EVOLUTION AT THE BAR PHILIP MAURO n BL 263 .M42 1922 Mauro, Philip, 1859-1952 Evolution at the bar BOOKS ON The Kingdom of God By Philip Mauro I. The Kingdom of Heaven What it is? and when? and where? Re- written and enlarged. Paper 50c, Cloth 85c. 11. ^^ After This'* or the Church, the Kingdom, and the Glory. Contains a discussion of the Parables of the Kingdom. Cloth $1.00. III. God's Present Kingdom 270 pages giving a comprehensive view of the Kingdom as it now is. Cloth $1.25. IV. Bringing Back the King containing ''The sure mercies of David" and other important Kingdom themes. Cloth $1.00. V. A Kingdom Which Cannot be Shaken A valuable feature of this book is a detail- ed examination, in the light of the Scrip- tures, of the Kingdom-theories found in the ' ' Scofield Reference Bible. ' ' $1.25. BOOKS BY PHILIP MAURO Ruth, the Satisfied Stranger. Rich in lessons appropriate to these perilous times. The chap- ter on "The Nearer Kinsman" will be of spe- cial interest to every Bible reader, teacher and student. Just the book for a gift. (Cloth) $1.25 (Ooze Calf) $3.00 Our Liberty in Christ. An exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians $1.23 The Number of Man, or the Climax of Civiliza- tion. With new chapter on the results of the war. (Cloth) $1.25 God's Pilgrims. Their Dangers, their Resources, their Rewards. A special message to those people of God who wish to be strangers and pilgrims on earth. (Paper) $ .50 (Cloth) $1.00 God's Apostle and High Priest. A study of the Person and work of Christ, setting forth His official work first as Apostle, second as High Priest, third as Priest-King. (Cloth) $ .75 God's Gospel and God's Righteousness. Expo- sition of Romans 1 to 5. (Cloth) $ .75 God's Gift and our Response. Exposition of Ro- mans 5 to 8. Companion to the above. (Cloth) $ .75 God's Love and God's Children. Exposition of Romans 8:14-16 27. Companion to the above. (Cloth) $ .75 Life in The Word. Forceful, strengthening and stimulating. Showing the divine origin, au- thority and inspiration of the Bible as a living book. (Paper) $ .30 (Cloth $ .60 The AVorld and Its God. An examination of the doctrines of materialism in the light of Gene- sis. (Paper) $ .30 (Cloth) $ .75 ''Looking for the Saviour." (Paper) $ .30 (Cloth $ .60 Baptism and the New Covenant. (Cloth) $ .35 (Paper) $ .15 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR Philip Mauro "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"—! Cor. 1. 20 HAMILTON BROS. SCRIPTURE TRUTH DEPOT 120 Tremont Street, Boston 9, Mass. Copyright 1922 BY Hamilton Bros. Printed in the United States of America CONTENTS Page FOREWORD 7 CHAPTER I 11 The Theory Defined 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 an Authority 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 Objections to Evolution: 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 ■** 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 67 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 anj^ court of law. It rests Avholly 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 compilation 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^cienjtist and ^philosopher have no /acts upon which to base their conc l]^siaii§^_jxcept such as are matters of common ' tnoSedge^XLr are ^accessible to all men through text=. ^^o^s and_cyciQpedia|7J^ concede to experts theiF'special competence in investigating, clarifying, and setting forth the facts ; but, in the all important matter of drawing 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 ''eiddences" fonit^ha ye Jbo bjs ._^ught-in ..the Harkest corners of creation andin_the remotest regions of time Sid space; and further that, when brought into the light of honest inquiry, they cannot be recognized, 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 1 always and everywhere. It is either that or 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 aifijnaioly occu- jned in trying to_ account with plausibility for the total lack ofevidence innatMr£iior th^upport of his doc- 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 i^ 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 varieties 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 aLMe-sarneMme with those now exti nct forms . Proof o f connection between them^ andoi' 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 prove the evolution of one 42e£ies_fEQia^.aiiather> 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 botindary 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 f ossilif erous rocks, not one . transitional form to help bridge the gulf between one 1 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 three mil- lion of species on earth — sufficient field, one might think, for observation. But it must be said today that, 10 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 successful dem- onstration of his theory. The Wisdom of This World The doctrine of Evolution is doubtless the 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 world?'' (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. Although 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 exceeding- ly simple at the first, being nothing more than a ten- 12 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 unexplained reason, the motion of the par- ticles of matter began to take different directions, 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 — is not explained ; nor how, in a perfectly uniform mass, parts could assume a permanently solid form, and other parts a normally liquid 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. g. 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 13 we have but little concern, our object being to inquire what, if any, foundation in fact there is for the tasic 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: {!) 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 ''resident 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 elements, com- pounds, and living species. In fact both Darwin and his co-laborer Wallace had to admit that it was neces- 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. 14 EVOLUTION AT THE 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 16 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. 16 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR Surely, if such were indeed the case, then the latter would contain abundant evidences thereof, showing how individual entities, with their characteristic life- changes, came 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 one 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 sudden, 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 of 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 these 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, Aj^Jj^^^ 18 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR as an explanation of how all the infinite varieties of things, living and 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 called 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 a new power at work/^ Hux- ley admits that there is no evidence of any 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 THE BAR 19 ing forms ; and if so there is nothing unscientific in as- individuals who show a relatively inferior type, than there are among the fossils Imown up to this time." Honest evolutionists will not dispute this. 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 races. Thus, the Eskimo head, and the head of EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 57 the Terra del Fuegians, belong to the perfected types. All the researches undertaken with the aim of finding continuity in progressive development have been without result. There exists no 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, hut 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 'Hheist" 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 about 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 59 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 action 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 Bible, 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 Haeckel, 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 God, it would not be easy to say wherein the difference lies. If there be a Supreme Being, and He is "unknow- 60 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 he 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 God, and can he 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 presumptioi 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 the Eedeemer 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 reveals, EVOLUTION AT THE BAR 61 and which is received by all who believe 'Hhe 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," that 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 state 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 hy 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 ly 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 Christianity there is and can be nothing but the sharpest antagonism. Prof. Fair- hurst well says, ''Christian evolution is incon- ceivable. ' ' Christianity is based 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 heen 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 $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 Civiliza- tion, and man's ever-advancing Progress should 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 which 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 64 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 65 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 nothini^ness like the mists in the presence of the sun. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead was not an evolution. It was a complete reversal 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 our 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 66 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 Kisen 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 misgivin^rs 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-hed 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. 68 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 ''bold 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 sharply divided against itself cannot stand. Dr. Gotte 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 stages, 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 Le Conte, of the University of Cali- fornia, 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 69 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 he known at least a few instances of the evolution of one species from another. No such , instance ^5 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 Evohition, 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- Hef." 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 ahsurd 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 God, 70 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 sinc/le as- certained fact of science which conflicts with any statement of the Bihle. 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 71 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 asl 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 hy his seven-year-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 lirds, this text-book for primary grades says : ' ' Ever so long ago their grandfathers were not birds at all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings nor feathers. These grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long tail, and jaws with teeth. After a time feathers grew 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" countiy into the position where the accepted canons of education forhid the teaching of the Bible to the children of the tax-payers, hut permit the teach- ing of the most anti-Christian and unscientific doc- trine that ever made a hid for puhlic 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 Ljrman 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 ' ' ; and 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 of the schools, and give themselves little concern as to what they learn there from teachers and companions. CHAPTER YIII 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 species. It is exceedingly important, with a view to a right understanding of the theory of Evolution, that 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- where, 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 absolutely 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- 74 EVOLUTION AT THE BAR ism integrative 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 combinations 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 Evolution 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 75 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 never 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 THE 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 facts which have an important bear- Human Affairs 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 sw/- 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 stahility. 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? Manifestly, 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 ? The 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 had as it possibly can he. 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 Accoiintedfor 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 fail to see the im- portant fact to which we are here calling attention, i 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 opposed 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 79 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 is 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 fear of Divine justice; hence the desire to demonstrate that God has no attrihutes, such as that He is ' justy for instance. The Psalmist describes this attitude in the words, 'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast 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 80 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 ^Uhe law of sin and death'' (Rom 8:2). lit has no place in the Kingdom of God, or in any Isphere 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, has im- puted the same law to his Maker, thus fulfilling the Scripture, ''Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself." I