BIBLE LEAGUE, CREDO SERIES, No. 
 
 
 Collapse of Evolution 
 
 BY 
 
 Professor L. T. Townsend, D.D., S.T.l)., M.V.I. 
 Author of “Credo,” “God-Man,” “ P'ate 
 OF Republics,” etc., etc., etc. 
 
 Delivered under the auspices of the American Bible 
 League, in Boston, December, 1904. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 NATIONAL MAGAZINE COMPANY, BOSTON, MASS. 
 AND AMERICAN BIBLE LEAGUE 
 
 39 BIBLE HOUSE, NEW YORK 
 
Copyright, 1905, 
 By L. T. Townsend. 
 
 TRINTED BY 
 
 gtrakelgsn ^ress 
 
 BOSTON, MASS, 
 
DEDICATION 
 
 TO 
 
 mmm pbillips fHall 
 
 PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN BIBLE LEAGUE^ 
 WHOSE BRAIN, HEART AND WEALTH ARE CON¬ 
 SECRATED TO GOD AND ARE BEING USED FOR 
 THE PROMOTION OF BIBLE CHRISTIANITY 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2020 with funding from 
 Columbia University Libraries 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/collapseofevolutOOtown 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 1. Hypothesis of Evolution Broadly Applied ..... 7 
 
 2 . Definitions .......... 8 
 
 History and Triumphs of Evolution ...... 9 
 
 4. Naturalists and Supernaturai.ists ..9 
 
 5. Indictment ........... 10 
 
 II. 
 
 LIFE GERMS AND NATURALISTIC EVOLUTION 
 
 1. Life Germs said to be a Product of Nature . . . . ii 
 
 2 . Life Germs as yet Unaccounted for by Naturalism ... 12 
 
 III. 
 
 EVOLUTION, THEISTIC AND NATURALISTIC; STUDIES IN 
 
 GEOLOGY 
 
 1. No Law of Universal Improvement ...... 15 
 
 (1) Beginnings and Endings ........ 16 
 
 (2) Multitudes of Species^ Flora and Fauna, show no Develop¬ 
 
 ment when Compared with their Earliest Types . . 16 
 
 (3) Man viewed Biologically shows no Improvement . . 18 
 
 (4) Fixedness, Disappearances, Improvements and Reversions . 20 
 
 2. No Transmutation of Species by Natural or Artificial 
 
 Processe.s.21 
 
 (1) Horse Pedigree .......... 21 
 
 (2) Java Skeleton .......... 23 
 
 IV. 
 
 EVOLUTION, THEISTIC AND NATURALISTIC; STUDIES IN BIOL¬ 
 OGY, EMBRYOLOGY AND COMPARATIVE ANATOMY 
 
 1. Development of the Human Body ...... 25 ^ 
 
 2. Development of the Human Hand and Eye . . . . . 26 
 
 3. Rudimentary or Useless Members ...... 27 
 
 4. Metamorphosis .......... 27 
 
 5. Crossing of Species ......... 27 
 
 6. Variation of Species ......... 28 
 
7. Classification of Species. 28 
 
 8. Everything after its Kind; Studies in the Floral Kingdom 29 
 
 9. Everything after its Kind ; Studies in the Animal Kingdom 30 
 
 10. Wriggling.. . 32 
 
 (1) The Whale Disposed of .32 
 
 (2) Demand for Missing Links pronounced Unreasonable . 32 
 
 (3) Explanation of how Links Become Missing .... 34 
 
 (4) Evolution of Man .. c 35 
 
 V. 
 
 EMERGENCE OF HUMANITY FROM ITS BRUTE BEGINNINGS 
 
 1. Disclosures of Archaeology and History.36 
 
 2. Decadence among Mankind ........ 38 
 
 3. Philology^ Comparative Religion and Codes of Ethics . . 38 
 
 VI. 
 
 THE AGE OF HUMANITY 
 
 1. Former Theories Abandoned.. 40 
 
 2. Man's Appearance and the Ice Age ...... 41 
 
 3. Scientific Mixup.. 43 
 
 VII. 
 
 SCHOLARS AND EVOLUTION 
 
 1. All Scholars said to be Evolutionists.45 
 
 2. Scholarship and Narrowness ....... 46 
 
 3. Naturalists are Proposing no Better Scheme than Darwin's 46 
 
 4. The Ablest Scientists and Evolution .. 47 
 
 VIII. 
 
 BIBLE CRITICISM AND EVOLUTION 
 
 1. Destructive Intentions of Modern Bible Critics . . » 53 
 
 2. Rejoinder by Professor A. H. Sayce of Oxford . . . „ 53 
 
 IX. 
 
 RELIGION AND EVOLUTION 
 
 1. Outcome of Darwinism. 54 
 
 2 . Recent Evolution and Religion.. . 56 
 
 X. 
 
 CONCLUSION 59 
 
 NOTES.61 
 
I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 I. Hypothesis oe Evolution Broadly Applied. — It has 
 been quite the fashion of late years to employ the term evolu¬ 
 tion with much latitude, and in fields outside those of biology 
 where it began its remarkably popular career. 
 
 Herbert Spencer, one of the very much praised pioneers in 
 this broader application of the theory, built his scheme of social 
 economy and government upon the hypothesis of organic 
 evolution. So, too. Professor Drummond’s very popular 
 books — “ Natural Law in the Spiritual World,” and “ The 
 Ascent of Man ” — adhere throughout to this same hypothesis. 
 The brilliant reasoner and writer, Professor Goldwin Smith, 
 arguing for the Immortality of the Soul, takes occasion to say 
 that, ‘‘ It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that man’s 
 bodily frame, and its soul, as its outcome and perfection, have 
 been produced by a process of evolution from lower forms of 
 animal, maybe of vegetable life.” 
 
 Dr. Clifford, a leader among the Non-Conformists of Eng¬ 
 land, in a surprisingly favorable comment on the destructive 
 criticism recently announced by the Dean of Westminster, 
 employs these words: — ‘‘We have in the main accepted evo¬ 
 lution, and thereby can the better understand the majestic ways 
 of God.” 
 
 And in almost every field of literature, for a quarter of a 
 century or more, writers of note have been illustrating or 
 enforcing their discussions by appeals to evolution as seen in 
 
 7 
 
tlie world of living things and have been vying with one 
 another in praise of Mr. Darwin and his wonderful discovery. 
 And, too, in American pulpits and in some theological schools, 
 the theory of evolution has been quite as often presented and 
 with about as much reverence and unction as the doctrine of 
 vicarious atonement. 
 
 It would seem, therefore, that this theory, in the more recent 
 nse made of it, is scarcely less entitled to a place among sys¬ 
 tems of theology than is the creed formulated by the Nicene 
 Fathers. And perhaps no one will question the further state¬ 
 ment that the evolution theory, with its implications, has con¬ 
 tributed largely to the vigorous growth of destructive crit¬ 
 icism, and that the popularizing of it together with the efforts 
 of higher critics to keep it well advertised have, almost more 
 than anything else, helped to weaken the hold that Christian 
 faith and religious conviction once had upon the minds and 
 hearts of the American people. 
 
 2. Definitions. — A few words at this point by way of 
 definition and explanation may be allowed: perhaps are 
 required. 
 
 The leading word in our topic, collapse, describes a thing 
 that has tumbled into such ruin as will not permit of recon¬ 
 struction. There is, too, suggested by the word the idea that 
 there has not been ample support, as when a poorly-framed 
 house goes to the ground, or that there had been too much 
 inflation, as when an over-blown bladder bursts. 
 
 Evolution, the other important word of our topic, in its bio- 
 logical restriction, involves the theory that living things origin¬ 
 ally came upon the earth in the form of germs, supernaturally 
 created, or imported, or produced by spontaneous generation, 
 and then through natural and orderly processes, long con¬ 
 tinued, developed into various species of plants and animals, 
 
 existing and extinct, culminating in man, who is recognized 
 
 8 
 
ill physical science as the crown and glory of all earthly 
 things/ * 
 
 3. History and Triumph of Evolution. — In one form 
 or another, the theory of evolution is well on in years, — an¬ 
 cient philosophers, church fathers and scientists for at least 
 twenty centuries have been its advocates, though it did not 
 gain its majorities, nor make what has been termed its con¬ 
 quest of the world,” until Dr. Alfred R. Wallace and Charles 
 Darwin, in 1858, separately announced the hypothesis of the 
 “ Origin of the Species by spontaneous variation, and the sur¬ 
 vival of the fittest throug'h natural selection,” in “ the struggle 
 for existence.” For a while after Mr. Dar\vin’s announcement 
 there was among scientists and philosophers quite a good deal 
 of hesitation in adopting his views, but later they were so gen¬ 
 erally accepted in Germany, England and America that for one 
 to have questioned them in either of these countries, at any 
 time during a period of twenty years, or more, beginning near 
 1880, would have been regarded by many as sure evidence of 
 an unphilosophic, unscientific and unscholarly mind. 
 
 4. Naturalists and Supernaturalists. — From the ear¬ 
 lier times and on to the present, evolutionists have been divided 
 into two classes, naturalists and supernaturalists. The natural¬ 
 ist, as the term implies, rules God out of the universe from 
 start to finish, the claim being that nature is abundantly able 
 to look after herself and all things committed to her care inde¬ 
 pendent of any antecedent or outside interpositions. 
 
 The supernaturalist, on the other hand, admits God into the 
 scheme of the universe and places all nature more or less under 
 his control. In the mind of the extreme supernaturalist, evolu¬ 
 tion is little other than God’s method in world building and 
 furnishing. 
 
 * The notes are compiled in the Appendix and are indicated there by 
 the numerals I, TT, ITT, TV. etc. 
 
 9 
 
The naturalist and supernatnralist, however, hold in com¬ 
 mon, that all developments of living organisms, whether with 
 or without external supervision, are carried on strictly in har¬ 
 mony with processes represented by such scientific terms as 
 natural selection, struggle for existence, survival of the fittest, 
 and transmutation. 
 
 The superstructure, builded by advocates of evolution, 
 among whom have been philosophers, scientists, men of litera¬ 
 ture almost without number, and theologians of the highest 
 repute, appears from some points of view imposing, and its 
 foundations at one time seemed as impregnable as those of any 
 human invention or speculation that ever had a name in science 
 or philosophy. 
 
 5. Indictme:nt. — Our topic, the collapse of evolution, im¬ 
 plies, therefore, that at the present stage of scientific enquiry, 
 the attractive and stately edifice, built by either the naturalist 
 or supernaturalist, is found to be a poorly constructed affair, 
 supported by not one single well established fact in the whole 
 domain of science, philosophy or religion. Now it must be 
 confessed that this sweeping indictment, unless established 
 beyond reasonable question and by facts that cannot be contro¬ 
 verted, would properly be condemned as a piece of ignorant, 
 impertinent and insolent dogmatism. 
 
 II. 
 
 UffE GERMS AND NATURALISTIC EVOLUTION. 
 
 The issue being now squarely before us, the next step is an 
 examination of certain claims that are made by evolutionists, 
 or that ought to be made, and whose establishment is essential 
 to the successful maintenance of their theory. 
 
 TO 
 
I. LiFt: Germs said to be a Product oe Nature. —And 
 lirst, the naturalistic evolutionist contends that the original 
 germs, from which all life has been developed, came into exist¬ 
 ence by some unknown natural process but were in no way 
 dependent upon supernatural agency. Dr. Buchner, speaking 
 for this class o\ evolutionists, clearly states the case thus:—• 
 “ Matter is the origin of all that exists: all natural and mental 
 forces are inherent in it. Nature, the all-engendering and all- 
 devouring, is its own beginning and end, its birth and death. 
 She produces man by her own power and takes him again.” 
 
 And it should be added that in exact terms evolution means 
 that a single protoplasmic cell has, by a. process of mul¬ 
 tiplying forms through an indefinite number of species, pro¬ 
 duced all the forms of life that have existed on earth, with 
 no supernatural interpositions.” For if there were two, or 
 ten, such cells, coming into existence at different times, then 
 there may have been a billion or more, and transmutation 
 would be quite unnecessary. 
 
 It may occasion surprise to say that even supernaturalists 
 are of late inclining to the theory that the origin of living 
 germs may also fall within the scope of processes no less 
 natural than those that work out the development of things. 
 
 A professor in Wesleyan University, who assuredly would 
 resent being classed among atheists, in a book recently pub¬ 
 lished states the case thus: — ‘‘When we trace a continuous 
 evolution from the nebula to the dawn of life and again a con¬ 
 tinuous evolution from the dawn of life to the varied fauna and 
 flora of to-day, crowned with glory in the appearance of man 
 himself, we can hardly fail to accept the suggestion that the 
 transition from the lifeless to the living was itself a process of 
 evolution.” 
 
 This conclusion is logically sound, if the premises are cor¬ 
 rect ; that is, if the unaided forces of nature have really evolved 
 
 II 
 
from structureless germs the beautiful organisms and mechan¬ 
 isms everywhere met, then those same forces ought to be able, 
 in nature's wonderful laboratory, to manufacture the original 
 germs or germ from which those complex living things are 
 developed. 
 
 But it should be observed that the author begs the whole 
 question, his premises being entirely speculative, and, as will 
 appear a little later, entirely without scientific support. 
 
 2 . Life Germs as yet unaccounted for by Naturalism. 
 
 — As is well known, the experiments of Dr. Bastian, in 1871, 
 secured for the theory of the spontaneous generation of life 
 germs very decided support. Later there came into use among 
 scientists such terms as ‘‘ bathmism,” cosmic ether,” “ cos¬ 
 mic emotion,” “ germplasm,” pangenesis,” “ protoplasm,” 
 ‘‘ growth force,” “ vital fluid ” and the like, all suggesting the 
 strenuous efforts that were making to account for the origin 
 of life. It should be said, however, that not for five or ten 
 years have these terms, once potent on the lips of scientists 
 and philosophers, been employed seriously by any reputable 
 writer on these subjects. 
 
 Professor Huxley was forced reluctantly and rather mourn¬ 
 fully to give up his bioplastic theory." Sir William Thomson, 
 with quick dispatch, surrendered his speculation that life germs 
 came to the earth on a meteorite from some planet or star 
 on which life already had an existence. The chemical origin 
 (jf life, at one time advocated by Herbert Spencer, was aban¬ 
 doned in the last edition of his ‘^Biology,” and the words 
 “ spontaneous generation ” are mentioned no longer in sci¬ 
 entific circles except when classifying it among those theories 
 that have not a particle of scientific or experimental evidence 
 in their support. 
 
 “ I share Virchow’s opinion,” said the late Professor Tvn- 
 dall, that the theory of evolution, in its complete forni, 
 
 13 
 
involves the assumption tliat at some period or other of the 
 earth’s history there occurred what would now be called spon¬ 
 taneous generation; but I also agree with him that the proofs 
 of it are still wanting. 1 also hold with Virchow that the 
 failures have been so lamentable that the doctrine is utterly 
 discredited.” 
 
 In a word, no cautious and well-informed scientist of what¬ 
 ever school ventures now to go beyond the following statement 
 recently made by a thorough-going naturalist:— “ The begin¬ 
 nings of life came upon the earth in some way unknown to 
 science.” 
 
 We have employed these words, ‘‘well-informed scientist,” 
 advisedly, being fully aware that men who are to-day holding 
 professorships in American colleges are still asserting the pos¬ 
 sibility and probability of creating or producing life by chem¬ 
 ical agencies, and that all existing life originated by natural 
 processes. 
 
 The professor of physiological chemistry in the University 
 of Chicago, for instance, is reported to have used recently in 
 his lecture-room these words; “The divine creation of life is 
 a pure humbug. Life originally happened. Life is made up 
 of certain organic compounds. Certain organic compounds 
 were made by nature. The compounds came together in some 
 manner, and the result was life. I believe that in a short time 
 real life will be created in the laboratory.” 
 
 For a man who professes to be a scientist to employ such 
 language is surprising and almost incredible. Here is nothing 
 but dogmatic assertion, of which a canting clergyman, or 
 mountebank, not to say scientist and university professor, 
 ought to be ashamed. 
 
 Weigh these words that will be a poison in the life blood of 
 ihe young men who hear and believe them: — “ The divine 
 creation of life is a pure humbug ”! This sentence challenges 
 
 13 
 
the wisdom not only of prophets, apostles and of our Lord him¬ 
 self but also of scientists who have devoted their lives to the 
 investigation of nature’s phenomena and who have taken rank 
 in the past and who take rank to-day with those who stand the 
 highest in their departments of study — such men as Agassiz, 
 Beale, Carpenter, Dana, Davy, Dawson, Faraday, Forbes, 
 Gray, Helmholtz, Herschel, Lord Kelvin, Leibnitz, Lotze, 
 Maury, Pasteur, Romanes, Verdt and hundreds of others who 
 ascribe to God and to God alone the power to originate life. 
 
 III. 
 
 EVOLUTION, THEISTIC AND NATURALISTIC; 
 
 STUDIES IN GEOLOGY. 
 
 At this point some one is waiting to put in a reminder 
 that naturalistic evolution and the origin of life are not at 
 present questions of chief importance, since the popular and 
 more recent view of the theory allows dhe supernatural to be 
 invoked whenever it suits the convenience of the evolutionist, 
 or whenever natural agencies fail. 
 
 But we may be permitted to suggest that the moment a 
 supernatural factor is allowed to take any part in the scheme 
 of the universe, that moment there is a weakening in every 
 timber of any theory of evolution that has been devised. In 
 other words, if God is present and needed in one part of the 
 web of the physical universe, for instance, in the creation of 
 life germs, he is equally needed in every other. His interven¬ 
 tion is no more called for when the planet Jupiter begins its 
 mighty revolutions than when a dying sparrow falls to the 
 ground. Unaided natural forces can no more make a hair 
 of the head than they can make the mightiest mammal that 
 
 ever walked the earth or crushed forests under its feet. 
 
 14 
 
If, however, it is insisted that extreme naturalistic evolution 
 should be taken out of this discussion, we will deal for a few 
 moments with that type called supernatural or theistic, that in 
 some quarters has been received with almost “ an intellectual 
 frenzy ”; a type, too, that has no hesitation in attacking ortho¬ 
 dox views of Bible revelation and primitive Christian dogma, 
 and that announces without apparent misgiving certain claims 
 upon the establishment of which, this popular, but dangerous, 
 illogical and utterly vague scheme of evolution depends. 
 
 I. No Law of Universal Improvement. — And first at¬ 
 tention is called to what at one time was thought to be in the 
 world of living things a universal law of development and 
 improvement, of elaboration and progression. And certainly 
 from a biological point of view and from the application that 
 has been made of the theory of evolution to various philosophic 
 cal and theological subjects, the evolutionist ought to be able 
 to show that both sub-inorganic and organic evolution is such 
 as to secure general progress, more or less pronounced and 
 more or less rapid, the rapidity depending upon surrounding 
 conditions, and that there are among living things continuous 
 and unbroken connections between simple forms and species 
 and those that are the most complex. Without such progress 
 and connections it is obvious that organic evolution rests upon 
 an exceedingly precarious foundation. 
 
 Now, while all this is implied in evolution and while a hasty 
 study of the facts may leave an impression that there is in the 
 world of living things what seems to be a continuous elabora¬ 
 tion or progression, yet a more careful survey discloses such 
 a mass of evidence pointing in the exact opposite direction 
 that leading scientists are now saying scarcely a word as to con¬ 
 tinuous and universal progress. On the other hand, they are 
 freely using such words as retrogradation and deterioration. 
 
 But as the facts bearing on this point are essential to the 
 
 15 
 
rounding- out of the discussion and as they will be suggestive 
 in dealing with other phases of evolution, we shall be pardoned 
 for calling attention to them. 
 
 (1) Beginnings and Endings. — And one of the first 
 observations made by the student of nature is that all things 
 that have their beginnings and progressions also have their 
 declinings and endings. 
 
 “ ‘So careful of the type?’ but no. 
 
 From scarped cliff and quarried stone 
 She cries, ‘A thousand types are gone; 
 
 I care for nothing, all shall go.’ ” 
 
 And since the human race began, though all sorts of arti¬ 
 ficial agencies have been employed and though there has been 
 the closest scrutiny, yet not a single distinctively new type of 
 plant, or animal, on what is called broad lines, has come into 
 existence, but thousands have disappeared, never to return, and 
 many others “are slowly but surely marching to their doom.” 
 
 And the whole magnificent procession of living things, at 
 the close of which stands the human family, has stopped, nor 
 is there any scientific expectation that it ever again will begin 
 to move. And from present indications and tendencies man 
 has no ground of hope as to continuance or improvement, 
 except for a limited time, and in realms of mind and spirit 
 with which the biologist has nothing to do. Birth, growth, 
 decline and death is one of nature's most exacting laws and is 
 no truer of the insect that lives but a day than of the physical 
 organism of man or of the whole vast material universe. 
 
 Rut this, says the evolutionist, is not what is meant by the 
 law of improvement and progress. Is not ? Well, then, let ns 
 know definitely what is meant. ^ 
 
 We mean this: — that the species, among plants and ani- 
 . mals, as the ages pass are on tlie whole improving. 
 
 (2) Multitudes of Species, Flora and Fauna, shozo no 
 
 Dez^elopment zvJien compared zoith their Earliest Types. — 
 
 16 
 
Beginning' with what is called “ the primordial zone,” which 
 covers the earliest stage of biological history, and coining 
 down to more recent times, there will be found numberless 
 species that have shown no improvement since their creation, 
 'riie algae or sea weeds, that appeared in the distant Silurian 
 deposit, millions of years ago, were no less perfect than those 
 of the same class found in our modern seas. The oak, birch, 
 hazel and Scotch fir, easily traced back thousands of years, 
 have remained all this time wdthout the slightest improvement. 
 
 And, toe, in the animal kingdom the same discoveries are 
 made. Insects that built the coral reefs of Florida, in the 
 three hundred centuries of their existence have shown no 
 improvement. 
 
 The crustacean family, especially the crayfish group, that 
 first appeared near the close of the carboniferous ])eriod, has 
 gained nothing though geological period after geological 
 period has gone by since its creation. 
 
 The highest type of mollusk known to scientists is the one 
 that appeared far back in geological history. The same may 
 be said of the earliest fish, reptilian and mammalian families; 
 they each appeared fully equipped at the outset in the pleni¬ 
 tude of their power,” and never since have shown the least 
 elaboration or improvement. 
 
 And equally significant and quite as troublesome to the 
 evolutionist are the recent discoveries on the Pacific coast, 
 made by deep sea dredging under the direction of W. E. 
 Ritter, Professor of Zoology, University of California. At a 
 depth of seven and a half miles, where there is almost absolute 
 uniformity of conditions, have been taken living creatures 
 essentially identical with those that lived in deep water in 
 the eocene ages, whose fossils are now found in geological 
 strata, that during terrestrial upheavals were raised from sea 
 depths millions of ages ago. 
 
 17 
 
Ill comparing these ancient and more recent forms no 
 improvement is discovered; the earliest ones are as absolutely 
 perfect and as marvelously beautiful in color and structure as 
 any living creature, large or small, that came into existence 
 in the later geological ages. While both naturalistic and super- 
 naturalistic evolutionists are acknowledging these facts, yet, 
 as would be expected, it is with some measure of reluctance, 
 for it is evident that every such fact weakens the foundations 
 of evolution, and our friends, therefore, hardly could be 
 blamed if they sincerely wished that all these later discoveries 
 had remained in the depths of the sea. 
 
 It is reported of Professor E. D. Cope that on seeing a 
 newly discovered specimen that controverted one of his 
 hypotheses, he quietly said; “ If no one were looking I should 
 be glad to throw that fossil out of the window.” 
 
 Coming to early historic times it is found that mummies 
 of cats, ibises, birds of prey, dogs, crocodiles and heads of 
 bulls discovered in the tombs and temples of upper and lower 
 Egypt, placed there from four to five thousand years ago, are 
 identical with their living representatives. 
 
 (3) Man Viewed Biologically shows no Imj>rovement — 
 Passing from these lower forms of living things to the highest, 
 represented by man, there still will be discovered, on biologi¬ 
 cal and physiological grounds, no evidence of improvement. 
 
 Professor Pierre Broca, who made a very careful study of 
 the celebrated “ Cro-Magnon skull,” belonging to the earliest 
 stone age, says: “ The great volume of the brain, the develop¬ 
 ment of the frontal region, the fine elliptical profile of the 
 anterior portion of the skull are incontestable evidences of 
 superiority and are characteristics that usually are found only 
 in civilized nations.” Professor Pluxley, describing one of 
 the oldest existing fossil skulls, says that “ so far as size and 
 
 shape are concerned, it might have been the brain of a philoso- 
 
 t8 
 
pher/’ And what is true of the skull is equally true of other 
 parts of the human body. 
 
 A scientist, skilled in these subjects, who has examined 
 statuettes recently discovered in Crete, employs these words: 
 ‘‘ I spent a long time studying the muscles and veins of the 
 Cretan forearm of four thousand years ago, as shown in some 
 of Dr. Evans’ wonderful photographs. Their arrangement is 
 identical to the smallest detail with that of the surface veins 
 and muscles in the arm that writes these words. These statu¬ 
 ettes constitute, in my opinion, the oldest exact anatomical 
 records in the world, and my study of them leads to the con¬ 
 clusion that in four thousand years there has been no change 
 in even the minutest details of the forearm of man.’’ 
 
 And upon enlarging the field of investigation the evolu¬ 
 tionist is confronted with still more serious grounds for 
 embarrassment, for there is not only no universal law of 
 improvement, or elaboration, on which his theory largely 
 depends, but on the other hand in scores of instances there 
 is among things having life a pronounced deterioration of 
 parts and functions. 
 
 There is one family of the ascidia, a group that begins with 
 backbone, throat and cerebral eye, each of which disappears 
 as the animal matures, and is never restored. Some of the 
 parasite species begin with legs, jaws, eyes and ears, but lose 
 them all, becoming after awhile a mere sac whose life ever 
 after consists in absorbing nourishment and laying eggs. 
 
 The fish family began early, and still lives on, but has been 
 in process of degeneration ever since the Devonian period. 
 Likewise none of the modern mammalia equal in size or 
 strength those that flourished during the geological age to 
 which they gave their name. 
 
 And from biological and physiological points of view the 
 human race not only has not gained a step since the dawn of 
 
 19 
 
liistory, but on the whole, sometimes slowly, sometimes rap¬ 
 idly, has been deteriorating: and if history warrants any state¬ 
 ment, it is that except for a mind endowed at the outset \vith 
 conscience, with whicli organic evolution has nothing to do, 
 and had not religion, especially the Jewish and Christian, 
 with their inspiring and uplifting power come to the aid 
 of the human race, mankind long since would have disap- 
 ])eared forever from the face of the earth. 
 
 Nothing, therefore, is better established in the realms of 
 science than the conservative announcement of the late Pro¬ 
 fessor Cope, a pronounced evolutionist, at least until just 
 before his death: “ Retrogradation in nature is as well estal)- 
 lished as evolution.” * 
 
 (4) Fixedness, Disappearances, Degeneration, Iniprove- 
 nients and Reversions. — A fuller statement of the case is, that 
 some forms of animal life in geological history have remained 
 fixed for millions of years and are still living on; others ap¬ 
 peared and remained without change for hundreds of thou¬ 
 sands of years and then disappeared as suddenly as they came; 
 others began to degenerate as soon as they appeared, and still 
 others in more recent times under domestication, or artificial 
 help, have been much improved, though left to themselves they 
 usually revert tO' their original condition. 
 
 When, therefore, the evolutionist, in support of his theory, 
 says there is in the kingdom of nature anything that can be 
 called a universal law of development and improvement, he 
 most certainly is not telling the truth. 
 
 Universal laws do not depend upon circumstances or envi¬ 
 ronments, but were true and operative yesterday, are so to¬ 
 day, and will be so forever, and everywhere. 
 
 We presume no one will question this additional statement 
 that universal and fixed laws are far less numerous in the 
 
 physical universe than they were once supposed to be. 
 
 20 
 
2. No Transmutation or SpeJciKs by Natural or Arti- 
 I'lCiAL Processes. — Attention is next called to a claim of the 
 evolutionist, held with much tenacity, by both the supernatu¬ 
 ralist and naturalist, that by natural processes one species of 
 plant, or animal, may be transformed into another, and that 
 through long continued and progressive transmutations the 
 liigher types of animal life, including man, have been evolved 
 from the lower. 
 
 It should be said at this point that, if the transmutation of 
 species is not established, then organic evolution can have no 
 scientific standing. And unless it can be shown that man is a 
 transmutation from the ape family, or from some other family 
 back of the ape, from which it and man have both been 
 evolved, then the theory of evolution breaks down at the very 
 point where it is vitally important it should be maintained. 
 
 (I) Horse Pedigree. — The reader is almost entitled to an 
 apology for the repetition of the so-called proofs of transmu¬ 
 tation, some time since overthrown, that are nevertheless the 
 stock in trade of scores of men who appear to be either unpar- 
 donably ignorant of facts already established, or else are delib¬ 
 erately trying to fool the public mind. 
 
 For instance, there are the fossil bones of the so-called pre¬ 
 historic horse that from time to time have been paraded as 
 evidence of the transmutation theory. 
 
 A Chicago University professor, occupying the chair of 
 paleontology, in reply to an article written by a Boston pro¬ 
 fessor of theology, ventured recently this statement: — “ The 
 modern horse can be definitely traced through a series of inter¬ 
 mediate stages to a primitive species having four toes on each 
 foot.’’ 
 
 Now the only excuse, and it is a poor one, for this state¬ 
 ment, is that Professor Huxley, twenty-five or thirty years 
 ago, in a desperate effort to find something to support his 
 
“ Demonstrated Evidence of Evolution/’ made use of these 
 fossils, the earliest species of which are found in the eocene 
 strata. Our Chicago professor may not know, perhaps, that 
 another animal has been discovered having five toes, of which 
 Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn, of the Musuem of Natural 
 History, New York, has recently given an account, and pos¬ 
 sibly another may yet be discovered having fifteen toes. The 
 facts are, however, that all these fossils differ so entirely from 
 the bones of the modern horse that the animal to which they 
 belonged can not, on strictly scientific grounds, be called a 
 horse at all. And certainly it may be questioned, so far as 
 feet are concerned, to which the evolutionist confines his rea¬ 
 soning, whether the four-toed animal is not of higher order 
 than the one-toed or hoofed animal. Differentiation rather 
 than convolution is nature’s method of improving the species if 
 the teaching of the naturalist is to be our guide. 
 
 But what makes it all the worse for the paleontological pro¬ 
 fessor is, that the very species that ought to connect those 
 supposed earlier ancestors with the modern horse, thus form¬ 
 ing the needed missing links, are entirely unknown in geologi¬ 
 cal history. While there are some resemblances between those 
 four-toed animals and the modern horse, as there are some 
 resemblances between a cow and a crow, a man and a mouse, 
 each having a head with its eyes, riose and ears, and each 
 having feet with which to walk, yet these resemblances fur¬ 
 nish no more evidence of organic connections and transmuta¬ 
 tions in the one case than in the other — that is, no evidence 
 at all. In each instance these differentlv toed animals lived 
 their geological periods and then forever disappeared, having 
 had neither ancestors nor descendants. Or to make the case 
 a little more specific, and beginning with, the orohippus, found 
 in the eocene period, there followed the mesohippus, miohip- 
 pus, protohippus and so on, to the modern horse. Now, 
 
adopting Haeckel’s estimate of the vital era ” of the earth, 
 the orohippus lived about three hundred million years ago. 
 I.^etween that animal and the modern horse there are four 
 so-called intermediate species, each of which flourished from 
 twenty to sixty million years. Each s]jecies abruptly appeared, 
 remained fixed that length of time and then suddenly disap¬ 
 peared, and where thousands and even millions of the inter- 
 niediate forms of the different species are demanded by the 
 evolutionist, not one that is assured has yet been discovered. 
 When Mr. Darwin and Professor Huxley were confronted 
 with this, that might well have been regarded as a fatal fact, 
 they met it by saying that the records are imperfect and 
 that the intermediate forms need not be looked for. But may 
 we not ask, why not look for them and why not expect to find 
 them, at least in some numbers, if they ever existed? These 
 are questions that no one should be condemned for asking. 
 
 The most of this talk, however, is twenty-five or thirty 
 years old, and our Chicago professor should have known that 
 geologists, on some of these questions, have changed their 
 views two hundred times in one hundred years,” and that no 
 reputable geologist, or paleontologist, at the present time is 
 at all satisfied with the evidence of the horse pedigree derived 
 from those fossils.'' 
 
 (2) Java Skeleton. — Another piece of effete evidence, 
 once generally employed by the advocates of evolution but 
 lately by no scientist of distinction, are the fossil bones of the 
 oi'ice famous Java skeleton that for a time had the reputation of 
 being the missing link, or one of them, between man and the 
 monkey family. 
 
 The same professor of whom we were just speaking, the 
 Chicago man, recently ventured this announcement: “ A few 
 years ago there were discovered in Java the skull and portion 
 of a skeleton of a creature to which the name pithecanthropus 
 
 23 
 
erectus was given. Competent paleontologists and anthropolo¬ 
 gists to-day believe it to be a real connecting link between man 
 and the lower animals.” 
 
 Now, the facts in this case are of more than ordinary inter¬ 
 est, and are these: In the month of September, 1891, Dubois, 
 a Dutch physician, discovered a tooth on the island of Java, 
 about forty-five feet below the surface of the earth; one month 
 later he found the roof of a skull about three feet from where 
 he found the tooth, and in August, 1892, he found a thigh bone 
 forty-five feet further away, and later, another tooth. 
 
 That is all that is known of the wonderful pithecanthropus, 
 the link that connects man with the lower animals. A year 
 or two after these discoveries the world’s famous zoologists 
 met at Leyden, and among other things examined were the 
 remains of pithecanthropus. Ten of those scientists concluded 
 that they were nothing but the bones of an ape, seven held 
 that they were those of a man, and seven concluded that the}’ 
 were really the missing link connecting man and the ape. So 
 that of twenty-four of the most eminent scientists of Europe, 
 only seven, not one-third, ascribed any importance whatever 
 to this pithecanthropus erectus. 
 
 But the amusing thing about this celebrated paleontological 
 affair is a recent explanation that accounts for the different 
 opinions of those Leyden experts, though rather hard on the 
 scientists; it is given by Professor D. C. Cunningham, of Dub¬ 
 lin, one of the highest authorities in Great Britain on ques¬ 
 tions of comparative anatomy. His conclusion is that those 
 different bones do not belong to the same animal at all, some 
 of them being those of a monkey or baboon, the rest human. 
 So that the missing link, pithecanthropus, turns out to be 
 nothing but a few bones of a monkey and fewer of a man 
 found not very far apart on the island of Java. But what 
 seems unpardonable in a Chicago professor is to palm off those 
 bones on the unsuspecting laymen of his town as evidence of 
 the transmutation theory. 24 
 
IV. 
 
 EVOLUTION, THEISTIC AND NATURALISTIC; 
 STUDIES IN BIOLOCxY, EMBRYOLOGY AND 
 COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. 
 
 We may now allow the evolutionist, if he desires, to retreat 
 from the field of geology, where he has met with all sorts of 
 discomfiture, to that of biology and kindred sciences, where he 
 has been thinking he could find more secure entrenchments. 
 From these latter fields, with a show of confidence, he has 
 presented, in support of transmutationism, quite an amount 
 of exceedingly interesting, if not convincing, evidence. 
 
 I. Development of the Human Body. — With assur¬ 
 ance and satisfaction the evolutionist calls attention to the fact 
 that the human body, beginning as a single cell, only one hun¬ 
 dred and twentieth part of an inch in diameter, develops into a 
 man weighing two hundred pounds. Here, says the evolution¬ 
 ist, is evidence of what nature can do. Certainly, but what has 
 that in common with the evolution of one species into another ? 
 From cell to man no mutation takes place. The cell is the 
 man. The development of cells and germs is one thing, — 
 evolution by transmutations is another: they are as distinct 
 from each other as day from night. 
 
 Again, following out an observation that in the embryonic 
 state man passes through the different stages of worm, fish, 
 reptile and quadruped, the evolutionist has argued that the 
 human race has, therefore, been evolved from the worm, fish, 
 reptile and quadruped. This certainly is a momentous induc¬ 
 tion from limited data, indeed from almost no data at all. 
 
 If we may speak with perfect plainness, an inexcusable 
 blunder in this instance is committed by reason of overlook¬ 
 ing, or, what is worse, by reason (ff a misinterpretation and 
 
 25 
 
false application of the prophetic element in nature. That is, 
 the Creator is a prophet and his method has been to anticipate 
 by type, pattern or prophecy what may be expected in his sub¬ 
 sequent creations. For illustration the fins of fishes, the wings 
 and feet of birds and the fore and hind feet of brutes, created 
 before man, are prophetic of the arms and feet of man. So, 
 too, the lower forms of life, the worm, fish and reptile, furnish 
 hints of what the higher and later forms are to be. 
 
 But from these forecasts or parallels in nature it should no 
 sooner be inferred that there have been transmutations from 
 earlier and lower creations to the higher, than it is to be 
 inferred that a transmutation from quartz crystals to oak 
 trees has taken place, because the root-like base of the crystal 
 resembles the lower parts of a tree. This employment of pro¬ 
 phetic anticipations in nature to bolster up the theory of' 
 organic connections and transmutations is, to a thoughtful 
 mind, about as flagrant misuse of scientific facts as one can 
 imagine. 
 
 2. Dkvelopment oe the Human Hand and Eye. — 
 And, too, naturalists have given to the world volumes upon the 
 evolution of the fin of a fish or paw of an animal into a human 
 hand. 
 
 Sir William Abney, F. R. S., etc., has been writing lately 
 of the evolution of the eye, finding, he thinks, the embryo eye 
 of man in the snail tribe, the approach to an eye being in 
 certain places a slight thinning of the skin that covers the 
 liead. The next stage in eye development he finds in a 
 creature of low order where the thin skin gives place to a 
 slight depression; the next advance is found in another low 
 order of life where there is a sac having in it a sort of pin¬ 
 hole. And so the evolution has gone on until the perfect eye 
 is reached. But the trouble with these speculations of Abney 
 
 and of others who have worked the same field is that nothing 
 
 26 
 
has been proved. As a matter of fact there is no more evidence 
 of any organic connection between the thin skin on the head 
 of a snail and the full formed eye of a mammal than there is 
 between the planet Mars and a man. 
 
 3. Rudimentary or Useless Members. — In support of 
 evolution and transmutation much has been written about the 
 so-called rudimentary, undeveloped and unused organs and 
 structures of different animals. The range of investigation 
 has been from whales to snails and from men almost to 
 midgets. But in all this writing there can be pointed out not 
 a single sentence bearing on evolution, or transmutation, that 
 can be called a strictly scientihc statement; it is ingenious, very 
 ingenious and interesting conjecture; and that is all. 
 
 4. Metamorphosis. — And, too, metamorphosis has been 
 forced to pay tribute to transmutation. The so-called evolu¬ 
 tion of the yolk into the embryo chicken, then into the full 
 formed, or hatched chicken; the so-called evolution of tlie 
 tadpole into the frog; the evolution of the ovum into the larva, 
 then into the pupa, then into the perfect insect, have been 
 used as evidence of nature’s power to transmute one thing into 
 another. But at this late day nO' scientist who cares for his 
 reputation will make such a plea. From a biological point of 
 view the fecundated yolk and the chicken, the tadpole and the 
 frog, the larva and the butterfly, are in each instance one and 
 the same thing. In these developments there is no more of 
 an evolution than when a bud becomes the full-blown rose. 
 
 5. Crossing oe Species. — And, too, among the twenty 
 thousand species of animals already classified not one instance 
 is known where different species have been crossed that the 
 result has not been sterility in the animal thus begotten; and 
 if this always has been the case, and no reason can be given 
 for thinking otherwise, then there is shut out completely what 
 seems to be the most available agency at nature’s command for 
 the production of new species. 
 
 27 
 
 / 
 
6. Variation ot SpECIks. — Quite recently Professor 
 Hugo de Vries, of the University of Amsterdam, appears to 
 have developed a mutable species of primrose. California fruit 
 growers are reporting new varieties of berries and plums. 
 Professor Standfus of Zurich, by variations of temperature, 
 claims to have obtained several new species of butterhy. 
 
 The pigeon and mice families for a long time have been 
 under experiment. And if it had been possible to produce any 
 new species on what are called “ broad lines ” it certainly 
 would have been done. But the facts are that nothing has been 
 accomplished in the way of natural or artificial variation out¬ 
 side of an oscillation around a primitive center.” And even 
 in such cases, the ‘‘ mongrel forms,” as has been pointed out 
 by Professor Peschel, of Leipsic, never have been success¬ 
 fully established nor perpetuated beyond a few generations,” 
 and among the sharply defined animal forms “ any abandon¬ 
 ment of original types is followed by the complete extinction of 
 the family.” 
 
 It appears, therefore, in all these cases that there is no evi¬ 
 dence whatever of a tendency in nature towards the transmu¬ 
 tation of species. One might as well argue such tendency 
 when the sweet orange or the Baldwin apple is budded, or 
 grafted, into wild trees, securing thereby a specially rich 
 and luscious fruit. Improvement and variation are vastly dif¬ 
 ferent from transmutation. 
 
 7. Scientific Classification. — We next call attention 
 to certain matters grouped under what is known as scientific 
 classification. That is, whenever there is discovered in geolog¬ 
 ical deposits the remains of an animal before unknown, the 
 skilled paleontologist finds no difficulty in placing it in its 
 proper class or order. But this would be impossible, as any one 
 can see, if in past ages transmutations had been continually, or 
 
 even occasionally taking place. And, too, if transmutati(>ns 
 
 28 
 
were now going on, tlie world would be so full of animals in 
 various stages of re-formation and variation that classifica¬ 
 tion would be out of the question. As a matter of fact, how¬ 
 ever, the scientist is not embarrassed by any such perplexing 
 conditions. 
 
 But the difficulties in the way of the transmutationist keep 
 multiplying. It is estimated that organized life has been on 
 earth fifty, ])erhaps a thousand, million years. It is also 
 estimated that there are at the present time two and a half 
 millions of different species of plants and animals, and that 
 during the entire “ vital period ” of the earth there have been 
 fifty times as many, or one hundred and twenty-five million 
 species, while an estimate in numbers of the different individ¬ 
 uals belonging to these different living and extinct species is 
 beyond comprehension. And yet in the field of geological 
 history and in that of human history not a discovery has 
 been made indicating that among these multitudes of species 
 and billions of individuals there has been a single case of 
 transmutation. 
 
 8. Everything after its Kind; Studies in the Floral 
 Kingdom. — This matter of transmutation is so vital in the 
 discussion and gives such significance to the remarkable words 
 in the Book of Genesis that we may be more specific and dwell 
 upon it a moment longer. In Genesis is this reading: “And 
 God said. Let the earth put forth grass . . . herb . . . tree 
 after its kind. And the earth brought forth grass and herb 
 yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is 
 the seed thereof, after its kind. . . . And God said, Let the 
 earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and 
 creeping things and beast of the earth after its kind; and it 
 was so ”; and it has been so from the beginning until the 
 present moment. Seaweed for millions, perhaps a thousand 
 
 million years, until now has “ brought forth after its kind." 
 
 29 
 
vSo, too, the cedar, poplar, willow, oak, fig, tulip, spice-wood, 
 sassafras, walnut, buckthorn, sumac, cinnamon, apple and 
 plum, from their first appearance thousands of years ago, in¬ 
 variably and unvaryingly, have brought forth after their kind. 
 
 To an interesting pamphlet by A. L. Gredley, A. M., 
 entitled, “ Thoughts on Evolution,” we are indebted for this 
 statement which no scientist will call in question: — 
 
 “ There are millions of protoplasmic vegetable cells every¬ 
 where about us, each one capable of receiving a life principle, 
 but only from its own peculiar source and then its potency is 
 confined to development only along its own peculiar line. The 
 protoplasmic cells on an incipient corn cob cannot be fertilized 
 by the pollen of the rose. They must be fertilized by pollen 
 from the corn tassel and then they will appropriate the nutri¬ 
 ment brought to them by the parent stalk and develop into 
 corn and into nothing else. Other flora will receive their life 
 principle from other sources, but each from its own and exclu¬ 
 sive source and will develop along its own line and no other.” 
 
 9. Everything aetkr its Kind; Studies in the Animat 
 Kingdom. — Likewise in the animal kingdom the same phe¬ 
 nomena are noticed. There are five hundred species of trilo- 
 bites that through millions of^ages, v/hile the deposits of the 
 paleozoic era were forming, not only brought forth each after 
 its kind, but not a fossil has been found by the paleontologist 
 indicating that a single individual of any of these species ever 
 produced anything but a trilobite. 
 
 The same may be said of the nine hundred extinct species 
 of the ammonites, of the four hundred of the nautilus and of 
 the seven hundred of the ganoids; among these species there is 
 not the slightest trace of any deviation from the law that each 
 species shall bring forth “ after its kind.” 
 
 And, too, this law is just as operative now as during any 
 of the millions of ages past. Man, mammals and living things, 
 
 30 
 
the most inferior and most minute are equally the subjects of 
 it. From a wiggler gnat germ comes a wiggler gnat and noth¬ 
 ing else; this is repeated without deviation over and over 
 again. The same is true of the tadpole and frog; neither one 
 nor the other has ever been known to break from the family 
 line. 
 
 And throughout the continuous existence of the deep-sea 
 living things, reaching back perhaps a thousand million years, 
 there has not been discovered, either in the upheaved strata of 
 the past or in the deep-sea dredgings of the present, the slight¬ 
 est deviation from the law announced in Genesis. 
 
 But more than this'. As is well known the scientific world 
 of late years has become profoundly interested in microscopic 
 disease-producing bacteria. But each species has been found 
 not only to produce the specific disease for which it is named, 
 as bacillus tetanus, bacillus typosi, bacillus xerosis, etc., but 
 each invariably reproduces its own kind. Except for this, 
 medical science to-day would be in direst confusion. And, too, 
 each of the billions of bioplasts that construct the human 
 body, not only attends strictly to its own business, one species 
 forming bone, another muscles, another brain tissue, etc., but 
 no bioplast ever violates the law that like shall produce like. 
 Indeed, if the transmutation of species among bioplasts were 
 possible, there would be no assurance that another normal 
 human body ever would or ever could be brought into exist¬ 
 ence or be kept alive for a single day. 
 
 And what renders the case still more hopeless for the evolu¬ 
 tionist is the recent announcement of biological science, that: 
 the structureless germ of one species of plant never has been 
 and never can be changed into the structureless germ of 
 
 another, much less into that of an animal; and that the 
 
 structureless germ of one species of animal never has been 
 
 and never can be changed into the structureless germ of 
 
 31 
 
another. That is, structureless g-enns of all life at the very 
 threshold of their creation, or formation, are as immutable 
 as the most highly organized plants and animals known in 
 natural history. 
 
 So that from structureless germs up to the most complicated 
 forms of organized life, and from first to last, nature at every 
 turn of the way takes her stand, and as if wielding a drawn 
 sword absolutely forbids the transmutation of species. 
 
 Such, therefore, are the facts in the world of living things, 
 flora and fauna, and such the overwhelming evidence arrayed 
 against the theory of the transmutation of the species and in 
 support of the law that clearly marked species forever shall 
 be kept inviolate and distinct. 
 
 lo. Wriggling. — After having fruitlessly searched for 
 missing links of all sorts, and for other evidences of transmu¬ 
 tation, it is amusingly interesting to watch the evolutionist in 
 his “ wriggling ” performances, if we may employ a term Mr. 
 Darwin once applied to Herbert Spencer, who unquestionably 
 was a master in that art. 
 
 (1) The Whale Disposed of. — This water mammal has 
 been particularly bothersome to the evolutionist because there 
 have been found not only no connecting links but nothing with 
 which to make connections. In fact, the evolutionist is about 
 as much at sea as is the whale, not being able to determine 
 whether it is a land animal developing into a fish or a fish on 
 the way of becoming a land animal; he, therefore, some time 
 ago swallowed the whale and is saying nothing more about it. 
 
 This case is cited, as the reader will infer, for the purpose of 
 illustrating the usual method employed by our American evo¬ 
 lutionists and college professors when trying to dispose of 
 bothersome facts — they wriggle, gulp, and, whether to the 
 point or not, begin talking about something else. 
 
 (2) Demand for Missi}!^ U)iks pronouneed Unreason- 
 
able. — Links between tin animals and footed animals, between 
 reptiles and mammals, also l)etween reptiles and birds, between 
 apes and men, have been sought with the most untiring and 
 astounding zeal, but none are found. And now that the expec¬ 
 tation of finding any is well nigh abandoned, the wriggling of 
 the evolutionist is vigorously resorted to. 
 
 The heliever in special creations, for instance, asks to be 
 shown the connecting links upon which transmutation depends. 
 The evolutionist replies that the demand is unreasonable and 
 that the one who makes it is not only no scientist, Init does not 
 know what evolution is. Such in substance was the compla¬ 
 cent announcement made recently by a popular professor 
 of Cornell University before the Twentieth Century Club of 
 Boston. 
 
 But without incurring the charge of ignorance, or incom¬ 
 petence, may not one ask why the demand for these links is 
 unreasonable? Or, Jet the point for a moment be pressed 
 more definitely. 
 
 In the eozoon or dawn-of-life period, as we have seen, 
 there were living things that are still extant. Now, if evolu¬ 
 tion by transmutation is true, it follows that some of those 
 earliest types of life have continued to produce their like, while 
 others, having essentially the same conditions and environ¬ 
 ments, produced those that are unlike themselves. In other 
 words, we have this remarkable phenomenon, — some eozoon 
 parents have been producing eozoon offspring in unbroken 
 succession for millions of ages, while other eozoon parents 
 gave birth to Polyps, Acalephs, Echinoderms, Acephala, Gas¬ 
 teropoda, Cephalopoda atid worms ; and some of these in turn 
 kept on, each producing its own kind while others produced 
 in endless variety the Radiates, Mollusks, and Articulates, all 
 existing in the same waters and at the same time. And so 
 upward through the numerous families of the lower verte- 
 
brates to the highest. All these varieties, according to the 
 hypothesis of evolution, liave taken place in the descendants of 
 some eozoons while others have continued till now without 
 the slightest change, and not a link connecting these different 
 families is anywhere to be found. With these facts clearly 
 before one, is it quite the thing for a college professor when 
 asked to explain these phenomena tO' wriggle and reply that 
 the question is unreasonable and that the one who asks it is no 
 scientist and does not understand what evolution is? 
 
 (3) Explanation of how Links become Missing. — The 
 impression should not be left that no attempt has been, made 
 by evolutionists and scientists to account for missing links. 
 There are students of nature who' frankly acknowledge the 
 validity of the demand for missing links and when ques¬ 
 tioned offer the following explanation; If species X is trans¬ 
 muted into species Y, then there must have been one or many 
 species Z, that were neither X nor Y. Now these intermedi¬ 
 ate Z species would be neither normal X species, nor normal 
 Y species. But since all abnormal species, or forms, are less 
 able to survive than normal ones, it follows that there would 
 be an early death of the individual Z forms, and speedily 
 would follow the extinction of the intermediate families and 
 species belonging tO' the Z group.® 
 
 And this is the explanation offered for the disappearance 
 of those connections known as missing* links! 
 
 To speak with perfect plainness, it is this sort of wriggling 
 that brings science and scientific men into contempt. 
 
 But failing in efforts to account for the absence of links, 
 a few naturalists have frankly conceded that there are none 
 and never have been; that new species come from previously 
 existing ones through a rapid, perhaps instantaneous, trans¬ 
 formation by processes not yet understood. In other words, 
 all new species are eruptive, hence connecting links are entirely 
 
 34 
 
unnecessary. This, however, comes near being a fatal admis¬ 
 sion, for by it the foundations of evolution through organic 
 connections are not only loosened at every point and from top 
 to bottom, but special creation receives additional support and 
 from a source quite unexpected. 
 
 (4) The Evolution of Man. — Man is now on earth, but 
 how on earth he got here has bothered the evolutionist perhaps 
 no less than the coming of the whale into the oceans. 
 
 That man is a direct or progressive evolution from the 
 monkey, a theory once popular, is no longer held.. Professor 
 Osker Peschel, in his “ Races of Man,” has conclusively shown 
 that the anatomy of the monkey is such that the more it is 
 developed the more of a monkey and the less of a man it 
 becomes. 
 
 It is at this point, too, that the evolutionist is able to display 
 his remarkable skill and nimbleness at wriggling. 
 
 Professor N. C. Macnamara, for illustration, explains the 
 relation between men and monkeys tlius : — ' 
 
 ‘‘ Man and cUithropoid apes we hold to be derived from a 
 common ancestral stock; the former, under the action of 
 natural selection and other causes, including, I think, not only 
 an inherent capacity of cerebral but also of cranial growtli, 
 have gradually developed, whereas anthropoid apes, from 
 arrest of cranial and cerebral growth, have not reached the 
 standard attained by human beings; the difference between 
 these two orders of beings, however, is one of degree, and not 
 of kind.” 
 
 Science ! Is this what is called science, these speculations 
 that may amuse children but have in their support no shadow 
 of fact nor reason. From a clergyman’s point of view the fore¬ 
 going paragraphs are far from being first-class wriggling. 
 They fall considerably below the specimen given by a very 
 estimable professor of Yale, who explains the origin of man 
 thus: — 
 
 35 
 
“ Animal life uii this continent de\ eloped no higher than 
 the South American monkeys. The Old W^orld current dev-el- 
 oped into the anthropoid ape, and then, by a colossal accident, 
 into Man.” 
 
 Colossal what? Colossal nonsense! 
 
 V. 
 
 EMERGENCE OE HUMANITY EROM ITS BRUTE 
 
 BEGINNING. 
 
 Another claim made by the evolutionist, one that is quite 
 essential to the successful maintenance of the most important 
 phase of his theory, is that the human race, after its emergence 
 from lower animals, began its career not much above the level 
 of the brute, and through countless ages has been working its 
 way up ever since to its present state of civilized life.*’ 
 
 After having found the previous claims of the evolutionist 
 destitute of scientific support, it cannot be expected that 
 thoughtful men will accept this additional assertion without 
 asking" for evidence in support of it. In other words one is 
 justified in demanding facts before accepting this or any other 
 theory on the say-so even of men who hold university pro¬ 
 fessorships and who seem to have vast knowledge and ability 
 to express themselves in exceedingly learned phraseology. 
 
 I. Disclosures of Archeology and History. — It is 
 found as a matter of fact that the peoples of whom there is the 
 earliest historic account were not as has been claimed low 
 down but were high up. The Egyptians builded immense 
 cities, invented systems of astronomy and writing, constructed 
 a time calendar, founded schools of law and medicine, gathered 
 extensive libraries and did other things in ways that people of 
 the present generation are unable to do. And there were other 
 nationalities of equal antiquity, possibly of earlier date, who 
 
 36 
 
were no less civilized, notably those who budded their great 
 cities in the Babylonian valley. The W'olf Expedition, led by 
 Dr. William Hayes Ward, and notably the excavations under 
 Professor Hilprecht in the Xippur region, going back three 
 and four thousand years B. C., ha^'e put a complete negative 
 ujK>n all assertions as to the degraded conditions of those 
 primitive people. And, too, other explorations have brought 
 to light hundreds of tablets showing that there were in those 
 Euphrates and Tigris valleys, nearly three thousand years 
 before the founding of Rome and two thousand before Abra¬ 
 ham left Ur of the Chaldees, great business activity, peaceful 
 diplomatic, international relations and complicated private 
 life, that afford unassailable evidence of high civilization. 
 
 '/hese discoveries impress one especially by reason of the 
 broad range of subjects that engaged the thoughts of the 
 people who lived in those times — the earliest of which there is 
 any record — a range that compares favorably with systems 
 of study now pursued by civilized nations. Aside from mere 
 liistorical writings there were dehnite problems of history 
 stated and expounded; there were theories and speculations 
 in astronomy and astrology: there were measurably systematic 
 treatises on geography, jurisprudence and theology; there 
 were treatises on architecture, with plans and ornamentation 
 for buildings, and on applied mechanics and sculpture. And 
 what is esj>ecially noteworthy is the fact that these various tab¬ 
 lets were arranged, classihed and catalogued the same as in 
 modern libraries, as if designed for everyday use and for a 
 large number of readers. It is evident, therefore, that such in¬ 
 tellectual enterprise must have had a much earlier background 
 of civilization and knowledge than that of the period when 
 these tablets were written and catalogued. The Augustan age 
 and the Elizabethan era did not shine out from a totally black 
 night that immediately preceded. 
 
 37 
 
Nor are we destitute of other evidences of civilization. In 
 Crete, as early as four thousand years before the Christian 
 ^era, there were royal palaces having sanitary conditions supe¬ 
 rior to those in any city of America until within comparatively 
 few years. Indeed, it is gradually dawning upon the minds of 
 Avell-informed people, that, in the most primitive times of 
 which there is any record, man enjoyed a degree of civilization 
 not surpassed in any period of the world’s history earlier than 
 the middle of the last century. 
 
 2. Decadence among Mankind. — But what tells even 
 more fatally against the assertion of evolutionists, that man 
 has worked his way up from a savage state in which he is said 
 to have originated, are the almost innumerable and certainly 
 unmistakable proofs of decivilization and decadence rather 
 than progress. Southern Europe, Asia, Africa, Central and 
 South America abound in such evidence. The marble palaces 
 and high attainments of those primitive peoples in the course 
 of centuries have given way to the mud-walled hovels and 
 wretchedness now everywhere met by the traveller. The 
 degraded Fellaheen of Egypt are the descendants of the men 
 who built the gigantic pyramids. If, therefore, progress is the 
 claim, then regress is the counter claim. In other words, the 
 fall downward of these people is more strikingly evident than 
 the fall or climb upward. 
 
 3. Philology, Comparative Religion, and Codes oe 
 Ethics. — Or, taking* into view other fields of research, the 
 case against the evolutionist grows stronger and stronger. It 
 is now acknowledged by linguists that if philological science 
 clearly demonstrates anything it is that primitive tongues, in 
 almost every instance, disclose a background of high civiliza¬ 
 tion and bear an unmistakable impress of descent, rather than 
 ascent. By way of illustration, take the name of the beautiful 
 New Hampshire lake, Winnepesaukee, whose meaning is the 
 
 38 
 
Smile of the Great Spirit. Here in this word alone is disclosed 
 the fact that the ancestors of the untutored savage, back some¬ 
 where in the family line, had well-defined ideas of the beautiful, 
 were monotheists, believing in a Supreme Being who has a 
 fatherly heart and who at times, with a benignant smile, looks 
 upon his children. 
 
 vSo, too, the science of comparative religion, at almost every 
 point, furnishes damaging evidence against the assumptions of 
 the evolutionist. 
 
 Professor Schlegel reached a conclusion that since his day 
 has been concurred in by all workers in this field of research: 
 ‘‘The more I investigate ancient history, the more I am con¬ 
 vinced that the nations set out from a true worship of the 
 Supreme Being.’’ 
 
 And the earliest ethical codes that have been discovered, 
 those of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, in loftiness 
 and purity, quite put to blush modern systems of ethics except 
 where Bible revelation has come in touch with the people. In 
 a word, every discovery during the last twenty-five or more 
 years in these different fields of investigation and learning, 
 those of geology, history, archaeology, anatomy, philology, 
 ethics, and religion, have demonstrated the fact that so far as 
 is known, the first beings on earth who wore the human form 
 were not brutes, nor even barbarians, as evolutionists tell us, 
 but had bodies just as perfect, brains or intellects just as 
 capable of working and languages just as complete in express¬ 
 ing thought, as those of any people now living. These are 
 conclusions based upon established facts and reached by 
 approved scientific methods rather than that lecture room, 
 platform and pulpit guesswork that for a decade has had full 
 sway — guesswork, boldly venturesome, somewhat ingenu¬ 
 ous, but absolutely destitute of any valuable results. 
 
 39 
 
VI. 
 
 THE AGE OF HUMANITY. 
 
 Nor should the correlated assertion of the evolutionist that 
 the human family has been on earth “ countless ages ” be 
 received as an established fact until brought under the search¬ 
 light of scientific investigation. 
 
 There have been, it is true, many speculations as to the long 
 duration of human history. With some show of reason Pro¬ 
 fessor Lyell in his day argued that two hundred thousand 
 years at least should be allowed for human life on earth. 
 Professor Thomas Sterry Hunt, from biological and evolu¬ 
 tionary points of view, advanced the opinion that man has been 
 on earth not fewer than nine million years. But M. Lalande, 
 a French astronomer, out-estimated them all, for, not being 
 able to think of any way, scientifically, for starting the human 
 family, he reached the conclusion that man was not started at 
 all and therefore is eternal. 
 
 I. Former Theories x\bandoned. — The facts, however, 
 are now found to be against even the lowest of these estimates. 
 
 Within the last decade, as our readers scarcely need be told, 
 the entire drift of reputable scientific opinion is in favor of 
 bringing the origin of the human race within easy hailing 
 distance. Professor H. W. Haynes, a careful investigator, and 
 leading American geologist, within a few months has made 
 this sitatement: ‘‘The evidence for the antiquity of man on 
 the hypothesis of evolution is purely speculative, no human 
 remains having as yet been found in either the miocene or 
 pliocene strata.'’ “ The miocene man,” says Professor Le- 
 Conte, “is not at present acknowledged by a single careful 
 geologist.” M. Reinach, a specialist in geology and author of 
 “ La Prehistoriqiic” recently published, affirms that there are 
 no traces of man anywhere in the tertiary period, which brings 
 us to the threshold of historic times. 
 
 40 
 
Twenty or twciity-li\e years ago it was quite the fashion to 
 assume that hiinian remains and relics found in the west 
 L nited States, especially those in California and Kansas, are 
 co-nclusive evidence of the high antiquity of man. But during 
 the year 1903, a thorough reinvestigation, conducted by Pro¬ 
 fessor Holmes, aided by a special grant of money provided by 
 the Carnegie Institution, was made of the caves of Indiana, 
 Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, Maryland and Penn¬ 
 sylvania. The result of these latest studies is given in the 
 following statement of Professor Holmes: — “ There is no 
 evidence at all to prove that man is very ancient on this con¬ 
 tinent. All ascertained facts seem to point to the conclusion 
 that no human being preceded the Indians in America. Where 
 the Indian came from is uncertain, but their straight black 
 hair, their peculiar physiognomy and other physical traits 
 show^ that they are surely derived from the same ancestry as 
 the Asiatic Mongols. There is nothing whatever to show that 
 man has been in x\merica longer than four, or five, thousand 
 years at the utmost. 
 
 2. Man's Appearance and the Ice Age. — Professor 
 Ed\vard Hall, secretary of the Victoria Institute of London, a 
 specialist on these matters, in a recent announcement, .June, 
 1903, says: “Not in one single case in the whole of Euro])e 
 or America has a trace of man’s existence been found below' 
 the only deposits wdiich we have a right to assume were devel¬ 
 oped and produced by the great ice sheets of the early glacial 
 ])eriods.” This opinion is concurred in by Professors Haynes, 
 LeConte, Boyd, C. H. Dawkins, Dr. Gandry, John Evans, W. 
 H. Holmes, M. Favre and others. Granting, therefore, that 
 man did not appear until after the climax of the ice age, a fact 
 at present as well established as any other in geology, and fol¬ 
 lowing the lead of experts as to the date of that age, there can 
 
 be fixed pretty accurately the beginning of the human family. 
 
 4P 
 
Professor G. F. Wright, who has given almost a lifetime to 
 this and kindred subjects and who has the unchallenged reputa¬ 
 tion of being one of the ablest glaciologists in this country, 
 has reached the conclusion that it ended not earlier than from 
 seven to ten thousand years ago. Professor Joseph Prestwich 
 collected much evidence showing that the close of the glacial 
 jieriod falls within the limit of twelve thousand years. The 
 opinion of M. Adhemar and Dr. James Croll is that it closed 
 not earlier than eleven thousand years ago. Professor R. 
 D. Salisbury and Dr. Warren Upham, among the most recent 
 of American geologists, think that from seven to ten thousand 
 years is a fair estimate. In a review article (1904), this 
 last-named scientist, speaking of the post-glacial era, says 
 that, “From the studies of Niagara by Wright and myself, 
 coinciding approximately with the estimate of Winchell and 
 with a large number of estimates and computations collected 
 by Hanson from many observers in America and Europe, it 
 certainly seems well demonstrated that this period (post¬ 
 glacial) is between seven and ten thousand years.” Dr. Wil¬ 
 liam Andrews is of the opinion that the ice age, though 
 lingering still in Alaska, in Greenland and on the mountain 
 plateaus of Norway, was completed nearly as it now is “ not 
 further awav than from five to seven thousand five hundred 
 years ago.” 
 
 The words of Professor Winchell are not only confirmatory, 
 but graphic and suggestive: “Man has no^ place till after the 
 reign of ice. It has been imagined that the close of the reign 
 of ice dates back perhaps a hundred thousand years. There 
 is no evidence of this. The fact is that we ourselves came 
 upon the earth in time to witness the retreat of the glaciers. 
 They still linger in the valleys of the Alps and along the 
 northern shores of Europe and Asia. The fact is we are not 
 so far out of the dust, chaos and barbarism of antiquity as we 
 
 42 
 
had supposed. The very beginnings of oiir race are still almost 
 in sight. Geological events which, from the force of habit in 
 considering them, we had imagined to be located far back in 
 the history of things are found to have transpired at our very 
 doors.” ' 
 
 3. Scientific Mixup. — Now, let it be kept in mind that, 
 on this subject, these are not “forty-year-old opinions,” but 
 are among the very latest and most indisputable utterances of 
 scientists whose high standing is unquestioned. It turns out, 
 therefore, that in place of the now abandoned estimates of 
 man’s great antiquity there stands the absolutely assured fact 
 that his arrival on earth was not much, if any, earlier than the 
 historic dates given in the Bible. If, therefore, a scientific 
 theory ever has been cornered, this of the evolutionist, as to 
 the beginning and development of the human race, is at the 
 present moment in that plight. The case is this : — The biolo¬ 
 gist requires not fewer than a million years (Haeckel’s esti¬ 
 mate is a thousand million) to evolve man from the lower 
 forms of organized life, and not fewer than several hundred 
 thousand years to lift him out of the brute condition from 
 which, according to evolutionists, he has been developed. On 
 the other hand, the latest geologists have established the fact 
 that not more than twelve or fifteen thousand years, as an out¬ 
 side limit, can be allowed for the entire life on earth of any 
 being that has worn a human form. Here, therefore, in these 
 two departments of knowledge, those of biology and geology, 
 is a tremendous mixup. But what renders the case still more 
 complicated and hopeless for the evolutionist are those recent 
 archceological finds from Asia, Africa and Southern Europe. 
 They make it clear as daylight, that from six to eight thousand 
 years ago there were already on earth perfectly developed 
 human races living a highly cultivated and social life. So there 
 is left for the development of humanity not a billion, nor a 
 
 43 
 
million, nor even two hundred thousand years, hut only five 
 thousand at the outside. In other words, the human race, that 
 from biological and physiological points of view has made no 
 perceptible advance in the last six thousand years, and in no 
 other respect has made remarkable gains, except when revealed 
 religion directly or indirectly has been a help and inspiration, 
 did, however, in the preceding five thousand years, though 
 starting on the lowest plane imaginable, become thoroughly 
 civilized. That is, beginning without revealed religion, with¬ 
 out science, without philosophy, without art, without literature, 
 without intelligence, without conscience, without God and 
 without anything above a mere animal nature, the human race 
 in those comparatively few years forged ahead from its brute 
 beginnings, if we may believe evolutionists, to the remarkable 
 achievements of those Egyptian, Babylonian, Cretan and other 
 civilizations that are the wonder of all explorers. 
 
 What a marvel! In that brief time man developed not 
 only a perfect physical organism, but intellect, conscience, 
 language, literature, codes of law, ethics, religion, art and 
 science. 
 
 Talk about miracles! The resurrection of the dead, as a 
 wonder, falls immensely below this speedy upshoot of the 
 human family from the degradation to which the theory of 
 evolutionists has consigned it. 
 
 No greater absurdity than such an evolution can be imag¬ 
 ined. They are, therefore, these recent scientific investigations 
 and discoveries that have doomed the arrogant edifice of 
 evolution. 
 
 The biologist knocks out most of its underpinning, the geol¬ 
 ogist demolishes the larger remaining part, and the archaeolo¬ 
 gist finishes it. 
 
 One is forcibly reminded in all this of what Professor Hux¬ 
 ley said about the tragedies of science and philosophy (and he 
 
 44 
 
inigiil have added those of history as well), by wliich he meant 
 the slaying of beautiful and speculative theories by ugly and 
 what he called “ provokingly unreasonable facts." And it is 
 ([uestionable if any theory in the history of science has been 
 any more completely and tragically used up by provokingly 
 unreasonable facts than the theory of evolution; and in saying 
 this there is not meant Darwinism, or any given process of 
 evolution, whether that of natural selection, survival of the 
 fittest, or some other, but evolution as taught in our American 
 schools, colleges and universities.'* 
 
 VII. 
 
 SCHOLARS AND EVOLUTION. 
 
 I. All Scholars said to bl Evolutionists. — From 
 what is heard repeated over and over again, one might be led 
 to think that scholarly men, men of science and the world’s 
 philosophers, are all evolutionists, and that those who question 
 the hypothesis are afflicted “with leprosy of incompetence," or 
 are “ the mental slaves of effete traditions,” or, “ a howling 
 pack of antediluvians.” 
 
 The professor already mentioned, the one from Cornell, 
 while criticising in the presence of a Boston audience the 
 American Bible League Convention held in that city (Decem¬ 
 ber, 1904), after defining evolution to be “ the quest for truth,” 
 and after announcing his belief “ that all organic life has come 
 from one starting-point, and that every living thing is a modi¬ 
 fication of the life stem, formed and changed by the ever- 
 increasing struggle for existence,” with the utmost assurance 
 and complacency told his hearers that “ evolution is accepted 
 by all scientists and publicists,” . . . that “ attacks upon the 
 theory are made only by persons who are not familiar with 
 either the evolution hypothesis or the facts of natural history, 
 
 .45 
 
that they misunderstand and misinterpret what evolution is," 
 
 . . . that “ they confuse evolution and Darwinism,” and that 
 '‘the attacks are made for the purpose of bolstering- up dogmas 
 and beliefs.” 
 
 Now, all this is very interesting, especially to those who are 
 pilloried by the professor, and the information given appears 
 to have been much enjoyed by the Twentieth Century Club, 
 that is supposed to represent a high degree of culture and 
 refinement. 
 
 2. Scholarship and Narrowness. — Now, the trouble 
 with many of our university professors and their following is 
 that they are indisposed to look beyond their own window sills 
 and are either unable or unwilling to make broad, generous 
 and really scientific inductions. They remind one of a saying 
 of Martineau: — “ The history of knowledge abounds with 
 instances of men who, with the highest merit in particular 
 walks of science, have combined a curious incompetency when 
 attempting a survey of the whole field.” 
 
 3. Naturalists are proposing no Better Scheme than 
 Darwin^S. — The Twentieth Century Club was also told that 
 “ the Darwinian type of evolution has been abandoned by all 
 scientific men.” This announcement, of course, is pleasing to 
 orthodox people who never have believed the theory, but one 
 scarcely can refrain from adding that, so far as the methods 
 or processes of evolution are concerned, there has been as yet 
 no better one proposed than that of Mr. Darwin. Is it not 
 rather ungracious, therefore, for evolutionists tO' kick and 
 desert Mr. Darwin, who spent a lifetime of thought and work 
 in their behalf, especially when they are unable to offer aii}^ 
 substitute for his abandoned theory of descent? And we may 
 repeat what already has been hinted, that the moment God is 
 admitted as a working factor in creative processes and the 
 
 moment organic connections and transmutations, the survivals 
 
 46 . 
 
of the fittest and the natural selection of Mr. Darwin, Mr. 
 Spencer and others, are ruled out of the equation, that moment 
 there is left nothing in the theory of evolution that in any 
 sense of the word can be called evolutionary, nor is there any^ 
 thing left that can be recognized as scientific or philosophical. 
 In other words, if Science has nO' facts, and certainly she has 
 not, to disprove the orthodox view that the first monkey was 
 a monkey and nothing else, and that the last one will be the 
 same; that the first man was a man and nothing else, and that 
 the last one will be the same, and if this is true of other forms 
 of life as well, then what essential or fundamental difference 
 is there between Darwinism and any scheme of evolution that 
 may be or can be proposed ? 
 
 4. The Ablest Scientists and Evolution. — But re¬ 
 turning to the assertion that scholarly men and others of high 
 standing are all evolutionists, we are compelled to dissent — 
 even to saying* that the exact opposite is true. The most thor¬ 
 ough scholars, the world’s ablest philosophers and scientists, 
 with few exceptions, are not supporters, but assailants of 
 evolution. 
 
 We are a little behind the times on these questions in this 
 country as compared with England, France and German}^ 
 though ahead in almost everything else. 
 
 But the reactionary ball has been set in motion even among 
 us, and within the next five years the field will be full of kick¬ 
 ers, not against Darwinism alone, but against every other 
 theory of evolution that involves ascent or descent through 
 transmutation of species, for the kicking of a thing that is 
 down is easy and always popular. Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor 
 of geology in Harvard University, eminent as a scientist, writ¬ 
 ing recently for the “ International Quarterly,” Dec.-March, 
 1902-1903, has started in with a cautious but fairly good 
 touch-down. “ It begins tO' be evident to naturalists,” he says, 
 
 47 
 
“ that the Darwinian hypothesis is still essentially unverified. 
 Notwithstanding the evidence derived from the study of ani¬ 
 mals and plants under domestication, it is not yet proved that 
 a single species of the two or three millions now inhabiting the 
 earth had been established solely, or mainly, by the operation 
 of natural selection.’’ 
 
 Professor C. C. Everett, also of Harvard, though better 
 drilled in literature than science, is such a careful observer 
 and extensive reader that his late words may be allowed con¬ 
 siderable weight. Speaking of evolution he says: — “If in the 
 past those ranks of beings ever rose and moved in procession 
 along the upward slope, each passing, by no matter how slow 
 a step, out of its own limitations, and in itself, or in its poster¬ 
 ity entered upon a larger life, it was before the eyes of man 
 were opened to them. No searching of his awakened powers 
 can detect, even among the remains of an unknown antiquitv, 
 any glimpse of the great movement while in progress of accom¬ 
 plishment. All, as he looks upon it, is as fixed as the sphinx, 
 that slumbers on the Egyptian sands. All this story of trans¬ 
 formation and activity is a dream.” 
 
 Of earlier date such men as Louis Agassiz, Joseph Henry, 
 John William Dawson and Arnold Guyot pronounced evolu¬ 
 tion false and unscientific. 
 
 Crossing the ocean we hear words that are much more 
 emphatic. 
 
 Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum, one of England’s 
 most famous experts in fossilology, has passed the following 
 criticism upon evolution: “ In all this great museum there ii< 
 not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species. Nine- 
 tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not 
 founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This 
 museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.” 
 
 Professor Lionel S. Beale, physiologist, and professor of 
 
 48 
 
anatomy aiul pathology in Kings College, London, stands to¬ 
 day with Lord Kelvin at the head of English scientists, and in 
 his special field, that of biology, is with one exception, perhaps, 
 without a peer in any country of the world. While addressing 
 the Victoria Institute of London, June, 1903, Professor Beale 
 employed these words: “ The idea of any relation having been 
 established between the non-living and living, by a gradual 
 advance from lifeless matter to the lowest forms of life and so 
 onwards to the higher and more complex, has not the slightest 
 evidence from the facts of any section of living nature of which 
 anything is known. There is no evidence that man has 
 descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, 
 any other organism in nature through evolution or by any 
 other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures con¬ 
 cerning man’s origin, there is not at this time a shadow of 
 scientific evidence.” 
 
 It is well known that French scientists as a rule have at no 
 time been captivated, by evolutionary theories and especially 
 never have taken kindly to Mr. Darwin’s views. As repre- 
 sentatives of recent French thought no one will object to the 
 .Marquis de Nadaillac, whose articles have appeared in the 
 Revue des Questions Scientifiques, or to M. Stanislas Meunier 
 of the Paris Museum. The marquis quite ridicules the many 
 unsupported assumptions employed to support the general the¬ 
 ory of evolution, and especially the evolution of man from any 
 lower type of animal life. After admitting that no one can tell 
 what may be the future of evolution he hastens to add that 
 he is entirely unprepared to affirm that there is at present any 
 truth in it. 
 
 In the Revue Scieiitidqiies (Dec., 1903), Meunier not only 
 antagonizes all theories of the chemical or mechanical origin 
 of life and the transformation of species, but argues in favor 
 of special creations by an infinite ])Ower. His paper closes 
 
 49 
 
thus: ‘‘ Doubtless we cannot usefully risk any hypothesis oil 
 the mechanism of the production of living things; but it is 
 perhaps a step in advance to come to the conclusion that the 
 cause of life and its manifestations on the earth is exterior to 
 the earth and that it is anterior to our world.” 
 
 Passing from France to Germany, it is found that the light 
 is dawning fast, though professors in Chicago, a city claiming 
 to stand at the head of all advanced learning, and professors 
 in Boston, a city once thought to be the center of every kind 
 of wisdom, appear to be ignorant of it. 
 
 The late Professor Virchow, of Berlin, the highest German 
 authority in physiology, and “ the foremost chemist on the 
 globe,” at one time a pronounced advocate of Darwin’s and 
 Haeckel’s views, subsequently, in his famous lecture on “ Free* 
 dom of Science,” while speaking of evolution made this state¬ 
 ment : ‘Ht is all nonsense. It cannot be proved by science that 
 man descends from the ape or from any other animal. Since 
 the announcement of the theory, all real scientific knowledge 
 has proceeded in the opposite direction.” Subsequently, at a 
 convention of anthropologists in Vienna, Virchow confirmed 
 what he previously had said, in these words: ‘‘ The attempt 
 to find the transition from animal to man has ended in total 
 failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. 
 It has been proved beyond doubt that during the past five 
 thousand years there has been nO' noticeable change in man¬ 
 kind.” And what seems rather severe, though in keeping with 
 our theme, Virchow, in speaking of certain clubs or circles of 
 evolutionists, called them “ bubble companies.” 
 
 In a recent number of Bezueis des Glaubens, Professor 
 Zoeckler, of the University of Greifswald, employs these 
 words: “ The claim that the hypothesis of descent is secured 
 scientifically must most decidedly be denied. Neither Hart¬ 
 mann’s exposition nor the authorities he cites have the force 
 
 50 
 
even of moral conviction for the claim for purely mechanicjil 
 descent. The descent of organisms is not a scientifically 
 demonstrated proposition.” 
 
 Professor Fleischmann, of Erlangen, one of the several 
 recent converts to anti-Darwinism, in a book just published 
 in Leipsic, Die Danviiis cJic Thcoric, reaches this conclusion: 
 
 The Darwinian theory of descent has in the realms of nature 
 not a single fact to confirm it. It is not the result of scientific 
 research, but purely the product of the imagination.” 
 
 The most suggestive words, however, and really the severest 
 criticism on evolution, though not spoken with that intent, are 
 from Professor; Ernst Haeckel, of Jena, Germany’s greatest 
 Ijiologist, and the rankest naturalistic evolutionist of recent 
 date. In his latest utterances he bewails the fact that he is 
 standing almost alone. ‘‘ Most modern investigators of science 
 have come to the conclusion,” he says, “ that the doctrine of 
 evolution and particularly Darwinism is an error and cannot 
 be maintained.” Then he enumerates several distinguished 
 men, whom he calls “ bold and talented scientists,” who, not 
 long since, were advocates of evolution but who lately have 
 abandoned it. The men he mentions are Dr. E. Dennert, 
 author of Voin Stcrhclalager dcs Darwinisunis (1903); Dr. 
 Goette, the Strasburg professor whose articles have appeared 
 in the Unchau (1903) ; Professor Edward Hoppe, known as 
 ” the Hamburg Savant,” who in his recent pamphlets takes a 
 pronounced position, in the name of religion, against natural¬ 
 istic evolution; Professor Paulson, of Berlin, who, among his 
 other criticisms of evolution, has recently declared that 
 Haeckel’s theory is a disgrace to the philosophy of Ger¬ 
 many ”; Professor Rutemeyer, geologist and paleontologist, 
 of Basel, who charges evolutionists, especially of the Haeckel 
 type, with ‘‘ playing false with the public and with the natural 
 sciences”; and Professor Wilhelm Max Wundt, of Eeipsic, 
 
 51 
 
who stands at the head of (jennaii psychologists, who wrote 
 books in his earlier days in support of evolution, but w'ho in 
 a late publication characterizes those early writings as “ the 
 great crime of his youth that wall take him all the rest of his 
 life to ex])iate ” ; “ and so,” adds Haeckel, he is now writing 
 the other thing.” 
 
 Such are the men over whom Haeckel is weeping because 
 they have deserted not Darwinism in particular but evolution, 
 and have gone back, as he w'ould say, to the weak and beggarly 
 elements of supernaturalism. 
 
 An interesting discussion of late has been going on in Ger¬ 
 many bet\veen Professor Robert Eduard von Hartmann, the 
 distinguished anti-Christian philosopher, of Berlin, and others, 
 some of whom were classed only a few years ago among evo¬ 
 lutionists, but have since gone, almost in a body, over to the 
 ranks of the anti-evolutionists. 
 
 Hartmann had published his rather conservative views in 
 these words: “The theorv of descent is safe but Darwinism 
 has been weighed and found wanting. Selection cannot in 
 general achieve any positive results, but only negative effects: 
 the origin of species by minimal changes is possible, but has 
 not been demonstrated.” 
 
 His statements that the “ origin of species by minimal 
 changes is possible ” and that “ thus far the theory of descent 
 is safe ” have brought out a small army of scholars and 
 scientists who vigorously oppose Hartmann’s naturalistic pos¬ 
 sibilities, and whoi are taking the position held by those 
 eminent English and French scientists wdio believe in special 
 creation. These recent recruits are such men as Eimer, Gustav 
 Wolf, De Vries, Hoocke, von Wellstein, Fleischmann and 
 Reinke.* 
 
 Now the surprising thing, notwithstanding these facts, is 
 iliat American university professors, on the lecture platform. 
 
assure the people that “ evolution is accepted by all scientists,*’ 
 and that “ those who oppose it are not familiar with either 
 the evolution hypothesis or the facts of natural history." 
 Were these professors clergymen would it be discourteous to 
 characterize such an exhibition as a piece of superb ignorance 
 or insolence? 
 
 And if these facts as to the attitude of leading scientists, 
 and if this revolution of opinion in Germany are known, and 
 certainly they ought to be, then can the silence of our American 
 evolutionists be looked upon as honest and manly? So far 
 as anything can be gathered from what these men are saying, 
 one would not know that there is an eminent anti-evolutionist 
 anywhere in Christendom. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 BIBLE CRITICISM AND EVOLUTION. 
 
 1. Destructive Intentions oe Modern Bible Critics. 
 — A recent announcement of what higher criticism proposes 
 to do under the guidance of evolution is from the pen of one 
 of its advocates: “ \W intend. First, to reconstruct Bible his¬ 
 tory in harmony with the theory of evolution. Second, to 
 eliminate by this process all that is supernatural in the record. 
 Third, to unite scholars in support of sweeping changes in the 
 orthodox view of the Holy Scriptures.” 
 
 What trumpery! ‘‘We intend to reconstruct Bible history 
 in harmony with the theory of evolution',*' — a theory discred¬ 
 ited and abandoned by the best scholarship of the world! 
 One gets thoroughly out of patience with the conceit and pre¬ 
 tence of these belated higher and destructive critics. 
 
 2 . Rejoinder by Professor A. H. Sayce of Oxford. — 
 'Phis matter is admirably put by Dr. A. H. Sayce, professor 
 of Assyriology in the university of Oxford, who. besides being 
 
one of the world’s ablest archaeologists, takes rank in Bible 
 studies with the most distinguished scholars of recent date: 
 
 The whole application of the supposed law of evolution to 
 the religious and secular history of the ancient world is 
 founded on what we know to have been a huge mistake. The 
 actual condition of the oriental world in the age of Moses, 
 as it has been revealed to us by archaeology, leaves little room 
 for the particular kind of evolution of which higher criticism 
 has dreamed. But in truth the archaeological discoveries of 
 the last dozen years in Egypt and Crete have once for all 
 discredited the claim of ‘ criticism ’ to apply its theories of 
 development to the settlement of chronological or historical 
 questions. The scepticism of the critic has been proved to 
 have been but the measure of his own ignorance, and the want 
 of evidence to have been merely his own ignorance of it. The 
 spade of the excavator in Crete has effected more in three or 
 four years than the labors and canons of the ‘ critic ’ in half 
 a century. The whole fabric he had raised has gone down 
 like a house of cards and with it the theories of development 
 of which he felt so confident.^” 
 
 If, therefore, higher critics have not lost their wits com¬ 
 pletely, they will henceforth hesitate in the presence of think¬ 
 ing people to make use of this defunct theory in their 
 discussions of Biblical criticism, religious faith, and systems 
 of ethics. 
 
 X. 
 
 RELIGION AND EVOLUTION. 
 
 I. Outcome oe Darwinism. — There remains one other 
 point of view, the ethical and religious. First of all there 
 should be an acknowledgment of indebtedness to evolutionists, 
 beginning especially with Mr. Darwin, for a vast amount of 
 
 54 
 
information and for awakening general interest in the study 
 of nature’s phenomena. And the discredit, almost disrespect, 
 now heaped upon Mr. Darwin’s scheme awakens one’s ortho¬ 
 dox pity, especially when recalling the imperial sway his 
 hypothesis held for years over a world of scholars. 
 
 But now, after only twenty-three years have passed, rever¬ 
 ence, even by the poorest of our scientists, is no longer shown 
 the once famous man’s theory, and every leading naturalist 
 is echoing the words of one of the most accomplished natural¬ 
 ists in Great Britain, St. George Mivart: “ I cannot call it 
 (Darwin’s theory) anything but a puerile hypothesis.” And 
 yet even this dirge is far from being the saddest feature of 
 Mr. Darwin’s funeral, for his hypothesis not only paved the 
 way for making every kind of assault upon the Christian 
 religion, but destroyed his own early faith, leaving him at 
 last in mazes of doubt and disappointment. 
 
 The mischievous tendencies of his teaching were pointed 
 out on the year of his death, ini a country (France) where 
 least expected. UUnivers (1882) published the following 
 severe criticism upon Mr. Darwin at the very time a wellnigh 
 universal and certainly extravagant homage was being paid 
 him: — 
 
 “ When hypotheses tend to nothing less than the shutting 
 out of God from the thoughts and hearts of men and the dif¬ 
 fusion of the leprosy of materialism the savant whO’ invents 
 and propagates them is either a criminal or a fool.” 
 
 Herbert Spencer, toO', has suffered scarcely less in post¬ 
 mortem judgment than Mr. Darwin. In his unification of 
 knowledge he found no place for God in the universe, and 
 already the day of retribution has come; those who are masters 
 of scientific processes and are capable of broad generalizations 
 almost to a man have pronounced their condemnation upon 
 the scientific pretensions of Mr. Spencer. 
 
 55 
 
2. Rkcknt Evolution and Rluioion. — But the point we 
 are making is this, that there is every reason for thinking that 
 our later evolutionists who have abandoned Mr. Darwin and 
 Spencer, and are now offering to the world a new scheme of 
 naturalism, will be overtaken by a doom no less utter than that 
 which has befallen these distinguished predecessors. What 
 else could be expected ? Any theory that tends to dethrone 
 (jod, elevate monkeys and degrade men (every scheme of 
 evolution points that way) is sure, if followed, to end in dis¬ 
 aster. Supernatural evolution as now taught, no less than 
 naturalistic, antagonizes traditional Christianity. Bible cos¬ 
 mogony never can be harmonized with any possible theory of 
 evolution. This late “ hybrid product ” that contends for the 
 creation of a few germs and from them the evolution of the 
 world's flora and fauna is neither Biblical nor scientific. What 
 hope, therefore, for it or for those who advocate it? Scientists 
 and theologians of the new school already have parted com¬ 
 pany with nearly every phase of the Christian faith, and are 
 leading their followers where no anchorage nor peace can be 
 found. An undenominational paper recently has put the 
 matter thus: — 
 
 “ Not only have these men abandoned faith in the super¬ 
 natural, but they have sown the seed of unbelief in thousands 
 of hearts, so that it is even now getting to sound somewhat 
 old-fashioned to assert belief in the supernatural. They have 
 presumed to apply even to the infinite God Himself the puny 
 measuring-rod of their scientific dicta, and demand proof of 
 the supernatural where the very nature of that proof is itself 
 denied. The very essence of religion is sublimized into airy 
 nothingness by these intellectual iconoclasts, and yet they are 
 received into the bosom of the church which claims to be above 
 all others the residuary legatee of the faith once delivered to 
 the saints." 
 
 56 
 
It cannot be otherwise than fatally disastrous when specu¬ 
 lation is substituted for revelation, and evolution for creation; 
 V hen the immanence of God takes the place of his transcen¬ 
 dence; when the Bible is treated as the record merely of the 
 development of the religious ideas of the people of Israel, 
 instead of being the inspired word of God; when everything 
 supernatural is eliminated from the birth, life and resurrection 
 of Christ, and he is classed simply as a high and unusual 
 development of humanity; when conversion and regenera¬ 
 tion are spoken of as evolutions in life and character instead 
 of being a revolution of man’s spiritual nature. Under these 
 destructive teachings the world may continue to mark time, 
 but in matters most vital to human interests and happiness 
 there will be an end of all progress. And if the day ever comes 
 when these so-called advanced views in science and religion 
 generally shall prevail, theological schools will have no 
 students, and why should they? Christian churches will be 
 emptied of hearers, and why should they not? The command, 
 
 Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel,” will lose 
 its authority, and why should it not, if Christ is only human ? 
 Mission fields will be abandoned, family worship will be 
 silenced, the consolations and inspirations of Christian faith 
 will no longer be felt in the hearts and homes of men. Such 
 will be the inevitable and woeful fruitage of an evolution and 
 theology that does away with the essential doctrines of the 
 early Christian faith. 
 
 In 1900, on the assembling of the International Peace 
 Congress in Paris, VUnivers published these forceful and 
 significant words: — 
 
 The spirit of peace has fled the earth because evolution 
 has taken possession of it. The plea for peace in past years 
 has been inspired by faith in the divine nature and in the divine 
 origin of man; men were then looked upon as children of 
 
 57 
 
one Father and war, therefore, was fratricide. But now that 
 men are looked upon as children of apes, what matters it 
 whether they are slaughtered or not ! ” 
 
 Well is it for the world, however, that amid this dangerous 
 drift of modern speculative science and theology the hearts 
 of those who know what and whom they have believed are 
 held to the ancient faith with cables stronger than steel. 
 Advocates of these new, rather revived theories, ought to 
 know that this faith, as interpreted by Christian consciousness, 
 stands not in the breath of any given generation. It is inde¬ 
 pendent of accidents, incidents, of anything historic or tran¬ 
 sitory. 
 
 This primitive faith is like the productions by Michael 
 Angelo, Raphael, Mozart, and Beethoven, old but new. The 
 beauty of a mild sunset, the sublimity of a midnight heaven, 
 the dazzle of lightnings playing across the sky, the repose of 
 a lily clad in raiment surpassing that of any present or future 
 vSolomon, have been repeated for millions of years, but they 
 will never be outgrown though society should exist in a state 
 of constant progress for ten thousand years. 
 
 And thus the primitive faith of Christendom will endure, 
 because it is a revelation from heaven; because the more it is 
 studied and experienced the more highly it is prized; because 
 the path it opens is one of elevation, emancipation, knowledge, 
 peace and salvation; because it gives strength to the weak, 
 hope to the discouraged and stimulus to the sluggish; because 
 it promises reward to the good and pardon to the penitent, 
 though holding threats of woe over those who do not repent; 
 because it can enter all dark places and leave them full of 
 light; because it can satisfy all desires that human want 
 awakens; because it can stand by the bedside of the dying, 
 quell every misgiving, wipe away the death-sweat, and leave 
 the brow calm and serene as heaven; and because it places 
 
 58 
 
before the human soul inducements for leading a better life 
 and for engaging in those philanthropies whose object is to 
 save mankind from distress and despair, — inducements that 
 evolution and the new theology never can offer or make 
 effective; inducements that have given to the world the most 
 splendid types of manhood that have adorned the pages of the 
 world’s history — these are the reasons why the faith of ihe 
 fathers will be found standing and undisturbed when every 
 theory opposed to it, or that deviates from it, shall be both 
 dishonored and forgotten. The foundations of this faith are 
 impregnable. Its fortified home is in the wants and depths 
 of human souls. And human nature, in her better moments 
 and conditions, will endow it with her last dollar, and will 
 defend it with her last strength. Evolution and its new the¬ 
 ology may bring into play every piece of their artillery — the 
 Alps remain. 
 
 IX. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 As a result of these investigations there are before us the 
 following facts : — The failure of evolutionists tO' establish the 
 claim that original life-germs came into existence by natural 
 processes; their inability to show that, in the world of living 
 things, there exists a law of development and improvement ; 
 the complete breakdown of their claim that, by natural proc¬ 
 esses, lower species of plants and animals may be transmuted 
 into higher; the fact that in all early and late excavations and 
 researches not one connecting link between any of the mil¬ 
 lions of different species has been found; the fact that mental 
 science and all the physical sciences have not yet discovered 
 a particle of evidence showing, or even suggesting, that any 
 animal ever has reached or ever can reach a point where, 
 
 59 
 
slowly or suddenly, il can come into possession of a hnnian 
 sold, a human mind, or a human body; the fact that biologists, 
 geologists and archaeologists have overwdielmingly silenced 
 the assertion that the human race began low down and 
 through countless ages has worked itself up to its present civ¬ 
 ilized state; the downfall of the scarecrow and utterly false 
 though continually repeated assertion that scholarly men, men 
 of science and the world’s great philosophers are all evolu¬ 
 tionists; the recent abandonment of evolution by those who 
 once held the theory and who at the present moment are mak- 
 ing vigorous assaults upon it; the absolute incompetence of 
 evolutionists and of “ advanced theologians ” to formulate any 
 system of ethics or religion that at all approaches those made 
 known by ancient Jewish prophets and New Testament evange¬ 
 lists— in view, therefore, of this majestic array of facts, need 
 there be a moment’s hesitation in saying that the hypothesis 
 of evolution, together with all other speculations so far as they 
 are attached to it, new theology, higher and destructive criti¬ 
 cism included, has collapsed beyond any hope of restoration? 
 
 6 o 
 
NOTES. 
 
 I. (Page 9.) 
 
 Suborganic evolution, treating of the formation of worlds; organic 
 evolution, treating of things having life, and superorganic evolution, hav¬ 
 ing to do with the constitution and operations of mind, are terms now in 
 use, hut the present discussion is confined chiefly to organic evolution. 
 
 II. (Page 12.) 
 
 The story of Professor Huxley’s protoplasm, since called ‘‘the hathy- 
 hius delusion,” is interesting and ought to he instructive if not a warning 
 to our speculative evolutionists. 
 
 Professor Huxley claimed that he had discovered the substratum of 
 all life, which he believed covered the whole bed of the world’s oceans. 
 The discovery was hailed' with enthusiasm in almost every scientific circle. 
 By casting into the ocean a deep-water dredge any one could draw up a 
 muddy substance from which all living things, including Adam and Eve, 
 have been evolved. 
 
 Mr. Huxley’s confession of faith was this: — “Protoplasm is the 
 origin of all life ... it is a molecular machine, all-powerful and all-sufifi- 
 cient.” 
 
 The Challenger, a vessel sent out by the United States Government 
 to make deep-sea soundings, with Professor Murray, the scientist, on 
 hoard, was commissioned to secure with other things some of this sub- 
 oceanic ooze or mud. A quantity was gathered sufficient to preclude the 
 possibility of mistake, carefully preserved and brought home. But in his 
 experiments with it the professor discovered that sea water and alcohol 
 mingled gave a flocculent precipitate which, separated from the liquid, was 
 identical with Huxley’s protoplasm. 
 
 He showed the experiment to Professor Huxley and the delusion 
 vanished. The all-powerful and all-sufficient protoplasm was merely a 
 precipitated sulphate, which any chemist can make for himself. 
 
 It was a rude shock to the complacent materialistic biologist, 
 who had built extended theoretical edifices and written learned treat¬ 
 ises on the wonders of this protoplasm found on the sea bottom. 
 
 III. (Page 20.) 
 
 Should our readers desire to pursue this line of thought further they 
 will find interesting facts in a treatise on “ Degeneration ” by Dr. Dohon. 
 of Naples, and in another, on the same subject, by Edwin Ray Lankester. 
 professor of comparative anatomy, Oxford. 
 
 61 
 
IV. (Page 23.) 
 
 The following instance showing the changes that have taken place in 
 geological science is vouched for by the eminent geologist, Professor 
 Charles Lyell. “In the year 1806,” he says, “the French Institute enu¬ 
 merated not less than eighty geological theories which were hostile to the 
 Scriptures; but not one of those theories is held to-day.” 
 
 V. (Page 34-) 
 
 A fuller discussion of this point may be found in the Geological 
 Magazine, London, Jan., 1905. 
 
 VI. (Page 36.) 
 
 In one of the earliest editions of the “ Descent of Man ” Mr. Darwin 
 thus describes the primitive human race: — 
 
 “ The early progenitors of man were, no doubt, covered with hair, 
 both sexes having beards. Their ears were pointed and capable of move¬ 
 ment, and their bodies were provided with a tail. . . . The foot . . . was 
 prehensile and our progenitors, no doubt, were arboreal in their habits, 
 frequenting some warm, forest-clad land. ... At an earlier period the 
 progenitors of man must have been aquatic in their habits.” 
 
 In justice to Mr. Darwin, however, it should be said that he was wise 
 enough to expunge this and some other unscientific speculations from the 
 later editions of his works. 
 
 VII. (Page 43.) 
 
 Professor Winchelhs words as to the recent chaos of the ice age will 
 seem entirely reasonable if we bear in mind that the waning glaciers of 
 the Pleistocene era are still found in many quarters of the globe. British 
 Columbia abounds with them. 
 
 In this note attention is also called to the fact that some of our glaci¬ 
 ologists and paleontologists have thought that human remains found in 
 the later glacial times, notably those in the Delaware deposits, furnish 
 evidence of man’s great antiquity. But no one now insists that these fos¬ 
 sils are pre-glacial, if the climax of that age is meant. 
 
 The later glaciations, though holding New England in their grip, left 
 no marks of their presence in Maryland, few in Pennsylvania, none in 
 Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee nor Missouri; they probably belong to the 
 close of what Professor W. L. Elkin, of Yale, calls the astronomical winter 
 of ten thousand five hundred years ago, when the annual winters were 
 longer and colder than now, and when the summers were shorter and 
 hotter. It is not improbable that bold navigators from Tyre, or from 
 some European or African port crossed! the Atlantic and, following the 
 icy shores of New England, landed in the Delaware Bay and perished on 
 those shores with the coming of the severe winter seasons of those prim¬ 
 itive times. Or colonies coming from old Mexico, Yucatan or Central 
 America, where are many evidences of the earliest civilization on this 
 continent, one that appears to be of Asiatic origin, and on reaching the Dela¬ 
 ware glaciers, may have been overtaken by one of those winters of the 
 
 62 
 
later ice age, and perished, as do the modern Arctic explorers sometimes, 
 before a retreat could be made. 
 
 At least, judging from a large number of facts, it is quite certain that 
 the human fossils in the Delaware deposits are not those of men who came 
 from the northwest, as did the later immigrants. Professor Holmes has 
 clearly shown this in the following statements: — “The great ice sheet of 
 the glacial epoch spread itself over the northern part of Asia and America 
 300,000 years ago, and was not withdrawn until 10,000 years ago,” approxi- 
 niately. The ice sheet covered Wisconsin 10,000 years ago and glacial 
 ice was everywhere in our northern and western states. It would seem to 
 have been impossible, therefore, for primitive human beings, without houses 
 or means of keeping themselves warm, to make the journey by way of 
 Behring Strait and down the Pacific coast to warmer latitudes.” 
 
 VIII. (Page 45 -) 
 
 Adopting the theory of supernatural creation as revealed in the Bible, 
 and admitting the attainments, and especially the mechanical skill, of the 
 immediate descendants of Adam (Gen. ii, 19; iv, 17, 21, 22), difficulties 
 as to the early and rapid civilization of Babylon and Egypt disappear. 
 
 IX. (Page 52.) 
 
 Hartmann’s history of Darwinism is discriminating. Under the title, 
 “ The Passing of Darwinism,” Hartmann gives an outline of the history of 
 evolution. After tracing its career, beginning in the sixties, and passing 
 through the seventies and eighties, he says: — “In the nineties, for the 
 first time, a few timid expressions of doubt andi opposition were heard, 
 but these gradually 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.” 
 
 X. (Page 54 -) 
 
 It is of interest to note that M. Halevy, the distinguished Orientalist, 
 who outdistances even the ablest German Assyriologists, not only stands 
 by Professor Sayce, but has spoken words that ought to hold in check our 
 American theological professors and clergymen who have been in haste 
 to worship at the shrine of destructive criticism. The case is this, — 
 
 When the younger Delitzsch gave his lecture on Babel and Bible, 
 and when our secular, and, in many instances, our religious, press, and 
 perhaps the larger number of our theological schools, surrendered with¬ 
 out firing a gun (perhaps they had no desire to fire one), it was M. 
 Halevy who made the earliest and perhaps the keenest reply tO' the some¬ 
 what arrogant and unsupported assertions of Delitzsch. 
 
 After saying a few words complimentary of the address, as Is the 
 way of a cultivated Frenchman, M. Halevy then charges him with a 
 “ predisposition to rest content with only superficial appearances ” and 
 adds: — “ Sincerity compels me to point out certain inapt, inaccurate and 
 redundant statements that disfigure the whole lecture.” And this is done 
 to the entire satisfaction of the friends of the Bible. 
 
 63 
 
ANNOUNCEMENT 
 
 “ Collapse of Evolution ’’ will be found aggressive and only incidentiilly 
 apologetic. 
 
 The author’s other writings, for the larger part, have been in defence of 
 tlse primitive Christian faith. 
 
 His publications of recent date that discuss questions now of special inter¬ 
 est are, “ Evolution or Creation,” 318 pages, sold at .75; “ Story of Jonah 
 and Higher Criticism,” 119 pages, .25; “Satan and Demons,” 131 pages, 
 .25; “ God’s Goodness and Severity,” 165 pages, .25; “ Adam and Eve: 
 History or Myth,” 130 pages, paper cover, .25; cloth, .50. 
 
 The following is a list of Professor Townsend’s other books: — 
 
 Credo (444 pages), Lost Forever (448 pages), Arena and Throne (264 
 pages), God-Man (446 pages), Intermediate World, Sword and 
 Garment (238 pages). Supernatural Factor in Revivals (311 pages), 
 and Fate of Republics (297 pages), .60 per volume, 
 
 Bible Theology and Modern Thought (332 pages), .50. Art of Speech, 
 two vols., .40 each. 
 
 Faith Work, Christian Science and Other Cures, . 30 . 
 
 The Bible and other Ancient Literature (205 pages), .25. 
 
 What Noted Men Think of the Bible and What Noted Men Think of 
 Christ, .10 each. 
 
 These books can be ordered after May i, 1905, through the American 
 Bible League, 82 Bible House, New York. 
 
 American Bible League is an organization for the banding together 
 of ” the friends of the Bible, to promote a more thorough reverential and 
 constructive study of the Sacred volume, and to maintain the historic faith 
 of the Church in its divine inspiration and supreme authority as the Word 
 of God.” 
 
 The Bible Student and Teacher is the organ of the Bible League, 
 containing nearly a thousand pages. Among its contributors are some of 
 the ablest men in the United States and Europe. One dollar per year 
 secures membership in the League and the Magazine. 
 
 Address AMERICAN BIBLE LEAGUE, 
 
 82 Bible House, New York. 
 
 64 
 
A fi<V ^r 1' ’‘I'^^'-l/ ) 
 
 rJl r^ "'^,V‘’.'i . i ^\' 
 
 ,^'H " 'i' /'I - ^ 
 
 ' '/I'-'* *‘7¥a' ,