evolution,
those wings must have been developed each quite inde-pendently
of the other, from what was at first an ac-cidental
hump or protuberance on the back of a feath-erless
reptile. They must, moreove:r, have been
perpetuated, with steadily progressive development,
keeping pace with one another, through the progeny of
countless generations, during all of which time, these
unnatural excrescences would be, not an advantage,
but decidedly an encumbrance to their possesessors. But
this could not go on under the “law” of Natural Se-lection;
for that “law” tolerates only the fostering of
useful variations. Hence Natural Selection would.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 41
quickly destroy such variations. But conversely the
wings of the fowl destroy Natural Selection. Evolu-tion
cannot account for wings, either by Natural
Selection or by any other supposed method of work-ing.
Many able evolutionists have admitted this
(Herbert Spencer among them) ; yet they cling to
Evolution, notwithstanding the impossibility of pro-posing
a method by which it could work. Is it be-cause
they cannot bear the alternative of recognizing
Creation and the Creator?
The Bat We would cite in this connection the in-and
the structive case of the bat, quoting from
Mole Prof. Th. Qraebner: “The bat,” says he,
“is another highly specialized animal.
“In many respects it resembles the mole; but
its hands are enormously expanded, and the ex-ceedingly
long fingers are connected by a soft
membrane, making a most serviceable wing. Is it
not extremely likely, assuming the development
theory to be true, that the mole and the bat
sprang from a common ancestor? And was not
that ancestor probably a wingless mammal
How then came the bat to acquire his wings?
Did he attempt to spring into the air to seize a
passing insect, reaching out his fore-paws to
catch it? And did those paws gradually become
enlarged until, after some generations, they be-came
real wings? If so, 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. There is no middle ground.
If the ancestor of the bat was a terrestrial crea-ture,
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 ;.4 2 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
for such a creature would have been helpless and
must have perished.
“All this applies with equal force to the diver-sified
and often highly complex structure of
plants. As the organs of the various plants are
now constituted they serve most admirably their
respective purposes. Given a slight change, an
undevelopment, and the individual would perish.
But such undeveloped stages must necessarily
have occurred in the history of every life-form o n
earth, if a change through slow adaptations is to
be accepted as an hypothesis to account for their
present form. To our mind this matter of rudi-mentary
structures presents an insuperable ob-stacle
to acceptance of the evolutionary hypothe-sis,
even on scientific grounds.”
We have thus far considered only the subject of
wings, seeking to imagine how those wonderful organs,
so vital to their possessors, could have been evolved.
But manifestly whatever organ or member, external
or internal, of whatever creature we might select, it
would be equally impossible to trace any line of devel-opment
for it, whether by Natural Selection or any
other method of Evolution that has been proposed.It
is obvious that humps, excrescences and other abnor-malities,
are blemishes; and the more they might be de-veloped,
short of acquiring a new function (as sight,
hearing, flying) they would be a great disadvantage
to their possessors. Such abnormalities, moreover, do
not tend to reappear in offspring On the contrary
they tend to disappear.A whole race of men have
practiced the rite of circumcision for nearly four
thousand years, and at the same time have refrained
from outside marriages; yet never was a child born already circumcised.
If, however, the perpetuation of such abnormali-ties
were indeed the law of nature, then there would.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 4 3
be no recognizable species. All individuals would be
undergoing changes, both internal and external. In
such case we should see humps, protuberances and the like, on various parts of different creatures, in various
stages of progress towards whatever chance, or “res-ident
forces, ”might ultimately determine-legs,
arms, wings, horns, tails, trunks, tusks, or some other
and novel sort of organs or members, of the nature
whereof we couId form no idea in advance of their
complete development.That is what we would: see if
Evolution were true. If then we see nothing of the
sort, it is because Evolution is a delusion.
It is appropriate also to ask, when, under the sup-posed
process of Evolution, wouId a deveIoping organ
or member reach completionf How would the “res-ident
forces” know when to stop its progress1Could
it ever be said, in any case, that an organ was finished?
Would not progressive changes be always taking place
in every part of every organism! CertainIy, if the
world of living creatures were indeed left to the blind
control of unintelligent “resident forces,” it would be
a world of more vagaries, monstrosities and abnormal-ities,
than was ever pictured by a delirious brain, or
by the disordered imagination of an opium eater.
The Water Let us now consider the case of the
Spider water spider, and ask ourselves if there
be any conceivable way in which its peculiar organs, instincts, and manner of life., could
have been derived, by Evolution, from others of the
spider family.
Like other spiders the water spider is an air-breathing
animal, yet, unlike other spiders, it lives
under water. HOW did it evolve the extraordinary
changes in its organism, and in its habits of life,
whereby it acquired first, its set purpose to live under
water; and second, its special organs and instincts
whereby it is enabled to give effect to that strange.4 4 EVOLUTION AT T H E BAR:
purpose, and to live, thrive, and rear its y o u n g in such
an unnatural environment ?
Of course, if the water spider was always a water
spider, and was, by its Creator, endowed with just
the organs and instincts that are suited to the manner
of life appointed to it, the matter is very simple and
intelligible. But we are inquiring how the water
spider and its ways could have come about through
Evolution. Surely those who press that. theory upon
their fellow-mortals, and who ask them to cast aside
the belief in Creation and the Creator–with all that
that involves-should at least be required to tell us
how Evolution worked, or could have worked in such
a case. Was ever such a thing heard of, as that we
should be asked to believe, on the ground of “reason”
and “science,” in a thing so preposterously u n-reasonable
that the imagination can conceive of no
possible way in which it could be accomplished’?
Upon examining the water spider, and. acquainting
ourselves with its ways, we find that its body is cov-ered
with hairs in such a way that it does not become
wet when in contact with water. In order to live un-der
water, and rear its young there, it must construct
a water-proof cell, capable of containing enough air
for breathing purposes ; it must have means for re-newing
the supply of air from time to time; and it
must have the instincts to guide it in the performance
of these necessary operations.And we may confident-ly
add that the ve r y first water spider must have been
fully equipped for the purposes indicated. It spins
under the water an egg-shaped envelope, open under-neath
for entrance and egress. This envelope, which
is water-proof, is securely attached to some object so
that it will remain submerged. Having constructed
its house, the little creature next proceeds to fill it
with air. For this necessary operation its hind legs
are covered with hair and are so constructed that they
can take hold of a large bubble of air, and carry it.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 4 6
down into the water, and to the opening of its house.
There the air is released, and it rises to the top Of: the
envelope, expelling the corresponding quantity of
water. This operation is repeated until the cell is
sufficiently filled with air. The eggs are then laid in
the upper part of this house and are surrounded by a
cocoon.
It is manifest that this extraordinary manner of
life, and the highly specialized organs, which are vital
to it, could not possibly be the outcome of a long and
slow process of development. Before the life of a
water spider could even begin, it must be equipped
with, first, the means for secreting a water-proof
material; second, means for spinning that material
into a water-tight cell ; third, protective hairs to keep
it from becoming wet ; fourth, the peculiar apparatus
for filling its house with air ; fifth, the several instincts
which prompt the doing of these remarkable things.
That there is no trace of the evolution of the water
spider (or of any other creature) is reason enough
why the theory should be rejected. But we confi-dently
submit that the facts briefly set forth above,
and the conclusions which necessarily follow from
them, constitute proof positive that Evolution is not
only an impossibility, but an absurdity.
Spidersin The subject of the origin of instincts
General will be further considered under our
next heading. But while we have be-fore
us the subject of spiders, the following from
Orton’s Zoology will be of interest:
“Spiders are provided at the posterior end
with two or three pairs of appendages called spinnerets, which are homologous with legs.The
offce of the spinnerets is to reel out the silk from
the silk-glands, th e tip being perforated by a
myriad of little tubes, through which the silk
escapes in excessively fine threads, An ordinary.4 6 ElVOLUTION AT THE BAR
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.”
Here we find a marvellous co-ordination of special
organs : (1) the silk-glands, capable of secreting a fluid
which has the remarkable property of hardening upon
exposure to the air; (2) spinnerets, having each more
than a thousand perforations of microscopic size,
without which the silk-glands would be worse than
useless ; (3) hind legs, having the wonderful func-tion
of forming the thousands of invisible filaments
into a thread, without which function both glands and
spinnerets would be a serious detriment to their pos-sessor.
It is simply impossible that these three organs
should have developed gradually, and independently
of each other, to the stage of perfection, in advance of
which stage they could not co-operate in the slightest
degree to the one end for which they all exist.
Let it be noted that, if the spinnerets had but one
aperture, or a dozen, or even a hundred, the liquid
material would not have the required area of expo-sure
to the air to effect that instant solidification which
is absolutely essential to the success of the entire op-eration.
It required at least a thousand apertures to
produce the desired result. Who knew, or could have
known, the need of such a number of orifices S or could
have formed them in a tube the size of a spider’s leg?
And in what imaginable way could several legs, in-tended
for locomotion, be evolved into organs so rad-ically
different in function?It is not too much to say
that those thousands of orifices are just so many wit-nesses
that Evolution is a huge delusion, which has
made foolish the wisdom of the wise, and has exposed
to deserved ridicule the gullibility of the brightest
minds..EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 4 7
Organs and The difficulty of tracing a line of de-Instincts
: velopment along which any known
The Bee-Hive organism could have come into being,
or any of its special members or parts
could have originated, is immensely increased when we
take into consideration a highly specialized creature,
such as the honey-bee, . which is also endowed with
unique instincts requiring for their exercise a cor-responding
unique structural organization. In such
case the theory has to account, not only for the evo-lution
of an exceedingly complicated mechanism, but
also for the simultaneous development of equally com-plicated
instincts, dependent upon that very mechan-ism,
and impossible of being obeyed without it. And
it has further to account for the preservation of both
mechanism and instincts through the long era of in-utility.
And-to add one impossibility to another-we
have here a case in which, not the life of the indi-vidual
only but that of the entire community depends
upon the exercise of those instincts and the function-ing
of that mechanism. Where and what were the
honey-bees during the centuries of time which Natural
Selection would require for the evolution of those in-stincts
and their necessary mechanism? Evolution at-tempts
not to give an answer.
But the difficulties in this case have not yet been
fully stated; for in the swarm of bees we find three
distinct classes-queens, workers and drones. Each
of these classes is absolutely necessary to the life of
the swarm, and each has structural peculiarities and
instincts radically different from the other two. The
workers, which are undeveloped females, constitute
the largest and most important class. Their organic
structure is highly specialized to fit them for the many
and various operations they have to perform ; and
their instincts are correspondingly complex. How
and from what could such a marvellously specialized
creature have been evolved4 The evolutionist can.4 8 EVOLUTION AT T H E BAR
give no answer that is worthy of a moment’s notice.
But the wonder of this largest and most important
class of the bee-community is that, both in organi-zation
and in instinct, they are diverse from both their
parents; for they are the offspring of queens and
drones. It is vital to the theory of Evolution that
the eharacteristies of parents should pass to their off-spring.
But here is a highly organized creature which
has an organic structure and a complex set of in-stincts
possessed by neither of its parents! Whence
then comes the honey-bee? It does not transmit its
wonderful characters to its offspring, for it ‘has none.
And if a worker-bee should lay an egg (as occasion-ally
happens) the offspring is invariably a drone.
Clearly then, the worker bees are not the product of
Evolution ; and their existence and renewal from gen-eration
to generation, from parents unlike themselves, is a standing contradiction to Evolution.
The Prof. Fairhurst, in his able work already
Beaver quoted, (Organic Evolution Considered)
calls attention to the remarkable example of
instinct manifested by the beaver. We quote:
“It lives in communities and constructs dams,
sometimes as long as three hundred yards, stretch-ing
across shallow streams of water.These dams
are built of sticks of wood, generally about three
feet long and six or seven inches in diameter,
which the animal cuts with its teeth. Th.e sticks
are put in the water and are held in position by
means of mud, stones and moss, which are placed
upon them. The dams are ten or twebve feet
thick at the base; and when the streams are wide
the dams are made to curve upstream against the
current, thus producing a structure better able
to resist the force of the stream. The amount of
labor necessary to construct a large dam is enor-mous.
Moreover, it requires an incredible num-.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 4 9
ber of logs of wood, and great skill in engineering.
“Near the dams the beavers build their houses.
Each house is about seven feet in diameter in the
interior, and three feet high in the center. The
walls are of great thickness. Each lodge is large
enough to accommodate five or six beavers. “The outside is plastered with mud and care-fully
smoothed ; and the mud is renewed each
year in order to keep the house in good repair.
All the houses of the colony are surrounded by a
ditch which contains water; and each lodge is
connected by a passage-way with the ditch.
“As a supply of food for the winter, the beav-ers
store up a large number of logs under the
water, the bark of which they consume.
“Thus we find in this case an organized com-munity,
working for the common good, both in
constructing the dam and the ditch, and also in
storing up food ; and then making special prepa-ration
for living in small groups by constructing
their lodges and connecting them with the ditch.
“Here we see highly developed instincts which
look to the future good of the organism. The
building of the dam, the digging of the ditch,
the storing of the food, are all done to meet future
emergencies. It is evident that the construction
of the dam could not have been evolved gradually,
for a dam must be of sufficient extent to be use-ful
ere Natural Selection could act.
“Are we to presume that beavers experimented
for countless generations, thereby building up the
instinct which leads them to construct the dam. 9
If SO, upon what ground can we explain the pres-ervation
of the incipient instinct until sufficiently
developed to be of practical use? In what way
could they have known in advance that a dam
would serve their good? Shall we assume that
their instinct led them, in the first instance, to.50 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
construct a dam, they not having had any expe-rience
whereby an instinct of that kin-d could be
evolved? If the instinct existed without having
been developed by experience, then we cannot ac-count
for it by Evolution”-And we may inter-rupt
our quotation to say that the instinct must
have existed in advance of the building of the first
dam, else obviously it would never have been
built. “If evolved, then we must assume that the
first dam made was of sufficient use to give its
makers an advantage in the struggle for existence,
and that the instinct which led to its construction
was transmitted to their offspring.
“Manifestly then, in accounting for the evolu-tion
of this instinct, we of necessity b e g in with
an instinct that is already useful; and thus we as-sume
the existence of that for which ‘we are try-ing
to account.We are obliged to assume that, in
a single generation, a beaver or colony of beavers
was produced, which had a new instinct, suf-ficienlly
developed to enable them to b ui l d a use-ful dam; and that, in consequence of this, they
themselves were the better preserved; and that
the instinct was transmitted to the offspring, If
all this could have happened in a single genera-tion,
it is evident that no question need be raised
as to the possibility of future evolution.
“Besides this, the construction of .a ditch for
water around the several lodges required a dif-f
erent instinct, serving another purpose. Its
evolution involves similar difficulties.”
The examples considered above are not exceptional ;
for we could never exhaust the strange instincts of
insects alone, of the origin of which it is impossible
to account upon the theory of Evolution.
The question of the development of instincts, along
with that of special organs, required for those pecu-.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 6 1
liar instincts, and in their turn utterly useless with-out
the latter, is a question which the evolutionist is
unable to face. Mr. Darwin himself says there exist
“cases of instincts almost identically the same in an-imals
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 Nat-ural
Selection” (Origin of Species, p. 226).
But Mr. Darwin himself realized that, to believe a
thing so utterly unreasonable, and so contrary to all
known facts and experience, would require credulity
of a most uncommon sort; for he said: ‘ ‘Many in-stincts
are so wonderful that their development will
probably appear to the reader a difficulty sufficient to
overcome my whole theory.”
True enough.For in this we can thoroughly agree
with Mr. Darwin. But inasmuch as Mr. Darwin was
evidently himself aware of the incredibility of his
theory, we wonder how he could expect others to ac-cept
it.What the whole extraordinary situation dem-onstrates
most conclusively is, that there is no mind
so capable of believing the incredible, as that which is
pleased to call itself “the scientific mind, ” and that
there is no person in the world so irrational as the
“rationalist.”.CHAPTER V
The Origin Of all the questions of origin that of
of Man Man. is supremely important, and if, as
we doubt not is the case, the doctrine of
Evolution was inspired by the great “Spirit of Er-ror,
’ ’ as a special effort in these last days to “blind
the minds of them that believe not, ” then we may well
conclude that his main object would be to discredit
statements of Scripture which relate to the creation of
Man. The words, “Let Us make man, in Our image,
after Our likeness” (Gen. 1:26), reveal a truth of
fundamental importance. Against thiis foundation
truth of Scripture (which is closely linked to that of
Redemption by Him Who came in the likeness of
Man) Evolution raises the monstrous and impious fic-tion
that Man was made in the image and likeness of
the ape, by means of an unbroken continuity of
changes imperceptibly small.
If the explanation of the origin of instincts pre-sented
difficulties which Evolution finds insurmount-able,
what shall we say of those powers and endow-ments
of mind and spirit which distinguish human
beings, and which mark the existence of a mighty
chasm, deep and wide, between the highest of the
brutes and the lowest of the human race! For it is
not in his physical being, his body, that the special
characteristics of man are to be found.Physically he
is far inferior in strength and activity to many brutes.
His bodily resemblance to the largest of the apes is
seen at a glance ; but that resemblance is superficial,
and is easily accounted for, consistently with the
truth of Creation. For, since Man has a physical
being, and requires organs for locomotion, sight, hear-ing,
manipulation, etc.,in common with other ani-.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 5 3
mals, his physical makeup would, of course, resemble
theirs in respect to those organs, with only such modi-fications
as would be required by the differences in
his physical manner of life.
The Charac- The differences-immeasurably great
teristics of -between the brute and the man lie
Man beneath the surface, and have their
existence in the regions of the soul
and spirit, regions which, though so manifestly real,
are yet so mysterious that even Man himself has no
means to explore them, nor words to describe the sim-plest
of their mysteries. In Man we find a creature
who is self-conscious, who can reflect, reason, con-template
; who has the power of abstraction; who
can comprehend general ideas ; who can arrange his
thoughts; who can communicate them to others by
oral and written language ; who has a sense of beauty ;
ability to enjoy harmonies of sound or color; a per-ception
of right and wrong ; a conscience ; and above
all, who has a capacity to know God. How vast are
these differences! Who can declare their breadth
and depth? Who would, unless infatuated by some
mysterious delusion, or possessed by the spirit of
mischievous error, compare with the chattering ape
a being of whom even Charles Darwin says that he
can “follow out a train of metaphysical reasoning, or
solve a mathematical problem, or reflect on Cod, or
admire a grand natural scene” S
„Missing” The very lowest type of human being has
Links” all these marvellous capabilities in com-mon
with the highest. Between the two
extremes there are infinite gradations, merging one
into the other, in such a way that not a line the thick-ness
of hair could be drawn at any part of the s ca l e .
But, when we reach the lowest limit in that scale, a n d
look from that point to the very highest of the brute.6 4 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
creation, it is not across a mere “break in. the chain of
continuity” that we are looking, but across an em-measurable
chasm. There is much talk. about “the
missing link. ”But such talk is nonsensical. More-over,
it obscures the facts of the case ; for it is not a
mere “link” that is missing, but ten thousand times
ten thousand links. There is nothing in all the animal
creation which answers to the mental, moral and spir-itual
nature of Man ; or to his power of verbal
expression of thought ; nothing from which those mar-vellous
and godlike attributes and powers could con-ceivably
be derived by Evolution.
The low moral standing of savages does not lend
support to Mr. Darwin’s theory, though he appeals to
it; for the lowest of them possesses a capacity for
morals, as well as the most highly cultivated of men.
According to Natural Selection, says Prof. Fairhurst,
“Savages ought not to have any capacities except
those that have been constantly in use, and that have
been preserved because they have proved useful.” But
savages have, in common with all men, natural pow-ers
which enable them to appreciate moral distinc-tions,
and to receive instruction in regard thereto,
and to make progress in education in all directions.
It is related of Mr. Darwin that “When he sailed
past certain islands in the Pacific, he found them in-habited
by cannibals ; but twenty-five years there-after
be found those very islanders converted to Chris-tianity
and enjoying the blessings of civilization.
How many millions of years would it take,” can any
evolutionist tell us, “to convert a tribe of gorillas in-to
God-fearing, man-loving, self-conscious beings,
capable of believing that they possessed immortal
souls, ’ ’ and that they were the objects of God’s re-deeming
love and saving grace ? (Fairhurst : Organic
Evolution Considered.)
What these facts of common knowledge prove is
that all men are akin to each other; that, all are in.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 56
common endowed with attributes God-like in char-acter,
bestowed from above, not derived from beneath ;
that they are wholly distinct from the brute creation;
that by sin the moral nature of Man has been ruined ;
but that Man, in his most degraded condition, is capa-ble
of being regenerated and renewed under the
potent influence of the Gospel of Christ. Thus, the per-tinent
facts of common knowledge, which are univer-sal
and the same in all the centuries of our era, ar e in
perfect agreement with the statements of Scripture
concerning the Creation, the fall, and the recovery of
man through Divine intervention, and are utterly op-posed
to Evolution.
Ancient Hu- We would deem it a waste of time to
man Remains discuss in detail the human bones,
found in various localities., and which
have beenputforward by the evolutionist-hard
pressed for proof-as being the remains of a type of
Man somewhat nearer to the ape physically, than. any
now living. It suffices to say that the actual charac-ter
of such fragmentary remains is, in all cases, m o r e
or less a matter of speculation ; and that not a single
human skull or other bone has ever been discovered
that differs in any marked degree from corresponding
parts of human beings now living. Furthermore, we
have shown that the real problem of the evolutionist
is, not to account for Man’s physical being by Eo l u -tion
(impossible as that is) but to account for the or-igin
of his mental, moral and spiritual attributes
which are his real distinguishing characteristics. As
to those, the facts all bear witness that Evolution is
a monstrous delusion-doubtless a phase of that
“strong deluson, ’ ’ to which, according to the prophet-ic
Scriptures, they of the last days were to be given
over, who“received not the love of the truth that
they might be saved” (‘2 Thess. ‘2;19-12). It will saf-.56 EVOLUTION AT THI BAR
fice, on this branch of our subject, to quote a few pas-sages
from recognized authorities.
The great Virchow, one of the very greatest Of
chemists, an investigator and anatomist of the first
rank, says :
“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 who show a relatively inferior type,
than there are among the fossils known up to this
time. ’ ’
Honest evolutionists will not dispute t’his. Thus, the “Engis skull,”found in Belgium, and gleefully
hailed as that of the much sought “missing link,” was
conceded by Prof. Huxley to be “a fair average skull,
which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might
have contained the thoughtless brain of a savage.”
This Engis skull is supposed to be the oldest known up
to now.
Again quoting Prof. Virchow :
“We seek in vain for the missing link.There
exists a definite barrier separating man from the
animal, a barrier which has not yet been effaced-heredity,
which transmits to children the facul-ties
of the parents.
“It was generally believed a few years ago that there existed a few human races which still re-mained
in the (supposed) primitive inferior con-dition
of their organization. But all these races
have been the objects of minute investigation, and
we know that they have an organization Like ours,
often indeed superior to that of the supposed high-er
rams.Thus, the Eskimo head, and the head of.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 5 7
the Terra de1 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 man-monkey
and the ‘connecting link’ remains a phan-tom.
’ ’
The above quotations are as given in Th. Graebner’s
work “Evolution : An Investigation and a Criticism,”
from which we also quote the following:
“No one has stated ascertained facts touching
the origin of Man more succinctly and more clear-ly
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 es-sentially
different from the now living man, and
that transitions from ape to man, or from man to
ape are nowhere to be found.The conclusion he
reaches is that the Scriptural account of Man,
which is one and self-consistent throughout, is
true ; that God made Man in His own image, fitted
for fellowship with Himself, a state from which
Man indeed 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.”.CHAPTER VI
Theistic A “theist” is one who believes in a God,
Evolution ‘ ‘ theism ’ ’ being simply the opposite of
“atheism.” A Mohammedan is a theist.
Hence ‘ ‘ Theistic Evolution” signifies the acceptance
of the theory in a form which does not deny the exis-tence
of God.As a matter of fact, the term “Theistic
Evolution ’ ’ is little more than a name. Those who
have brought forward and have popularized the doc-trine
of Evolution are not in the least concerned about
“ Theism. ” Their aim has ever been to abolish God
altogether, or at least (since a “First Cause” is essen-tial
to the theory) to deprive Him of all personality
and attributes, and to banish Him to the remotest con-fines
of time and space.
Much less are evolutionists concerned ab o u t Chris-tianity,
except to antagonize its vital truths. Evolu-tion
was put forth as an anti-Christian and infidel doc-trine;
and for fifty years it has supplied the platform
from which, and the weapons with which, Christian-ity
has been assailed. Haeckel, the infidel naturalist,
termed Darwin’s Origin of Species the “Anti-Gene-sis,
’ ’ and exultingly proclaimed that “With a single
stroke Darwin has annihilated the dogma of crea-tion.
” This antagonism between Evolution and
Christianity is a fact which, we suppose, no sincere
evolutionist would deny.
Nevertheless, there has arisen in recent years a
large class of theologians who, while choosing to call
themselves “ Christians, ” nevertheless accept and
advocate the doctrine of Evolution. These have at-tempted
to effect a compromise between the two irrec-oncilable
systems, and to that compromise they have
been pleased to give the name “Theistic Evolution. ”.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 5 9
They would hold to Evolution as a general cosmic
process, but would put it under the control and su-pervision
of God, and would allow of Divine interven-tion
by direct action at those stages which evolution-ists
find it particularly hard to get over. They would
allow just so much “Theism” as seems necessary to
help Evolution over the hard places. But inasmuch
as this compromise permits enough Divine a c t io n in
the affairs of the universe to destroy the theory of
Evolution, as set forth by the responsible exponents
thereof, we may dismiss “Theistic Evolution” as a
mere verbal expression to which there is, and can be,
no corresponding reality. True evolutionists would
not recognize such a self-contradiction as “Theistic
Evolution. ”
In this connection we quote further from Prof.
Fairhurst :
“The first great evolutionists, beginning with
Darwin, and including Huxley, Spencer, Tyndall
and others, based the theory of evolution on mat-ter,
motion, and force. It was purely a system of
naturalism, that did not recognize God, nor the
Bi b l e , nor what the Christian regards specially as
the supernatural. ”
“No cosmic evolutionist can accept a miracle at
any point of the natural process. To him a mira-cle
as a part of Evolution would be unthinkable. ”
Thomas Huxley speaks quite as plainly as Haeakel,
saying :“Not only do I hold it to be proven that the
story of the Deluge is a pure fiction ; but I have no
hesitation in affirming the same thing of the story of
the Creation.”
According to Herbert Spencer nothing is known of
God except that He is “unknowable. ”If this is not
practically the same as denying the existence of G o d ,
it would not be easy to say wherein the difference lies.
If there be a Supreme Being, and He is “unknow-.6 0 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
able,” then it must be either because He has not the
power to make Himself known, or because He has not
given to the highest of His creatures the capacity to
know Him. The first supposition is disposed of by
the consideration that, if God did not have the power
to reveal Himself and to create beings capable of
knowing Him, He would not be God. And the alter-native
is disposed of by the fact that Man actually
possesses the faculty of reflecting upon God, that he
has a consciousness of God, and that he has the ability
to understand communications from others equal or
superior to himself in the scale of being.
Mr. Spencer dogmatically asserts that “the deepest,
widest, and most certain of all facts” is this, name-ly,
“that the Power which the Universe manifests to
us is utterly inscrutable” (First Principles, p. 46).
This is, for all practical purposes, pure atheism. It
asserts that there is no revelation from Go d , and can
be none. It is, however, an assertion of the most reck-less
sort, which has absolutely nothing to back it up
except Mr. Spencer’s spiritual blindness and dead-ness.
It has no more weight or authority than would
attach to the assertion of a blind man that the deep-est,
widest, and most certain of all facts is that total
darkness is the universal and perpetual state of na-ture.
That a man may be in complete ignorance of
God is evident enough ; but that one should make his
own ignorance the ground of denying the possibility
of knowing God is simply to add colossal presumptio:
to total ignorance.
It requires no great penetration to see that the real
object of attack by the supporters of Evolution is the
Bible, with its revelation of Christ as t he Redeemer
and Saviour of men. It matters little or nothing wheth-er
a perishing child of Adam believes in the ex-istence
of God or not, so long as he is blinded to the
one thing which most concerns him to know, and
that is the salvation of God, which the Bible reveaIs,.EVOLUTION AT T H E BAR 6 1
and which is received by all who believe “the testi-mony
that God gave of His Son.”
That Evolution serves most effectually to blind
the minds of all who accept it to the facts of sin and
Redemption is undeniable. Therefore the pretence,
masked by the term “Theistic Evolution,” t ha t the
doctrine can be reconciled with the truth of Christian-ity,
is merely an attempt to make it more successful-ly
destructive, by throwing incautious people off
their guard. There is not a single deadly heresy,
among all that were, in past generations, openly op-posed
to the faith of Jesus Christ, which has not now
succeeded, by one means or another, in entering into
and establishing itself within the precincts of pro-fessing
Christendom, and which is not, in our day,
openly preached and taught in the *‘churches” and
theological seminaries.
When the main features of the present s t at e of
Christendom, as briefly outlined above, are under-stood,
there will be, as Prof. Graebner has well said,
“no need to inquire why, on the one hand, enemies
of the Bible in all ranks of life greeted with such
joyous acclaim the principle announced by Darwin,
and why, on the other hand, a chief purpose of
Christian apologetics has become the demonstration
that Christianity is justified even by reason in that
view of the origin of the world which it inculcates,
and that, on the other hand, the evolutionary hypoth-esis
is contradicted by the facts of religion, of his-tory,
and of natural science.”
The spread of the doctrine of Evolution has been
phenomenal. Therefore, many theologians became
alarmed, “because they thought that ‘Science’ had
succeeded in proving that all things were produced
by Evolution. They began to consider how they
could reconcile theology and ‘Science.’ They im-agined
that evolution was an estalished science. They
said : ‘We will change the lion into a lamb by chang-.62 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
ing its name.’And so they called it ‘Theistic Evolu-tion,
’ but accepted the agnostic or atheistic method,
and then began to sleep comfortably over their wis-dom
(?)” (Fairhurst).
It is indeed a fact that those “Christians” who
have thus surrendered to infidel Evolution have done
little more than devise a name.
Evolution and Between Evolution and Christianity
Christainity there is and can be notlhing but the
sharpest antagonism. Prof. Fair-hurst
well says, “ Christian evolution is incon-ceivable.

Christianity is baaed upon the fact that the Bible is
a Divine revelation.But the Bible, according to Evo-lution,
is itself but a detail of the cosmic process.
Here is an issue as to which reconciliation is impos-sible.
One cannot hold Evolution, and also hold the
Christian view-which is Christ’s own view-of the
Holy Scriptures. If the Bible is from God, if every
Scripture is God-breathed, if holy men of old spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, then Evolu-tion
is false, and its author is that father of lies, whose
chief aim is to “deceive the nations” and to “blind
the minds of them that believe not.”
One of the best known writers of our day, Mr. H. G.
Wells-himself a thorough-going evolutionist-has
lately declared in print that Civilization owes both
its origin and its preservation until now, to the Bible,
saying :“It is the Book that has held together the
fabric of western civilization”; it has “unified and
kept together great masses of people”; and in fact
“the civilization we possess could not have come in-to
existence and could not have been sustained with- out it.” And Mr. Wells drives his point to its logi-cal
conclusion by showing that, without something to
take effectively the place of the Bible, civilization will
speedily be overthrown..EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 6 3
This frank admission involves, if true, the com-plete
negation of Evolution. For, according to that
theory, the Bible should be the product of Civillza-tion,
and man’s ever-advancing Progress shou1d be
continually producing, by slight variations, better
and better Bibles. But here is an evolutionist who
forgets his doctrine long enough to declare that the
Bible produced Civilization, and not Civilization the
Bible. Here then, in that ancient Book, which is for-ever
correcting and improving man, but w h i ch re-ceives
no correction or improvement from man, we
have a complete disproof of Evolution. What we
here assert is, not merely that the statements con-tained
in the Bible contradict the doctrine of Evolu-tion,
but that the very existence and persistence of
the Bible, in its place of undisputed supremacy among
books (a place it holds despite the most strenuous ef-forts
to dislodge it) ; the hold it establishes upon the
hearts and consciences of men ; the stupendous and
morally excellent influence it has exerted upon. the
lives of individuals and the prosperity of communi-ties;
constitutes a proof of the most convincing sort
that Evolution is a monstrous falsehood. If Evolu-tion
were true, the history of the Bible, with its place
and influence among men, would have been an im-possibility.
Hence the existence of the Bible is a dis-proof
of Evolution.
The Law and The law of Moses, with the peculiar
the Gospel Not economy based thereon, and the pe-Evolved
culiar people associated therewith-the
Israelites-were not the product.
of Evolution. The children of Israel came out of
Egypt utterly unorganized, having lived there for cen-turies
in slavery, dominated by an idolatrous and
polytheistic race. At the time of their departure
from Egypt they had neither laws, government, ‘wor-ship
nor organization. Yet they entered Canaan forty.6 4 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
years later with a law, statutes and judgments, and a
system of monotheistic worship, utterly unlike any-thing
previously existing in the world. The miracles
recorded in the books of Moses explain what other-wise
would be inexplicable. Judaism is a complete
refutation of the theory we are discussing.
But if the Jews, and their laws, institutions and
worship cannot be accounted for by Evolution, still
more impossible is it to account for Christians and
Christianity by that theory.Christianity was not the
product of Evolution. There were no “resident forces”
in the world leading gradually up to it; no progress
towards it; but just the reverse; for everything was
going rapidly in the opposite direction. Judaism had
departed completely from the spirit and teaching of
the law and the prophets. Greek advancement in lit-erature,
philosophy and art had eventuated in a puerile
system of polytheism, and in extreme moral degrada-tion
; while Roman progress in the art of government
had produced atheism and unspeakable corruption
and decay in morals. Christianity arose, not only
utterly different in every feature from its environ-ment,
but in deadly antagonism. to the tenets of Jews,
Greeks, and Romans. Christianity, considered mere-ly
as an historic fact, in connection with its environ-ment,
destroys Evolution down to the ground. There
is but one conceivable explanation of Christianity, and
of the people who“were called ‘Christians’ first at
Antioch, ”and that explanation is Christ; the Christ
of the Gospels, born of a virgin ; the Word made flesh and dwelling among men, as Immanuel, God-with-us;
Christ crucified, and Christ risen from the dead;
“Christ the power of God, and the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24).
Evolution To say that Jesus Christ was evolved,
and Christ that He was the product of His environ-ment,
is both to repudiate Christianity,
and also to reject the plainest facts of history..EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 6 6
Here we reach the climax of the matter. Christ is
“the Truth”; and the conclusive test of every doc
trine and every system is to bring it into the presence
of Christ. When subjected to that test, Evolution
fades into nothingness like the mists in the presence
of the sun.The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead was not an evolution.It was a co mp le te r ev e r s a l
of the course of nature. The people who are “quick-ened
together with Christ” are not an evolution, but a
“new creation. ”
Here again we quote a striking passage from Prof.
Graebner.
“We cannot leave this subject without briefly
adverting to a great historic fact, indeed the
most massive and significant fact in all history,
which, in its more remote bearings, not only
strikes at the very root of evolutionistic philoso-phy,
but at the same time wounds it mortally in
all its parts. I refer to the Resurrection of o u r
LORD.
“The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cen-tral
fact of our Christian faith ; and it is, when
rightly understood, the all-sufficient answer to the
theory of Evolution.
“Christ’s resurrection is an historical fact,
fully as much as the defeat of Xerxes at Salamis
in 480 B. C., the discovery of America by Colum-bus
in 1492, and the peace of Versailles of 1919
are historical facts, proven by the word and rec-ord
of contemporary witnesses.
“But, if Christ was raised, then we have proof
for the following tenets, all contradicting evolu-tionary
speculation at so many vital points:
(1) The existence of a Personal God, Who is con-cerned
with human affairs; (2) The reality of
miraculous interference with natural forces ;
(3) The truth of atonement and redemption ; and.6 6 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
(4) The inspiration of the Old Testament Scrip-tures
(hence also of the creation account’ in Gene-sis).
The details of the argument are beyond the
scope of this paper; but a little patient study will
bring to light the fact that each of these four basic
ideas is dovetailed, mortised and anchored so
firmly in the fact of Christ’s resurrection, that
you can get rid of them only by denying that
fact. Hence it is, aside from any investigation
of proofs of Evolution, clear to the Christian stu-dent
that there must be some fault either in
reason or in observation that vitiates the whole
theory. The resurrection of Christ is a fact, to
which the entire history of Christianity bears wit-ness,
the most tremendous fact in the history of
the world. And it stands four-square against a
theory which says that there is no personal God,
no sin, no redemption ; that there are no miracles,
no revelation, no inspiration ; that there is no ab-solute
religion, and no absolute standard of right
and wrong. ”
The supreme disproof of Evolution then is the Risen
Christ, and the results which have everywhere fol-lowed
the preaching of the Risen Christ..CHAPTER VII
Estimates of The Darwinian doctrine of Natural
Darwinism Selection has been discarded by Spen-cer,
Huxley, and other leading evolu-tionists,
who thus leave the theory of Evolution, as it
were, suspended in mid-air, without any method
whereby it could work. Mr. Darwin himself had se-rious
misgivings as to his theory, and never regarded
it as established.
We consider that the abandonment of Natural
Selection must logically involve the abandonment of
the entire doctrine of Organic Evolution. It is ap-propriate,
therefore, to make brief reference to the
very general repudiation in recent years of the Dar-winian
concept.
Dr. E. Dennert’s book At the Death-bed of Darwin-ism
gives the testimonies of leading scientists, showing
that the title given to his book is fully justified.
Prof. Luther T. Townsend has also written on The
Collapse of Evolution, giving testimonies of promi-nent
men of science to the same effect.
St. George Mivart (University College, Kensington,
England) says :“With regard to the conception as
put forward by Mr. Darwin, I cannot truly charac-terize
it except by an epithet which I employ with
great reluctance. I weigh my words, and have pres-ent
to my mind the many distinguished naturalists
who have accepted the notion, and yet I cannot call it
anything but a puerile hypothesis.”
Prof. Fleischmann of Erlanger, who once accepted
Darwinism, but after further investigation repu-diated
it, says :“The Darwinian theory of descent has
not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature..6 8 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely
the product of the imagination.”
Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, bewails
the fact that he is left standing almost alone. He
says :“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. ” And he gives an impressive list of
“ boId and talented scientists” who, he admits, have
abandoned the theory of Darwin, though at one time
they advocated it.This admission by one of the most
noted infidel evolutionists is important.A house thus
sharpIy divided against itself cannot s t an d .
Dr. Qotte has published an instructive history of
Darwinism, showing the stages through which it has
passed, from its enthusiastic reception down to its
final stage “when its days will evidently soon be num-bered.

Edward von Hartman also shows that Darwinism
has passed through four s ta g e s , and says that the op-position
has now“swelled into a great chorus of
voices, aiming at the overthrow of the Darwinian
theory. In the first decade of the twentieth century
it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are
numbered”; and he gives the names of eminent scien-tists
who are “among its latest opponents.”
Prof. Joseph De Conte, of the University of Cali-f
ornia, says :“The evidence of geology today is that
species seem to come into existence suddenly, and in
full perfection, remain substantially unchanged dur-ing
the term of their existence, and pass away in full
perfection. Other species take their places apparent-ly
by substitution, not by transmutation.”
Dr. Robert Watts says:“The record of the rocks
knows nothing of the evolution of a higher form from
a lower form. . . .Both nature and revelation pro-claim
it as an inviolable law, that like produces like.”
Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California,.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 6 9
said recently : “If the theory of Evolution be true,
then, 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 of
the evolution of one species from another. No such
instance is known.”
Prof. Owen declares that “no instance of change
of one species into another has ever been recorded by
man. ”
George Ticknor Curtis, in a recent book, Creation
or Evolution, says :“The whole doctrine of the devel-opment
of distinct species out of other species makes
demands upon our credulity which is irreconcilable
with those principles by which we regulate, or ought
to regulate, our acceptance of any new matter of be-lief.
’ ’
Prof. Dana, in his Manual of Geology, says:
“Science has no explanation of the origin of life. The
living organism, instead of being a product of physi-cal
forces, controls those forces for its higher forms,
functions and purposes. Its introduction was the
grandest event in the world’s early history. ”
Lord Kelvin, the very foremost of English scien-tists
in his day, in an address delivered in 1903, said:
“Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere
in the country, if he believed that the grass and flow-ers
which we saw around us grew by mere chance
force. He answered, ‘No; no more than I believe
that a book of botany could grow by mere chemical
force. . . . .It is not in dead matter that men live and
move, and have their being ; but in a creative and di-rective
Power, which science compels us to accept as
an article of faith. Is there anything so absurd as
to believe that a number of atoms, by falling together
of their own accord, could make a crystal, a microbe,
or a living animal ?’ ”
There is nothing so reasonable as faith. For faith
is simply the acceptance of the testimony of Go d ,.7 0 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
given to men in “the Scriptures of truth, ” which
have proved themselves, in their history and influence
in the world, to be super-human. Conversely, there is
nothing more unreasonable than unbelief ; for it de-nies
not only the light of Divine revelation, but that
of nature (Rom. 1:20 ; Acts 14 :15-17 ; 17 :24-29).
Small wonder is it that men who vaunt the human in-tellect
and who have rejected the word of the Lord,
should be so fatuously credulous as to attribute de-signing
skill and creative power to a mere concourse
of atoms.
The same Lord Kelvin, whom we have just quoted,
is on record as declaring that, there is not a single as-certained
fact of science which conflicts with any
statement of the Bible.
When, therefore, we hear, as is common enough
nowadays, assertions made by unbelieving theologians
and others, to the effect that “science” has shown this
or that statement of Scripture to be erroneous, let it
be remembered that we can bring the testimony of the
most eminent men of science to prove those assertions
false.
Dr. Ethridge of the British Museum, a noted ex-pert
in fossilology, speaking of the views of evolu-tionists,
says :“This Museum is full of proofs of the
utter falsity of their views.”
Prof. L. S. Beal, acknowledged to be in the front
rank of British scientists, in an address delivered June
1903, said :“The idea of any relation between the non-living,
by gradual advance of lifeless matter to the
lowest forms of life, and so onward to the higher and
more complex, has not the slightest evidence from
any facts of any section of living nature of which
anything is known. ”
Virchow of Berlin, regarded by some as the fore-most
chemist of the world, said, “It is all nonsense.
It cannot be proved by science that man descended
from the ape or from any other animal.” He went.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 7 1
so far as to denounce the theory as dangerous to the
state, and demanded that it be excluded from the
schools.
Much more of the same sort might be added ; but it
will suffice to refer to Prof. Fairhurst’s Theistic Evo-lution (Standard Publishing Co., Cincinnati), and
Graebner ‘s Evolution, already referred to, from which
most of the above quotations are taken.We will only
mention additionally a statement made in a very re-cent
address (February 1922) by Prof. Wm. Bateson,
the distinguished English biologist, a scientist of the
first rank, who, speaking in Toronto, Canada, is re-ported
to have said:“It is impossible for scientists
longer to agree with Darwin’s theory of the origin of
the species. No explanation whatever has been of-fered
to account for the fact that, after forty years,
no evidence has been discovered to verify his genesis
of species. ”
Surely our “liberal” theologians, who teach as
truth that monstrous fiction which true men of science
never regarded as more than a speculative theory, and
now have, with practical unanimity, repudiated, are
utterly without excuse.
The Existing Notwithstanding the fact that, Dar-Danger
winism is no longer believed in the
circles in which it originated, its in-fluence
for harm was never so great as now. The rea-son
is that the theory has found its way into the theo-logical
seminaries, and into the school-books of the
children, where it is doing the deadly and truly dev-ilish
work of discrediting, in the eyes of many , the
statements of the Word of God.
Darwinism A parent, writing to a religious
in the Schools periodical, tells of a text-book
brought home by his seven-ye,ar-old
boy, the title of which was “Home Geography for Pri-mary
Grades.’ ’ The following quotation will serve.72 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
to show what is now being taught to children of the
most tender years. Discussing the subject of birds,
this text-book for primary grades says : “Ever
ago their grandfathers were not birds at all.
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 on their bodies, and their front legs be-came
changed for flying. These were strange looking
creatures. There are none living like them now.”
Such are the monstrous fictions now taught to little
children as scientific truth.
It is a significant and disquieting fact that a deter-mined
effort recently made in the legislature of Ken-tucky
to forbid the teaching of Evolution in the
schools of that State was defeated. Thus the arch en-emy
of God and men has manoeuvred this Chris-
tian ’ ’country into the position where the accepted
canons of education forbid the teaching of the Bible
to the children of the tax-payers, but permit the teach-ing
of the most anti-Christian and unscientific doc-trine
that ever made a bid for public favor.
The support for the teaching of Evolution (which
in practically all cases means the utterly discredited
theory of Charles Darwin) came from “educators and
religious leaders” (so says the Literary Digest, March
25, 1922) like Lyman Abbott, Dr. Angell, President
of Yale, Dr. Lowell, President of Harvard, and Dr.
McFarland, Sec’y of the Federal Council of Churches.
It is high time for parents to be awakened out of
sleep as to the dangers to which their children are ex-posed
in our modern schools. These are indeed “per-ilous
times ’ ’ jand one of the greatest perils thereof is
the teaching which is now being given to the young.
Parents, who would be careful to keep their little ones
from the dangers of the streets, recklessly expose them
every day to the more serious dangers in t he schools,
and give themselves little concern as to what they
learn there from teachers and companions..CHAPTER VIII
Evolution in We come now to a matter of deep-Human
Affairs est interest and importance; for
when we turn our attention to the
realm of human affairs and activities, we observe a
state of things which is in the greatest possible con-trast
to what is seen elsewhere among living s p e c i es
It is exceedingly important, with a view to a right
understanding of the theory of Evolution, t h at this
contrast be noted, and its significance be com-prehended.
Briefly stated the contrast lies in this, that Evolu-tion
is the method of working which prevails every-wh
er e and always has, in human affairs, whereas out-side
of human affairs there is not a trace of it to be
found in all the universe. By “human affairs” we
mean, those activities wherein man himself is the de-signer
and agent.For there is a realm wherein man
is the directing and controlling authority, wherein he
has free scope to try out all his ideas, and to exert all
his powers in every direction.
Man, in all his operations, and in every depart-ment
of his diversified activities, is progressive. Other
living creatures are a b s o l u t e ly unprogressive. Man
develops arts, industries, social institutions, gov-ernments,
etc., etc., by trying experiments! discover-ing
defects and weaknesses, devising remedies, and so
on, the changes being so rapid and so extensive that
each generation lives in a different industrial, politi-cal,
social and religious environment, to that of its
predecessors.
In Society at large we find a typical illustration.
It is one employed by Herbert Spencer. He says
(first Principles ch. 14. Sec. 3) “In the social organ-.7 4 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
ismintegrative changes are clearly and abundantly
exemplified. ”And so beyond dispute they are. Mr.
Spencer cites the development of ‘ ‘ Society, ” beginning
with wandering families, then tribes, then stronger
tribes formed by union with or subjugation of others,
until the combinations became relatively permanent,
and ultimately were evolved into States and National-ities.
Nor has this progression ceased ; for since
Spencer’s time there have been further combination
of nations, and finally a “League of Nations,” which
will undoubtedly eventuate in the Federation of
Kingdoms, symbolically pictured as the Beast in Dan-iel
and Revelation.
The same progression from simple and incoherent
beginnings, to conditions relatively complex and co-herent,
may be traced in every department of human
affairs. Whether we examine the industrial groups,
the ecclesiastical, the military, the medical, the legal,
etc., we find the same progressive development.
Let us consider a few illustrations of this striking
law of humanity.
A few centuries ago the crudest implements served
the farmer for preparing the soil and gathering his
crops. From those simple beginnings have evolved
the tractors, harvesters, and other modern wonders
of farm-equipment; and the advance has been by
slight, progressive changes. Here is Eivolution sure
enough, and precisely as described by Spencer and
other materialists.
So likewise in the department of Locomotion and
Transportation, it is easy to trace, between the wheel-barrow
and ox-cart of by-gone days, and the auto-car
and flying machine of the twentieth century, a
connected line of evolutionary progress. And a simi-lar
line may be traced from the birch-bark canoe to
the Transoceanic liner and the submarine.
If we look along other industrial lines, as milling,
printing, paper making, communicating intelligence.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 76
to distant points, weapons of war, etc., etc., we see the
same thing, that is to say, a very crude and imperfect
beginning, with a succession of forms, each an im-provement
upon its predecessors, and with nev e r an
end to the development.
Again in the literary field, we can readily trace the
activity of man from a simple beginning in oral reci-tation
and manuscript copies on vellum or papyrus,
to the manifold present-day output of books, news-papers
and other periodicals.
So with the religions of the world. The human ele-ment
in these has undergone great and progressive
changes, both in ideals and in forms and observances ;
and the progress still continues. Here we have again
an instructive contrast; for we can readily compare
the development of the religions of the world with the
progressive Revelation of the Truth of God. The
former follows, like everything else which is under
the control of man, a strictly evolutionary course,
every new stage involving the destruction of what pre-ceded.
The latter is, like everything that comes from
God, perfect (as far as it goes) from the start. And,
though His Revelation has been given at sundry times
and in many distinct parts, yet there is not a trace of
Evolution in it; for every part of God’s Revelation
remains forever true; and all the parts together unite
in perfect agreement to constitute a complete and har-monious
system of Truth.
It were a very easy matter to multiply our illus-trations,
for they lie all around us in plain view. For
wherever we look within the realm of human affairs
the evidences of Evolution stare us in the face. But,
in striking and significant contrast with this :is the
fact that, the moment we pass the boundaries of that
realm, we strain our eyes in vain for a scrap of evi-dence
to indicate that the process of Evolution. ever
had a foothold. The birds construct their nests, the
beavers their dams, the bee-hives and ant-colonies car-.76 EVOLUTION AT T HE BAR
ry on their complex operations, precisely as they
always have done. Moreover, each of those creatures
does its work perfectly at the very first attempt.,
whereas man makes innumerable failures before he
can do anything even passably well.
Evidences of In this connection there are several
Evolution in
&mm Affairs
facts which have an important bear-ing
on the main question, and which
should therefore be carefully noted.
First, in the field where Evolution does operate-that
is, in the realm of human enterprises, from which
Spencer and others draw all their illustrations–the evidences of its workings abound. Traces of the ear-lier
and cruder forms, which subsequent improvements
have displaced, are plentiful. The advancement,
moreover, is not so slow as to give the impression that
things are at a standstill, but, on the contrary, is suf-ficiently rapid to permit. of observation of its character
and direction.From these facts it must be concluded
that, if there were any Evolution in those realms of na-ture
which are not under the guidance and control of “the will of man, ”there would be abundant evidences
of its workings in those spheres also. The only and the
sufficient. reason why things in Nature appear to be at
a standstill, and have so appeared during the thou-sands
of years they have been under man’s observation,
is that they are at a standstill. The simple and satis-factory
explanation of the fact that no trace of Evolu-tion
has ever been found in Nature is, that there has
been no Evolution there, Second, it is seen that, in all the departments of
human activities there is never any end of development,
either in the construction of the things which man
makes, or in the methods by which he operates.Never,
in any part of this realm, is a stage reached where
there is rest and stability.Never has the right thing,
or the right method, been attained.But in Nature all.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 77
is stable. Both structures and processes remain iden-tically
the same as they have ever been.
Why this astonishing difference 9 Manifestl,y, the reason why there is no improvement in the life-habits
of the lower orders is because there is no need of any. Indeed, we can say there is no possibility of any.. For
who could improve upon the structure or materials of
the honey-comb 4The ways of those creatures do not
change, for the simple reason that their ways, works
and habits of life are just what their Creator planned
for them. With man it is far otherwise. The scheme of life
appointed to him has been completely wrecked. His
whole race is blighted and degraded. It finds itself
in conditions of poverty and wretchedness. Its ener-gies,
therefore, are directed towards improvement, for
the very reason that it has fallen from the place of life
appointed for it.
But the most learned and intelligent of those who
reject the light of Holy Scripture (which reveals the
truth as to man’s condition, and shows that, despite
all material gains, corruption and decay still increase
and spread among the children of men) are easily
misled as to the facts; and they mistake material gains
for true progress. Man’s “progress,”of which he loudly boasts., is a
delusion. There is indeed a constant advance in me-chanical
inventions, and in all that contributes to a
grossly materialistic industrialism. But that apparent
progress serves but to hide the real facts from the
many, who look only at the surface of things, In
reality the civilized nations are on the down grade.
Crime, insanity and suicides increase at an appalling
rate. Everywhere the spirit of violence and lawless-ness
is rampant. In commercial life, political life and
private life corruption increases and abounds.
The noted scientist, A. R. Wallace, who put forth
the theory of Evolution contemporaneously with Dar-.78 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
win, said, shortly before his death in his ninety-first
year :
“I have come to the general conclusion that
there has been no advance either in intellect or
morals since the days of the earliest Egyptians.
Everything is as bad as it possibly can be. There
exist in our midst horrors and dreadful diseases
never known before. Our whole social environ-ment
is rotten, full of vice and everything that is
bad. ”
Had Mr. Wallace lived to see the conditions in the
world resulting from the great European War he
would have had to admit that things could be even
worse than they were then.
The Spread Finally we call attention to the perti- of the Theory nent fact that the presence and
Accounted for working of the law of Evolution in
human affairs has furnished Spencer
and others with such apt illustrations, and they have
used them so skilfully, that many fall to see the im-portant
fact to which we are here calling attention,
namely, that the instances of Evolution to which they
are able to point lie always in the realm of human in-stitutions.
To this point we ask careful attention, for in it is
found the explanation of what every intelligent per-son
will ask, namely, how comes it that a theory, for
which there has never been the slightest proof, but
which, on the contrary, is oppoaed to all the facts of
human observation, has met with such wide ac-ceptance
among intelligent people? The reason is that,
in the field which lies nearest to man, and in which
he can most easily observe, there is Evolution; not
only in localities but everywhere; and not only occa-sionally
but always. It was easy, therefore, to make
the assumption that, in the. more remote fields of Na-.EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 7 9
ture, the same law of progressive changes was in con-trol
; and the fact that “varieties” of plants and an-imals
could be produced by artificial breeding, gave a color of support to the theory. That theory once
formulated and proclaimed, it would inevitably be re- ceived exultantly by all who are biased against the
truth of man’s fall and depravity, and so it was sure
of strong and enthusiastic support.
The Fatal On this point we quote again from Prof.
Bias Graebner :
“The warfare of philosophy against
Christian faith is readily explained. Man is cor-rupt.
He loves sin. He is conscious of his guilt and
fears the penalty. Hence every avenue of escape is
welcome, if only he can persuade himself that there is
no God, no judgment. Man is proud, he desires no
Saviour.Hence the effort to prove that no Saviour is
needed, that there is no guilt attaching to sin, that
there 1s no absolute right and wrong. Hence too the
doctrine of the Agnostic that we can ascribe no attri-butes
to God. When we read the ‘Synthetic Philoso-phy’
of Spencer we are apt to believe that the agnos-ticism
there set forth is the result of deep philosophi-cal
speculation. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Man, even cultured philosophical man, wants
to have no restrictions placed upon pride and selfish-ness:
hence it is necessary to rid the mind of the fe a r
of Divine justice ; hence the desire to demonstrate
that God has no attributes, such as that He is ‘just,’ for instance. The Psalmist describes this attitude in
the words, ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and
east away their cords from us. ’
“No one who has grasped the inner motive of all
‘Scientific’ effort to demolish faith, can fail to un-derstand
why the many greet with such jubilant ac-claim
every new attack upon the Biblical narrative.
No one who has pondered this motive can be snared in.8 0 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR
the net of ‘science, falsely so called.’ He has seen its
inwardness, he knows its fatal bias. ”
The Law of The law of Evolution then is strict-Sin
and Death ly confined to one realm, the sphere
of human affairs ; and therein it has
full sway. It is the law or rule of action of a fallen
race. It is “the law of sin and death” (Rom 8 :2).
It has no place in the Kingdom of God, or in any
sphere which sin has not invaded. It arises solely
from man’s efforts to improve his wretched condition,
and from blindness to God’s way of recovering and
restoring His perishing human creatures.
Man, having discovered that Evolution is the rule
of procedure in the realm of his own doings, ha8 im-puted
the same law to his Maker, thus fulfilling the
Scripture,“Thou thoughtest that I was altogether
such an one as thyself.”

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile despre tine sau dă clic pe un icon pentru autentificare:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

%d blogeri au apreciat asta: