GOD IN CREATION

The Universe is a fact. How came it to be? This is a question which has forced itself on the minds of men in all ages. In discussion, this question assumes three forms. (1) Whence came the original inorganic matter of which all things are composed? (2) How did this formless matter ever become organized? (3) Whence came the mind that is united with matter in thinking beings? There is manifestly such a wide difference between them that the creation of matter and the creation of mind become separate questions.

In answering these questions three conflicting theories have been advanced. First, that theory which excludes mind from the causation of the universe; Secondly, those which admit of mind, but only as united with, or included in, matter; Thirdly, the Scriptural view which assumes the existence of an infinite, independent, spiritual Being above matter, who created it in whatever form it appears.

I. THE DIFFERENT THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE.

The mindless physical theory. "According to the first hypothesis just mentioned, the primordial condition of the universe was that of universally diffused matter in a highly attenuated state. This matter had the properties or forces, which it now everywhere exhibits; and under the operation of these forces, and in accordance with the laws of heat, motion, etc., not only the great cosmical bodies were formed and arranged themselves in their present harmonious relations, but also all the organisms, vegetable and animal, on this globe and elsewhere, were fashioned and sustained."1 1. Hodge, Vol. I, pp. 550, 551.

The nebular hypothesis of La Place was the application of this theory to explain the origin of the heavenly bodies. It supposes that all the material of the entire solar system once existed in the condition of a single nebulous mass extending beyond the orbit of the most remote planet. Somehow it began to rotate on an axis, and to gradually cool and contract. As it contracted its speed of rotation increased, and its centrifugal force at length surpassed the attraction of the central mass, when it threw off the exterior portion which revolved independently as an immense zone or ring. This in time formed itself into a separate planet. The repetitions of this process formed all the planets and satellites of our solar system, and, it would be presumed, of all other systems. Some theorists hold that all this has come about without the power, purpose, plan or guidance of any mind.

II. The theory which assumes intelligence in matter. The absurdity of mindless matter arranging itself in the order and beauty of this world with such manifest purpose and design is too glaring to give rest to our thought. So many, who are not willing to honor God as the creator, have held that there is life and intelligence in matter itself. A bulb has life in itself, and without any superintending help, it will develop into a lily. There is something in an acorn, not external to the acorn itself, which will lead it to produce an oak. That something guides it to take from the sunshine and soil and air and moisture what it needs to grow. That principle of life, that vital force, call it what you will, guides itself and never acts except under favorable conditions in nature. And, physical nature, also having in itself some instinct, in time makes conditions unfavorable and the tree dies.

And this prevails everywhere in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, matter weaving itself into plants and animals of every form and kind, developing genius and species and varieties and variations without end by something akin to intellect, all included in, and inseparable from, itself.

There is another more dualistic form of the theory that represents mind and matter as more distinct from each other but always present, as soul and body are distinct but united in the human body. Those who hold this view, instead of talking about nature producing this and that, speak of the "anima mundi," the soul of the world, etc.

Two remarks may be made about these two theories in common. First, they do not account for the creation of the world or the universe at all. Any one may ask at once, who made this "highly attenuated matter" "diffused through all space"? And who set it a going? And who guided it until it should turn out, in the course of millions of ages, a blade of grass, and a lily, and a horse, and a man? Whence came the organized matter, and whence came life? All these things are utterly unaccounted for. Second, these theories, of course, are atheistic. They leave God out of the problem. There is no personal Creator, not only in nature, but outside of and above nature, to whom we are related as children to a father. But this is the demand of our intuitions. The existence of such a Being is a necessity of our thought, and the truth of it cannot be permanently disbelieved. Any philosophy that denies it is false and short-lived.

III. The Scriptural Doctrine. This is taught in the opening words of the Bible, and in the beginning of the Gospel of John. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). "All-things were made through him (the Son) and without him was not anything made that hath been made" (John 1:3).

(1) This Scriptural doctrine means that matter was not eternal, attenuated, and spread through all space. There was a time when it was not; and it was made by the creative word of God.

(2) It was not created out of some other pre-existing substance, but it was created "by the word of God" ex nihtto., "So what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear" (Heb. 11:3).

(3) It would be a natural inference, that it was not a necessary creation. In a sense, God was free to create or not to create: to create with present materials or with other materials: to create such beings and things as He has created, or other kinds of plants and animals, and beings.

Many unscriptural theories have been held; for there is no notion which speculating minds cannot invent. Men have assumed that matter existed apart from God and independent of His will-a view quite inconsistent with the absolute supremacy of God. Still others, have held that God fashioned the world out of His own substance. All things were a modification of Himself. Sir William Hamilton, even, held that it was impossible to conceive of anything being added to the sum total of existence. When anything new appears we are forced to regard it as something that had previously existed in another form: "We are unable, on the one hand, to conceive nothing becoming something: or, on the other, something becoming nothing." This doctrine the great leaders of the Church have strenuously rejected as inconsistent with the nature of God. It involves the supposition that the substance of the Godhead admits of partition or division; that the attributes of God can be separated from their substance so that part of God can be reduced to mere dead matter. This would destroy the immutability of God.

In reference to the third point, that the creation was voluntary, this is opposed to the doctrine that the universe is a necessary evolution of absolute Being, as a plant is necessarily developed from a seed. Others, regarding God as a spirit, make life and thought essential and co-eternal with Him, and this life and power are of necessity creation. Cousin says: "God's essence consists precisely in His creative power. He cannot but produce; so that the creation ceases to be unintelligible; and God is no more without a world than a world is without God."

Still others assert of God a moral necessity for the creation of sensitive and rational creatures. "God is love; but it is the nature of love to long to communicate itself, and to hold fellowship with others. Therefore God's nature impels Him to call into existence creatures in whom and over whom He can rejoice." There is no doubt truth in the statement that God's love did move Him to create men and angels, but it ought not to be called compulsion.

Still others hold that God's benevolence compels him to create sentient beings whom He can make happy. Again God's gracious inclination ought not to be misnamed compulsion. In the interest of clear thought we must hold that what God is, he eternally was, countless ages before these moral beings were made. If their creation were a necessity why did it not take place before? Man is a recent being.

The Scripture idea is that the Triune God is a self-sufficient Being, capable of finding, in the mysterious Trinity, fellowship and sympathy and love. He needs nothing outside of himself for His own wellbeing or happiness; and the creation of the universe was of His own free-will, without necessity or compulsion.

IMMEDIATE and MEDIATE CREATION

The Scriptural account of creation has never yet been disproved and cannot be. It teaches both an immediate and a mediate creation. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, And the earth was without form and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." This passage seems to affirm, first, an IMMEDIATE CREATION of the gross matter of which the physical universe is composed. It was at the beginning shapeless, formless, unorganized. This creation, we may safely say, was instantaneously made by the spoken word of Omnipotent Power, without the aid of any secondary force or cause, or pre-existing substance.

Second, upon this newly created, chaotic mass of matter moved the Spirit of God, gradually transforming it into the beautiful, highly organized cosmos which we now behold. This was a progressive creation in which the creator manifestly, used the known force of nature as secondary causes. This gradual development of unorganized matter into our world, full of beautiful, joyous life is the mediate creation. The first chapter of Genesis after the opening, gives the account of this progressive creation-the production of light; the formation of an atmosphere; the dividing of land and water; the production of the vegetable kingdom; the animals of sea and air; the living creatures of the land; and, then, the being for whom all others were made, MAN. This forming out of pre-existing material is consistent with the Scriptural idea of creation. "And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God is our creator, because all things composing us were originated by His will and power.

The above rapid statement of God's method in Creation is not disproved by science. "Many scientists of today are of the opinion expressed by Grove that probably man will never know the ultimate structure of matter" (Cocker). "Chemical analysis most certainly points to an origin of matter, and effectually destroys the idea of an external, self-existent matter, by giving to each of its atoms the essential character, at once, of a manufactured article and a subordinate agent" (Sir John Herschel). "None of the processes of nature, since the time when nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to the operation of any of the causes which we call natural. On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent" (Cocker: Theistic Conception of the World, pp. 125, 126).

Now these utterances of science are in perfect harmony with Scripture. "It contains many references to the creative work of God: many sublime descriptions of the greatness of that work, and of the greatness of God in its achievement; much of detail in these descriptions; lofty expressions of His majesty and the absoluteness of His power, of His eternity in distinction from the temporariness of all other existences; but there is never the slightest reference to eternally existing matter which He used in framing the heavens. This total omission is out of all consistency with such an existence" (Miley, Vol. I, p. 286).

"But," some one asks, "is not geology opposed to the Mosaic Account of Creation?" We answer, "No, not necessarily." The word "day" in Scripture often stands for an indefinite period of time. "If the word 'day' in the Mosaic account of creation be used in this sense of a geologic day, there is not only no discrepancy between the Mosaic account of the creation and the assumed facts of geology, but there is a most marvellous coincidence between them" (Hodge).

The cosmogony of modern science teaches that the universe, "the heavens and the earth," was first in a chaotic or gaseous state. We will let Professor Dana of Yale, a prince among scientists speak on this subject: "The process of its development included the following steps: (1) Activity begun,-light an immediate result. (2) The earth made an independent sphere. (3) Outlining of the land and water, determining the earth's general configuration. (4) The idea of life in the lowest plants, and afterwards, if not contemporaneously, in the lowest or systemless animals, or Protozoans. (5) The energizing light of the sun shining on the earth-an essential preliminary to the display of the systems of life. (6) Introduction of the systems of life. (7) Introduction of mammals-the highest order of the vertebrates,-the class afterward to be dignified by including a being of moral and intellectual nature. (8) Introduction of man" (Manual of Geology, p. 743).

Professor Dana further says, "The order of events in the Scripture cosmogony corresponds essentially with that which has been given. There was first a void and formless earth; this was literally true of the heavens and the earth, if they were in the condition of a gaseous fluid. The succession is as follows: 1. Light. 2. The dividing of the waters below from the waters above the earth (the word translated waters may mean fluid). 3. The dividing of the land and water on the earth. 4. Vegetation; which Moses, appreciating the philosophical characteristic of the new creation distinguishing it from previous inorganic substances, defines as that "which had seed in itself." 5. The sun, moon, and stars. 6. The lower animals, those that swarm in the waters, and the creeping and flying species of the land. 7. Beasts of prey ("creeping" here means prowling). 8. Man.

"In this succession, we observe not merely an order of events, like that deduced from science; there is a system in the arrangement, and a far reaching prophecy, to which philosophy could not have attained, however instructed.

"The account recognizes in creation two great eras of three days each,-an Inorganic and an Organic. Each of these three opens with the appearance of light; the first, light cosmical; the second, light from the sun for the special uses of the earth.

"Each era ends in a 'day' of two great works-the two shown to be distinct by being severally pronounced 'good.' On the third day that closes the Inorganic Era, there was first the dividing of the land from the waters, and afterwards the creation of vegetation, or the instituting of a kingdom of life-a work widely diverse from all that preceded it in the era. So on the sixth day, terminating the Organic Era, there was first the creation of mammals, and then a second far greater work, totally new in its grandest element, the creation of man.

"The arrangement is, then, as follows:

I. The Inorganic Era.

1st Day.-Light Cosmical.

2nd Day.-The earth divided from the fluid around it, or individualized.

3rd Day.-1. Outlining of the land and water.

2. Creation of vegetation.

II. The Organic Era.

4th Day.-Light from the Sun.

5th Day.-Creation of the lower order of animals.

6th Day.-1. Creation of mammals.

2. Creation of man.

"The record in the Bible," says Professor Dana, "is therefore profoundly philosophical in the scheme of creation which it presents. It is both true and divine. It is a declaration of authorship, both of creation and the Bible, on the first page of the sacred volume" (Manual of Geology, pp. 745, 746).

Again he says: "The first thought that strikes the scientific reader (of the Mosaic Account) is the evidence of divinity, not merely in the first verse of the record, and the successive fiats, but in the whole order of creation. There is so much that the most recent readings of science have for the first time explained, that the idea of man as the author becomes utterly incomprehensible. By proving the record true, science pronounces it divine; for who could have correctly narrated the secrets of eternity but God himself?" (Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan., 1856, p. 110.) Professor Dana said Professor Guyot's views on the Harmony between Science and the Bible, are the best he had seen. Dr. Hodge pronounces Professor Dana of Yale and Professor Guyot of Princeton, "Scientific naturalists of the first rank, to whom the friends of the Bible owe a debt of gratitude for their vindication of the sacred record." The Bible is of God, and the book of nature is of God; and of course the books, when rightly interpreted, will agree.

Other scientists, proceeding with the sense of geological ages in the days of creation, not only find no contrariety between Genesis and geology, but do find a marvelous accordance in the cardinal facts of the two records. Hugh Miller, eminent in Geology, says: "Now I am greatly mistaken if we have not in the six geological periods, all the elements, without misplacement or exaggeration of, the Mosaic drama of creation. Rightly understood I know not a single scientific truth that militates against even the minutest or least prominent of its details."

Professor Winchell, another distinguished scientist, shows that the upward progress and completion of the world in the Bible and in the rocks is, day for day, substantially the same. Winchell says: "The author of Genesis has given us an account which, when rightly understood, conforms admirably to the indications of latest science."

Dr. Dawson, once president of the British Scientific Association, and of world-wide fame in science, finds, "a parallelism of the Scripture cosmogony with the astronomical and geological history of the earth." After a careful comparison of the two histories he says: "The reader has, I trust, found in the preceding pages, sufficient evidence that the Bible has nothing to dread from the revelations of geology, but much to hope in the way of elucidation of its meaning and confirmation of its truth."

The late Professor Tait, of Edinburgh, writing in The International Review, said: "The assumed incompatibility of religion and science has been so often and confidently asserted in recent times that it has come to be taken for granted by the writers of articles; and it is, of course, perpetually thrust before their too trusting readers. But THE WHOLE THING is A MISTAKE, and a mistake so grave that no truly scientific man runs, in Britain at least, the smallest risk of making it. With a few, and these very singular, exceptions, the truly scientific men and true theologians of the present day have not found themselves under the necessity of quarrelling."

Professor G. J. Romanes has, in his "Thoughts on Religion" left the testimony that he was influenced in his return to faith by the fact that, in his own university of Cambridge, nearly all the men of most eminent scientific attainments were avowed Christians.

Having heard from first class men of science, we will now hear from a Theologian of the first rank, Professor James Orr D. D., of Glasgow, Scotland: "Does science, then, really contradict Genesis 1? Not surely if what has been said above of the essentially popular character of the allusions to natural things in the Bible be remembered. Here certainly is no detailed description o: the process of the formation of the earth in terms anticipative of modern science-terms which would have been unintelligible to the original readers-but a sublime picture, true to the order of nature, as it is to the broad facts even of geological succession. If it tells how God called heaven and earth into being, separated light from darkness, sea from land, clothed the world with vegetation, gave sun and moon their appointed rule of day and night, made fowls to fly, and sea monsters to plow the deep, created the cattle and beasts of the field, and finally made man, male and female, in His own image, and established him as ruler over all God's creation, this orderly rise of created forms, man crowning the whole, these deep ideas of the narrative, setting the world at the very beginning in its right relation to God, and laying the foundations of an enduring philosophy of religion, are truths which science does nothing to subvert, but in myriad ways confirms. The six days may remain as a difficulty to some; but, if this is not part of the symbolic setting of the picture-a great "divine 'week' of work-one may well ask, as was done by Augustine long before geology was thought of, what kind of days there were which rolled their course before the sun, with its twenty-four hours of diurnal measurement was appointed to that end. There is no violence done to the narrative in substituting in thought 'aeonic' days-vast cosmic periods -for 'days' on our narrower, sun-measured scale. Then the last trace of apparent 'conflict' disappears."

Miley, discussing the whole question with care, concludes thus: "With the sense of ages for the Mosaic days, which we have found clearly permissible, the reconciliation is complete. Scientists find an accordance between the two records which, beyond the attainment of consistency, proves the divine original of the Mosaic."

IV. EVOLUTION.

"But," says some one, "is not the accepted doctrine of Evolution opposed to this theory of the agreement of the Bible and Science?" Much of the doctrine of evolution, as held by many, is unquestionably opposed to the Bible. This renders a discussion of Evolution necessary. There are several forms of the theory.

I. Naturalistic or Materialistic Evolution.

This theory counts out all divine agency, and wholly rules out God, from the whole process of the world's formation. It asserts an absolute continuity of the physical forces which began to work in the primordial fire-mist which was their only material; out of it these unaided forces constructed the world, and originated all the forms of life upon it including man. "Such are the assumptions of the theory. They are extravagant enough to perplex the shrewdest and appall the boldest." Fire-mist goes to work of its own accord, forms itself into orderly worlds, and sets them in the harmony of the heavens, as if it were guided by Omniscient mind. Yea, more, it originates life in water and air, in forest and field! Yea, this fire-mist evolves man and invests him with the exalted powers of personality! Fire-mist weaves itself into the legislation of a Moses; sings in the Psalms of David; reasons in the philosophy of Plato; weighs the stars through the brain of a Newton; teaches moral wisdom in the tragedies of Shakespeare; preaches theology in Paul; and, last and highest of all, reveals Divinity in Jesus Christ! All this is the assumption of naturalistic evolution. The potency of the Son of God in a fiery cloud! It is an impudent and Godless philosophy. Even Tyndal was forced to say, "Surely these notions represent an absurdity too monstrous to be entertained by any sane mind."

The theory is beset with insuperable difficulties.

1. Who made the first-mist? "The fire-mist primordial with science, is not primordial with reason.

2. Matter tends to rest. Who started fire-mist in such orderly and constructive motion?

3. Who guided it in its marvellously inventive work?

4. Who bridged the chasm between the lifeless and living matter, by originating life? Abiogenesis-the origin of living matter from lifeless matter is a necessity of the theory. Of this, even Professor Huxley was obliged to admit, "The fact is, that at the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis does now take place, or has taken place within the period during which the existence of life on the globe is recorded."

It was reluctant evidence which he gave: so he did not close the case with that honest statement. He went on after this illogical fashion: "But it need hardly be pointed out that the fact does not in the slightest degree interfere with any conclusion that may be arrived at deductively from other considerations that, at some time or other, abiogenesis MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE." And how does he prove it? Why, thus, "IF THE HYPOTHESIS of evolution is true, living matter MUST HAVE arisen from non-living; for, by the hypothesis, the condition of the globe was at one time such that living matter could not have existed on it. Of the causes which led , to the origination of living matter WE KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING." , (British Encyclopaedia Biology.) In other words Huxley's argument stands thus: "IF" the unproved hypothesis of evolution is true, there "must have been" a spontaneous generation of life: but "WE KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT," and have not a particle of proof. An unproved assumption, hanging on an "if" is the conditional premise of his argument, from which he dares to assume a real conclusion, and palm it off on the world as a scientific fact! Such fallacious argument is an insult to real science.

By the same method of argument, and with far more plausibility, we can prove that the moon is made of green cheese. Here is the proof. It is a working hypothesis in everybody's mouth from time immemorial that the moon is made of green cheese. But "if" it is, it "must have been" made of milk, and some one "must have been" big enough to make the cheese. Now there "must have been" plenty of milk, for there are the constellations, Taurus, the bull; Aries, the ram, and Capricornus, the he-goat in the celestial zodiac. They "must have been" attended by vast herds of starry cows, ewes, and nanny-goats. Then there were the constellations, Gemini, the twins to herd them, and Aquarius, the water-man to water them, and Virgo, the milkmaid to milk them (girls always milked). And, finally, there was, in the same neighborhood, the gigantic constellation Orion abundantly able to turn the cheese. Therefore the moon is beyond all question made of green cheese, and anyone who does not believe it is simply not up-to-date in modern thought!

Such reasoning is a short and easy process. Make a hypothesis -a pure assumption; deduce its logical consequence; without any proof, declare it to be a fact in nature; make this imagined reality the proof of your hypothesis: then, with conceited audacity declare you have proved it, and call it "science." Such arguing in a circle proves absolutely nothing, and evolution must be in a desperate predicament to need such support. Such naturalistic evolution is only another form of bald atheism parading in a new dress before the world.

II. Theistic Evolution. Theistic evolution means a divine agency superintending it. There are widely varying opinions as to the degree of the divine superintendence. Some hold to only a few special interpositions, as in the origin of life, and the origin of mind or man. Others hold that the whole development of the world from the fire-mist and the evolution of all species of life were directly superintended by God, and whatever evolution there was in it, was simply God's method of operation.

In such a view, the divine agency was just as real in the origin of new species as it would have been if the species had each originated by a new immediate creation. Each view demands a God of infinite wisdom and power; but the first, which admits as little of Him as possible, "is false to the divine providence and to the true sense of creation" (Miley).

If evolution were proved, which it is not, from the fiery cloud up to man, it would not prove his origin in the same mode. "He is too distinct in his constitution and too high in his grade for any such conclusion." This view is widely accepted. Many evolutionists separate man from all lower orders, and account his origin, particularly in his mental and moral nature, to the creative agency of God.

"In bodily form, in organic structure, in volume of brain, man is so widely separated from all orders, so elevated above all, that his immediate evolution from any known order clearly seems impossible. This may be said in the presence of all the determining principles which underlie the theories of evolution. Man was the same in his earliest existence that he is now. No discovered remains represent him in the beginning as far down the scale in approximation to the ape. Mr. Huxley, after a critical investigation, was compelled to admit that the Engis and Neanderthal skulls, among the oldest human fossils yet discovered, show that man has not changed. Of the Engis skull, he said: "It is, in fact, a fair average human skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brains of a savage." The Neanderthal skull represents a man of somewhat lower type, but still a man as widely separated from the ape, as the lower races of the present. He concludes thus: "I may say that the fossil remains of man hitherto discovered, do not seem to me to take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid form, by the modification of which he HAS PROBABLY become what he is." Dawson confirms the testimony from the study of other fossil remains. The meaning of all this is that the wide separation of living man from the ape is not in the least narrowed by the discovered fossils of man. In other words the evidence is utterly wanting that man sprang from the ape, so far as fossil remains are concerned. There is no pretension to any knowledge of actual instances of such evolution. There are no instances where nature has made as wide a variation by a single bound as that which separates man from the ape.

Men who are inclined to evolution have looked in vain for the missing links which would unite the apes to man. If the theory is true the African and Asiatic woods ought to be full of them. There are millions of monkeys. If they ever did evolute into men, why are they not doing it now? It is very significant that the evidence has not been found for this theory of the evolution of man, and it is brazen impudence to claim it until the evidence is in hand. Says Dana: "No remains of fossil man bear evidence to less perfect erectness of structure than in civilized man, or to any nearer approach to the man-ape in essential characteristics. The existing man-apes belong to lines that reached up to them as their ultimatum; but of that line which is supposed to have reached upward to man, not the first link below the lowest level of existing man has yet been found. This is the more extraordinary in view of the fact that, from the lowest limit in existing man, there are all possible gradations up to the highest; while below that limit there is an abrupt fall to the ape level, in which the cubic capacity of the brain is one half less. If the links ever existed, their annihilation without trace is so extremely improbable that it may be pronounced impossible. Until they are found, science cannot assert that they ever existed."1 There are other difficulties in the way of the theory. 1. Dana, Geology, p. 603.

1. We should not be misled by what we hear about the anthropoid ape, nor lured into the notion that some one family is specially like man. Nor is there an ascending scale of manlikeness through a succession of ape families until higher points of similarity converge in man. Mivart, an eminent scientist, clearly points out that the ape families do not in any order of succession represent a growth of anthropoid quality. Evolutionists disagree as to whether man's ancestor was the Chimpanzee, the Gibbon, the Gorilla, or the Orang. Each has been sent to the rear as an impossible candidate for the great honor. Wallace, studying the question said: "On the whole we find that no one of the great apes can be asserted to the nearest to man in structure. Each of them approaches him in certain characteristics, while in others it is widely removed, giving the idea that all are derived from a common ancestor, from which the anthropoid apes as well as man have diverged."2 2. Wallace, "Darwinism," pp. 452, 453.

2. In other words the evolutionists have abandoned the ape parentage of man, and are hunting for another which has not been found. There is not a particle of evidence that any more remote ancestor was more anthropoid than the ape. So some more ancestors and missing links must be found to prove the evolution of man. The proof has not yet been found of the evolution of even man's organic nature, much less of his mind. The evolution of man's mental nature is infinitely more difficult than the evolution of his physical nature. Tyndal, to escape the difficulty, wants a new definition of matter. But the alteration of terms and words would not change facts. Matter cannot be the source of mind.

III. The very theory of evolution has not yet emerged from the hypothetic state. "It is not yet an established science. The diversities of theory among evolutionists deny it a scientific position."1 Many scientists, their equals and superiors, only make sport of it. The late Professor Virchow, of Berlin, one of the foremost scientists in the world, speaking of some clubs of evolutionists, called them "bubble clubs." Bubbles are unsubstantial, worthless and short lived. 1. Miley, Vol. I, p. 135

It is well to have a brief statement of the past progress, and present decline of this great doctrine, and its most probable fate in the near future, and a statement of the arguments against it.

"Charles Darwin wrote two scientific romances, which he entitled 'The Origin of Species' and the 'Descent of Man,' full of interesting facts and fascinating fiction. The phrase, 'We may well suppose,' or its equivalent, occurs over 800 times in these volumes, and his scientific suppositions were treated almost as established facts. Many men of science took Mr. Darwin too seriously; they were so pleased with the result of his patient investigations that they accepted his romancings and built upon them a philosophy of science which was a scientific apostasy. The effect of his life work on his own mind was not pleasing to Mr. Darwin himself, who was startled to find that he had lost all taste for poetry, music and religion; but to the last he remained very fond of worms, delighting in their ways and works.

The effect of his philosophy of science upon many of his followers was to turn them from the spiritual to the material-from music, poetry and religion to worms! Along this channel, the scientific world turned into a great apostasy, from which, thank God, it is beginning to recover" (A. C. Dixon, "Back to Bible," p. 43).

1. In 1871 Dr. Bastian secured some support for the theory of THE SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE. Scientists began to use such terms as "Bathmisrn," "cosmic ether," "cosmic emotion," "vital fluid," "germ-plasm," "pangenesis," "protoplasm," "growth force," and such like, all showing an eager effort to get rid of God in accounting for life. But the attempt was mournful and short lived. Sir William Thompson speedily surrendered his theory that life germs rode down to this world on meteors from some other planet. Poor Huxley made a flourish of trumpets about his "protoplasm," or "bathybius," or "deep-sea ooze." "He claimed that the whole bed of the ocean was covered with the substratum of all life." His profession of faith was this: "Protoplasm is the origin of all life... It is a molecular machine, all powerful and all sufficient." But the United States sent out the ship Challenger with Professor Murray the scientist on board. He gathered many specimens of this oceanic mud, and by his experiments he demonstrated that seawater 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."1 Thus rudely burst one of the largest bubbles blown by the international "bubble club." 1. Prof. Townsend, "Collapse of Evolution," p. 61. Herbert Spencer had, likewise, to abandon his theory of the chemical origin of life, and left it out of the last edition of "Biology."

Professor Tyndall, after all his predilections toward evolution, was compelled to write: "I share Virch6w's opinion that the theory of evolution, in its complete form involves the assumption that at some period or other of the earth's history there occurred what would now be called spontaneous generation; but I also agree with him that the proofs of it are still wanting. I also hold with Virchow that the failures have been so lamentable that the doctrine is utterly discredited." Yet in the face of such admissions from a scientist of world-wide fame, a professor of Chicago University is reported to have said not long ago to one of his classes: "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 matter, and the result was life. I believe that in a short time real life will be created in the laboratory." Was that professor ignorant, or was he simply spouting out the miserable infidelity of his carnal heart?

At any rate, a professor of Boston University said of it: "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."2 Perhaps he did not know that he blew his little bubble in the face of such, scientists as Agassiz, Beale, Carpenter, Dana, Dary, Dawson, Faraday, Forbes, Gray, Helmholtz, Herschel, Lord Kelvin, Leibnitz, Lotze, Maury, Pasteur, Romanes, Verdt and hundreds of others who ascribe to God alone the power to originate life. 2. Prof. Townsend, "Collapse of Evolution," p. 14.

2. When the theory of spontaneous generation of life had to be abandoned THEY INTRODUCED A LITTLE OF GOD. But when He must be introduced then the whole theory of evolution in any form is weakened. If God is needed in a little He is needed in all. "Unaided natural forces can no more make one hair of the head than they can make the mightiest mammal that ever walked the earth or crushed forests under its feet."

3. These evolutionists assume that there has been all along in the inorganic world, and the world of life a universal law of development and improvement, of evolution and progression. But the more careful study of- nature and life disclose such a mass of evidence pointing in the opposite direction, that scientists of the first rank "are saying scarcely a word as to continuous and universal progress. On the other hand they are freely using such words as retrogradation and deterioration. Since the human race began, though all sorts of artificial agencies have been employed and though there has been the closest scrutiny, yet not a 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 moreover the whole magnificent procession of living things, with the human family at its head, has stopped; nor is there any expectation that it will ever again begin to advance. And from the present indications and tendencies man has no ground of hope as to continuance or improvement, except by the grace of God in the realm of mind and Spirit, with which these evolutionists have nothing to do. Birth, growth, decline and death are one of nature's most exacting laws, and no truer of the insect of a day, than of the physical structure of man,"1 or the circling planets. Human history is but a graveyard of dead empires and lost civilizations. "E'en worlds grow old, and stars grow cold, and suns forget to shine." 1. Townsend, "Collapse of Evolution," p. 16. 1. Townsend, "Collapse of Evolution," p. 16.

4. MULTITUDES OF SPECIES, FLORA AND FAUNA, SHOW NO DEVELOPMENT WHEN COMPARED WITH THEIR EARLIEST TYPES.

We condense from Professor Townsend the following facts. "The 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, the birch, hazel and Scotch fir, easily traced back thousands of years, have remained all this time without the slightest improvement. Insects that built the coral reefs of Florida, in the three hundred centuries of their existence have shown no improvement. The crayfish group, that first appeared near the close of the Carboniferous period, have gained nothing, though vast geological periods have gone by. 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. Each appeared at the outset in the fulness of its power, and never since has shown the least improvement. Professor Ritter of California, in deep sea soundings at a depth of seven and one half miles, found living creatures essentially identical with those that are now found in geological strata, raised from the sea-depths of millions of ages ago. The earliest ones are as absolutely perfect, as marvelously beautiful in color and structure, as any living creature, large or small, that came into existence in later ages. Now every such fact weakens and discounts the theory of evolution.

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.

5. Man does not improve, viewed biologically. Professor Boca, 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 development of the frontal region, the fine elliptical profile of the anterior portion of the skull are incontestable evidences of superiority and are characteristics that are usually found only in civilized nations." Prof. Huxley, describing one of the oldest fossil skulls, says that, "so far as size and shape are concerned it might have been the brain of a philosopher."

6. The evolutionist is confronted with the troublesome fact that THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL LAW OF ADVANCEMENT; on which his theory depends; but in scores of instances there is 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 first family are in a process of degeneration since the Devonian period. The modern mammalia do not equal in size and strength those that nourished during the geological age to which they gave their name. From a biological point of view the human race has not advanced a step since the dawn of history, but on the whole, sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly has been deteriorating. Except for the restraining and uplifting power of the religion revealed by God, the human race might in time perish. Professor Cope declared that "Retrogradation in nature is as well established as evolution."

7. "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 appeared and remained without change for hundreds of thousands 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, if 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."

8. "THERE is NO TRANSMUTATION OF SPECIES by either natural, or artificial processes. Evolutionists have held that by natural processes one species of plant or animal may be transformed into another, and that through long continued and progressive transmutations, the higher types of animal life, including man, have been evolved from the lower. If this is not established, then organic evolution has no scientific standing. 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 breaks down in its most vital point, and is of no account.

About thirty years ago Huxley, in a desperate effort to find something to support his evolution theory, tried to give the horse pedigree. To this end he made use of a series of fossils, the first one about the size of a fox with four toes in front and three behind, that appeared in the Eocene strata according to Haeckel's 300,000,000 years ago (modest). After twenty to sixty million years there appeared another fossil a little larger with a smaller toe in front. After fifty million more years there was an animal as large as a sheep with three toes in front and three behind. Fifty million more years "the outer toe was reduced to a mere remnant." Then after fifty million more years "there came the animal about the size of a donkey with three toes all around; the middle toe persisting and the two on each side becoming dwarfed." "Finally the one-toed horse (a hoof) was evolved, the single toe being the middle one." These several animals beginning with the one of the size of the fox, were severally called Orohippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Protohippus, Pliohippus and Equns or horse. A Chicago professor, in a reply to a Boston professor wrote: "The modern horse can be definitely traced through a series of intermediate stages to a primitive species having four toes on each foot." Haeckel demanded about three hundred million years for the evolution of the; horse.

Now what are the facts, (1) Lord Kelvin the greatest scientist of England, made sport of these vast millions of years that evolutionists indulge in to make room for their theory. He declared that it could be proved from the way the earth is losing its heat that; less than 30,000,000 years ago the earth was so hot that no life: could exist on this planet. "Professor Tait in a still more penurious spirit cuts the time down to ten millions of years."

(2) There are no connecting links uniting those so-called ancient antecedents of the horse to each other. "In each case these differently toed animals lived their geological periods and then disappeared, having had neither ancestors nor descendants. Each species abruptly appeared, remained fixed during their period, and then, suddenly disappeared, and where thousands and even millions of, the intermediate forms of the different species are demanded by the! evolutionist, not one that is assured has been discovered." '

(3) "The very species that ought to connect those supposed, earlier ancestors with the modern horse, thus forming the needed" missing links, are entirely unknown in geological history."

(4) There is no such resemblance between those fossils and the modern horse, as would prove any organic connection. One writer says, "No evidence at all."

(5) The records in the rocks are perfect enough to establish fixity of thousands of species through all the geological ages since vegetation began on the planet. But there is not the slightest evidence whatever that the Orohippus was the progenitor of the Mesohippus, nor that the Mesohippus of America was the parent of the Miohippus of Europe. The presumption is wholly in favor of the theory that they were independent of each other. The presumption is strengthened by the fact that closely allied forms have been found that are not in the line of succession at all, just as there are today monkeys and apes, closely allied, but not derived one from another. There is nothing so distressingly missing in all science as; "the missing links" that would prove the truth of the evolution theory. Nature's reluctance to preserve them is amazing and unaccountable! When these fatal facts were presented to Darwin and Huxley they contemptuously waved them aside saying, "Oh, these intermediate forms need not be looked for." But why not? What humiliating dodge in a man of science! But the truth is, when man gets to arguing for a theory of infidelity, he either loses his honesty or his logic.

But a change has come. One writer says: "No reputable geologist, or paleontologist, at the present time is at all satisfied with the evidence of the horse pedigree derived from these fossils." And yet this veritable rubbish, that is getting stale, was published in a textbook bearing the date of 1908 (which lies before us) and is taught to our boys as if it were true science.

We may remark in passing that if losing fingers and toes and getting hoofs and increasing in size, is proof of evolution and advancement, there may be in the far distant future, a descendant of that Chicago professor that has evoluted off all his fingers and toes but the middle ones, filling his chair in Chicago University, with his hoofs on the table waving his long ears and braying to a class of donkeys on the subject of evolution!

This same Chicago professor, we are told, 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 erectus' was given. Competent paleontologists and anthropologists today believe it to be a real connecting link between man and the lower animals." Now these are the facts: "In September, 1891, Dubois, a Dutch physician, discovered a tooth on the island of Java, about forty-five feet below the surface of the earth; a month later he found the roof of a skull, 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. This is all that was ever found of the wonderful pithecanthropus.

A year or two later twenty-four scientists met at Leyden and examined these remains. 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 they were the missing link. So less than one third of those eminent scientists ascribed any importance to these remains. Professor Cunningham of Dublin afterward decided that part of them were fossils of a baboon, and the others were human remains." And this is the sum of evidence of the transmutation of monkey into man, after more than half a century of boasting, and hunting for missing links! (Wm. J. Bryan, delivering the principal address to the memory of the Titanic dead, in New York, used these words: "Let no man bring to my deathbed for my consolation, 'Darwin's Descent of Man.' Rather let my friend read to me the twenty-third Psalm: 'The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want.' His remarks were interrupted by a storm of applause." The great orator voices the best thought of the millions in more things than politics. The people are getting tired of this evolution theory.)

9. WHEN WE LEAVE THE FIELD OF GEOLOGY AND COME TO BIOLOGY THE EVOLUTION THEORY FARES NO BETTER. Nothing is more remarkable than the utterly trivial arguments by which it is supported. (1) The evolutionist calls attention to the fact that the human body begins as a cell only one hundred and twentieth of an inch in diameter and develops into a man weighing two hundred or more pounds. But what has that to do with the derivation of species or transmutation of one species into another? The cell and the man are one and the same being. From cell to man no change of species takes place. The pretentious argument is only a bubble which a little pin of logic can puncture in a second. (2) Then, from the fact that the human embryo passes through stages in which there is a remote resemblance to a worm, fish, reptile, and quadruped, the evolutionist argues that the human race has, therefore, been evolved from worm, fish, reptile and quadruped. It is a monstrous conclusion from insufficient data. Because the crystals in snowflakes and the crystals in quartz have a striking resemblance does that prove that the quartz descended from the snowflake? Because the root-like base of the crystal resembles the lower part of a tree does that prove that quartz-crystals were the progenitors of oaks? There are types running through nature; but to use them "to bolster up the theory of organic connections and transmutations is about as flagrant a misuse of scientific facts as one can imagine." (3) Then these men have written volumes to make people believe that the fins of a fish developed into the paws of animals, and they developed into the hands of men. But it is only bold theory and daring assumption; and what is lacking in evidence is made up by audacity.

(4) Another wise man thinks he finds a slight thinning of the skin that covers the head of a snail, an approach to an eye; in a slightly higher order he thinks he finds a slight depression; in another order of life there is a sack with something like a pinhole; and so on, until we reach the marvelous eye of man. But all they can guess at or say no more proves an organic connection between the spot of thin skin on the head of a snail and the eye of man than it proves an organic connection between the man in the moon and George Washington. (5) They have written volumes about rudimentary or useless members. "The range of their investigations has been from whales to snails, and from men almost to midgets; but in all this writing there cannot be pointed out a single sentence bearing on evolution that can be called a strictly scientific statement; it is ingenious, very ingenious and interesting conjecture; and that is all." (6) They have looked wise, and talked about metamorphosis and tried to make it support evolution. They have pointed to the evolution of the yolk into the chicken; of the tadpole into the frog; the evolution of ovum into the larva, then into the pupa, then into the perfect insect, and called this evidence that nature transmutes one species into another. But in what sense have these admitted facts the slightest bearing upon the argument? "From a biological; point of view the fecundated yolk and the chicken, the tadpole and the frog, the larva and the butterfly, are one and the same thing." It is no more an evidence of evolution than when a bulb becomes a lily, or an acorn grows into an oak. When scientific men are driven to the use of such worthless argument (?) the theory they are defending must be hopelessly stranded.

10. ANOTHER FACT IS MOST TROUBLESOME TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION-SPECIES DO NOT CROSS. "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." Now if, with man's fertile mind to superintend and aid in the crossing of different species of animals, it always ends in failure, is there one millionth of a probability that the lower orders of animals (unaided) did it successfully through all the ages?

11. VARIATION OF SPECIES. It is reported that Professor de Vries of Amsterdam appears to have developed a mutable species of primrose. California fruit growers are reporting new varieties of fruit. "But the facts are that nothing has been accomplished in the way of natural or artificial variation outside of an 'oscillation around a primitive center'." And Professor Peschel of Leipsic points out that "these 'mongrel forms' never have been successfully established nor perpetuated beyond a few generations. Any abandonment of original types is followed by the complete extinction of the family." It clearly indicates that there is "no tendency in nature towards the transmutation of species."

12. IF THERE WERE SUCH A TENDENCY, THERE COULD BE NO SCIENTIFIC CLASSIFICATION OF PLANTS OR ANIMALS. But what are the facts? When a new fossil is discovered of an animal hitherto unknown, the skilled paleontologist locates it at once in its propel order and class. But how is he able to do it? Simply because through the geologic ages, the species have been permanent. But if evolution were true, and species were changing into other species and these transmutations were going on everywhere there would be such a confusion and variety of forms, among plants and animals that scientific classification would be impossible. Instead of the connecting links being absolutely "missing" as they are now, the woods would be everywhere full of them. But the rocks declare that there never was any such confusion: and the woods declare there is no such confusion now. "It is estimated that at the present time there are two and a half millions of different species of plants and animals, and that during the vital period of the world there may have been fifty times that many. And yet, in all this vast number, in the field of geological history, and in that of human history not a discovery has been made indicating that there has been a single case of transmutation." It is overwhelming evidence against the theory of evolution.

13. "BRING FORTH AFTER ITS KIND," says Genesis. It is the law of life today. The sea-weed for untold ages has brought forth "after its kind." So have all the trees of the forest, and the plants and flowers of the field propagated themselves, each "after his kind."

a. Says A. L. Gredley, A. M., in "Thoughts on Evolution": "There are millions of protoplasmic vegetable cells everywhere about us, each one capable of receiving a life principle, but only from its own peculiar source, and then its potency is confirmed to development 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 nutriment 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 exclusive source, and will develop along its own line and no other." The horticulturist depends upon the permanence of this beneficent law. So, does the agriculturist, and the physician- everybody, in fact, but the evolutionist. It bursts his bubble.

b. It is so in the animal kingdom. "Of the five hundred species of trilobites that existed through millions of years, 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 there is not the slightest trace of deviation from that law of God that each shall bring forth "after his kind." It is so now, from the wriggler gnat to man. No species breaks away from its ancestral line.

c. Scientific men are deeply concerned in the disease producing BACTERIA: each species produces a different disease. But how would the doctors be balked if these bacteria severally developed into each other, and began to do a different kind of work! Medical science would soon be thrown into utter confusion.

d. And there are the billions of BIOPLASTS, that construct the human body. "Each 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 would ever be brought into existence or kept alive a single day."

e. Then there is the STRUCTURELESS GERM in the way of evolution. "Biological science recently announces 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 another." Hertwig insists that "animals "differ among themselves as much in their germ cells as in their full formed organisms." "This renders," says DeCyon, "improbable, if not impossible, a common origin of different animals from the same cell." "The germs of all life at the very threshold of their creation, are as immutable as the most highly organized plants and animals known in natural history."

Thus to use the language of men of science, "the protoplasmic cells," "the structureless germs," "the bioplasts," are all against the theory of the transmutation of the species, and in support of the law that clearly marked species forever shall be preserved inviolate and' distinct.

14. Missing links are greatly needed and never found. "Links, between fin animals and footed animals, between reptiles and mammals, also between reptiles and birds, and between apes and men, have been sought with the most untiring zeal, and never found."' They now despair of ever finding them. And when these evolutionists are confronted with these insuperable difficulties to their great fad, they resort to the dextrous art of twisting and wriggling out of their difficulties. One of their methods is to look wise and, solemn and say, that "the demand for missing links or any other proofs of their theory, is unreasonable and whoever makes it is no scientist and does not know what evolution is!" They probably imagine they create the impression of possessing superior wisdom; but to intelligent and thoughtful people who are trained to reason, it is a stupid bluff, put up to conceal the utter collapse of their argument, and the bursting of their "bubble."

15. Man, and all we know of him, is against the theory. The gulf of separation between man and any other species of animal is bridgeless and the separation is complete. A professor at Yale is credited with these two sentences: "Animal life on this continent developed no higher than the South American monkeys. The Old World current developed into the anthropoid ape and then, by a colossal accident, into man!" And that evidenceless, atheistic, "colossal" foolery is spewed out on a class of students in the sacred name of SCIENCE at our own dear Yale! Shades of Dana!

These evolutionists would have us believe that man has been on the earth some hundreds of thousands or millions of years. They must have vast time for their theory. And they teach that he began as a hairy beast, and has worked his way up through a savage state to his present degree of perfection. Now all evidence is against their theory. As to man's age on the earth-Winchell and others show that "man has no place on earth until after the ice age . . . the very beginnings of our race are still almost in sight." Professor Joseph Prestwich shows that the close of the glacial period falls within 12,000 years. M. Adhemar and Dr. James Croll say 11,000 years ago. Professor Salisbury and Warren Upham say from 7,000 to 10,000 years ago. With these agree Prof. G. Frederick Wright and Winchell.

And all the evidence points to the fact that man started on the earth in the fullness of his glorious powers. As far back as we have traces of man he was at his best. The spade of the archeologist is bringing up proof that two thousand years before Abraham, there was a high civilization in the valley of the Nile, and in the region of the Euphrates, vast libraries, codes of laws, books about Astronomy, Astrology, Geography, Jurisprudence, Theology, and Histories, of still earlier days, treatises on architecture, and on mechanics and sculpture. These books or tablets were arranged and classified as books are now in modern libraries.

"In Crete, 4,000 B. C., there were royal palaces having sanitary conditions superior to those in any city in America until within a few decades. Indeed, 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" (Prof. Townsend). History everywhere gives abundance of evidence of the decadence of man, but none whatever that he sprang from a hairy beast with a tail, and evoluted into a civilized man. Southern Europe, Northern Africa, Asia, Central and South America give abounding evidence that greater peoples once occupied those lands than dwell there now

16. The study of PHILOLOGY is also against the evolutionist. "If philological science clearly demonstrates anything, it is that primitive tongues in almost every instance, disclose a background of high civilization." The study of comparative religion leads to the same result. Professor Schlegel says: "The more I investigate ancient history, the more I am convinced that the nations set out from a true worship of the Supreme Being." "The earliest ethical codes that have been discovered, those of Egypt and Babylonia, in loftiness and purity, quite put to blush modern systems of ethics, except where the Bible has come in touch with the people." "In a word, every discovery in the last twenty-five years has demonstrated the fact that, so far as is known, the first beings on earth that 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 expressing thought, as those of any people now living." (Professor Townsend). But all this means that no field of investigation gives the theory of evolution any support. "The biologist knocks out most of its underpinning, the geologist demolishes the larger remaining part, and the archaeologist finishes it.

Mr. Huxley talked about the tragedies of science, by which he meant the slaying of beautiful speculative theories by "provokingly unreasonable facts." It is doubtful if any theory of science was ever sounded over the world with such a blast of trumpets, or with such impudent vaunting of carnal hearts. It is also doubtful if any other ever went to a more tragic end from the stabs and blows of "provokingly unreasonable facts," that is fast coming to this theory of evolution, so dear to Huxley.

Some one may say with a sneer, "Oh, that is only the opinion of a theologian!" Very well, we will let the kings of science speak. "Louis Agassiz, Joseph Henry, Arnold Guyot, and John William Dawson pronounced evolution false and unscientific." We will let Dawson speak who was elected to the presidency of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1886. He says in his "Story of Earth and Man," p. 396, on "Scientific Apeism": "As applied to man the theory of the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest, though the most popular phase at present, is nothing less than the basest and most horrible superstition! It makes man not merely carnal but devilish. It takes his lowest appetites and propensities, and makes them his God and Creator, his higher sentiments and aspirations, his self-denying philanthropy, his enthusiasm for the good and true, all the sufferings and struggles of heroes and martyrs, not to speak of that self-sacrifice which is the foundation of Christianity, are, in the view of the evolutionist, mere loss and waste, failure in the struggle of life. What does he give us in exchange? An endless pedigree of bestial ancestors, without one gleam of high or holy tradition to enliven the procession: and, for the future, the prospect that the poor mass of protoplasm, which constitutes the sum of our being, and which is the sole gain of an infinite struggle in the past, must soon be resolved again into inferior animals or dead matter! That men of thought and culture should advocate such a philosophy, argues either a strange MENTAL HALLUCINATION, or that the higher spiritual nature has been wholly quenched within them. It is one of the saddest of many sad spectacles that our age presents."

We will next hear from LORD KELVIN, also president of the British Association. We have quotations from his own pen but not at hand. We find this from a paper of June 3, 1908. "Lord Kelvin, with whose name history will link more great discoveries in the realms of science than with the name of any of his contemporaries, was once asked what he considered the greatest discovery he had ever made. Without a moment's hesitation he answered: 'My greatest discovery is that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.' In the face of the oft repeated assertion of shallow persons that all our scientists are agnostics it is good to remember this frank humble statement of the greatest scientist of them all, and he declared there were insuperable difficulties in the way of accepting the theory of evolution."

We have more direct testimony from LIONEL S. BEALE, who stood with Lord Kelvin at the head of English scientists. In an address at Victoria Institute 1903, he said: "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 onward 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 concerning man's origin, THERE IS NOT AT THIS TIME A SHADOW OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE."

Dr. Etheredge, superintendent of the department of natural history in the British Museum partly quoted before, declares: "In all this great museum there is 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. They adopt a theory, and then strain their facts to support it. I read all their books, but they make no impression on my belief in the stability of species. Moreover the talk of the great antiquity of man is of the same sort. There is no such thing as a fossil man. Men are ready to regard you as a fool if you do not go with them in all their vagaries. But the museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views."

M. Meunier, in Revue Scientifiques (Dec., 1903) antagonizes all theories of chemical or mechanical origin of life, or the TRANSFORMATION OF SPECIES, but argues in favor of special creations by an infinite power: "Doubtless the cause of life and its manifestations on the earth is exterior to the earth and that it is anterior to our world." That means God.

PROFESSOR VIRCHOW, highest German authority, and "foremost chemist on the globe," once was inclined to evolution; but he was compelled by facts to change his view. In his lecture on Freedom of science, he said of evolution: "IT 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 his previous utterance 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 was this Virchow that called the evolution clubs "bubble clubs."

Professor Zoeckler, of the University of Griefswald, employs these words on the subject: "The claim that the hypothesis of descent is secured scientifically must most decidedly be denied. Neither Hartman's exposition nor the authorities he cites have the force even of moral conviction for the claim for purely mechanical descent. The descent of organisms is not a scientifically demonstrated proposition."

PROFESSOR FLEISCHMANN of Erlangen: "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 IMAGINATION."

Professor Ernest Haeckel, of Jena, the coarsest, rankest, most daring and unscrupulous defender of naturalistic evolution in all Germany, gives a testimony in the form of a watt, that he is standing almost alone: "Most modern investigators have come to the conclusion," he says, "that the doctrine of evolution and particularly Darwinism is an error and cannot be maintained." He then names several men whom he calls "bold and talented scientists" who once believed in evolution but now have turned against it. He mentions Dr. Dennert, Dr. Goette, the Strasburg professor, Professor Edward Hoppe, "the Hamburg Savant"; "Professor Paulson of Berlin, who has declared that Haeckel's theory "is a disgrace to the philosophy of Germany." He also named Professor Rutemeyer, the paleontologist of Basel, who charges evolutionists with "PLAYING FALSE WITH THE PUBLIC AND WITH THE NATURAL SCIENCES": also Professor Wundt of Leipsic, who in his earlier days wrote a book in support of evolution, and in a later publication characterizes those early writings "AS THE GREAT CRIME OF HIS YOUTH, THAT WILL TAKE HIM ALL THE REST OF HIS LIFE TO EXPIATE": "and so," adds Haeckel, "he is now writing the other thing."

We want now to say some more about this Professor Ernest Haeckel, who has been a little god to these vaunting American evolutionists, the one they quoted, copied after and swore by. He was the fiercest exponent of evolution in all Germany, and tried to prove that man evolved gradually from lower animals, to refute the Bible, to destroy faith in the immortality of the soul, and faith in a personal God as creator.

Shortly before his retirement in disgrace in February, 1909 there was a startling exposure made of some of the shameful methods by which he tried to bolster up his false science against Christianity. Over his own signature he was compelled by other scientists to admit deliberate forgeries in his scientific writings. He had taken drawings of other biologists, and altered them, taking away many vertebrae from a monkey embryo and changing the name. He also altered a human embryo so as to make it contain eleven vertebrae not occurring in the original. Thus he tried if possible to bridge the chasm of the never-to-be-found "missing link" and to bring monkey-kind and mankind together, and disprove the word of God. He confessed over his own signature that 8 % of his embryo diagrams were really forgeries, "to fill up and reconstruct the "missing links" by hypothesis." "Other scientific men," he said, "are open to the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored."

And so this idol of evolutionists, quoted and adored and blindly followed steps down and out, covered with lasting disgrace and he drags down his companions with him.

Professor Elie DeCyon says: "Among Haeckel's innumerable works published in all tongues and issued in thousands of copies, one searches in vain for a single thought emanating from him that is worthy of preservation." He quotes Professor Chwolson the eminent physicist of St. Petersburg: "All that Haeckel explains and affirms concerning questions of physics is false, and shows an ignorance of the most elementary problems, which is hardly believable." And F. Paulsen, the late Berlin University professor says: "I have read the 'World Riddle' of Haeckel, and have reddened: with shame at the thought of the general education of our people! That such a book should be possible, that it should be written, printed, bought, admired and taken seriously by the nation of Kant, Goethe and Schopenhaur, is a sad fact indeed." DeCyon points out that the falsification of plates, which Dr. Arnold Brass has recently discovered in Haeckel's books, are no new thing. Professor Semper of Wurzburg in 1877 devoted twenty pages to similar falsifications. A year earlier, Professor His called attention to the fact that Haeckel was picturing the fetuses of a dog, a chicken and a mole with a single plate, labeled in three different ways. Yet for decades, Haeckel's books have been given to students for consultation by our verdant American professors! For decades, this mountebank has imposed on the international public as a king in the world of thought."

We wonder how the little "me-too" evolutionists of America, who have aped Haeckel, like their photograph as taken by foreigners. We also ask ourselves, what kind of a theory is it in science, that, in lieu of better evidence, must be bolstered up by falsehood and forgery, doctored drawings and lying pictures? Evolutionists will please rise and answer.

M. DeCyon declares that thirty years ago there were more opposers of evolution than is generally realized. Among them were Virchow, von Baue, Floreus, Milne-Edwards, Claude Bernard, and Quatrefages, but their opposition was too timid, or too disdainful to I be effective. He says: "The theory of an APISH ANCESTRY FOR MAN IS PURE ASSUMPTION," He quotes Fraas, who devoted his long life to the study of fossils: "The idea, that man has descended from any Simian species whatsoever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man. It should be handed down to posterity in a new edition of the 'Memorial on Human Follies.' No proof of this baroque theory can ever be given from discovered fossils."

De Cyon quotes Virchow: "I have never found a single ape! skull which approaches at all the human one. Between man and ape there exists a line of sharp demarcation. If we compare known fossil men with men of today, we can boldly affirm that the individuals of a low development are much more numerous, relatively, among present day men than among fossils. In other words the race is degenerate rather than the fruit of an exquisite development" (Literary Digest, September 9, 1911).

The year Darwin died the evil influence of his teaching was pointed out where least expected, in France. L'Univerers made the following criticism: "When hypotheses tend to nothing less than the shutting out of God from the thoughts and hearts of men and the diffusion of the leprosy of materialism the savant who invents and propagates them is either a criminal or a fool."

"The atheistic evolutionary speculation," says DeCyon, "found immense popular vogue among those who desired to see the Creator dethroned, who wished to be delivered from religion and the restraints imposed by the moral law on covetousness and human passion." It found brow-beating exponents in men like Haeckel, and succeeded, for a time in silencing objections." But ruin was in its wake. What else could be expected? "Any theory that tends to dethrone God, elevate monkeys and degrade men (every scheme of evolution points that way) is sure, if followed to end in disaster." Haeckel published this illuminating sentence: "There is no room for God in the Universe."

Supernatural evolution as now taught, no less than naturalistic, antagonizes traditional Christianity. The Bible Cosmogony never can be harmonized with any possible theory of evolution" (Townsend). It antagonizes the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. As an English author puts it, "we are shut up to a choice between the Bible and Evolution." The new form of the theory that contends for the creation of a few germs, and from them the evolution of all plants and animals, is neither Biblical nor scientific. Whatever form the theory takes, they are all one in their practical influence on the religious thought of the time. There is a distinct trend in them all toward infidelity. Those who give the theory, in any form, a hospitable reception, soon break away from the Gospel moorings, and all allegiance to the great doctrines of Christian faith.

We would feel like making an apology for discussing this subject at such length, were it not for the, fact that this wretched, unproved, charlatan theory of science has been before the country for fifty years, poisoning the religious atmosphere with the deadly malaria of infidelity. It has been wedded to higher criticism and its diseased impotent child is the new theology. Its influence on the church of God has been as blasting as mildew. It has produced the most spiritually incompetent ministry Protestantism has had in more than a century. It has filled the land with sordidness and greed, chilled the zeal for missions, checked revivals, and made a famine in the ministry. Young men who are lectured to by an infidel evolutionist six days in the week, and on the seventh are preached to by an infidel, new-theology, higher critic, will not develop a passion for the ministry, and the saving of souls.

God commands us to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." It is high time that the friends of the Bible collect their artillery and go a hunting for the infidels in pulpits and college chairs.

Even the Chicago Chronicle, a few years ago inflicted a fearful castigation upon such infidels: "We are struck with the hypocrisy and treachery of these attacks on Christianity. Is there no place in which to assail Christianity but a divinity school? Is there no one to write infidel books except the professors of Christian theology? Mr. Mangasarian delivers infidel lectures every Sunday in Orchestra Hall, and no one is shocked: but when professional defenders of Christianity jump on it and assassinate it, the public, even the agnostic public, cannot but despise them. We are not championing either Christianity or infidelity, but only condemning INFIDELS masquerading as men of God and Christian teachers!"

Professor Townsend closes his "Collapse of Evolution" from which we have quoted so freely, in these words: "As a result of our investigations there are before us the following facts: (1) The failure of evolutionists to establish the claim that original life germs came into existence by natural processes; (2) Their inability to show that in the world of living things, there exists a law of development and improvement; (3) the complete breakdown of their claim that, by natural processes, lower species of plants and animals may be transmuted into higher; (4) the fact that in all early and late excavations and researches not one connecting link between any of the millions of different species has been found; (5) 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, slowly or suddenly, it can come into possession of a human soul, a human mind, or a human body; (6) the fact that biologists, geologists and archaeologists have overwhelmingly silenced the assertion that the human race began low down, and through countless ages has worked itself up to its present state; (7) 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 evolutionists; (8) the recent abandonment of evolution by those who once held the theory and who at the present moment are making vigorous assaults upon it; (9) the absolute incompetence of evolutionists and "advanced theologians" to formulate any system of ethics or religion that at all approaches those made known by ancient Jewish prophets and New Testament evangelists. 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 CRITICISM INCLUDED, HAS COLLAPSED BEYOND ANY HOPE OF RESTORATION?"

And here is a lately written essay by Rev. Professor Geo. Frederick Wright, D. D., LL. D., one of the most favorably and widely known scientists in the world, on the subject, "THE PASSING OF EVOLUTION"! We remember listening less than a quarter of a century ago to a so-called scientist, lecturing on evolution: he turned to a certain preacher in the audience with blazing eye and said: "The day is not far-distant when a preacher who does not believe in evolution will be wanted as a freak by a 'Dime Museum.' The tide is now rapidly turning, and ere long it will not be the preacher, but the evolutionist who will be the museum freak. Professor Wright mentions that "Darwin's expounders positively assert that all organic beings had been equally independent of supernatural forces. Nothing will satisfy them but to assert that the elephant, the bear, the mouse, the kangaroo, the whale, the shark, the shad, birds of every description-indeed, all forms of animal life, including the oyster and the snail-have arisen by strictly natural processes from some minute speck of life, which originated in far distant time. . . . Nor does this by any means bring them to their final goal; for, to carry out their theory, they must leap to the conclusion that life itself has originated spontaneously by a natural process from inorganic matter. It need not be said that such conclusions rest UPON VERY ATTENUATED EVIDENCE, such as is not permitted to have weight in the ordinary affairs of life!"

Prof. Wright points out how these evolutionists had a small estimate of each other's opinions. Darwin wrote how mean he felt when he saw how "Spencer was a dozen times his superior, even in the master art of wriggling!" Spencer did not appreciate Darwin's "gemmules" and he and Bates and Hooker and Huxley could not appreciate Spencer's "vitalized molecules." Professor Shater, shortly before his death declared that "the Darwinian hypothesis is still unverified." Dr. Etheredge says that: "In all this great British Museum there is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species." Darwin declared that the 306,662,400 years necessary to his theory is "a mere trifle" of time!" This has been cut down by scientists to 24,000,000 years as all that is necessary for all geologic changes, "which necessitate a rapidity in the development of species which must must be regarded as by leaps and bounds, and would well accord with the (Bible) theory of Creation by Divine intervention."

"The absurdity of supposing that animals acquire their advantageous qualities by chance variations, is shown in the pertinent illustration from the anatomy of the cat. To give the cat power of leaping to any advantageous height there must be simultaneous variation in all the bones, sinews, and muscles of the hinder extremities: and, at the same time to save the cat from disaster when it descends from an elevation, there must be variation of a totally different character in all the bones, and tendons, and muscles of the fore limbs. So numerous are the simultaneous changes necessary that the probabilities against their arising fortuitously run up into billions, if not into infinity." "To suppose that all the peculiarities that distinguish man from all other animals, must have taken place simultaneously and by chance, without the intervention of the Supreme Designing Mind is to commit logical hara-kiri. Such chance combinations are beyond all possibility of rational belief." Professor Wright in his conclusion calls evolution, "The Craze of the Last Half Century which is little more than the recrudescence of "ancient philosophy!" Egyptian and East Indian mythology evolved everything from an egg. Aniximander, like Huxley, traced everything back to "infinity" and pristine mud. Aneximenes deified the air. Diogenes imagined a "mind-stuff." Heraclitus traced the soul of man to fire. Modern evolutionary speculations have not made much progress over those of the ancients. In their bolder forms they are "deistic" (with as little of God as possible and that little hundreds of millions of years ago). We cannot banish God from the universe without first stultifying ourselves. Clerk Maxwell one of the most distinguished physicists, says: "I have examined all the varieties of evolution that have come within my reach, and have found that every one must have God to make it work" (Back to the Bible, Chapt. VIII).

But still these evolutionists go on "wriggling" out of all the insuperable difficulties that confront their theory and continue to advocate their "craze." Thank God the David of scientific truth has arisen to challenge this braggart Philistine. It is the most baseless, vaunting, impudent, infidel theory of science that has ever swaggered across the field of human thought. It has ruined more preachers and stultified more teachers than any other that can be named. It is high time that the intellectual and Christian world was arousing from this nightmare of foolishness, and returning to the reverent and humble recognition of God and his superintendence and intervention in the creation of all species of life. Before the great Wm. Gladstone died he had a controversy in the London Times with Mr. Huxley. Mr. Gladstone's contention was: "That the order of creation as recorded in Genesis has been so affirmed in our times by natural science that it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact. This might be summed up in the three statements in which science and Moses agree, namely, "that life appeared upon our planet in the order of first the water population; second, the air population; and third, the land population." Mr. Huxley's answer broke down so completely that the great London lawyer, Sir Robert Anderson said: "So far as this controversy is concerned, he left his opponents in possession of the field. The fact asserted by Mr. Gladstone remains established by this searching test."

Mr. Huxley appealed to Professor Dana of Yale in a letter to the Nineteenth Century, saying, "There is no one to whose authority on Geological questions I am more readily disposed to bow, than that of my eminent friend, Professor Dana." Professor Dana answered, "I agree in all essential points with Mr. Gladstone, and believe that the first chapter of Genesis and science are in accord." "In 1905, the London Times contained the following: 'No one possessed of a sense of humor can contemplate without amusement the battle of evolution. Never was seen such a melee. The humor of it is that they all claim to represent science. The plain truth is that though some agree in this or that, there is not a single point in which all agree. Battling for evolution they have torn it to pieces. Nothing is left even on their own showing save a few fragments strewn about the arena."

In the Pall Mall Magazine, Sept. 1906, Von Hartman thus sums up the attitude of modern science to evolution: "In the sixties of the past century the opposition of the older scientists to the Darwinian hypothesis was still supreme. In the seventies the new idea began to gain ground rapidly with all cultured circles. In the eighties Darwin's influence was at its height, and exercised an almost absolute control over technical research. In the nineties for the first time a few timid expressions of doubt and opposition were heard, and 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."

Edison, the great inventor, writes: "There are more frauds in science than anywhere else. Take a pile of these books that I could name, and you will find uncertainty if not imposition in one-half of what they state as scientific truth. I have been thrown off my track often by them. The repeated assertion that the most scholarly men, the ablest scientists and philosophers are all evolutionists, is downright misrepresentation."

A distinguished living writer, who is himself an expert in modern science; says: "After many years' investigation of the philosophy of evolution, an investigation carried on in full sympathy with the widest application of that captivating theory, I HAVE YET TO SEE PROOF OF A SINGLE FACT, SHOWING, OR TENDING TO, SHOW, THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SO-CALLED 'LAW' OR 'PRINCIPLE' OF EVOLUTION IN THE WORLD OF NATURE. NO INSTANCE HAS EVER BEEN FOUND OF A LIVING THING OF ONE SPECIES, COMING FROM ANCESTORS OF ANOTHER SPECIES, AND THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST GROUND FOR THE BELIEF THAT SUCH A THING EVER HAPPENED. On the other hand, every one of the countless billions of reproduction of living creatures, the grass, the herb-yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit which occur every year, are in accordance with the divine command in the first chapter of Genesis, 'After its kind'!"

A man of high scientific authority writes: "As science has been compelled to correct her blunders, or acknowledge the truths supposed to be demonstrated were only unproved conjecture, the conflicts between Genesis and science have died out, so that at the present time assured teachings of science afford no weapon against statements of the Bible.

On the contrary the investigations of men in the fields of Geology, physics and paleontology have brought into view much information recorded ages ago in the Bible, information which determines that the Bible was written not in the knowledge of men. All investigations of all the searchers have failed to produce evidence sufficient to convict the Bible of a single false statement."

In the face of the flippant sneers at Paley's argument from design, for the existence of God as out of date, Lord Kelvin (Sir Wm. Thompson), the greatest scientist of his time wrote: "I feel profoundly convinced that the argument of design has been greatly too much lost sight of in recent biological speculations. Overwhelming proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us, and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us aside from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing us through nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend upon one everlasting Creator and Ruler."

"The influence of evolution is everywhere baneful and disastrous to faith and spirituality. Darwin himself in his earlier years was a professing Christian. But before his life ceased he made this sad confession: "Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. I am like a man who has become color blind. Though once capable of wonder, admiration and devotion in the presence of the works of God, now not even the grandest scene could cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation." And he died refusing to believe in a future state, and abandoning all faith in the Christian religion.

Herbert Spencer's testimony was not less sad. Writing to a friend a little before his death, he referred to the outcome of his long life of intense labor and profound investigation and the net result of his work to himself and added that it amounted to little more than the conviction of some force that was bearing him on its bosom but perhaps only like a drop to be lost in the ocean at last. And to his friend he expressed the deep and melancholy confidence that the prospect of the past and the future equally failed to bring any satisfying rest or comfort to his soul (Simpson, "Old Faith and New Gospels," pp. 14-22). Depend upon it, the pursuit and advocacy of truth bring no such end to a life.

In the face of such facts and such testimony from the master minds of the scientific world, we still feel quite comfortable. We continue to believe in God, and in His Holy Word, even Genesis. We do not believe in the theory of evolution. It is a most pernicious theory, baseless of fact, unproved and incapable of proof. And we do not fear being lassoed and caged in that museum! Even the world-famed scientist, Dr. Milliken has been reported as saying that "Evolution never has been proved and never can be proved." A guess is not science. The truth is the Evolution theory is the most cruel hoax and the most unscientific hypothesis his Satanic Majesty ever inflicted on a Devil-cursed age. It has duped more teachers and befooled and disgraced more college professors, and made more preachers incompetent infidels, and kept more young pupils from Christ and salvation than any other falsehood that has ever found a lodgment in the mind of man.