eA Dd \ 
 
 ay ac ia Seay, 
 4 
 
 "ty 
 PRINCETON, N. J. Y 
 
 Presented by ‘ eee ee TAXON 
 
 Dtvtst00 «..:- LA ES ee 
 
 { % 
 
 4 % we 
 SEELLOIE Cee ee 
 

 

 
SA mee x4 
 Mars SE 
 
 "+ 
 hes 
 
 * 
 pan! 
 
 Eas 
 
 
 

 
THE OTHER SIDE 
 
 OF 
 
 EVOLUTION 
 
 An Examination of its Evidences 
 
 BY f 
 REV. ALEXANDER PATTERSON 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 66 Tur Greater Lire anD Worx or CurisT’”’ 
 
 *¢ Broaper Bisre Stupy’’ 
 ‘¢Brare Manuac”’ 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 
 
 GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT, D.D., LL.D., F.G.S.A. 
 Prorrssor oF Harmony oF SCIENCE AND REVELATION 
 
 Oxpertin CoLiecr 
 
 THE WINONA PUBLISHING CO. 
 CHICAGO, ILL. WINONA LAKE, IND. 
 
COPYRIGHT, 1903 
 BY 
 THE WINONA PUBLISHING CO. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Claims of Evoiution—Interest in subject—Effect on 
 Christian belief—Opinion of eminent scholars.— 
 Effect on the common man.—Evolution being ac- 
 cepted on exparte evidence.—Question too important 
 to be left to science——The average man capable of 
 understanding the arguments—The court of last 
 resort. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Meaning of Evolution—Conversational and _ scientific 
 use of the word.—Le Conte’s definition —Spencer’s 
 Spheres of Evolution.—Theistic and Atheistic 
 Evolution—The origin of man, the vital point.— 
 The Bible account and Darwin’s. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 EVOLUTION IS AN UNPROVEN THEORY. 
 
 Nearly all evolutionists admit this—Citations from 
 Tyndall, Spencer, Huxley, Prof. Conn, Whitney, 
 Dr. J. A. Zahm, Dr. Rudolph Schmidt, and others. 
 —Evolution rejected by many and opposed—Com- 
 plaint of Prof. Haeckel on this.—Prof. Virchow’s 
 opposition.—List of scientists who do not advocate 
 Evolution.—Discarded theories of the past.—Un- 
 certainty of scientific theories in general. 
 
 ili 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 CHAPTER ILI. 
 
 THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE AND EARTH. 
 
 The four problems facing Evolution, the origin of 
 matter, of force, the formation and orderly adjust- 
 ment of the universe and the origin of life—Evolu- 
 tion makes no attempt at the first two.—Spencer ad- 
 mits it is the unknowable.—Lord Kelvin’s testimony. 
 —Prof. George Frederick Wright on the Nebular 
 Hypothesis.—The solar system unique—The fire- 
 mist and its wonderful contents—Failure as to 
 origin of life—Le Conte’s theory—Testimony of 
 Tyndall, Wilson, Conn, against spontaneous genera- 
 tion. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 EVOLUTION OF SPECIES. 
 
 Evolution’s great field—No case of evolution known.— 
 No cause of evolution known.—How evolution orig- 
 inated species—Argument from Geology.—Geolo- 
 gists opposing it; Sir J. W. Dawson, Sir R. 
 Murchison, Barrande.—Prof. Conn’s admissions.— 
 Haeckel’s admissions—The argument from Mor- 
 phology.—Rudimentary parts.—The Eohippus, “Old 
 Horse.”—Argument from classification of species.— 
 No agreed classification —Evolution’s phantom tree. 
 —No changes in Egypt’s 4,000 years or prehistoric 
 man’s longer time.—Distribution of plants and ani- 
 mals.—Argument from Embryology—The three- 
 fold argument of Evolution—Facts opposing Evolu- 
 tion. 
 
 iv 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE EVOLUTION OF MAN. 
 
 The vital question—All evolutionists agree here—The 
 two accounts of Bible and Evolution —Arguments 
 from origin of species—Argument from similarity 
 of structure—Argument from human characteristics. 
 —Rudimentary organs in man.—The “gill-slits.”— 
 How the brute became man.—Prof. Edward Clodd’s 
 account of “The Making of a Man.”—Edward 
 Morris’ description of primeval man.—The Theistic 
 Evolutionist’s Adam and how he fell—The Missing 
 Link—The Calaveras skull—Neanderthal skull.— 
 Haeckel’s “Pithecanthropus-Erectus.”—The Colo- 
 rado monkey’s skeleton.—Croatia skeletons.—Argu- 
 ment from the brain.—Prof. Clodd’s story of how 
 man got his brain—Argument from language— 
 Prof. Max Mueller’s protest—Argument from pre- 
 historic man.—Antiquity of man.—Testimony as to 
 man’s recent origin from Prof. George Frederick 
 Wright, S. R. Pattison, Prof. Friedrich Pfaff, Win- 
 chell, Dr. J. A. Zahm.—Argument from uncivilized 
 races.—Argument from history of limits of man’s 
 history.—Evolution and religion.—Evolution’s ethics. 
 —Christian experience—Christ and evolution. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 EVOLUTION UNSCIENTIFIC AND UNPHILOSOPHICAL, 
 
 Four steps necessary to proof, Facts, Classification, In- 
 ferences, Verification —Fails to account for facts.— 
 Has no classification.—False in inferences and has 
 
 v 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
 
 no verification—Rests on imagination.—Tyndall’s 
 “Scientific Use of the Imagination.”—Evolution the 
 Doctrine of Chance revamped and clothed in 
 scientific terms. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Evolution has no scriptural argument—The two ac- 
 counts mutually exclusive—Bible account appealed 
 to by all Scripture writers as Fact—Evolution’s in- 
 terpretation of Scripture.—Christ’s testimony to the 
 facts of Scripture-—Evolution and Bible doctrines.— 
 Importance of Adam as basis of Scripture doctrine. 
 —Man’s state and remedy as given by Evolution 
 and by the Bible—The future of the Bible and of 
 Evolution.—Evolution in its logical form is Atheism. 
 —Evolution a relic of heathenism—Testimony of 
 James Freeman Clarke, Sir J. William Dawson. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE SPIRITUAL EFFECT OF EVOLUTION. 
 
 # 
 
 Must affect the spiritual state.-—Effect on candidates for 
 ministry.—Latent effect on faith—-On experimental 
 religion.—Evolution as a state of heart.—A comfort- 
 able theory to the impenitent—Prepares for “isms.” 
 —Weakens pulpit power.—Eliminates faith in the 
 supernatural and eternal_—Education’s place in 
 modern giving—lIs this the last form of unbelief? 
 —The common people and the Gospel of the Cross. 
 
 Vi 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Evolution is claimed by its advocates to be the 
 greatest intellectual discovery of the past century, 
 and, by some, the greatest thought that ever en- 
 tered the mind of man. In the words of its great- 
 est philosopher, Herbert Spencer, “It spans the 
 universe and solves the widest range of its prob- 
 lems, which reach outward through boundless 
 space, and back through illimitable time, resolv- 
 ing the deepest problems of life, mind, society, 
 history and civilization.” It has woven into one 
 great philosophy the history of the material unt- 
 verse, the entire organic creation, man and all his 
 faculties, the whole course of human history and 
 the origin and progress of all religion. 
 
 It also undertakes to account for the Bible, for 
 what is popularly called higher criticism repre- 
 sents the biblical branch of Evolution. It has re- 
 constructed the Bible and remanded its miracu- 
 lous narratives to the realm of myth. It has 
 formulated a theology in which the most sacred 
 doctrines of evangelical belief are discarded. In 
 its central theory of the origin of man, it vitally 
 affects the doctrines of the nature of man, of sin 
 
 Vii 
 
Preface 
 
 and penalty, man’s need and the work of Christ. 
 It even touches the person of Christ, for many of 
 its advocates say that He too comes within its 
 scope. In its radical and most consistent form, 
 it utterly discards belief in God. Most of the 
 great teachers of Evolution, such as Ernst 
 Haeckel of Jena, are and have been atheists. 7 77 
 
 It is true that many evolutionists are theistic. 
 But it is not enough to be theistic. The devil is 
 “theistic,” so was Thomas Paine. Christianity 
 is far more than theism. It is the grossest soph- 
 istry to teach that because a belief has some truth 
 in it we must therefore tolerate it. All false doc- 
 trine is sugarcoated with truth. That we are not 
 overstating the dangerous nature of the theory 
 will appear from the following opinions of com- 
 petent scholars and observers. 
 
 Prof. George Frederick Wright, the eminent 
 geologist, says of Evolution: “It is the fad of the 
 present, which is making such havoc and con- 
 fusion in the thought of the age, leading so many 
 into intellectual positions, whose conclusions they 
 dare not face and cannot flank, and from which 
 they cannot retreat except through the valley of 
 humiliation.” (Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1900.) 
 
 Prof. George Howison sounds this alarm: “It 
 is a portent so threatening to the highest concerns 
 of man, that we ought to look before we leap and 
 
 Vill 
 
Preface 
 
 look more than once. Under the sheen of the 
 evolutionary account of man, the world of real 
 persons, the world of individual responsibility, 
 disappears; with it disappears the personality of 
 God.” (Limits of Evolution, pp. 5, 6.) 
 
 There is a vital connection between Facts, Doc- 
 trines, Experiences, Conduct and Prospects. 
 These successively flow from each other. Chris- 
 tianity rests on facts, from these we derive doc- 
 trines and from doctrines come experiences, 
 which give rise to conduct and that ends in suit- 
 
 able prospects. Facts form the basis of Chris-; 
 tianity. When, therefore, Evolution attacks the } 
 Facts of the Bible, it attempts to undermine the | 
 
 very basis of all Christianity. President Francis 
 L. Patton has said: “You may put your philos- 
 ophy in one pocket and your religion in another 
 and think that, as they are separate, they will not 
 interfere, but that will not work. You have to 
 bring your theory of the universe and your theory 
 of religion together. ‘This is the work of this 
 age.” 
 
 While all do not go the length of the radical 
 evolutionists, yet such is the natural working of 
 the human mind, that this will be its logical con- 
 clusion. If this theory is accepted, we must look 
 for widespread lapse from all Christian faith and, 
 as conduct follows belief in all intelligent 
 
 ix 
 
 pre 
 
Preface 
 
 creatures, we shall see also great moral declen- 
 sion. 
 
 To the ordinary man, the matter appears in this 
 light: If we cannot believe a man’s statements 
 we will not take his advice. If we cannot believe 
 the Bible’s narratives why should we believe its 
 religion? If it is not trustworthy as to facts of 
 this world, why depend upon it as to the other 
 world? If it cannot teach correctly the nature of 
 insects and animals, why should it be able to tell 
 us the nature of God? The common man reasons 
 rightly. The Bible must stand or fall by its re- 
 liability all along the line of truth of every kind. 
 
 Evolution is being taught, or taken for granted 
 to-day in high schools, academies, colleges, uni- 
 versities, and seminaries. It meets the Sunday 
 School scholar at the first chapter of Genesis. 
 A busy city pastor says he has been asked about it 
 every day in the week. It is a living question and 
 must be met. In every free library are the works 
 of Spencer, Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley and others, 
 and these are read continually. 
 
 It does seem as if the other side of such a ques- 
 tion ought to be given and considered, if there be 
 another side, and there certainly is. 
 
 The theory of Evolution is being accepted to- 
 day upon ex-parte evidence. The books on Evo- 
 lution are numbered by hundreds, those giving 
 
 x 
 
Preface 
 
 the other side are few. Many do not even read 
 for themselves but rely upon the weight of noted 
 names, or the supposed “consensus of scholar- 
 ship.” . 
 
 It is even asserted that none but scholars have 
 the right to discuss the subject. Dr. Lyman 
 Abbott says in his “Evidences of Christianity” 
 that “those who are not scientists must be content 
 to await the final judgment of those who are 
 experts on this subject, and meanwhile accept ten- 
 tatively their conclusions.” Not to notice this 
 demand that we rest on an unfinished theory, 
 might we not ask permission to accept, “tenta- 
 tively” at least, the Bible as it is, while awaiting 
 the conclusions of scientists as to what we shall 
 think or believe about it; especially in view of the 
 fact that all that has been done so far by Chris- 
 tianity on earth has been effected by the conserva- 
 tive belief in the Bible. 
 
 But non-scientific people are able to compre- 
 hend Evolution. The scientist to-day is able to 
 state conclusions in language the non-scientific 
 can readily understand, and the evolutionist him- 
 self tells us we can understand his facts and argu- 
 ments. So we who are not scientists may proceed 
 to investigate a subject in which we have so much 
 at stake. The questions involved are too important 
 to be left to the scientist alone. The scientist is 
 
 xi 
 
Preface 
 
 mainly a witness as to the facts of nature. It is the 
 duty of the whole body of the intelligent Chris- 
 tian community, lay and clerical, to generalize 
 and draw conclusions. These form, as they have 
 in the past, the court of last resort in such dis- 
 cussions. ‘The best generalizer will be, not the 
 scientist whose labors are necessarily confined to 
 a single science, or even to a department of it, 
 and who may be even more or less biased by his 
 environment, but the best juryman will be the 
 intelligent non-scientific mind. It is before the 
 judgment seat of Christian Common Sense that 
 this and all other theories must appear. It is the 
 man in the pew who says to this pastor, Come, 
 and he cometh, and to that professor, Go, and 
 he goeth. 
 
 Nor is this examination premature. Evolution 
 has been now for many years before the public 
 and its writings fill libraries. We may assume 
 that the evidence is now before us and, if not all 
 in, at least enough is given us by which to judge 
 its nature and probable outcome. This we may 
 further assume in view of the fact that the advo- 
 cates of the theory admit that an increasing num- 
 ber of facts are not giving increasing evidence 
 but that their case is more beset with difficulties 
 than in the day of Darwin, the father of the 
 
 XU 
 
Preface 
 
 hypothesis, or rather, its step-father. So we may 
 proceed with our examination. 
 
 The author of this book makes no claim to 
 being a scientist. He is simply one of the great 
 jury to whom this theory appeals. He has, there- 
 fore, here simply considered the evidence and 
 given herein his conclusions. The facts and argu- 
 ments of evolutionary writers will form the chief 
 source of the examination. Nearly one hundred 
 writers and works are cited. Out of its own 
 mouth we will condemn it, 9 
 
 The citations in a book as small as this must be 
 brief but care has been taken that they are fair as 
 to the points they are given to show. It is not 
 claimed that the citations from evolutionary writ- 
 ers exhibit their opinion on the whole subject but 
 that they do show their fatal admissions and their 
 general uncertainty on the whole subject. 
 
 It will be shown that Evolution is not accepted 
 by all scientists and scholars; that it is rejected by 
 some of the greatest of these; that it is admittedly 
 an unproven theory; that it has never been veri- 
 fied and cannot be; that not a single case of evo- 
 lution has ever been presented, and that there is 
 no known cause by which it could take place. Its 
 arguments will be considered one by one and their 
 fallacy shown. It will be shown to be, by its own 
 principles, unscientific and unphilosophical, and 
 
 Xill 
 
Preface 
 simply a revamping of the old doctrine of Chance 
 clothed in scientific terms. Finally, it will be 
 shown that it is violently opposed to the narrative 
 and doctrines of the Bible and destructive of all 
 Christian faith; that it originated in heathenism 
 and ends in atheism. 
 
 Much of the material in this book has been pre- 
 sented by the author in lectures upon the Bible 
 during Bible institutes and conferences, and he 
 has been frequently requested to put it in printed 
 form. He hopes that where the arguments do 
 not convince, they will at least bring the reader 
 to what Mr. Gladstone called “that most whole- 
 some state, a suspended judgment.” 
 
 Among others, the following writers are cited: 
 Agassiz, Abbott, Argyle, Askernazy, Balfour, 
 Brewster, Ballard, Bruner, Barrande, Bunge, 
 Brown, Bowers, Bixby, Bonn, Clodd, Conn, 
 Cope, Clarke, Cooke, DeRouge, Dana, Dawson, 
 Dubois, Etheridge, Fovel, Fiske, Gladstone, Gal- 
 ton, Gregory, Hilprecht, Huxley, Howison, 
 Haeckel, Haecke, Harrison, Herschel, Hartman, 
 Harnack, Heer, Humphrey, Hoffman, Hamann, 
 Ingersoll, Jones, Kelvin, Koelliker, Liebig, Lecky, 
 LeConte, Lang, Meyer, Max Mueller, Monier, 
 Murchison, Naegeli, Paulsen, Pfaff, Petrie, Patti- 
 son, R. Patterson, Pfliederer, Patton, Parker, 
 Ruskin, Romanes, Reymond, Renouf, Schlie- 
 
 X1V 
 
Preface 
 
 
 
 mann, Sayce, Starr, Schultz, Sully, Spencer, 
 Schmidt, Sedgwick, Stuckenberg, Snell, See, 
 Townsend, Thomas, Tyndall, Thomson, Virchow, 
 Von Baer, Wallace, Winchell, Warfield, Wright, 
 Whitney, Wagner, Woodrow Wilson, White, 
 Wiseman, Zahm, Zoeckler. 
 
 I especially acknowledge indebtedness to Prof. 
 George Frederick Wright, of Oberlin College, 
 in revising this book and for his valuable sugges- 
 tions and corrections, and especially his favorable 
 introduction. To his works confirming many of 
 my conclusions I refer the reader, as follows: 
 The Logic of Christian Evidence, The Scientific 
 Aspects of Christian Evidences, The Ice Age in 
 North America, Man in the Great Ice Age. 
 
 ALEXANDER PATTERSON. 
 
 XV 
 
5 — 
 met aN ne. 
 
 3 
 
 ¥ 
 
 Cake 
 +n 
 t> 
 
 ; : a 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The doctrine of Evolution as it is now 
 becoming current in popular literature is one- 
 tenth bad Science and nine-tenths bad Philos- 
 ophy. Darwin was not strictly an Evolutionist, » 
 and rarely used the word. He endeavored 
 simply to show that Species were enlarged 
 varieties. The title of his epoch making book 
 was, ‘The Origin of Species by Natural Selec- 
 tion.” On the larger questions of the origin 
 of genera and the more comprehensive orders 
 of plants and animals, he spoke with great 
 caution and only referred to such theories as 
 things “dimly seen in the distance.” 
 
 Herbert Spencer, however, came in with his 
 sweeping philosophical theory of the Evolu- 
 tion of all things through natural processes, 
 and took Darwin’s work in a limited field asa 
 demonstration of his philosophy. It is this 
 philosophy which many popular writers and 
 teachers, and some thoughtless Scientific men 
 have taken up and made the center of their 
 systems. But the most of our men of Science 
 
 B 
 
 XVil 
 
Introduction 
 
 are modest in their expressions upon such 
 philosophical themes. Herbert Spencer does 
 not rank among the great men of Science of 
 the day. Lord Kelvin’s recent remarks upon 
 the subject are most truthful and significant. 
 (See below pp. 18, 24.) 
 
 Mr. Patterson does well to emphasize the 
 fact that orderly succession does not neces- 
 sarily imply evolution from resident forces. The 
 orderly arrangements of a business house 
 proceed from the activity of a number of free 
 wills, each of which might do differently, but 
 act in a definite manner, through voluntary 
 adherence to a single purpose. God is all wise 
 and good as well as all powerful. His plan 
 of Creation will therefore be consistent what- 
 ever be the means through which he accom- 
 plishes it. | 
 
 Mr. Patterson, also, does well to dwell upon 
 the “uncertainties of Science.” Inductive 
 Science looks but a short distance either into 
 space or time, and has no word concerning 
 either the beginning of things or the end of 
 things. Upon these points the Inspired Word 
 is still our best and our only authority. While 
 not saying that all the points in this little 
 
 XVili 
 
Introduction 
 
 volume are well taken, I can say that I disagree 
 with fewer things in it than with those in 
 almost any other on the subject, and that it is 
 fitted to serve as a very needful tonic in these 
 days of the confusion of bad Philosophy and 
 fragmentary Science. 
 
 GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT. 
 Oberlin, Ohio, Aug. 10, 1903. 
 
 xix 
 

 
FOREWORD. 
 
 Before entering upon the discussion we need to 
 enquire as to the meaning of the word “Evolu- 
 tion” as applied to the theory. We must also ask 
 a definition of the theory as given by its best- 
 known writers; and also enquire as to the spheres 
 it claims to cover. To clearly state a question is 
 often half the task of solving it. 
 
 MEANING OF EVOLUTION. 
 
 We must distinguish between the ordinary con- 
 versational sense of the word Evolution and the 
 technical use of the term as designating a theory 
 by that name. We speak of the evolution of the 
 seed into the plant and the further evolution of 
 the flower and the fruit, meaning by our words 
 merely the natural progressive action of the life 
 within the plant. This principle the evolutionist 
 applies to the whole universe which he says came 
 in a similar way. 
 
 Again we use the word Evolution to describe 
 any succession of things which show progress. 
 Such an instance is given us in the change in ap- 
 pliances for the use of steam from the time when 
 
 I 
 
Foreword 
 
 its power was first observed in the lifting lid of 
 the tea-kettle to the time when it drives the latest 
 ocean liner. This is, however, simply the succes- 
 sion of a series of things in advancing order, but 
 without vital connection. Their real relation is 
 outside of themselves in the minds of the invent- 
 ors who, in turn, may be many and widely sepa- 
 rated. Succession is not Evolution nor does it 
 prove or imply such a process. ‘That demands 
 an intimate and genetic connection between the 
 things as they appear, the higher growing out of 
 the substance of the lower in physical things and 
 the intellectual likewise. 
 
 The theory of Evolution asserts that from a 
 nebulous mass of primeval substance, whose ori- 
 gin it never attempts to account for, there came 
 by natural processes, as a flower from a bud, and 
 fruit from the flower, all that we see and know in 
 the heavens above and the earth beneath. 
 
 Tyndall’s statement of the scope of the the- 
 ory is as follows: “Strip it naked and you 
 stand face to face with the notion, that 
 not only the ignoble forms of life, the 
 animalcular and animal life, not only the more 
 noble forms of the horse and lion, not only the 
 exquisite mechanism of the human body, but the 
 human mind with its emotions, intellect, will and 
 
Foreword 
 
 all their phenomena, were latent in that fiery 
 cloud.” (Christianity and Positivism, p. 30.) 
 
 Dr. Lyman Abbott further defines its applica- 
 tion to man thus: “Evolution is the doctrine that 
 this life of man, this moral, this ethical, this 
 spiritual nature has been developed by natural 
 processes.” (Theology of an Evolutionist.) 
 
 Herbert Spencer’s celebrated definition is as fol- 
 lows: “Evolution is a progress from the homo- 
 geneous to the heterogeneous, from general to 
 special, from the simple to the complex elements 
 of life.” But we deny the right to apply this defi- 
 nition exclusively to the theory of Evolution. Cre- 
 aton also proceeds on the same order, so also 
 does manufacture or any other intelligent opera- 
 tion. 
 
 The clearest account of the theory is that given , 
 by Prof. Le Conte, as follows: “All things came | 
 (1) by continuous progressive changes, (2) ac- | 
 cording to certain laws, (3) by means of resident | 
 forces.” (Evolution and Religious Thought.) It 
 is the latter clause in which the real meaning 
 of the theory lies. These “resident forces” in- 
 clude exterior influences such as food, climate, 
 CLC: 
 
 The theories of Evolution are as many as the 
 respective writers. Each one has his own theory 
 
Foreword 
 
 as to the scope and cause and operation of it all. 
 Theistic Evolution allows the intervention of God 
 at the creation of the primeval “‘fire-mist’’ and 
 at the origin of life and the production of man’s 
 spiritual nature. The atheist denies any inter- 
 ference of a Creator at all. Haeckel says the best 
 definition of Evolution is “the non-miraculous 
 origin and progress of the universe.” He and 
 many others say that if the Creator is admitted 
 at any point, He may as well be admitted all 
 along. This is consistent Evolution. 
 
 The theistic and the atheistic evolutionist how- 
 ever agree in saying that man was descended from 
 the brute, as to his body at least, and some even, 
 as above shown, claim this descent for the whole 
 man. This doctrine as to man is the vital part of 
 the whole theory and in this all evolutionists are 
 practically agreed. So that so far as their effect 
 on Christian doctrine and Bible fact is concerned, 
 all may be classed together. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 EVOLUTION AS AN UNPROVEN THEORY. 
 
 With perhaps the exception of Prof. Ernst 
 Haeckel of Jena, all evolutionists admit that Evo- 
 lution is unproven. One of the latest writers, 
 and most impartial, is Prof. H. W. Conn, who 
 says in his “Evolution of To-day:’ “Nothing _ 
 has been positively proved as to the question at 
 issue. From its very nature, Evolution is beyond 
 proof. ... The difficulties offered to an unhes- 
 itating acceptance of Evolution are very great, 
 and have not grown less since the appearance of 
 Darwin’s Origin of Species, but have in some re- 
 spects grown greater.” (pp. 107, 203.) He 
 makes many such admissions. Dr. Rudolph 
 Schmidt writes, “All these theories have not’ 
 passed beyond the rank of hypotheses.” (Theo- 
 ries of Darwin, p. 61.) Prof. Whitney, of Yale 
 University, says, “We cannot think the theory 
 yet converted into a scientific fact and those are 
 perhaps the worst foes to its success who are 
 over-hasty to take it and use it as a proved fact.” 
 (Oriental and Linguistic Studies, pp. 293-4) 
 Tyndall said: ‘Those who hold the doctrine of 
 
 5 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 Evolution are by no means ignorant of the uncer- 
 tainty of their data, and they only yield to it a 
 provisional assent.” (Fragments of Science, p. 
 162.) Dr. J. A. Zahm writes: ‘The theory of 
 os Evolution is not yet proved by any demonstrative 
 evidence. An absolute demonstration is impos- 
 sible.” (Popular Science Monthly, April, 1898.) 
 Huxley said, “So long as the evidence at present 
 adduced falls short of supporting the affirmative, 
 the doctrine must be content to remain among the 
 hypotheses.” (Lay Sermons, p. 295.) Down to 
 the end of his life, he said the evidence for Evolu- 
 tion was insufficient. (Quarterly Review, Janu- 
 ary, I9OI.) 
 This universal admission will be a surprise to 
 the non-scientific, especially in view of the as- 
 tounding and sweeping claims the theory has 
 made. It will seem strange that a confessedly un- 
 proven theory should be made the basis of all 
 ‘“modern thinking,” the foundation of a universal 
 philosophy, the cause of a revolution in theology, 
 and the reason for rejecting the narratives of the 
 Bible, and, on the part of some, of abandoning 
 Christianity and launching into atheism. Yet 
 such is the case. Well may we draw a long breath 
 here and say, Is this Science? Is it scientific to 
 accept as true an unproven theory and make it 
 the basis of all belief? We have even more start- 
 
 6 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 ling facts to present as to this amazing form of 
 unbelief. 
 
 In discussing Evolution, we must also contin- 
 ually distinguish between fact and theory, be- 
 tween things proven and assumed. For the 
 writers continually intermingle these in a confus- 
 ing way. We need ever to ask concerning its 
 statements, Is this proven or assumed? The jury 
 have a right to ask that everything be proved ab- 
 solutely before rendering a verdict for Evolution. 
 
 EVOLUTION IS NOT ACCEPTED BY ALL SCIENTISTS 
 AND SCHOLARS. 
 
 The statement is often made that Evolution has 
 “the Consensus of Scholarship.” This carries 
 force to the non-scientific, indeed to all, for we 
 must rest our faith, for facts at least, on the opin- 
 ion of scientists. But while many have followed 
 it, there remain many scholars who have not 
 bowed the knee to Baal. Prof. Haeckel, its great- 
 est living advocate, complains bitterly of the op- 
 position of many of the scientists of Europe, and 
 that many once with him have deserted him. 
 
 The late Dr. Virchow, the great pathologist and 
 the discoverer of the germ theory, was an active 
 opponent of Evolution. He says: ‘The reserve 
 which most naturalists impose on themselves is 
 
 7 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 supported by the small actual proofs of Darwin’s 
 theory. Facts seem to teach the invariability of 
 the human and the animal species.” (Popular 
 Science, pp. 50, 52.) Dr. Groette, in his inaugural 
 address as rector of the University of Strasburg, 
 rejected Evolution. 
 
 Dr. D. S. Gregory of New York, editor of the 
 Homiletic Review and in a position to know the 
 facts, vouches for the statement, that, “It is a 
 strange fact that no great scientific authority in 
 Great Britain in exact science, science that re- 
 duces its conclusions to mathematical formulae, 
 has endorsed Evolution.” 
 
 ‘The late Dr. J. H. W. Stuckenberg, of Cam- 
 bridge, wrote me, that many of the scientists of 
 Germany reject the extreme views of Evolution, 
 and the inferences which men like Prof. Haeckel, 
 of Jena, have drawn from Darwinism. He quotes 
 Dr. W. Haecke, a zoologist of Jena, the home of 
 Prof. Haeckel, as saying: “We the younger men 
 must free ourselves from the Darwinian dogma, 
 in which respect quite a number of us have been 
 quite successful.” Prof. Paulsen, of Berlin, has 
 exposed some of Haeckel’s fallacies and regards 
 his reasoning as “a disgrace to Germany.” He said 
 the mechanical theory for which Darwinism was 
 held to stand, is rejected by such scientists as 
 Naegeli, Koelliker. M. Wagner, Snell, Fovel, 
 
 8 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 Bunge, the physiological chemist, A. Brown, 
 Hoffman and Askernazy, botanists; Oswald Heer, 
 the geologist, and Otto Hamann, the zoologist. 
 Of Carl Ernst von Baer, the eminent zoologist 
 and anthropologist, Haecke affirms, that in early 
 years he came near adopting the hypothesis of 
 Evolution into his system, but that at a later date 
 he utterly rejected it. The same change occurred 
 in the late Du Bois Reymond and Prof. Virchow, 
 the eminent scientist of the University of Berlin. 
 (See also articles of Dr. Stuckenberg in Hom- 
 iletic Review, January, 1901, May, 1902.) 
 
 Sir J. William Dawson, the great geologist of 
 Canada, utterly rejected it and says: “It is one 
 of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is 
 utterly destitute of proof.” (Story of the Earth 
 and Man, p. 317.) Dr. Etheridge, examiner of 
 the British Museum, said to Dr. George E. Post, 
 in answer to a question, “In all this great mu- 
 seum, there is not a particle of evidence of the 
 transmutation of species. This museum is full 
 of proofs of the utter falsity of these views.” 
 Thomas Carlyle called Evolution “the gospel of 
 dirt.” Ruskin said of it, “I have never yet heard 
 one logical argument in its favor. I have heard 
 and read many that are beneath contempt.” (The 
 Eagles Nest, p. 256.) 
 
 Prof. Zockler writes: “It must be stated that 
 
 9 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 the supremacy of this philosophy has not been 
 such as was predicted by its defenders at the out- 
 set. A mere glance at the history of the theory 
 during the four decades that it has been before 
 the public shows that the beginning of the end is 
 at hand.” 
 
 Such utterances are now very common in the 
 periodicals of Germany, it is said. It seems plain 
 the reaction has commenced and that the pendu- 
 lum that has swung so strongly in the direction 
 of Evolution, is now oscillating the other way. It 
 required twenty years for Evolution to reach 
 us from abroad. Is it necessary for us to wait 
 twenty years more to reverse our opinions? Why 
 may we not pass upon facts for ourselves without 
 awaiting the “Consensus of European Scholar- 
 ship,’ which is after all so subject to perplexing 
 reversals? It makes plain people dizzy to attempt 
 to follow leaders of opinion who change with 
 every wind that blows across the ocean. 
 
 Many citations will appear in the following 
 pages which show the strong exceptions taken by 
 leading scholars against the theory in whole or in 
 part. Indeed, as said already, the arguments to 
 be given herein against Evolution are drawn from 
 the statements of leading evolutionists themselves. 
 Some of these are earlier opinions and some their 
 latest utterances. In every case the state of the 
 
 pie) 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 discussion will be shown to be far from that 
 “Consensus of Scholarship” so airily claimed by 
 the writers on the subject and so unhesitatingly 
 accepted by their followers. 
 
 It may be objected that some of these author- 
 ities are dead and that later scholars differ from 
 them. Not to mention the names of still living 
 writers named above, let us remark that all wis- 
 dom is not left to our day. Socrates and Bacon 
 are dead, yet their opinions are still of value. 
 Moses is dead, yet the Ten Commandments are 
 still believed if not obeyed. Our present evolu- 
 tionary writers will also one day be dead, yet they 
 hope even then to be given some credit for sense 
 and science. The “consensus of scholarship” 
 ought to include wisdom past as well as present. 
 
 It is also to be remembered that there are thou- 
 sands of quiet thinkers who have never given in 
 their adhesion to this startling theory, and more, 
 that the great masses of the church at least, have 
 no confidence in it. Those preparing to launch 
 their ships upon this current had better, as a mat- 
 ter of common prudence at least, wait a while at 
 least till the mists have rolled away. 
 
 II 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 DISCARDED THEORIES OF THE PAST. 
 
 Prof. George Frederick Wright says, “The his- 
 _ tory of science is little else than one of discarded 
 theories... . The so-called science of the present 
 day is largely going the way so steadily followed 
 in the past. The things about which true science 
 is certain are very few and could be contained in 
 a short chapter of a small book.” (The Advance, 
 May 12, 1902.) | 
 
 It is sometimes charged to the church that it 
 has held theories which the discoveries of science 
 have shown to be untrue. But it must be borne 
 in mind that these false theories were just as 
 firmly held by the scientists of the day as by the 
 church. 
 
 Dr. Andrew White has written two great vol- 
 umes on the warfare between science and theol- 
 ogy. He might write many and larger vol- 
 umes on the wars between the theories of science. 
 Every one of these discarded theories, and they 
 are numbered by thousands, has been the center 
 of terrific conflicts. 
 
 Galileo’s discovery of the satellites of Jupiter 
 was opposed by his fellow astronomers, who even 
 refused to look at them through his telescope. Dr. 
 J. A. Zahm quotes Cardinal Wiseman as saying 
 that the French Institute in 1860 could count 
 
 I2 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 more than eighty theories opposed to Scripture, 
 not one of which has stood still or deserves to be 
 recorded. At a meeting of the British Associa- 
 tion, Sir William Thomson announced that he 
 believed life had come to this globe by a meteor. 
 His theory lived less than a year. Mr. Huxley 
 said that the origin of life was a sheet of gelatin- 
 ous living matter which covered the bottom of the 
 ocean. This theory had even a shorter life. 
 Among the most recent reversals of this kind is 
 that of a universally held theory, namely, that 
 coral reefs are built up by the coral insects in their 
 desire to keep near the surface as the ocean’s bot- 
 tom sinks. Prof. A. Agassiz has just demol- 
 ished this theory. 
 
 Scholars were unanimous a short time ago that 
 Troy was a myth. But Dr. Schliemann’s great 
 discoveries have overthrown that “consensus of 
 scholarship.” Prof. Harnack, one of the greatest 
 of critics in his great work, The Chronology of 
 the Christian Scriptures, admits that science, 
 meaning Higher Criticism, has made many mis- 
 takes and has much to repent of. Joseph Cook 
 said, “Within the memory of man yet compara- 
 tively young, the mythical theory of Strauss has 
 had its rise, its fall, its burial.’ 
 
 The thirty thousand citizens of St. Pierre on 
 Martinique, trusting in the assurances of the 
 
 13 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 scientists, remained in their fated city and the 
 next day were overwhelmed in the most awful 
 calamity of modern times. 
 
 We may consider in this connection the dissat- 
 isfaction of some of the greatest minds of evolu- 
 tionary circles with the results of their own the- 
 ory. 
 
 Mr. Herbert Spencer is thus quoted, writing in 
 his eighty-third year: “The intellectual man, who 
 occupies the same tenement with me, tells me that 
 I am but a piece of animated clay equipped with 
 a nerve system and in some mysterious way con- 
 nected with the big dynamo called the world; 
 but that very soon now the circuit will be cut and 
 I will fall into unconsciousness and nothingness. 
 Yes I am sad, unutterbly sad, and I wish in my 
 heart I had never heard of the intellectual man 
 with his science, philosophy and logic.” (Facts 
 and Comments.) 
 
 Prof. Frederic Harrison, the agnostic, thus 
 writes: “The philosophy of evolution and demon- 
 stration promised but it did not perform. It 
 raised hopes, but it led to disappointment. It 
 claimed to explain the world and to direct man, 
 but it left a great blank. That blank was the field 
 iof religion, of morality, of the sanctions of deity. 
 It left the mystery of the future as mysterious as 
 ever and yet as imperative as ever. Whatever 
 
 14 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 philosophy of nature it offered, it gave no ade-' 
 quate philosophy of Man. It was busy with the 
 physiology of Humanity and propounded incon- 
 ceivable and repulsive guesses about the origin 
 of Humanity.” (North American Review, De-: 
 cember, 1900, p. 825.) 
 
 From the opposite side of the field, President 
 Woodrow Wilson writes: “This is the dis-serv- 
 ice scientific study has done for us; it has given 
 us agnosticism in the realm of philosophy, scien- 
 tific anarchism in the field of politics. It has made 
 the legislator confident that he can create and the 
 philosopher sure that God cannot.” (Forum, 
 December, 1896.) 
 
 UNCERTAINTY OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES IN GEN- 
 ERAL,. 
 
 Another feature which strikes the non-scientific 
 mind curiously is the wide differences among 
 great scientists as to the facts of nature. ‘The age 
 of the earth is variously declared to be ten mil- 
 lion years by some, and by others equally able, a 
 thousand million years. ‘The temperature of its 
 interior is stated to be 1,530 degrees by one, and 
 350,000 degrees by another. Herschel calculated 
 the mountains on the moon to be half a mile high, 
 Ferguson said they were fifteen miles high. The 
 
 15 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 height of the Aurora Borealis is guessed from two 
 and a half to one hundred and sixty miles, and its 
 nature is still more widely described. The delta 
 at the mouth of the Mississippi was calculated by 
 Lyell to have been 100,000 years in forming. 
 Gen. Humphrey, of the United States survey, es- 
 timated it at 4,000 years, and M. Beaument at 
 1,300 years. 
 
 The deposits of carbonate of lime on the floor 
 of Kent Cavern in England have been estimated 
 by different scientists to have been from a thou- 
 sand to a million years in forming. 
 
 The discovery of radium and other similar 
 substances, it is said, is almost revolutionizing the 
 theories of the constitution of matter and affecting 
 all physical science. 
 
 These facts are not cited to discredit science. 
 _ No one in his senses would fail to acknowledge 
 our great debt to the earnest and laborious work- 
 ers in these varying fields. But these instances 
 of many such are cited to show that there is need 
 for caution in accepting proposed theories. 
 
 16 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE AND EARTH. 
 
 In undertaking to account for the universe, 
 Evolution faces four problems. 1. The origin of 
 matter. 2. The origin of force. 3. The forma- 
 tion and orderly arrangement of the universe. 4. 
 The origin of life. In all of these it fails; it con- 
 fesses its failure in the first two and last, and 
 makes ludicrous attempts to explain the third. We 
 will consider each in turn. 
 
 1. Evolution fails to account for the origin of 
 matter. Spencer says this is the Unknowable. 
 So that Spencer’s great philosophy rests on what 
 he doesn’t know and cannot find out. Darwin said 
 as to the origin of things, “I am in a hopeless 
 muddle.” Prof. Edward Clodd wrote: “Of the 
 beginning of what was before the present state of 
 things, we know nothing and speculation is futile, 
 but since everything points to the finite duration 
 of the present creation, we must make a start 
 somewhere.” (Story of Creation, p. 137.) Science 
 is what we know. ‘Therefore Evolution rests 
 upon an unscientific foundation. Nor is there any 
 other account conceivable than that the Bible 
 
 2 17 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 gives. As long as this first and fundamental fact 
 is not solved, the theory must be content to be at 
 most a limited one, and far from being that 
 sweeping discovery which its advocates assert it 
 to be. 
 
 2. Evolution fails to account for the origin of 
 Force. The great forces which animate the uni- 
 verse, such as gravity, heat, motion and light, 
 must be accounted for by this theory to give it the 
 standing it demands. It makes no attempt to do 
 this. Evolution is silent when we ask, Whence 
 came these mighty forces? Calling them Laws of 
 Nature does not answer the question. Laws need 
 law makers and enforcers also. Laws do not en- 
 force themselves. As forces, they show the cease- 
 less giving out of energy. Where is the dynamo 
 from which this perpetual energy originated and 
 still proceeds? 
 
 In this connection, let us notice the reticence 
 and limitations of really great scientists as to the 
 nature of these energies. Lord Kelvin, the great- 
 est living scientist, said at the meeting of the Brit- 
 ish Association for the Advancement of Science, 
 of which he was president: “One word charac- 
 'terizes the most strenuous of the efforts for the 
 
 ‘advancement of science that I have made perse- 
 iveringly for fifty-five years. ‘That word is fail- 
 lure. I know no more of electric and magnetic 
 
 18 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 force, or of the relation between ether, electricity 
 
 and ponderable matter, or of chemical affinity, | 
 
 ord 
 
 than I knew and tried to teach to my students of | 
 natural philosophy fifty years ago in my first ses- | 
 
 sion as professor.”’ 
 
 Haeckel himself, the greatest living evolution- 
 ist, admits: “We grant at once that the inner- 
 most character of nature is just as little under- 
 stood by us as it was by Anaximander and Em- 
 pedocles 2,400 years ago. . . We grant that the 
 essence of substance becomes more mysterious 
 and enigmatic the more deeply we penetrate into 
 the knowledge of its attributes.” (Riddle of the 
 Universe.) 
 
 3. Evolution fails to account for the orderly 
 movements of the heavenly bodies which have 
 the accuracy of a chronometer, aye, which are the 
 standards by which all chronometers are regu- 
 lated, so that the astronomer can calculate to a 
 second when the heavenly bodies shall pass any 
 particular point of view or form their many con- 
 junctions. There is no collision, no noise. “There 
 is no speech nor language, their voice is not 
 heard.” 
 
 Our Solar System is unique in the heavens. 
 Prof. See tells us there is no other like it in the 
 regularity of its orbits, and in its distant position 
 from the powerful attractions of the mighty sys- 
 
 19 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 tems of the heavens. The earth, too, is the only 
 world so far known to be advanced enough for 
 the production of life. Its situation is far enough 
 from the sun to be beyond its powerful heat and 
 electric energy and yet near enough to preserve 
 and continue all life. The arrangement of its 
 surface into land and water proportions gives the 
 requisite amount of moisture over the land areas. 
 The atmosphere is mixed of gases in just the 
 right proportions for life. All this speaks as loud- 
 ly as any mechanism can speak, of intention and 
 benevolence and control and careful adjustment; 
 far from that haphazard effect which comes from 
 the undirected working of “resident forces.” 
 Evolution declares the universe began with a 
 nebulous mass, which Tyndall says was “fire- 
 mist,’ and contracted as it became cold; but Spen- 
 cer says it was a cold cloud which became heated 
 as it contracted. We are left to the perplexity of 
 deciding for ourselves which theory we will ac- 
 cept. This is only one of many such contradic- 
 tions we shall meet. But however, or whatever it 
 was, it organized itself into the wonderful uni- 
 verse of stars by a rotary motion which the con- 
 traction produced, and this threw off portions as 
 a carriage wheel throws off mud, each portion 
 taking up a similar motion and cooling in a sim- 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 ilar fashion until it became cool enough for living 
 things. 
 
 Proof for all this is supposed to be seen in a 
 nebula which is seen in the constellation Orion, 
 which has a spiral form and is supposed to be a 
 world in the making. 
 
 But in February, 1901, a new star appeared 
 surrounded by a nebula and this in rapid motion 
 from the center. This sudden appearance of a 
 world in a nebulous state seems like the reversing 
 of the evolutionary process or indeed like a world 
 being destroyed and reduced to its first estate. 
 Other facts are also contradictory, such as the 
 motion or revolution of some of the satelites in a 
 reverse order from that demanded by the theory. 
 
 . Indeed the whole nebular theory is now being 
 called in question. 
 
 Prof. George Frederick Wright of Oberlin 
 University, thus writes of it: 
 
 “The nebular hypothesis, which all forms of 
 evolution now assume for a beginning, involves 
 the supposition that the molecules of matter com- 
 posing the solar system were originally diffused 
 through space like the particles of mist in a vast 
 fogbank, and that then, under the action of gravi- 
 tation, they began to approach each other and to 
 collect in masses, which began to revolve about 
 
 2 
 
The Other Sfde of Evolution 
 
 their axes and to move in orbits around the center 
 of attraction. Every step in this supposition in- 
 volves an added mystery. The existence of the 
 molecules in their original diffused state is but 
 the beginning of the mystery, though that is 
 utterly incomprehensible. 
 
 “The power of gravitation which compels the 
 separated particles to approach each other is an 
 utter mystery, which has completely baffled all 
 efforts at explanation by scientific men. The 
 revolution of the various masses of the solar sys- 
 tem on their axes and in their orbits is another 
 mystery for which there is no solution. 
 
 “Thus is the thorough-going evolutionist at 
 every point confronted with an insoluble mystery, 
 and he deceives himself if he fancies that he has 
 discovered anything which will take the place of 
 the Christian’s conception of God as the creator, 
 sustainer and ruler of all things.” (Record-Her- 
 ald, Chicago, Dec. 24, 1902.) 
 
 Other facts are even more perplexing to this 
 theory. The moon is moving from her place at 
 an increasing rate and astronomy cannot account 
 for it. The earth’s axis of revolution has varied 
 from time to time. Only one star in a thousand 
 has ever been catalogued. Of only about a hun- 
 dred is the calculation of the parallax possible, so 
 distant are they. 
 
 22 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 As to our earth, a well-known writer says: “No 
 one of standing in the scientific world of to-day 
 is willing to go on record as having a theory of 
 his own regarding the internal fires of this planet 
 or attempting to account for their origin.”’ 
 
 In view of this state of uncertainty, it seems to 
 the non-scientific mind hazardous to project 
 across these vast ages a guess as to what the con- 
 ditions were and how the universe originated. 
 And above all to found on this guess a vast phi- 
 losophy of the universe affecting all we hold 
 precious for this life and that to come. Well may 
 we hesitate before such demands. 
 
 4. The origin of life is a problem Evolution has 
 sought in vain to solve or account for by its 
 natural or resident forces. 
 
 Prof. Le Conte labors hard to show that it 
 might have come from the union of the four gases, 
 carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, under 
 some peculiar circumstances. If he had said 
 under the direct act of the Creator we could assent 
 cheerfully. For these do enter into the substance 
 which forms the bodies of living things. But the 
 claim of Evolution is that all came by “resident 
 forces,”’ self-operating. Once admit the direct act 
 of the Creator, and, as Haeckel says, they might 
 as well admit it along the whole process, for the 
 
 23 
 
The Otber Side of Lvolution 
 argument for a single instance is valid for the 
 whole. So they will have none of it. ~ 
 
 Prof. Le Conte labors to show that protoplasm 
 might be self-originating, but Prof. Conn says, 
 “Protoplasm is not a chemical compound but a 
 mechanism. . . . Unorganized protoplasm 
 does not exist. . . . It could never have been 
 produced by chemical process. Chemistry has 
 produced starches, fats, albumens, but not pro- 
 toplasm.” (Method of Evolution.) 
 
 Lord Kelvin, in writing to the London Times, 
 said: 
 
 “Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking some- 
 where in the country, if he believed that the grass 
 and flowers which we saw around us grew by 
 mere chemical forces. He answered, ‘No, no more 
 than I could believe that a book of botany de- 
 scribing them could grow by mere chemical 
 forces.’ ” 
 
 Tyndall, after laborious experiments dur- 
 ing eight months, thus candidly states the result, 
 in an address before the Royal Institute, London: 
 “From the beginning to the end of the inquiry, 
 there is not, as you have seen, a shadow of evi- 
 dence in favor of the doctrine of spontaneous 
 generation. . . . In the lowest, as in the 
 highest of organized creatures, the method of 
 
 24 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 nature is, that life shall be the issue of antecedent 
 ites 
 
 And Mr. Huxley also admitted, “The doctrine 
 that life can only come from life is victorious all 
 along the line.” Prof. Conn states, “There is not 
 the slightest evidence that living matter could 
 arise from non-living matter. Spontaneous gen- 
 eration is universally given up.” (Evolution of 
 To-day, p. 26.) 
 
 Wilson, the great authority on the cell says, 
 “The study of the cell has seemed to expand 
 rather than narrow the enormous gap that sepa- 
 rates even the lowest forms of life from the inor- 
 ganic world.” (The Cell in Development and In- 
 heritance, p. 330.) 
 
 Here then, is the greatest chasm of all: Evolu- 
 tion fails at the very start in the story of life. Yet 
 this is its chosen field. On this depends the whole 
 theory. If there was a Creator at the origin of 
 life, why not at the origin of all living things? 
 It is simply a question of degree. The making of 
 a single cell, the simplest creature that lives, is as 
 great a mystery as that of man. Conceptually the 
 one is as possible as the other.* 
 
 *See these points discussed more fully in Wright’s Scientific \ 
 Aspects of Christian Evidences 
 
 25 
 
CHAPTERIITE 
 
 THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIES. 
 
 This is Evolution’s great field of labor. It was 
 this which mainly occupied Darwin’s labors and 
 is the basis of the whole sweeping theory. This 
 suggested man’s animal origin and all that fol- 
 lows as to man’s history and religion and civiliza- 
 tion. So that this is the basal part of Evolution. 
 Yet against this fundamental argument, two 
 great charges are made and admitted: First, not 
 a single case of evolution of species is known, and, 
 second, no law or force by which such changes 
 could take place has been discovered. We will 
 consider these two fatal defects. 
 
 NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE OF EVOLUTION IS KNOWN. 
 
 In support of this assertion we might quote the 
 admissions of nearly every evolutionary writer. 
 Prof. Winchell writes upon this point as follows: 
 
 “The great stubborn fact which every form of 
 the theory encounters at the very outset is, that 
 notwithstanding variations, we are ignorant of a 
 single instance of the derivation of one good 
 
 26 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 species from another. The world has been ran- 
 sacked for an example, and occasionally it has 
 seemed for a time as if an instance had been found 
 of the origination of a genuine species by so- 
 called natural agencies, but we only give utterance 
 to the admissions of all the recent advocates of 
 derivation theories, when we announce that the 
 long-sought experimentum crucis has not been 
 discovered.” (The Doctrine of Evolution, p. 54.) 
 
 Prof. Conn, in one of the most recent works 
 upon Evolution, says: “It is true enough that 
 naturalists have been unable to find a single un- 
 questioned instance of a new species. . . . It 
 will be admitted at the outset on all sides, that no 
 unquestioned instance has been observed of one 
 species being derived from another. . . . It 
 is therefore impossible at present to place the 
 question beyond dispute.” (Evolution of To-day, 
 D2 235) 
 
 Here then is a fatal defect. The world has been 
 ransacked for evidence, the museums are full of 
 specimens, the secrets of nature have been ex- 
 plored in every land, the minutest creatures dis- 
 covered and analyzed. We have the remains of 
 animals and plants of many kinds thousands of 
 years old, such as the mummied remains from 
 Egypt, and yet not a single instance of the change 
 Evolution asserts has ever been known! Yet 
 
 27 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 this change of species is the fundamental argu- 
 ment of Evolution. On this rests its theory of the 
 origin of man and all that flows from that asser- 
 tion, and this basal assertion is absolutely without 
 an actual instance of fact. 
 
 The changes in certain species such as roses, 
 primroses, tomatoes, pigeons and dogs, are not 
 new species, but only varieties, having none of 
 the traits of species, easily intermingling, propa- 
 gating, and readily reverting to their original 
 forms, changes which true species are not suscep- 
 tible of. Darwin admitted that the continued fer- 
 tility of these varieties was one of his greatest 
 difficulties. One of the definitions of species is 
 that they will not interbreed and propagate. So 
 that hybrids are sterile. “After its kind,” is the 
 primal law of nature, and as Dr. Jesse B. Thomas 
 says, “The stubborn mule still blocks the way of 
 Evolution.” 
 
 NO CAUSE OF EVOLUTION IS KNOWN. 
 
 Evolution is not a force. There is no power 
 or cause which is known as Evolution. ‘The word 
 simply describes the order in which things have 
 been supposed to come. We must draw a clear 
 line of distinction between Cause and Order of 
 Appearance. There is a certain order in the suc- 
 
 28 
 

 
 The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 cession of living things as they came, but what 
 caused that order is the very question at issue. 
 The Duke of Argyle warns against confusing 
 these when he says, “Evolution puts forward a 
 visible order of phenomena as a complete and all- 
 sufficient account of its own origin and cause.” 
 (Theories of Darwin.) 
 
 The absence of an agreed cause is admitted by 
 evolutionists. Huxley says, ‘““The great need of 
 Evolution is a theory of derivation.” (Man’s 
 Place in Nature.) Darwin admits, “Our igno- 
 rance of the laws of derivation is profound.” 
 (Descent of Man.) “The laws governing in- 
 heritance are for the most part unknown.” 
 (Origin of Species.) Prof. Conn in Evolution of 
 To-day, says, “No two scientists are agreed as 
 to what is the cause of the supposed changes of 
 species.” (p. 337.) Prof. Clodd traces it to the 
 protoplasm which forms the germ and ends his 
 exhaustive treatise by saying the cause is still 
 unknown. (Method of Evolution.) 
 
 Darwin’s theory was Natural Selection. It is 
 this which is technically called ‘“Darwinism,”- 
 
 although some writers apply that name to the gen- ce / 
 
 eral subject of Evolution. Natural selection is the 
 theory that inasmuch as minute variations occur 
 in the struggle of living things for existence, the 
 variations which would prove favorable to the 
 
 29 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 welfare of the animal would be transmitted to its 
 progeny and be increased and so, in many gener- 
 ations, the accumulating effects, aided by climate, 
 food, sexual selection, and other causes, would 
 amount to a new species. Prof. Conn says of this 
 theory, ‘Natural selection is almost universally 
 acknowledged as insufficient to meet the facts of 
 nature, since many facts of life cannot be ex- 
 plained by it.” (p. 243.) 
 
 Mr. Huxley said long before: “After much con- 
 sideration, and with assuredly no bias against Mr. 
 Darwin’s views, it 1s our clear conviction that as 
 the evidence now stands it is not absolutely proved 
 that a group of animals, having all the character- 
 istics exhibited by species in nature, has ever been 
 originated by selection, whether natural or arti- 
 ficial.” (Lay Sermons, 295.) 
 
 The theories as to what produced the supposed 
 changes are as many as the writers on Evolution. 
 Prof. Conn says, “All agreement disappears. 
 Each thinker has his own views.” And adds, 
 “Thus far we have seen no indication of the man- 
 ner in which this evolution has been manifested.” 
 (p. 20.) Prof. J. Arthur Thomson, lecturer on 
 zoology in the School of Medicine, Edinburgh, 
 said: “Unless we can give some theory of the 
 origin of variations we have no material for 
 further consideration. Unfortunately we are very 
 
 A 
 
 30 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 ignorant about the whole matter.” The various 
 writers ascribe the changes to food, climate, sex- 
 ual selection, extraordinary births, isolation and 
 many other supposed causes. All these have been 
 in turn combatted by other evolutionist writers, 
 and the war goes on and has produced libraries of 
 volumes. It is around this that the conflict rages 
 and the war is a merry one. 
 
 HOW EVOLUTION ORIGINATED SPECIES. 
 
 It is when Evolution gives the particulars of 
 these changes that it becomes especially interest- 
 ing. We will, by way of lighting up the examina- 
 tion, consider a few of the stories it tells us as to 
 how things came. 
 
 Spencer tells us how the backbone came to be, 
 for the primitive animals had none. Prof. Conn — 
 quotes his account as follows: ‘He thinks the 
 segmentation, the division of the spinal column 
 into vertebrae, arose as the result of strains. Orig- 
 inally the vertebrate was unsegmented, but in 
 bending its body from side to side in locomotion 
 through the water, its spinal column became di- 
 vided by the action of simple mechanical force.” 
 (Evolution of To-day, p. 65.) ‘Thus what we 
 usually consider a serious calamity, the breaking 
 of one’s backbone, became one of the greatest 
 
 31 
 
The Other Side of Lvolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 blessings, for what would we be without fiexible 
 backs, with which to follow the meanderings of 
 Evolution? 
 
 Evolution also tells us how legs originated. The 
 earliest animals were without legs. Some animal 
 in this legless state found on its body some slight 
 excrescences or warts, which aided materially its 
 progress as it wiggled along, and thus it acquired 
 the habit of using these convenient warts. This 
 habit it transmitted to its posterity and they in- 
 creased the habit until the excrescences, length- 
 ened and strengthened by use, became-legs of a 
 rudimentary kind, which by further use developed 
 a system of bones and muscles and nerves and 
 joints such as we have ourselves. 
 
 Spencer’s account of the origin of quadrupeds 
 is that the earliest animals propagated by dividing 
 into two parts, and in some of these the division 
 was not perfectly made, and so the animal had 
 duplicated ends, each of which had legs, forming 
 finally the present quadruple arrangement. 
 
 Eyes originated from some animal having pig- 
 ment spots or freckles on the sides of its head, 
 which, turned to the sun, agreeably affected the 
 animal so that it acquired the habit of turning that 
 side of its head to the sun, and its posterity in- 
 herited the same habit and passed it on to still 
 other generations. The pigment spot acquired 
 
 32 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 sensitiveness by use and in time a nerve developed 
 which was the beginning of the eye. From this 
 incipient eye came the present wonderful combi- 
 nation of lenses, nerves and muscles, all so ac- 
 curately adjusted that, of the sixteen possible ad- 
 justments of each part, only once in a hundred 
 thousand times would they come together, as they 
 now are, by chance. 
 
 Land animals began thus, according to Evolu- . 
 tion: In a time of drought some water animals, 
 stranded by the receding waters, were obliged 
 thenceforth to adopt land manners and methods 
 of living. Although, strangely, the whale by the 
 same cause was forced to the water, for it was 
 once a land animal, but in a season of drought 
 was obliged to seek the water’s edge for the scant 
 remaining herbage, and, finding the water agree- 
 able, remained there and its posterity also, and 
 finally, the teeth and legs no longer needed, be- 
 came decadent and abortive as we see them now. 
 Darwin inferred the history of the whale’s marine 
 career from seeing a bear swimming in a pool and 
 catching insects with its wide-open mouth as it 
 so skimmed the water’s surface. 
 
 The same drought produced another and won- 
 derful change, for it is to this that the giraffe | 
 owes his long legs and neck. The herbage on the 
 lower branches withering up, he was obliged to 
 
 3 33 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 stretch his neck and legs to reach the higher 
 branches. This increased, as all such changes in- 
 creased, in his posterity, and finally after many 
 generations produced the present immense reach- 
 ing powers of the giraffe. So that the same 
 drought deprived the whale of his legs and con- 
 ferred them upon the giraffe. 
 
 The mere recital of these speculations will be 
 enough for all who have not surrendered their 
 judgment to the keeping of others. It seems 
 scarcely necessary to assure readers unacquainted 
 with the theory, that this is not exaggeration or 
 caricature. We have simply abbreviated, and 
 rendered into untechnical language, the accounts 
 of evolutionary writers given in all seriousness 
 and with high-sounding scientific terms. Any 
 such work will give many specimens of similar ac- 
 counts. Reply seems unnecessary, yet must be 
 made. 
 
 1. All this is pure speculation. Not a single 
 such change is known, or has been observed. 
 
 2. All is based on Natural Selection, which 
 evolutionists have themselves discarded; yet for 
 want of any other theory they are constantly 
 obliged to fall back upon it. 
 
 3. Such acquired traits are not transmitted, as 
 Prof. Thomson of Edinborough, tells us. Only 
 characteristics inherited, or congenital in the fer- 
 
 34 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 tilized egg cell, are so transmitted. (Outlines of 
 Zoology, p. 66.) The “sports” such as the white 
 robins and crows occasionally seen, disappear as 
 individuals and do not propagate as distinct types. 
 
 Let us pause here to contemplate the spectacle 
 of a theory, which its own advocates admit is un- 
 proven, and which has been opposed by some of 
 the greatest minds, a theory which has not a 
 single direct fact of evidence, and has no way of 
 accounting for the changes which it declares have 
 taken place; such a theory accepted as the basis 
 of every science, the foundation of a universal , 
 philosophy, taught in educational institutions to | 
 youth as if demonstrated, demanding immediate | 
 and universal submission, undertaking to revise | 
 Scripture, to revolutionize theology, and to pre-_ 
 scribe what we must do to be saved and to save | 
 others! Surely it is safe to hesitate before such | 
 demands. 
 
 We will not discount the great service done 
 humanity in the patient research in the realms of 
 nature by laborious students. All this should be 
 given weight. We also admit the value of a 
 theory as a means to the ascertaining of truth. 
 But we cannot consent that the vast interests af- 
 fected by Evolution shall be decided by “the bal- 
 ancings of probabilities,’ or the mooted value of 
 a theory. This is no place for theories, which 
 
 35 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 must be held tentatively, if at all. This is a mat- 
 ter which affects the belief and lives and hopes of 
 millions, their welfare here and hereafter. Re- 
 ligion is too sacred to be made a shuttlecock tossed 
 about in the arena of intellectual amusement. 
 
 Sir J. William Dawson said of some writers and 
 their theories: “To launch a clever and startling 
 fallacy, which will float a week and stir up a hard 
 fight, seems as great a triumph as the discovery 
 of an important fact or law; and the honest stu- 
 dent is distracted with the multitude of doctrines 
 and hustled aside by the crowd of ambitious 
 groundlings.” (Story of the Earth and Man, 
 313.) 
 
 Evolution has much to say for itself, but, as we 
 see, it is all of the nature of circumstantial evi- 
 dence. This seems to the non-scientific mind as 
 strange for anything called science, which we 
 have been accustomed to think means something 
 known or proven. We have been accustomed to 
 see cases thrown out of court when presenting no 
 evidence and to fare badly in general on mere 
 circumstantial evidence. However, as Evolution 
 is so persistent for a hearing, we must examine 
 what it has to advance for our consideration. Its 
 arguments are drawn from Geology, Classifica- 
 tion, Distribution of Plants and Animals, Mor- 
 phology and Embryology. 
 
 36 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM GEOLOGY. 
 
 The argument from this science is that the 
 fossils appear in the strata of the earth in advanc- 
 ing order, the simplest first, and more complex 
 afterwards. The assumption is that the higher 
 came from the lower, by a chain of infinitesimal 
 changes, through a long series of ages. Now the 
 facts are not as claimed. We will show this later. 
 But admitting that they are, the argument is 
 wanting. 
 
 1. All this is pure assumption. No such 
 changes are known in existing species to have 
 ever taken place, and the assumption that these 
 changes took place in geologic ages is wholly un- 
 warranted. If it cannot be predicated of the ani- 
 mals we see and know, how can it be asserted of 
 a period millenniums ago? 
 
 2. Mere succession is not evolution. The 
 coming in orderly succession is evidence of some 
 plan but not necessarily of evolution. An intel- 
 ligent Creator would work in the same way, es- 
 pecially if he had intelligent beings to instruct 
 thereby, at the time or afterwards. 
 
 3. Evolution in comparing the successive com- 
 ings of the rocky strata and the fossil creatures, 
 compares two kinds of things that cannot be made 
 analogous. Rocks are not produced by evolution, 
 
 37 
 
The Oftber Stde of Evolution 
 
 
 
 the higher growing out of the lower, as is claimed 
 of species. That certain species appeared with the 
 lower rocks and strata, and higher orders with 
 later rocks and strata only proves of one, as of 
 the other, an advancing order of production but 
 tells nothing of the cause of either. 
 
 4. We are supported in these doubts as to the 
 value of Evolution’s argument from Geology by 
 the fact, that many of the most eminent geologists 
 deny any proof of evolution in their chosen 
 science. 
 
 Sir Roderick Murchison said, “I know as much 
 
 of nature in her geologic ages as any living man, 
 and I fearlessly say that our geologic record does 
 not afford one syllable of evidence in support of 
 Darwin’s theory.” The great Swiss geologist, 
 Joachim Barrande states, “One cannot conceive 
 why in all rocks whatever and in all countries 
 upon the two continents, all relics of the inter- 
 vening types should have vanished. 
 The discordances are so numerous and pro- 
 nounced, that the composition of the real fauna 
 seems to have been calculated by design for con- 
 tradicting everything which the theories (of Evo- 
 lution) teach us respecting the first appearance 
 and primitive evolution of the forms of life upon 
 the earth.” (Quoted by Winchell, in Doctrine of 
 Evolution, p. 142.) 
 
 38 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 Prof. Conn, an evolutionist, admits the pres- 
 ence of many facts disclosed by geology which 
 oppose the theory of Evolution. He says, “In the 
 earliest records geology discloses, we find not a 
 few generalized types but well differentiated 
 forms, nearly all the sub-kingdoms as they now 
 exist, five-sixths of our orders, nearly an equal 
 proportion of sub-orders, a great many fami- 
 lies and some of our present species. All this is 
 a surprise and an unexplained problem.” Such 
 a result, he says, is not what Evolution would 
 lead us to expect. All the important classes of 
 animals made their appearance without warning. 
 (Evolution of To-day, pp. 6. 100, 103, 118.) 
 
 Haeckel writes, “We cannot shut our eyes to 
 the fact that various groups have from the time 
 of their first appearance, burst out into an ex- 
 uberant growth of modification of form, size and 
 members, with all possible, and one might almost 
 say, impossible shapes, and they have done this 
 within a comparatively short time, after which 
 they have died out not less rapidly. (Last Link, 
 p. 144.) 
 
 The testimony of geology, as adduced by 
 geologists and even by evolutionists, is that it 
 does not sustain the claims of Evolution. Species 
 existed in present form from the earliest times. 
 Geologic species came in suddenly and went out 
 
 39 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 suddenly. Some of the simplest remain un- 
 changed through all earth’s transformations to 
 the present time. (Dr. Robert Patterson, Errors 
 of Evolution, p. 221.) ‘The great fossil cemeteries 
 show that the living creatures fell in serried ranks, 
 overtaken by cataclysms, in every act of life. Le 
 Conte tries to explain this by saying that there 
 were “paroxysmal” eras, but what the paroxysms 
 were, or whence they came, he does not say. The 
 whole testimony is against Evolution and reverts © 
 to proof of the Bible story of Creation. Profes- 
 sor Adam Sedgwick says: “At succeeding epochs, 
 new tribes of beings were called into existence, 
 not merely as the progeny of those that had ap- 
 peared before them, but as new and living proofs 
 of creative interference.” 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIES. 
 
 This is one of the strong points of Evolution. 
 It is claimed that plants and animals can be so 
 classified in an ascending order that it is evident 
 the higher came out of the lower. We object as 
 follows: 
 
 1. There is no classification agreed upon by 
 scientists. This comes largely from want of 
 agreement as to what a species is. Scientists 
 
 40 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 differ widely and radically. Spencer presents a 
 review of all these schemes of classification and 
 ends by saying, “It is absurd to attempt a definite 
 scheme of relationship.” His own plan of the 
 scheme he says is the figure of a “laurel bush 
 squashed flat by a descending plane.” (Prin- 
 ciples of Biology, p. 389.) This agrees with his 
 statement as to the absurdity of such schemes. 
 Some arrange the whole in a continuous straight 
 line from the lowest up. 
 
 Darwin thought the whole came from half a 
 dozen germinal forms. Where these came from 
 he did not say. Dr. J. Clark Ridpath said, “The 
 eagle was always an eagle, the man always 
 man. Every species of living organism has I 
 believe come up by a like process from its own 
 primordial germ.” (Arena, June, 1879.) Haeckel 
 insists that the theory demands but a single 
 primeval germ as the ancestor of all living things. 
 He presented a tree, showing twenty or more 
 stages between primeval protoplasm and man, but 
 this has been now rejected by evolutionists. Prof. 
 D. Kerfoot Schults represents the classification as 
 follows: “If all the animals that have ever existed 
 on the earth be represented by a tree, those now 
 existing on the earth will be represented by the 
 topmost twigs and leaves, and the extinct forms 
 
 41 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 will be represented by the main trunk and 
 branches.” (First Book on Organic Evolution, 
 p. xiv.) 
 
 But the source of all, the primeval protoplasm, 
 is wanting. The missing primeval germ or germs 
 leaves the tree without a root, and Prof. Conn 
 tells that even the sub-kingdoms are not united 
 by fossils. Spencer admits that not a single 
 species has been traced to its source or its family 
 tree completed, and even the ancestors of our 
 living species are wanting. 
 
 Prof. Dana admitted as follows, “If ever the 
 links (upon which the doctrine of Evolution de- 
 pends) had an actual existence, their disappear- 
 ance without a trace left behind is altogether in- 
 explicable.” Here then is a tree without root or 
 trunk or branches, and having only the tips of 
 outer twigs and leaves, in other words, a phantom 
 tree, a fit representation of the theory for which 
 it stands. 
 
 The present orders of plants and animals give 
 a strong argument against Evolution. It has 
 been seen that Succession is not Evolution. ‘The 
 mere coming of animals in orderly succession 
 shows only plan, but the means of executing that 
 plan is not shown thereby. But further, while in 
 the geologic ages there was Succession, here in 
 our age is Simultaneousness of species, two very 
 
 42 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 different and contradictory phenomena. Why has 
 Succession ceased? Why have not the higher 
 orders pushed the lower out, as in the geologic 
 ages, if Evolution was the cause? Yet here they 
 all exist quietly together as if they knew nothing 
 of Evolution or its requirements. 
 
 Nor have any such changes occurred in thou- 
 sands of years, as the mummied remains of cats 
 and crocodiles and ibises in Egypt show. Surely 
 4,000 years would show some evolution if there 
 had been such a thing; but it is not seen in all 
 the 4,000 years, or even in the more distant period 
 since primeval man existed, for we have the re- 
 mains of animals found with man in his early 
 history. Out of 98 species, 57 are the same as 
 we have to-day unchanged, and still others, as 
 the lingula, the same as in ages past. Thus Evo- 
 lution’s trusted argument from Classification 
 utterly fails of demonstration. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS. 
 
 The distribution of plants and animals is an- 
 other favorite argument of this theory. Certain 
 animals are said to be found only in certain 
 regions, the hison only in North America, the 
 kangaroo only in Australia, the armadillo only in 
 Mexico. Evolution triumphantly asks, Were they 
 
 43 
 
The Otber Side of Bvolution 
 
 created only in these places? We now simply re- 
 mark that difficulties as to Creation do not prove 
 Evolution. Evolution says the ancestors of these 
 came from other parts ages ago and by long isola- 
 tion and environment became what they are. 
 
 Facts again are against the theory. Huxley 
 himself says that in the neighborhood of Oxford 
 are animal remains like those of Australia; that 
 Britain was once connected with the continent, 
 and so these animals passed over. The same is 
 true he says of the isolated fauna of New Zealand 
 and South America. (Address in Daily Post, 
 March 27, 1871.) 
 
 This argument might be used against Evolution 
 as well as the previous arguments. Two islands 
 in the Pacific, only fifteen miles apart, have the 
 animals of Asia in one and of Australia in the 
 other. One of the Bermudas has lizards like those 
 of Africa and another like those of America. In 
 fact it is evident that animals and plants have 
 scattered widely. 
 
 THE MORPHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 The comparative study of plants and animals 
 presents another argument for Evolution. It is 
 found, for example, that there is a similarity of 
 plan in the fin of the fish, the wing of the bird, 
 
 + 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 the flipper of the whale, the leg of the animal and 
 the arm of the man. So also in a measure with 
 all other corresponding parts. This Evolution 
 says, shows that all these animals are genetically 
 connected and all came from the same ancestors. 
 
 Huxley himself replies to this argument in » 
 
 these words, “No amount of purely morpholog- 
 ical evidence can suffice to prove that things came 
 into existence in one way rather than another.” 
 (Study of Zoology, p. 86.) Another great scien- 
 tist, Prof. Quatrefages, professor of anthro- 
 pology in the Museum of Natural Sciences, Paris, 
 writes on this as follows: “Without leaving 
 domain of facts, and only judging from what we 
 know, we can say, that morphology itself justifies 
 the conclusion that one species has never produced 
 another by derivation.” Prof. Conn admits, after 
 going through the whole subject with the latest 
 facts, that unless some further explanation can be 
 found, homology does not prove descent. (Evo- 
 lution of To-day, p. 76.) 
 
 This resemblance of parts is just what we 
 should expect in things originating from one in- 
 telligent operator, whether Creator or manufac- 
 turer. It is found in every factory. The wheel is 
 the same in the wheelbarrow, the cart, carriage 
 and locomotive. In fact, uniformity of plan 
 proves unity in the cause, and not the diversity 
 
 45 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 ¢ 
 
 of chance causes claimed by Evolution. If Evo- 
 lution were true, there would be as much di- 
 versity among organs as there is among the forms 
 of organs. If the operation of chance conditions 
 jhas resulted in radical changes in the forms of 
 organs, why then is there not this similar diversity 
 among the organs themselves? Evolution has no 
 reply. Creation has such reply; God is one and 
 his plan one. Why should not the forms of all 
 these things be alike, seeing they are to live in the 
 same climates, eat the same food and propagate 
 in the same manner ? 
 
 The rudimentary, abortive and discarded parts 
 found in some animals form one of the strongest 
 arguments Evolution advances. The favorite in- 
 stance it presents is found in the horse. The 
 horse walks on one toe and has splints further up 
 the leg, which they tell us are the remains of the 
 other toes, and the callosities on the leg are the 
 remains of thumbs. The remains have been found 
 of an animal as large as a dog which resembles 
 the horse and has two toes, and another older 
 animal, as large as a fox, which has four toes. 
 Putting these side by side, Evolution calls them all 
 horses, and says the one-toed animal came from 
 the two-toed, and he from the four-toed, and that 
 this proves the evolution of the horse from the 
 Kohippus (Old Horse) as it is called. 
 
 46 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. Bearing in mind that this conclusion is pure 
 assumption, and only inference at best, let us re- 
 mark that it violates the primal law of evolution 
 laid down by Spencer, that of evolution from the 
 simple to the complex. It should have shown 
 first the one-toed horse, then his development 
 into a two-toed animal, and so on up to a horse 
 having five toes. This would be evolution. As it 
 is, we see the opposite of evolution, degradation, 
 which often occurs in nature, and we see few if 
 any instances of any subsequent restoration to 
 primal conditions, 
 
 2. Besides all this, that most necessary thing to 
 a good horse, a pedigree, is wanting. The con- 
 necting links are all missing in his ancestral tree. ° 
 For the ancestors of that first of horses are un- | 
 known. But he is not alone in this, for even his 
 owner has the same sad want of proven descent, 
 as we will see later. Just how the horse lost his 
 appendages, and why he dropped toe after toe 
 in this extraordinary manner the story leaves un- 
 told. 
 
 3. But another great objection exists. It takes 
 time to breed horses. It required all of the Terti- 
 ary period to produce the one-toed animal from 
 the four-toed ancestor and much longer time 
 was required to develop him from a totally dif- 
 ferent animal, where more than a mere question 
 
 47 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 of toes comes in. For we have to face the diffi- 
 culty, and the time necessary, to develop a good 
 horse, say from an alligator, and the still greater 
 task of producing him from an animal without 
 toes at all, or even legs, or anything to hang legs 
 on, and simply a bag of jelly-like substance, which 
 the evolutionist assures us was the ancestor of all 
 horses and their riders. If it appears to the reader 
 that life is too short for such business we can say 
 the geologist agrees with him, for he tells us the 
 age of the old earth itself was not one tenth long 
 enough to produce Evolution’s horses, and still 
 less their riders. 
 
 Another instance of Evolution’s proofs is the 
 swim-bladder of fishes. This Evolution some- 
 times states is an incipient lung, and that the fish 
 learned in a drought to breathe air. Sometimes, 
 as the need of the theory demands, the swim-blad- 
 der is claimed as the relic of a discarded lung. 
 These however are two different and opposing 
 claims. Either as a prophecy or a relic the swim- 
 bladder is fatal to the claims of Evolution. If it 
 is an incipient lung, then here is intention, which 
 Evolution rejects. Ifa relic, here is retrogression, 
 the opposite of evolution. The abortive organ is 
 one of the difficulties of the theory which Darwin 
 admitted, and Prof. Conn tells us, is not yet 
 answered. Prof. Huxley said, “Either these rudi- 
 
 48 
 
Tbe Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 ments are of no use to the animal, in which case 
 they ought to have disappeared, or they are of 
 some use to the animal, in which case they are 
 arguments for teleology.” (Darwinism, p. 151.) 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM EMBRYOLOGY. 
 
 Evolution derives its greatest argument from 
 the study of the embryo. It makes three claims. 
 First, that the germ of everything, plant and ani- 
 mal, is the same, neither chemical analysis nor the 
 microscope showing any difference. If therefore, 
 such vast variety could come from origins so 
 alike, why could not all we see come from a simi- 
 lar origin, the primitive animal, which was also 
 such a simple cell? Second, in the growth of the 
 
 | 
 i 
 i 
 j 
 
 embryo it recapitulates the ancestral history of | 
 
 that particular organism. ‘Third, all this when 
 
 compared with the geologic record, and the pres- . 
 
 ent orders of living things as classified, presents 
 the full succession of the forms of life, the one 
 supplying what the other lacks. 
 
 These claims must be examined separately. 
 
 1. The claim that the germs of all living things 
 are alike is not true. ‘The resemblance is only 
 superficial. Protoplasm, of which the germ is 
 composed, differs and is not homogeneous ma- 
 terial. That which builds the muscles is one kind, 
 
 ‘ 49 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 and that which builds brain and nerves is entirely 
 different. Prof. Clodd tells us it is not a 
 chemical compound but a mechanism. Nor could 
 the germs be alike. For the plant breathes car- 
 bon, the animal oxygen. The one oxidizes, the 
 other deoxidizes. There are still greater and 
 deeper differences. 
 
 Tyndall says, “Under the most homogeneous 
 material, there lie structural energies of such com- 
 plexity, that we must question whether we have 
 the mental elements with which to grapple with 
 them. . . . The most trained and disciplined 
 imagination retires in bewilderment from the 
 problem. In that realm, inaccessible to every- 
 thing but mind, the wonders of Creation are 
 wrought out. . . . Here is determined the 
 germ and afterwards the complete organization.” 
 (Fragments of Science, p. 153.) So that these 
 cells or germs, which appear so alike, contain each 
 in itself the entire plan and life of the coming 
 creature, to the color of a feather, the trick of a 
 hunting dog and the smile and dimples of a child. 
 
 2. The second claim that the course of each 
 embryo traverses its ancestral history, is not 
 nearly so vociferously made as some years ago. 
 
 | Prof. A. Agassiz writes, “Anything beyond a gen- 
 }eral parallelism is hopeless.” Prof. Conn admits 
 “Embryology alone is not a safe guide, and only 
 
 50 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 when verified by the fossils can it be relied upon. 
 It seldom gives a true history. . . . The 
 parallel is largely a delusion. . . . It often 
 gives a false history.” (Evolution of To-day, pp. 
 125, 134, 137, 150.) Prof. Thomson writes, ‘“Re- 
 capitulation is due to no dead hands of the past, 
 but to physiological conditions which we are un- 
 able to discover.” (Outline of Zoology, p. 63.). 
 
 He also says that the young mammal was never 
 like a worm, a fish, or reptile. It was at the most | 
 
 like the young of these in their various stages. So 
 far from the course of all being alike, Baer says | 
 
 he can tell the difference between the embryo of. 
 
 the common fowl and duck on the second day. 
 (Principles of Biology, p. 1.) So far as this claim 
 holds good, it forms an argument against evolu- 
 tion. For here is a goal or ideal to which all 
 things strive. This is intention, and plan and 
 purpose, all of which is opposed to the main idea 
 of Evolution. It is in line with Creation. 
 
 3. The culminating argument for Evolution is 
 given by arranging in ascending classification the 
 geologic orders of life (which we have seen do 
 not appear as Evolution demands), and placing 
 alongside of these the classification of present 
 animals (which we have seen is not agreed upon, 
 and is as diverse as the writers themselves), and 
 then laying alongside of these two artifical ar- 
 
 51 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 rangements, the embryonic recital (which is now 
 doubted and is often false to the past history), 
 and triumphantly pointing to the three-fold com- 
 bination. The gaps geology shows are thus filled 
 by present forms and what both lack, by the em- 
 bryonic recital. 
 
 Here are compared three things which radically 
 differ. The geologic record shows progress from 
 lower to higher, although not that complete nor 
 unvarying record necessary to the theory, 
 while the present orders of life exist simultane- 
 ously. Both show the existence of separate things 
 having no individual connection. The embryo is 
 a single individual, designed from its conception 
 on a predetermined plan, animated by internal 
 forces, and limited to a certain end and life. It 
 is as Dawson says, a “closed series.” The worlds 
 of living and fossil creatures consist of myriads 
 of individuals, under many widely different con- 
 ditions, and aimed at widely different ends and 
 lives. The two are contradictory for the uses of 
 Evolution. 
 
 What we do see in these three facts are three 
 marks of personal intelligence. In embryonic 
 growth we see the plan of production. In the 
 coming of the fossil creatures we see the progress 
 of the plan in historical appearance. In the pres- 
 ent display of nature we see the ultimate purpose 
 
 52 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 of the whole. It all forms one great consistent 
 plan and bears all the marks of personal and 
 creative work. 
 
 So that summing up the argument from com- 
 parison of the three facts, the geologic order, the 
 present classification, and the embryonic growth, 
 we find in the first absolute separation of species, 
 in the second no genetic connection as already 
 shown under that argument, and in the third dif- 
 ferent phenomena having no points in common 
 with the other two. The whole argument then 
 fails of conclusion and reverts as the former do, 
 to proof against Evolution. 
 
 FACTS OPPOSING EVOLUTION OF SPECIES. 
 
 A theory to be proven must meet the facts and 
 account for them. ‘The theory in question fails 
 lamentably in this. There are countless facts not 
 only unaccounted for but diametrically opposed 
 to it and antagonizing it. We cite some of these: 
 1. Degeneration in nature. Nature shows a con- 
 stant tendency downward. Prof. E. D. Cope, an 
 eminent evolutionist, writes: “The retrogradation 
 in nature is as well or nearly as well established 
 as evolution.” The wild varieties of plants and 
 animals are far inferior to the cultivated kinds. 
 The older species are far superior to the present. 
 
 53 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 The saber-toothed tiger is far superior to the 
 present animal. So also is the Mammoth as com- 
 pared with the elephant. Plants show degenera- 
 tion in colors. The order of superiority is from 
 yellow, the lowest, to white, pink, red, purple and 
 blue, the highest. When they drop from blue to 
 yellow, it is degeneration. Some now having 
 green flowers once had colored blossoms. Prog- 
 ress is not seen to be upward in the flowers. So 
 also parasitism is degeneration both in plants and 
 animals. ‘The course of nature is not, as it has 
 not been, constant development upward. ‘The 
 scripture statement “The whole creation groan- 
 eth and travaileth in pain,” describes accurately 
 the condition of nature (Ro. 8:22.) 
 
 2. Continued unchanged species for ages. The 
 crustacea, for example in Lake Tanganyika, 
 Africa, remain as the receding ocean left them 
 ages ago. 
 
 3. Species instead of increasing in number have 
 decreased. ‘There were 500 species of trilobites. 
 They have all disappeared. There were goo spe- 
 cies of ammonites; all are gone. Of the 450 spe- 
 cies of nautilus, only three remain. Indeed whole 
 families have become obliterated. All this is an- 
 tagonistic to Evolution. 
 
 4. Species continue the same under the most 
 diverse environments. Environment is claimed 
 
 54 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 as a cause of the changes demanded by Evolution. 
 But the same species exist in the most diverse 
 regions, e. g., mosquitoes, whales and oaks. 
 
 5. Adaptation of one species to another. Dar- 
 win says that a single case of the adaptation of 
 one species to another would be fatal to his the- 
 ory. Yet he himself gives the data for hundreds 
 of such adaptations. He adduces the fact that a 
 hundred head of red clover produced 2,700 seeds. 
 A similar number protected from insects pro- 
 duced none. The fertilization of plants by in- 
 sects is well known. The Smyrna fig is said to 
 owe its value to its fertilization by the piercing of 
 an insect. Some of these insects have been in- 
 troduced into California for that purpose. There 
 is an orchid which can be fertilized only by an 
 insect falling into a cup of liquid which the flower 
 has, and escaping through a side opening in which 
 it touches the pollen. 
 
 Dr. Andrew Wilson writes: The colors of 
 flowers—nay, even the little splashes of a hue or 
 tint seen on a petal—are intended to attract in- 
 sects that they may carry off the fertilizing dust, 
 or pollen, to other flowers. It is to this end also 
 that your flowers are many of them sweet-scented. 
 The perfume is another kind of invitation to the 
 insect world. The honey they secrete forms a 
 third attraction—the most practical of all. 
 
 55 
 
The Other Side of Lvrolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 6. Complex adjustments of nature. “Evolu- 
 tion in vain attempts to account for the wonderful 
 complex adjustments we see in nature, such as 
 the mimicry of animals and plants; the walking 
 stick so closely resembles a twig that it deceives 
 the closest observer. The withered leaf butterfly, 
 with spots and wrinkles, is exactly like the thing 
 it imitates. This is true also of the leaf butterfly 
 and of another which exactly resembles a bird’s 
 dropping. Evolution cannot account for the ven- 
 triloquism of insects, such as the cricket and tree 
 toad ; the battery of the electric eel; the beauty of 
 insects and fish and shells and birds and flowers, 
 especially the harmony of their colors. Edible in- 
 sects are plainly colored, the poisonous kinds 
 highly colored. Some butterflies have “scare- 
 heads” on their wings, exactly resembling an 
 owl’s head, and other insects have similar fright- 
 ful appearances which they thrust out when at- 
 tacked. All this tells of design and interest and 
 often has the appearance of humor in the crea- 
 tion of these numerous creatures. 
 
 7. The mathematical adjustments of nature are 
 as exact as the multiplication table. Illustrations 
 of this are the accuracy of the orbits of the heav- 
 enly bodies and the law of gravitation. The 
 growth of the cell proceeds on geometrical pro- 
 gression in the division of parts into 2, 4, 8, 16, 
 
 56 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 etc. The climbing plants form their coils with 
 mathematical accuracy and proportion. ‘The pro- 
 portions in which chemicals will mix is mathe- 
 matically fixed. 
 
 Prof. Tyndall thus calls our attention to crys- 
 tallization: ‘By permitting alum to crystallize in 
 this slow way we obtain these perfect octahedrons ; 
 by allowing carbonate of lime to crystallize, nature 
 produces these beautiful rhomboids; when silica 
 crystallizes we have formed the hexagonal prisms 
 capped at the end by pyramids; by allowing salt- 
 peter to crystallize, we have these prismatic 
 masses, and when carbon crystallizes we have the 
 diamond.” (Fragments of Science, p. 357.) 
 “Looking at it mentally we see the molecules. 
 [of sulphate of soda] like disciplined squadrons 
 under a governing eye, arranging themselves into 
 battalions, gathering around distinct centers and 
 forming themselves into distinct solid masses, 
 which after a time assume the visible shape of the 
 crystal now held in my hand. Here then is an 
 architect at work, who makes no chips nor din, 
 and who is now building the particles into crys- 
 tals similar in shape to these beautiful masses we 
 see upon the table.” (Belfast Address.) 
 
 8. The structure of living things shows the 
 true principles of architecture. A Mr. McLaugh- 
 lin, a noted Scotch mathematician, tried by mathe- 
 
 ae 
 
The Otber Stde of Evolution. 
 
 
 
 matical calculation to ascertain the shape of a 
 building which would contain the most room with 
 least material and yet embody the greatest archi- 
 tectural strength in its retaining walls. After 
 many laborious calculations, he found after he 
 had arrived at a conclusion that the honey bee 
 had long before given the same plan of structure 
 in its cell. The human skull is a true dome, and 
 the spinal column a true pillar. The ribs of the 
 ship are copied from the fish, the yacht from the 
 duck, and its deep fin from the fish.* 
 
 Evolution pretends to account for every one 
 of these facts by chance changes, extending 
 through countless ages as has already been shown 
 in its amazing account of the origin of legs, eyes, 
 backbones and other members. Surely this is an 
 appeal to credulity! The faith of the Christian 
 is sometimes taxed but what shall we say of the 
 faith of the evolutionist? Which is more cred- 
 ible, the simple account of miraculous creation or 
 this long, involved and absolutely unseen and un- 
 known process ? 
 
 9. The age of the earth. Prof. George Fred- 
 erick Wright, the geologist, tells us that geologic 
 time is not one-hundredth part as long as it was 
 supposed to be fifty years ago, and the popular 
 writers who glibly talk of the antiquity of man 
 
 *See “Number in Nature,” Hastings, Boston, for further 
 illustrations of this. 
 58 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 are behind the times and ignorant of the new light 
 which as a flood has come from geology.* 
 
 Summing up the case, Prof. Francis M. Bal- 
 four tells us: “All these facts that fall under our 
 observation contradict the crude ideas of those so- — 
 called naturalists, who state that one species can 
 be transmitted into another in the course of gen- 
 erations.” So also Sir David Brewster declares: 
 “We have absolute proof of the immutability of 
 species, whether we search for it in historic or 
 geologic times.” 
 
 Dr. Etheridge, the famous English authority on 
 fossils, says: ‘“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolu- 
 tionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on ob- 
 servation and wholly unsupported by fact. Men 
 adopt a theory and then strain their facts to sup- 
 port it. I read all their books, but they make no 
 impression on my belief in the stability of species. 
 Some men are ready to regard you as a fool if 
 you do not go with them in all their vagaries, but 
 this museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity 
 of their views.” 
 
 * See Man in the Glacial Period, by Prof, Geo. Frederick Wright. 
 
 59 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE EVOLUTION OF MAN. 
 
 The central point in the whole theory is the 
 descent of man from the brute. It is this which, 
 as stated, gives it importance to the Christian. 
 But for this, the hypothesis would be but a curi- 
 ous scientific theory. It is a matter of compara- 
 tively minor interest how the universe or the 
 various species came. It is only because these 
 theories are used to assert the animal origin of 
 man that they are dealt with here. 
 
 It is in this claim as to the origin of man that 
 all the various theories of Evolution agree, how- 
 ever they may vary in other matters, and, as this 
 is the vital point, these theories are considered 
 as one in this discussion. This is a question mere- 
 ly of fact. Did or did not man descend from the 
 brute or was he specially and divinely created? 
 This is the question in a nut-shell. The two ac- 
 counts are as follows placed side by side. Dar- 
 win’s account is accepted substantially by all evo- 
 lutionists. 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 THE BIBLE ACCOUNT. 
 
 (Gen..1:26, 273-113 7 vs 152.) 
 
 “And God said, Let us 
 make man in our image, 
 after our likeness.... And 
 God created man in his 
 own image, in the image of 
 God created he him; male 
 and female created he 
 them. ...And the Lord 
 God formed man of the 
 dust of the ground and 
 breathed into his nostrils 
 the breath of life and man 
 became a living soul.... 
 In the day that God cre- 
 ated man, in the likeness of 
 God made he him: 
 male and female created 
 he them; and blessed them 
 and called their name 
 Adam 
 
 61 
 
 EVOLUTION’S ACCOUNT. 
 
 (From Darwin’s Descent of 
 Man, ii, 372.) 
 
 “Man is descended from 
 a hairy quadruped, fur- 
 nished with a tail and point- 
 ed ears, probably arborial 
 in its habits and an inhab- 
 itant of the Old World. 
 This creature, if its whole 
 structure had been exam- 
 ined by a naturalist, would 
 have been classed among 
 the Quadrumana, as surely 
 as would the common and 
 still more ancient progen- 
 itor of the Old and New 
 World monkeys. The 
 Quadrumana and all the 
 higher mammals are prob- 
 ably derived from an 
 ancient marsupial animal, 
 
 and this through a long 
 line of diversified forms, 
 either from some reptile- 
 like, or some amphibian- 
 like creature, and _ this 
 again from some fish-like 
 animal. In the dim obscu- 
 rity of the past, we can see 
 that the early progenitor 
 of the Vertebrata must 
 have been an aquatic 
 animal, provided with 
 branchia, with the two 
 sexes united in the same 
 individual,” 
 
acetal 
 
 The Otber Side of Lvolution 
 
 
 
 ~ The Bible account is circumstantial, with men- 
 
 ‘tion of places and rivers of undoubted historical 
 
 character. It is accepted by subsequent Scripture 
 writers and made the basis of their historical and 
 spiritual teachings. The evolutionary account is 
 lacking in all of this. There are no exact data 
 nor any attempt to give any. No description save 
 an imaginary one is ever given. As no one was 
 there to see, the whole is fanciful. 
 
 The two accounts are utterly irreconcilable. 
 
 Whatever the Scripture account means it does not 
 
 mean Evolution, and literary justice demands that 
 we do not impose upon a writer a meaning he 
 did not intend or give. 
 
 Prof. Pfliederer writes, “There is only one 
 choice. When we say Evolution we definitely 
 deny Creation. When we say Creation we defi- 
 nitely deny Evolution.” Prof. James Sully says, 
 “The doctrine of Evolution is directly antagonis- 
 tic to that of Creation.” (Bible Student, July, 
 1901, quoted by Prof Warfield.) 
 ~ How anyone can accept both accounts passes 
 all understanding. The late Dr. John Henry Bar- 
 rows, president of Oberlin University, tells of 
 meeting a Hindu boy in his visit to India, who * 
 had attended the mission schools and learned 
 there the shape and situation of the earth. He 
 had of course previously been taught the Hindu 
 
 62 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 cosmogony that the earth was surrounded by salt 
 water and that by a circle of earth and that by 
 successive circles of buttermilk, sweet cane juice, 
 and other “soft drinks” with intervening circles 
 of land. Dr. Barrows asked the boy which be- 
 lief he would hereafter hold. He replied that he 
 would believe both. This might be possible to 
 the Hindu boy, but it surpasses all previous intel- 
 lectual feats that any intelligent person can ac- 
 cept both the Bible account and Darwin’s account 
 of the creation of man. 
 
 We will review the arguments for and against 
 the evolutionary account of the origin of man 
 from the following spheres and subjects: 
 
 1. The Argument from the Evolution of Spe- 
 cies. 2. From Similarity of Structure in Ani- 
 mals and Man. 3. Rudimentary Organs in Man. 
 4. Human Characteristics in Animals. 5. His- 
 tory of the Evolution of Man from the Brute. 
 6. The “Missing Link.” 7. The Brain. 8. Man’s 
 Mind and Consciousness. 9. Language. Io. 
 Pre-historic Man. 11. Antiquity of Man. 12. 
 Savage Races. 13. History of Mankind. 14. Re- 
 ligion. 15. Ethics. 16. Christian Experience. 
 17. Christ. 
 
 63 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 I, ARGUMENT FROM THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 
 
 On this argument rests the theory of man’s ani- 
 mal origin. But for the desire to prove that such 
 is man’s origin, the argument would never have 
 been conceived. We introduce it here again to 
 call special attention to this fact. We have seen 
 that there is decided difference of opinion on this 
 theory; that many object to it; that there is not 
 a single case of such origin of species known; 
 that there is no law or force or cause agreed upon 
 or known by which such origin of species could 
 take place; that there are countless objections and 
 facts against it; that its arguments are confessed- 
 ly insufficient ; and they are at best but inferences 
 and only “the balancing of probabilities.” 
 
 If therefore the proofs of the Origin of Spe- 
 cies are wanting the whole theory of Evolution 
 falls in ruins to the ground. There would seem 
 no need to proceed further. Yet Evolution lightly 
 steps over the ruins of its previous claims and 
 proceeds to further assertions. Some of the great- 
 est of the exact scientists stop here. Prof. Dana, 
 the great geologist, says: ‘Man’s origin has thus 
 far no sufficient explanation from science. ‘The 
 abruptness ot transition frorn preceding forms is 
 most extraordinary and especially because it oc- 
 
 64 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 curs so near the present time.” (Elements of 
 Geology.) 
 
 Prof. Virchow, the most eminent pathologist 
 of Europe, wrote as follows: “There always ex- 
 ists a sharp line of demarcation between man and 
 the ape. We cannot pronounce it proved by 
 science that man descends from the ape, or from 
 any other animal. Whoever calls to mind the 
 lamentable failure of all attempts made very re- 
 cently to discover a decided support for the ‘gen- 
 eratio aequivoc’ in the lower forms of transition 
 from the inorganic to the organic world will feel 
 it doubly serious to demand that this theory, so 
 utterly discredited, should be in any form ac- 
 cepted as the basis of our views of life.” 
 
 Many more such expressions might be quoted 
 from eminent scientists to the same effect. But 
 as we will use these under the respective heads of 
 the foregoing order of argument, we pass on here 
 to the arguments as stated. 
 
 2. SIMILARITY OF STRUCTURE IN ANIMALS AND 
 MAN. 
 
 It is well known that the internal and external 
 form of man is like that of the lower animals. 
 This, Evolution claims, is an argument for 
 
 § 
 
 65 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 genetic connection. The same argument would 
 prove that a locomotive was born from a stage 
 coach, and that from a cart, and that from a 
 wheelbarrow. Similarity of structure proves only 
 uniformity of design. An intelligent maker of 
 any nature would so operate, and man himself so 
 manufactures now. Why should not God make 
 man on the model of the lower animals, seeing 
 he is to live in the same world, under the same 
 conditions, eat the same food and propagate in 
 the same way? There is no reason for departure 
 from a form which has proved useful and appro- 
 priate. All the parts in the human form have 
 been thus tested in the lower forms and found 
 right for their purpose and are now, as we would 
 expect, applied to man. Man is the climax of all. 
 All is for his use in the lower worlds of plants 
 and animals; then why not use their frame and 
 inner organs also? The mechanic uses the same 
 appliance such as the wheel in his most complex 
 construction as well as in the simplest engine. 
 But there are parts in the human frame not 
 found in the lower orders. Wallace, one of the 
 greatest evolutionists, says the soft human skin 
 cannot be accounted for by natural causes, nor 
 the valves in the human veins which are in differ- 
 ent position from those of the brute, nor the hu- 
 man foot nor larynx, nor the human voice, espe- 
 
 66 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 cially the female voice, nor the absence of hair on 
 the body, nor why man is short armed and long 
 legged, while his ape-man ancestor is the reverse. 
 Many more such problems vex the evolutionist. 
 Creation accounts for all this, and does so by one 
 simple, sweeping argument in place of Evolu- 
 tion’s complex and bewildering maze of specula- 
 tions. 
 
 Ruskin teaches us in this extract that God 
 works by law and does not deviate therefrom 
 even where it seems to us that He might have 
 wrought differently: ‘But God shows us in Him- 
 self, strange as it may seem, not only authorita- 
 tive perfection, but even the perfection of obedi- 
 ence, an obedience to his own laws; and in the 
 cumbrous movement of those unwieldiest of His 
 creatures, we are reminded, even in His divine es- 
 sence, of that attribute of uprightness in the hu- 
 man creature, ‘that sweareth not to his own hurt 
 and changeth not.’” (Seven Lamps of Architec- 
 ture, II., p. 78.) 
 
 3. RUDIMENTARY ORGANS IN MAN, 
 
 Evolution points to certain features in man 
 which it claims came from his brute ancestry, such 
 as the long hairs in the eyebrow, which they say 
 came from the ape-man, the tips of the ear, and 
 
 67 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 the hair on the forearm, which slants from the 
 hand to the elbow. The whole outside ear is also 
 claimed as a relic from that brute and is unneces- 
 sary for hearing. So also of the five toes when 
 a solid foot would have been better, although most 
 of us think not. They also point to some evidences 
 of a tail which they say was rubbed off when the 
 ape-man learned to sit down. ‘This, however, 
 many apes do now with no signs of decreasing 
 tails. Many internal members and organs are 
 pointed to, which are too numerous here to men- 
 tion. One instance is as good as the whole cata- 
 logue, and one reply also. 
 
 All this proves too much for the theory. Here 
 is the loss of useful organs and the survival of 
 others not needed. This is not evolution, at least 
 not the kind we have been asked to build our 
 hopes upon for progress. Further, these so-called 
 “relics of the brute” are counted as having no use 
 save to support Evolution. The “gill-slits’” in 
 the neck of the human embryo are the favorite 
 instance of this kind of fact. Haeckel and, after 
 him others, picture the forms of fish, dog and 
 man in embryonic state, and say in triumph, There 
 is proof of the descent of the man from the dog 
 and of him from the fish; and this resemblance 
 has survived to tell the tale, there being no other 
 use for it. But this is not the only feature that 
 
 68 
 
The Oftber Stde of Evolution 
 
 “survives.” Heads and mouths and eyes also 
 “survive.” Why are these not pointed to as 
 proofs of descent? Because we can see use for 
 them, while there appears to be no use for the 
 “gill-slits” except to prove Evolution. If we could 
 see some use in the “gill-slits” in the neck of the 
 embryo, the argument of Evolution would fall to 
 the ground. Evolution’s argument from the gill- 
 slits and all other “relics of the brute” rests there- 
 fore on ignorance, a very unsafe foundation for 
 a scientific theory, for knowledge is constantly in- 
 creasing, especially of the human frame, and there 
 is not the slightest doubt, reasoning from analogy 
 and past experience, that there is use for these 
 peculiar embryonic features. 
 
 We repeat the argument of Huxley as to these 
 rudimentary parts: “Either these rudiments are 
 of no use, in which case they should have disap- 
 peared ; or they are of use, in which case they are 
 arguments for teleology.” (Darwinism and De- 
 sign, p. 151.) 
 
 Evidences of this nature are of that kind called 
 circumstantial, and in law are least relied upon, 
 for on such evidence some innocent men have 
 been hung. Shall we condemn the whole race to 
 a bestial origin on the same evidence? All argu- 
 ments founded on such facts are weak, puerile 
 and unworthy of scientists. No wonder that Prof, 
 
 69 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 Paulsen said Haeckel’s speculations are “a dis- 
 grace to the philosophy of Germany.” Shall we 
 suspend a philosophy of the universe upon a few 
 
 long hairs? Shall we allow the guess as to the 
 origin of the tip of the outer ear to revolutionize 
 theology? Shall we risk our eternal destiny on 
 the supposed uselessness of the so-called “gill- 
 slits’ in premature puppies? Yet this is the 
 demand of Evolution reduced to plain English. 
 
 4. HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS IN ANIMALS. 
 
 The human characteristics found in animals 
 form an argument for Evolution. We find the ani- 
 mals have memory, love, hatred, jealousy; that 
 they can think and plan, use means and weapons, 
 admire things of beauty, and some have sports. 
 All of this, so Evolution claims, points to genetic 
 connection with man. But all this only shows uni- 
 formity in the inner as in the outer being. There 
 is as much reason for the one as for the other. 
 Life is the same wherever we find it. The forces 
 which operate in the rain drop are the same as in 
 the universe of boundless space. The intellectual 
 nature of man is the same as that of angels who 
 have no genetic connection with us. Even devils 
 are the same in the intellectual nature as God 
 himself. Mind is the same thing wherever it ex- 
 
 70 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 ists. To say therefore that because animals have 
 certain characteristics like those of man, they are 
 the ancestors of man, is a leap to a conclusion en- 
 tirely unwarranted by either facts or logic. Yet 
 it is on such conclusions that Evolution rests. 
 Creation would proceed on the same comprehen- 
 sive plan, and we have seen that man does also. 
 He applies his forces as he does his materials to 
 the most varied uses. 
 
 Nor has any instance of the development of a 
 brute or his faculties to any approach to man’s 
 faculties ever been known. The highest animal is 
 still immeasurably below the lowest and most 
 bestial man, not only in the grade of the faculties 
 that they have in common, but in others which 
 the animal does not possess and cannot acquire. 
 There is a great gulf fixed which they do not pass 
 over—as our next section will show. 
 
 5. HISTORY FROM THE BRUTE TO THE MAN. 
 
 Many have essayed the relation of the story 
 of the change from the brute to the man. In 
 doing so, some have covered themselves with 
 ridicule, yet the attempts continue to be made 
 as do others to produce perpetual motion. 
 To bridge this chasm is necessary in order to 
 sustain Evolution, for this is the heart of the 
 
 71 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 question. It is said that a famous professor of 
 history abandoned his chair because of the uncer- 
 tainty of the facts of history. One would expect 
 that the attempt to relate what happened before 
 man had any history, or even existed, would be 
 even more hazardous. Yet we are given the ac- 
 count with such assurance as sometimes to de- 
 ceive the very elect—who abandon their Bibles. 
 Haeckel’s attempt was the most impressive, and 
 swept all before it, for a year or two. He pre- 
 sented a many-branched tree, whose roots were 
 protoplasm, its trunk protozoa, its successive 
 branches sponges, fish, reptiles, birds, marsupials, 
 monkeys, apes, man-apes, and the topmost 
 branches, man. Of the twenty-one stages, half 
 have been proved to be “wrong” by evolutionists 
 and the rest are “doubtful.” 
 
 The home of the primeval man, or ascending- 
 ape, whichever it or he was, is one of the difficult 
 facts to settle. Haeckel locates it at the bottom 
 of the Indian ocean. He can thus defy disproof. 
 Another says it was in the tropics somewhere. 
 This is also a safe assertion. The difficulty is that 
 the remains of the pre-historic man are found in 
 the northern regions, while the ancestor animal 
 was a denizen of the tropics. So another declares 
 that the originai home was in the northern re- 
 gions, to which a pair of wild animals of the an- 
 
 72 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 cestor kind were driven by something or some- 
 body, and their retreat cut off, and so they were 
 forced to the life in caves and adopted the habits 
 we find among cave dwellers. 
 
 But although our ancestor cannot be located 
 we are told just who and what he was. Thus 
 Prof. Edward Clodd, an authoritative evolution- 
 ist, tells us in his book, ‘““The Making of a Man,” 
 as follows: “Whichever among the arboreal 
 creatures possessed any favorable variation, how- 
 ever slight, of brain or sense organ, would secure 
 an advantage over less favored rivals in the strug- 
 gle for food and mates and elbow room. ‘The 
 qualities which gave them success would be trans- 
 mitted to their offspring. The distance in one 
 generation would be increased in the next; brain 
 power conquering brute force and skill outwitting 
 strength. While some for awhile remained ar- 
 boreal in their habits, never moving easily on the 
 ground, although making some approach to up- 
 right motion, as seen in the shambling gait of the 
 manlike apes, others developed a way of walking 
 on their hind legs, which entirely set free the fore 
 limbs as organs of handling and throwing. What- 
 ever were the conditions which permitted this, the 
 advantage which it gives is obvious. It was the 
 making of a man.” (p. 126.) 
 
 It seems difficult, indeed unfair, to take this 
 
 73 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 seriously. We must assure the reader that 
 the author of this description shows no in- 
 tention of humor either here or elsewhere in his 
 work, or indeed any consciousness of it. All is 
 given in perfect sobriety. We must therefore 
 accept it as a profound scientific deliverance of 
 the most authoritative kind and deal with it ac- 
 cordingly, and believe that walking on the hind 
 legs and throwing things with the fore limbs was 
 “the making of a man.” How easily men are 
 made! 
 
 1. This argument rests on the theory of Nat- 
 ural Selection now discarded by most evolution- 
 ists. 
 
 2. Apes have done all he here claims and far 
 more. The chimpanzee has been taught to sit at 
 a table, to drink out of cups, to eat with a knife 
 and fork, to wipe his mouth with a napkin and 
 use a toothpick, but has got no further in the ways 
 of good society, and as to increase of cranial de- 
 velopment, has obtained none save as the effects of 
 undue potations have produced an enlarged feel- 
 ing. 
 
 3. The whole account is purely imaginary as 
 no professor of Evolution was there to observe 
 the facts. It is in short an intrusion into the 
 realm of fiction, which clearly belongs to Mr. 
 Kipling in his wonderful jungle stories. 
 
 74 
 
The Other Stde of Evolution 
 
 Again in his book on “Man and His Ancestor,” 
 (p. 67,) Prof. Morris gives us a full description 
 of this unseen and purely hypothetical ancestor as 
 follows: “It was probably much smaller than 
 existing man, little if any more than four feet in 
 height, and not more than half the weight of man. 
 Its body was covered, though not profusely, with 
 hair; the hair of the head being woolly or frizzly 
 in texture and the face provided with a beard. 
 The face was not jet black, like a typical African, 
 but of a dull brown color; the hair being some- 
 what similar in color. The arms were long and 
 lank, the back being much curved, the chest flat 
 and narrow, the abdomen protruding, the legs 
 rather short and bowed, the walk a waddling mo- 
 tion somewhat like that of the gibbon. It had 
 deep set eyes, greatly protruding mouth with gap- 
 ing lips, huge ears and general “ape-like aspect.” 
 Prof. John Fiske thought it was much more than 
 a million years since man diverged from the 
 brute. During an active geologic age before the 
 cave-man appeared on the scene, “a being erect 
 upon two legs and having the outward resem- 
 blance of a man wandered hither and thither 
 upon the face of the earth.” (Destiny of Man, 
 Pp. 55.) 
 
 We read all this with astonishment that any- 
 one could penetrate the dim vista of millions of 
 
 75 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 years ago and transcribe such a detailed and cir- 
 cumstantial account of what then existed. It reads 
 like a picture from life. Yet not only was the 
 _ writer not there, but no one else was present, for 
 this was the father of us all, according to Evolu- 
 tion, 
 
 We are told that, given time enough, all this 
 series of changes from the primeval cell to the 
 modern philosopher or scientist is possible. But 
 time for this is limited by the age of the earth. 
 For Lord Kelvin has stated that only a few mil- 
 lion years are possible on any calculation and this 
 would all be needed for the change from ape to 
 man to say nothing of the interminable ages nec- 
 essary for the change from the protozoa to the 
 fish and then to land animals and so on to mam- 
 mals and up to the ape. 
 
 The after life of the ape-man is described with 
 the same circumstantiality as the coming to man- 
 hood’s estate. Dr. Robert Patterson combines the 
 various features of Evolution’s description and 
 this creature’s history in the following extract: 
 “It is a fearful and wonderful picture they give 
 us of the origin of marriage from the battles of 
 baboons, of the rights of property established by 
 terrible fights for groves of good chestnuts, of 
 the beginning of morals from the instincts of 
 brutes, and of the dawnings of religion, or rather 
 
 76 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 of superstition, from the dreams of these animals; 
 the result of the whole being that civilization and 
 society and law and order and religion are all sim- 
 ply the evolution of the instincts of the brutes 
 and that there is no necessity for the invoking 
 any supernatural interference to produce them.” 
 (Fables of Infidelity.) 
 
 It is here we meet the “theistic” account of 
 the origin of man. It was to this creature we are 
 told God imparted a soul or spirit supernaturally. 
 For this strange creature was the Adam of the- 
 istic Evolution. Eve they say nothing about. Nor 
 are we told how or when the soul was imparted, 
 whether in a single animal, a pair, or a herd; 
 whether awake or asleep. Nor are we told what 
 they did next, or how the soul-ape got along with 
 the rest of the species. Nor are we told what par- 
 ticular state, or act, or habit, entitled him to the 
 new nature he received. It seems as if the ability 
 to “stand on the hind legs and throw things with 
 the fore limbs,” which Prof. Clodd tells us was 
 the “making of a man,” scarcely entitled him to 
 such a divine inheritance as an immortal soul. 
 
 This also was the Adam who fell according to 
 the theistic evolutionist, though how such a crea- 
 ture could “fall” seems difficult to conceive. It 
 was this thing whose sin, Paul tells us, brought 
 death on the whole race. It was this who is a 
 
 77 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 type of Christ who is “the Second Adam.” Out 
 and out Evolution has but a fraction of the diffi- 
 culties, either physical or spiritual, to face that 
 this make-shift compromise “theistic” theory has 
 before it. It is not surprising that the thorough- 
 going evolutionist rejects this strange compound 
 of fiction and theology. 
 
 We appeal to the common, every-day man of 
 fair judgment: Which takes more faith, or if 
 preferred, credulity, the accepting of that strange, 
 complex, unauthenticated account of man’s origin 
 or the simple and, with an omnipotent God in 
 mind, entirely possible account of the Bible? 
 “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the 
 ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath 
 of life: and man became a living soul.’? Which 
 is the more noble, the more satisfying to our de- 
 sires for a high and divine origin as well as high 
 and divine destiny? 
 
 6. THE MISSING LINK. 
 
 The Missing Link is the great desideratum of 
 Evolution, for the evolutionist indignantly dis- 
 claims the present apes or monkey as ancestors. 
 He tells us the connecting link was a creature su- 
 perior to these. But of which he is unable to show 
 any specimen. It is purely mythical. We have 
 
 78 
 
 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 the remains of millions of animals reaching 
 through all the ages and why is this particular 
 specimen wanting? 
 
 Dr. Rudolph Virchow, the great discoverer of 
 the germ theory, has for thirty years, according 
 to Haeckel, “opposed the theory of man’s descent 
 from the brute.” (Last Link, p. 27.) He him- 
 self says: ‘The intermediate form is unimagin- 
 able save ina dream. . . . We cannot teach or 
 consent that it is an achievement that man has de- 
 scended from the ape or other animal.” (Homu- 
 letic Review, January, 1901.) 
 
 Dr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of natural 
 sciences in the University of Erlangen, writes on 
 the question as follows: “Nowhere in the older 
 deposits is an ape that approximates more closely 
 to man, or man that approximates more closely 
 to an ape, or perhaps a man at all. The same gulf 
 which is found to-day between man and the ape 
 goes back with undiminished breadth and depth 
 to the tertiary period. This fact alone is suffi- 
 cient to make its unintelligibleness clear to every 
 one who is not penetrated by the conviction of 
 the infallibility of the theory of the gradual trans- 
 mutation of and progressive development of all 
 organized creatures. If, however, we now find 
 one of the most man-like apes (gibbon) in the 
 tertiary period, and this species is still in the same 
 
 79 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 low grade, and side by side with it, at the end 
 of the ice period, man is found in the same high 
 ‘grade as to-day, the ape not having approximated 
 more nearly to man, and modern man not having 
 become further removed from the ape than the 
 first man, every one who is in a position to draw a 
 right conclusion can infer, that the facts contra- 
 dict a theory of constant progression, develop- 
 ment and ceaselessly increasing variation from 
 generation to generation, as surely as it is pos- 
 sible to do.” (Age and Origin of Man, Am. Tr. 
 OC. D. 52.) 
 
 From time to time the discovery of the “miss- 
 ing link” is announced and telegraphed through 
 the civilized world, only to be remanded to its 
 place among the remains of brutes or men. We 
 will consider the instances of such as they have 
 been presented: 
 
 1. The Calaveras Skull now in the California 
 State Museum. This has been shown recently to 
 be a hoax. It was placed in a mine shaft 150 feet 
 deep, by Mr. R. C. Scribner, a storekeeper at the 
 mine, as a practical joke. ‘This he lately acknowl- 
 edged to the Rev. W. H. Dyer, of Los Angeles, a 
 clergyman of the Episcopal church. 
 
 2. The Neanderthal Skull. This was found in 
 1856 in Prussia. It had narrow receding forehead 
 and thick ridges over the eyes. It was claimed by 
 
 80 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 the evolutionists as from two to three hundred 
 thousand years old. Dr. Meyer of Bonn examined 
 the evidence, and found it to be the skull of a Cos- 
 sack killed in 1814. Many other scientists agreed 
 with him. (Bible Science and Faith, p. 278.) 
 
 3. The Colorado specimen. Prof. Stephen 
 Bowers of the Mineralogical and Geological Sur- 
 vey of California, gives this account of another 
 such discovery: “A few years ago the newspa- 
 pers contained an account of the discovery of a 
 skeleton in Colorado, by a Columbia College pro- 
 fessor, which he was pleased to call the ‘missing 
 link’ between man and the apes. He gave this 
 remarkable creature an antiquity of a million and 
 a half of years. The friable bones were carefully 
 wrapped in cotton and shipped east. But scarcely 
 had the learned professor gotten away with his 
 prize when certain cowboys came forward and 
 claimed the bones to be that of a pet monkey. 
 which they buried but a dozen years previously.” 
 
 4. The late find of skeletons at Croatia, Austria, 
 is heralded as the discovery of a connecting link. 
 But these are skeletons of men and not of brutes. 
 They are degraded men and nothing is better 
 known than the possibility of degeneracy in man. 
 We have degenerates now with all the peculiarities 
 of these low specimens, retreating brows and 
 jaws and flat faces. Degeneracy does not prove 
 
 6 
 81 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 evolution. While the shape of these skulls is low 
 and long it has not been shown that their cubical 
 capacity is much less than that of normal man. 
 
 5. The Pithecanthropus Erectus. This is the 
 most popular relic with Evolution. It consists 
 of a piece of a skull from the eyes upward, a leg 
 bone and two teeth. These were found in Java 
 by Dr. von Eugene Du Bois in 1891. The cubic 
 measurement of the skull is 60 inches, the same as 
 that of an idiot, that of a normal man being 90 
 inches, and of an ape 30. These specimens were 
 found at separate places and times. The skull is 
 too small for the thigh bone. The age of the strata 
 in which they were found is uncertain. Author- 
 ities are divided as to the nature of these. 
 Haeckel admits that the belief that this is the mis- 
 sing link is strongly combatted by some dis- 
 tinguished scientists. At the Leyden congress, 
 it was attacked by the illustrious pathologist 
 Rudolph Virchow. 
 
 The assumptions based upon this specimen and 
 necessary for evidence are as follows: First, that 
 it is as old as claimed, a hundred thousand years 
 at least, or a million as stated by some. Second, 
 that these bones belong to the same individual. 
 Third, that they are the remains of a full-grown 
 individual. Fourth, that they are the remains of 
 a human or semi-human being. Fifth, that they 
 
 82 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 are not the remains of an idiot whose capacity the 
 brain represents. 
 
 With .all these unproven assumptions, and 
 against the opinion of many of the finest scientists 
 in Europe, Haeckel and some evolutionists have 
 declared this is the missing link. They place this 
 piece of a skull of one creature upon this leg of 
 another and insert these teeth belonging to a third, 
 all so far separated in life that they probably did 
 not even know each other, and rechristen the 
 whole “Pithecanthropus Erectus,” which may be 
 freely translated “The ape that walked like a 
 man,” being thus the first that arrived at that 
 point which Prof. Clodd tells us was “the making 
 of a man.” And this specimen is Haeckel’s Last 
 Link, and this he says demonstrates the truth of 
 Evolution. 
 
 The evidence of bones and other remains is 
 now generally suspected. It has been found that 
 even in the case of recent remains, as in criminal 
 trials, experts are often unable to decide whether 
 they are human or brute, recent or remote, and 
 what part of the frame they occupied. It is said 
 that Wallace, the great cotemporary with Dar- 
 win in the promotion of the theory, now admits 
 there is no evidence of an evolutionary link be- 
 tween man and the lower animals. 
 
 83 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 7, THE ARGUMENT FROM THE BRAIN. 
 
 The brain forms the principal difference be- 
 tween man’s body and the brute’s. The brain is 
 especially used as proof by the evolutionist. It 
 is the organ of mind. Its size corresponds with 
 the intellectual state of the creature. It is the 
 
 ’ theory of Evolution that there was an increase in 
 
 the size of the brain in some of the man-apes of 
 that day, although none such is seen now. 
 
 Prof. Edward Clodd thus describes these sup- 
 posed brain changes after the Ice Age: “The 
 changes by which he met these new conditions 
 were in a very small degree physical. They were 
 almost wholly mental. The principal physical 
 change was in the growth of the brain and the ex- 
 pansion of the cranium, giving rise to a less 
 bestial physiognomy and an advanced mental 
 power.” (Man and His Ancestor, p. 181.) | 
 
 How could man adapt himself by increasing the 
 size of his brain? Why should the passing away 
 of the ice age increase the size of the brain? 
 However, he disposes of the whole matter, after 
 arguing through pages of supposition and as- 
 sumption, by stating, ‘““The absence of facts forces 
 us to confine ourselves largely to suggestions and 
 probabilities.” (Making of a Man, p. 188.) But 
 probabilities are not science and we have a right 
 to ask from those claiming to be scientists actual 
 
 84 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 facts and not guesses, for so great an assertion 
 as the descent of man from the brute. 
 
 The capacity of the ape brain is 30, of the hu- 
 man 90 cubic inches. There is no evidence of 
 change in either the ape or the man. The pre- 
 historic man has as good a head on his shoulders 
 as his modern descendants. Bruner says the most 
 ancient skulls even exceed ours. Dr. Pfaff says 
 the stone age men are equal to the present gen- 
 eration. So if education does not increase the 
 size of man’s brain, why should the new tricks of 
 Prof. Clodd’s ancient ‘‘arboreal creature” enlarge 
 that individual’s brain 200 per cent? On the other 
 hand, the ape of to-day and the ape of 3,000 years 
 ago as mummied and preserved in Egypt are the 
 same. The big-brained ape of Evolution has un- 
 accountably disappeared and even his skull is 
 missing. 
 
 8. MAN’S MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS. 
 
 Evolution claims that all man’s faculties have 
 been derived from the brute, as was his physical 
 frame. It is fair to say that this is met at the door 
 by the protest of some of the greatest scientists, 
 themselves sympathetic with Evolution. 
 
 Prof, John Fiske wrote on the origin of mind: 
 “We can say when mind came on the scene of 
 
 85 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 evolution, but we can say neither whence nor 
 why. . . . It is not only inconceivable how 
 mind should have been produced from matter, 
 but it is inconceivable that it should have been 
 produced from matter.” (Darwinism, pp. 63, 69.) 
 Prof. Dana has said, “The present teaching of 
 geology is that man is not of nature’s making. 
 
 Independently of such evidences, man’s 
 high reason, his unsatisfied longings, aspirations, 
 his free will, all afford the fullest assurance that 
 he owes his existence to the special act of the 
 Infinite Being whose image he bears.” (Geologic 
 Story, p. 290.) 
 
 Prof. George H. Howison writes on this theme: 
 “To make evolution the ground of the existence 
 of mind in man, is destructive to the reality of the 
 human person and therefore, of the entire world 
 of moral good and of unqualified truth.” (Limits 
 of Evolution, p. 6.) Lord Kelvin, the most emi- 
 | nent living scientist, wrote in a letter to the Lon- 
 _ don Times, “Every action of human free will is a 
 - miracle to physical and chemical and mathemati- 
 cal science.” 
 
 Q. LANGUAGE. 
 Evolution has long tried to create an argument 
 
 for the derivation of man’s speech from the cries 
 of animals. This is met however by the philolo- 
 
 % 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 gist with positive denial. Prof. Max Mueller 
 says: “There is one barrier which no one has yet 
 ventured to touch,—the barrier of language. 
 Language is our Rubicon and no brute will dare 
 to cross it. . . . No process of Natural Se- 
 lection will ever distill significant words out of 
 the notes of birds and animals.” (Lessons on the 
 Science of Language, pp. 23, 340, 370.) 
 
 False claims have been made for the languages 
 of savage people and ancient races. Darwin said 
 that the people of Terra del Fuego were the low- 
 est in the scale, so far as discovered, and their 
 language correspondingly crude. But further in- 
 vestigation shows that they have 32,430 words; 
 over twice as many as Shakespeare used. The 
 language of some of the tribes of the Congo is 
 described by a missionary as more complex than 
 Greek. The history of languages shows the same 
 want of evidence for an evolutionary origin. The 
 oldest forms are the most complex. Modern 
 Greek and Latin are simpler than the ancient 
 forms. English is an improvement in this respect 
 on the old Anglo Saxon, whose grammatical 
 forms it has largely cast off and reduced the 
 language to greater simplicity. 
 
 A scientist is now endeavoring to ascertain the 
 speech of monkeys. He has ascertained that these 
 animals have different sounds for different wants, 
 
 87 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 a fact as to other creatures that he could have 
 ascertained by a visit to the nearest poultry yard. 
 The hen has as many calls as the monkey, and as 
 many meanings too. Her call for food is one 
 sound. Her cry of alarm at a passing hawk is 
 another, and her brood perfectly understands all, 
 and without previous education. All animals and 
 birds, and many insects too, have sounds with 
 meaning in them, but language is another matter. 
 
 IO. PREHISTORIC MAN. 
 
 The remains of early races form an argument 
 used by Evolution. These remains are found in 
 many places in caves and are accompanied by tools 
 of stone and vessels of pottery and the remains of 
 animals. These degraded peoples are pointed to 
 by Evolution as man in a state of development. 
 
 If the preceding arguments were well founded 
 this would appear reasonable enough. But in 
 view of the fallacious character of the prior 
 reasoning, we must halt at this claim. There are 
 many and conclusive reasons for rejecting this 
 unproven claim. For it is unproven. It is only 
 inference and assumption. 
 
 1. These men of the cave do not necessarily 
 represent man in a course of progress, for we 
 find tc-day the same classes of people with their 
 
 88 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 stone tools and pottery and living as prehistoric 
 man lived. There to-day exist men in every stage 
 of the supposed progress from the cave man to 
 the highest in civilization. Such remains could 
 be had in any burial place of these savage peoples. 
 Prehistoric man, so-called, is still with us and we 
 can interview him as to his state and history. 
 
 2. We have seen that modern man has not de- 
 veloped in brain capacity above prehistoric man. 
 It is also true that he has not developed physically. 
 Dana tells us that the skeleton found at Mentone 
 compares favorably with the best modern men. 
 Indeed we have degenerated in many respects. 
 We have almost lost the sense of smell as com- 
 pared with savage peoples or even animals. Our 
 teeth are certainly not improving. If we are to 
 find perfect specimens we do not look at the most 
 advanced classes but to the reverse. ‘Those who 
 live to extreme old age are generally in the lowly 
 ranks. But why has physical development ceased 
 at all? Why are there not some superior beings 
 by this time? But alas, there are no marks or in- 
 dications of wings or halos on either the great 
 saints or scientists of the day. 
 
 We are told that while physical evolution has 
 ceased among men, evolution now works along 
 mental lines of progress. This is a radical shift- 
 ing of the ground of evolution, for heretofore 
 
 89 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 all this has been not only omitted but discarded. 
 If evolution is anything, it is physical. Nor does 
 Evolution give any account of-the causes of the 
 stoppage of physical development and the change 
 to mental evolution. We will also show later that 
 this supposed progress has not been such as 
 claimed. 
 
 II. ANTIQUITY OF MAN. 
 
 Evolution asserts that a vast antiquity for man 
 has been proven by remains that have been found. 
 It is commonly said that these remains are hun- 
 dreds of thousands of years old. But the claims 
 for these vast periods are now being greatly re- 
 duced and generally discredited. Dr. Zahm says 
 of these speculations: “We could not give a better 
 illustration of the extremes to which the unguided 
 human intellect is subject than the vacillating and 
 extravagant notions of the antiquity of man.” 
 (Bible Science and Faith, p. 315.) The age of 
 the peat beds of Abbeville, in France, in which 
 human remains were found, was once estimated at 
 20,000 years. The estimate has been reduced to a 
 fifth of that age. The remains of the animals 
 found with man are supposed to prove his ex- 
 treme antiquity. The remains of the mammoth 
 were once cited as such proof. But the mammoth 
 
 go 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 ee Sy, 
 
 
 
 has been found in such a state of preservation that 
 its flesh has been fed to the dogs. 
 
 The enormous ages which have been credited 
 to these remains are well illustrated by the dis- 
 covery of a skeleton at New Orleans while dig- 
 ging for the gas works. From the depth of the 
 stratum in which it was found it was estimated by 
 scientists at the age of 57,000 years. Soon after, 
 the gunwale of the skeleton’s Kentucky flat boat 
 was found in the same stratum, and the age there- 
 fore of the remains was reduced from 57,000 to 
 50 years. ‘The evidences from peat bogs, stalag- 
 mite formations, stone, iron and bronze tools are 
 all now considered unreliable by scientists. So 
 many exposures of mistakes in the estimate of 
 age from these have been made, that the whole is 
 looked upon with suspicion. Instance after in- 
 stance might be given. 
 
 It has been claimed that we can arrange these 
 past races in an ascending order as they worked 
 in stone, bronze, or iron, in their successive his- 
 tory. This is a false theory. We have all these 
 “ages” existing to-day. On the other hand, Dr. 
 Livingstone found no stone age in Africa. Dr. 
 Schliemann found in the ruins of Troy the bronze 
 age below the stone age. The early Egyptians 
 used bronze, the later ones stone tools. In the 
 Chaldean tombs all these are found together. 
 
 gI 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 Europe had the metal age while America had the 
 stone age. (Creation and Evolution. Prof. 
 Townsend.) 
 
 These prehistoric races to which Evolution 
 points us as representing man in his early state, 
 do not represent that early world. They are found 
 at the outer limits of the world and not at the 
 acknowledged center whence man came. They 
 are, in short, what we find to-day at the outlying 
 regions of earth. They therefore, are exceptional 
 peoples and not representative of the world at 
 that time, or now. 
 
 The dynasties of Egypt were once cited against 
 the Bible narrative, but these have been reduced 
 to moderate figures. A thousand years was taken 
 off by one discoverer recently from the age of 
 the middle kingdom. There is a question whether 
 the Egyptian dynasties were successive or in some 
 cases contemporary. There is also the well-known 
 fact that the Egyptians had years of varying 
 length. They often counted dynasties by years of 
 three months and also of a month! Dr. Flinders 
 Petrie lately discovered in the tombs of the kings, 
 preceding the first dynasty of Egypt at Abydos, 
 Grecian pottery of Mycean clay, and this in a tomb 
 estimated to date from 5,400 B. C.! (Allantic 
 Monthly, October, 1900.) 
 
 The same kind of estimating is now being done 
 
 92 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 from the Assyrian tablets and their records. We 
 must remember these old kings were great boast- 
 ers and liars, too. We don’t know the basis of 
 their calculations. Perhaps Assyria also had three 
 month years. If their method was like Egypt’s, 
 and they were connected as we know by much in- 
 tercourse and literature, we may expect like in- 
 accuracy. The ancient dates given in the inscrip- 
 tions found in Nuffar recently, are already sus- 
 pected by scholars. The date for the temple un- 
 covered there was 3,200 B. C. This number is 
 the product of forty multiplied by eighty; evi- 
 dently a round number for eighty generations, and 
 not at all a careful or exact chronological state- 
 ment, 
 
 However, let us compare the two accounts, the 
 Bible and the Assyrian. The one precise in state- 
 ment, accurate in ten thousand points as demon- 
 strated, with us for thousands of years, trusted 
 and tried. The other inexact, mythical in its 
 legends, having all the marks of inaccuracy, just 
 discovered, made by people we know nothing of 
 and having no character to speak of, and full of 
 vain boastings and absurd claims. Which is the 
 true and which the false? Let the jury decide. 
 We will abide the verdict. 
 
 Prof. A. H. Sayce of Oxford, writes: ‘The 
 light that has come from the remnants of the past 
 
 93 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 has been fatal to the pretenses of critical skepti- 
 cism. The discoveries of Abydos have discredited 
 its methods and results. They have shown that 
 ‘where they can be tested they prove to be abso- 
 ‘lutely worthless. It is only reasonable to con- 
 clude that methods and results, that thus break 
 down under the test of monumental discovery, 
 must equally break down in other departments of 
 history where no such test can be applied. It is 
 not the discoveries of the higher critics, but the 
 old traditions which have been confirmed by 
 archaeological discovery.’’ (Homiletic Review, 
 March, 1901.) ‘This statement is made by one of 
 the most able archaeologists and semitic scholars 
 in the world. 
 
 The age of man on earth has much testimony 
 from science agreeing with the Bible account. 
 From many the following are cited: 
 
 Dr. J. A. Zahm, the distinguished scholar, says, 
 “T am disposed to attribute to man an antiquity of 
 about ten thousand years. It seems likely that the 
 general consensus of chronologists will ultimately 
 fix on a date which shall be below rather than 
 above ten thousand years as the nearest approxi- 
 mate to the age of our race.” (The Bible, Science 
 and Faith, p. 311.) He quotes many other au- 
 thorities. 
 
 Prof. Winchell tells us, “The very beginnings 
 
 04 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 of our race are still almost in sight.”’ (Sketches of 
 Creation.) Dawson thinks man has been on earth 
 about seven thousand years. Geology agrees that 
 man did not exist before the ice age. ‘The stone 
 age is fixed at about seven thousand years ago 
 by others. 
 
 Professor George Frederick Wright tells us, 
 “The glacial period did not close more than ten 
 thousand years ago. This shortening of our con- 
 ception of the ice age renders glacial man a com- 
 paratively modern creature. The last stage of 
 the excessive unstability of the earth was not so 
 very long ago and continued down to near the 
 introduction of man.” (Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 
 1902.) 
 
 S. R. Pattison, F. G. S., tells us, “Science shows 
 to us a number of converging probabilities which 
 point to man’s first appearance along with great 
 animals about 8,000 years ago.” (Age and Origin 
 of Man Geologically Considered, Am. Tr. Soc., 
 p. 29.) 
 
 Dr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of natural sci- 
 ence in Erlangen, thus sums up the evidence from 
 geology as to man: “(1) The age of man is small, 
 extending only to a few thousand years. (2) 
 Man appeared suddenly: the most ancient man 
 known to us is not essentially different from the 
 now living man. (3) Transitions from the ape 
 
 95 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 to the man, or the man to the ape, are nowhere 
 found. The conclusion we are led to is that the 
 Scripture account of man, which is one and self- 
 \ consistent, is true. . . . This account of man 
 ‘we accept by faith, because it is revealed by God, 
 is supported by adequate evidence, solves the 
 otherwise insoluble problems, not only of science 
 and history, but of inward experience, and meets 
 our deepest need. . . . The more it is sifted 
 and examined the more well founded and irref- 
 ragable does it prove to be.” (Age and Origin of 
 Man, Am. Tr. Soc., pp. 55-56.) 
 
 IZ. SAVAGE RACES. 
 
 Evolution delights to compare savage peoples 
 alternately with present civilized races and with 
 the brute. Prof. Conn says, “There is a greater 
 difference between a Newton and a Hottentot, 
 than between the Hottentot and the orang- 
 outang.”’ He fails to notice, or state, that the first 
 is a difference of degree only, and the latter a 
 difference of kind. It would be possible to develop 
 a Hottentot into a philosopher, but no attempt is 
 ever dreamed of, to change an orang-outang into 
 a Hottentot. On the other hand, the lowest sav- 
 ages have under culture shown their human in- 
 heritance of faculties beyond the brute. ‘T'wo 
 
 96 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 pigmies taken to Italy learned to speak Italian in 
 two years with fluency. They showed themselves 
 superior to many European children, and one be- 
 came proficient in music. The skill of this race 
 with poisoned arrows, pits for game, and culti- 
 vation of various kinds, is well known. 
 
 The savage races show the opposite of evolu- 
 tion. They are races in ruins. Max Mueller says, 
 “What do we know of savage tribes beyond the 
 last chapter in their history? They may have 
 passed through ever so many vicissitudes, and 
 what we consider as primitive may be for all we 
 know a relapse into savagery, or corruption of 
 what was something more rational and intelligible 
 in former ages.” This estimate of this great 
 scholar is attested by facts. Where to-day is the 
 Hindu race that could build the Taj Mahal? 
 What Greek race to-day could reproduce the 
 architecture or statuary of their ancestors? The 
 ruins of all eastern and many western lands point 
 to fallen races as well as ruined structures. The 
 world’s history is that of the fall of great nations 
 such as Egypt, Babylonia, Greece, Rome, in all 
 of which are sad examples of architecture and 
 peoples alike in decay. 
 
 7 
 
 97 
 
Tbe Otber Side of Lrolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 13. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
 
 History is appealed to to show the progress of 
 man and his continuance in the evolutionary line 
 since his origin in the brute. Our present civili- 
 zation is pointed to and compared with the past 
 and we are told that this is the result of evolu- 
 tion. 
 
 Some remarks of a preliminary kind are called 
 for here. It is to be remembered that history 
 does not cover a very long period, that the record 
 is often broken, and that the facts are often very 
 uncertain. Large sections of the world we know 
 historically nothing or little of, such as Asia and 
 Africa. We must remember that progress is con- 
 fined mostly to Europe and America and these 
 form but a third of the population of the world. 
 Also that European progress is a comparatively 
 recent matter. We are now considering the en- 
 tire history of the race and must take in these 
 vast outside regions to arrive at correct 
 conclusions. To judge the entire progress of 
 mankind from a short-sighted view of a limited 
 portion is as unscientific as it is unscriptural. 
 
 We must also remember that Europe owes its 
 progress to the influence of Christianity. For to- 
 day it is the Christian nations only that have prog- 
 ress and the most Christian have the most prog- 
 
 98 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 ress. No fact is better seen or proven. Lange 
 states, “Among human tribes left to themselves, 
 the higher man never comes out of the lower. 
 Apparent exceptions do ever, on close examina- 
 tion, confirm the universality of the rule in re- 
 gard to particular peoples, while the claim, as 
 made for the world’s general progress, can only 
 be urged in opposition by ignoring the supernal 
 aids of revelation that have ever shown themselves 
 directly or collaterally on the human path.” 
 (Commentary on Genesis, p. 355.) We have seen 
 that so far as present savage races are concerned 
 they have made no progress, and semi-civilized 
 races, such as the Egyptians, Chinese and Hindus 
 have retrograded. 
 
 We need also to consider the vast and great 
 civilizations which existed in remote antiquity as 
 is now revealed by archaeology. The recent dis- 
 coveries in Assyria and Babylonia and Egypt 
 show vast empires of culture as well as national 
 extension and power, and that their earlier culture 
 
 was the greatest. So Prof. Hilprecht, of the Uni-. ¢ ! 
 
 versity of Pennsylvania, testifies of Babylonia: 
 “The flower of Babylonian art is found at the be- 
 ginning of Babylonian history.” (Recent Re- 
 searches in Bible Lands, p. 88.) Horace Bushnell 
 tells us, “All great ruins are but a name for great- 
 ness in ruins.” 
 
 99 
 
+ 
 
 The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 It is to Egypt we must go for the earliest 
 records of human civilization. Here the account 
 of Prof. Sayce, of Oxford, gives us the facts: 
 “The earliest culture and civilization to which the 
 monuments bear witness was in fact already per- 
 fect. It was full-grown. The organization of the 
 country was complete. The arts were known and 
 practiced. Egyptian culture as far as we know 
 at present has no beginning.” (Recent Researches 
 in Bible Lands, pp. 101, 102.) “The older the 
 culture, the more perfect it is found to be. The 
 fact is a very remarkable one, in view of modern 
 theories of development and of the evolution of 
 civilization out of barbarism. Whatever may be 
 the reason, such theories are not borne out by the 
 discoveries of archaeology. Instead of the prog- 
 ress one should expect, we find retrogression 
 and decay. Is it possible the Biblical view is 
 right after all and that civilized man has been 
 civilized from the outset?” (Homiletic Review, 
 June, 1902.) Prof. Flinders Petrie tells us that 
 the Great Pyramid bears on its stones the marks 
 of the solid and tubular drill, edged with stone as 
 hard as diamond, and cutting one-tenth of an 
 inch at a revolution, and showing no sign of wear. 
 They had also straight and circular saws. ‘The 
 same building reveals scientific and astronomical 
 
 100 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 knowledge equal in some respects to modern 
 science. 
 
 Not only were the past civilizations great, but, 
 in many respects, far above the present. So that 
 the race has even fallen from higher levels. Lecky 
 thus writes of the Greeks: “Within the narrow ~ 
 limits and scant populations of the Greek states, 
 arose men, who in almost every conceivable form 
 of genius, in philosophy, in epic, dramatic and 
 lyric poetry, in written and spoken eloquence, in 
 statesmanship, in sculpture, in painting, and prob- 
 ably in music, attained the highest levels of human 
 perfection.” (History of European Morals, p. 
 408.) Galton says of the same civilization: “The 
 millions of Europe, breeding as they have for two 
 thousand years, have never produced the equal of 
 Socrates and Phidias. The average ability of the 
 Athenian race is, on the lowest possible estimate, 
 nearly two grades higher than our own; that is, 
 about as much as our race is above the African 
 negro.” (Hereditary Genius, p. 320.) 
 
 It does seem as if such testimony of these great 
 scholars should make us not only chary of the the- 
 ory which claims ever upward and onward prog- 
 ress, but also more modest in our boasted modern 
 progress and position. Prof. Frederick Starr of 
 the Anthropological department of Chicago Uni- 
 
 IOI 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 versity, says that the American race is reverting 
 to the Indian state. He bases this on measure-. 
 ments of faces of 5,000 children. This is a dismal 
 outlook. It is not what Evolution has promised 
 ‘us. The followers of Evolution have reason to be 
 indignant at such a turn in its course. However, 
 we may comfort them and ourselves with the hope 
 that if Evolution fails us we have other resources. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND RELIGION. 
 
 Consciousness of God and the hereafter is the 
 great distinction between man and brute. ‘This is 
 the basis of all religion. Of this Evolution gives 
 the origin in the dreams of animals. 
 
 According to that department of the evolution- 
 ary theory popularly called Higher Criticism, all 
 religion, including Israel’s and Christianity, 
 was derived from fetishism and from that it de- 
 veloped to animism, and so to polytheism and 
 finally monotheism. But the lowest savages have, 
 according to anthropology, the belief ina Supreme 
 Being. Andrew Lang says, “It is among the low- 
 est savages that the Supreme Beings are regarded 
 as eternal, moral, powerful.” (Making of Re- 
 ligion, p. 206.) Fetishism and animism are pro- 
 cesses of decay, says Dr. John Smith, quoting 
 Hartmann, DeRouge, Renouf, Lang and others. 
 
 102 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 (Integrity of Scripture, p. 68.) Traces of mono- 
 theism are found in China, India, Egypt and else- 
 where. In all nations is this decay found save in 
 one, Israel. 
 
 It is further found that mankind had an original 
 theistic religion common to the race, which is just 
 what the Bible teaches. All the evidence is to the 
 effect that the further back we go, the purer the 
 religions are found to be. The earliest Romans 
 were more pure in religion than the later people. 
 The early Greeks more so than the more recent. 
 The early handwritings give a purer and more 
 theistic religion than the later books. Dr. Jacob 
 Chamberlain thus sums up the evidence for the 
 Hindu Vedas: “They all teach the Godhead is 
 one, that he is good, that man is in a state of sin, 
 not at peace with the Holy One, that man is in 
 need of holiness and purity, that there can be no 
 harmony between sinful man and a holy God un- 
 less sin is in some way expiated and expurgated, 
 and that this is the greatest and most worthy end 
 of existence.” (Northfield Echoes, August, 1900, 
 p. 256.) 
 
 The ruins of Assyria and Egypt point to a re- 
 ligion resembling that of the Israelites. So far is 
 this noticed that some have said that Moses copied 
 much of what he taught Israel from them. This 
 conclusion is not necessary. The fact is that man 
 
 103 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 had a deposit of truth at the beginning, and all 
 men had the same. Both Moses and Egypt and 
 Assyria therefore, had much of what survived 
 from that early revelation. The fact here stated 
 agrees with the Bible account and not with Evo- 
 lution. 
 
 “The study of the mythology and philosophy of 
 the heathen world does not show an evolutionary 
 progress to a higher state, but the reverse.” 
 (Francis M. Bruner in The Evolution Theory.) 
 Christianity has not been a development of these 
 religions, for it is and was, antagonistic to them 
 at every point. It was an opposing force intro- 
 duced suddenly and utterly at variance in every 
 particular with all about it. 
 
 Sir M. Monier said in an address in 1887: 
 “There can be no greater mistake than to force 
 these non-christian writings into conformity with 
 some scientific theory of development, and then 
 point to the Christian’s Holy Bible as the crown- 
 ing product of religious evolution. So far from 
 this, these non-christian books are all develop- 
 ments in the wrong direction, They begin with 
 some flashes of true light and end in utter dark- 
 ness,” 
 
 104 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 EVOLUTION AND ETHICS. 
 
 Evolution has a system or systems of Ethics. 
 It traces the beginning of the sense of right and 
 wrong to the instincts of animals, such as the 
 parental instinct, the recognition of marital rights, 
 and the right to respective properties such as nests 
 and burrows. So that the animal, or man, came 
 to see that it was best on all accounts to be good 
 to oneself and others. So Mr. Spencer’s defini- 
 tion of right is the happiness of oneself, one’s off- 
 spring and others. Acts are good or bad as they 
 increase happiness or misery. He ignores the 
 moral instinct and exalts expediency and utility. 
 This is the level of the uncivilized or savage 
 races. 
 
 Dr. James Thompson Bixby of Leipsic, makes 
 humanity the goal of Evolution’s ethics. “The 
 test of what is morally good is the tendency of 
 the given motive to help forward the progress of 
 the race toward the ideal humanity.” (Ethics of 
 Evolution, p. 212.) Every Bible believer will see 
 how far short these fall of the standard of holi- 
 ness and happiness the Bible places before us. 
 But when or where did any people ever aim to 
 help forward the “ideal perfection of humanity” 
 who did not have the mighty impulse which the 
 Bible, and only the Bible, gives to that object? 
 
 105 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 There is not even the sense of brotherhood nec- 
 essary for the motive. To point natural man to 
 that is to ask him to act outside his nature. 
 
 The law of the Struggle for Existence never 
 taught Christian ethics. The self-sacrificing 
 Christian has something which never came 
 from Evolution. The Cross is the final 
 test of Evolution. By it that theory and 
 all other false theories are weighed in the balances 
 and found wanting. The struggle for existence 
 is the law of self and is the antithesis of the Cross, 
 which is the very opposite of the struggle for ex- 
 istence. Nor is the struggle for existence the law 
 of the lower creature. That law is to bring forth 
 fruit, to propagate their species. That is the 
 plant’s goal; when it has so done it retires or dies. 
 The little bird will struggle more fiercely for its 
 young than for its food, or even for its life, which 
 it imperils often to save its brood. Below the un- 
 fallen creation and regenerated humanity is the 
 unregenerated selfish man. Not Evolution but 
 
 Revolution can create Christian ethics. History 
 | does not present an instance of progress in ethics 
 | save as aided by the Bible. 
 
 106 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE. 
 
 In undertaking to account for man, Evolution 
 must account for the fact of Christian experience. 
 Conversion revolutionizes a man. It turns him 
 against his natural likes and dislikes. He even 
 turns against himself and the selfish becomes un- 
 selfish. This is not development, for that operates 
 according to the nature of the thing. Develop a 
 wolf and you may get a dog. Develop man from 
 the savage state and you may have the condition 
 of the Greek in the highest state of culture and 
 yet in the lowest state of vice. Introduce Chris- 
 tian experience and you have Christianity with all 
 the civilization which proceeds and flows from it. 
 
 There is no such consistent body of testimony 
 for any fact, science or truth as there is for Chris- 
 tian experience. It is the same in all ages, in all 
 lands and in all classes of society, and in all cir- 
 cumstances of life. This evidence is perfectly le- 
 gitimate and must be considered by the student of 
 human life and character. Let Evolution then ac- 
 count for Conversion which changes man’s inner 
 nature, and gives a life which lives contrary to 
 natural human instincts and conduct; and Chris- 
 tian hopes which yearn for deliverance from sin 
 and self and long for the highest spiritual state 
 and hasten to meet the holy and all-seeing God. 
 
 107 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 The missions of our great cities as well as those 
 of the foreign field are full of witnesses for the 
 transforming effect of Christian experience. 
 The author of this book can vouch for the fol- 
 lowing from personal knowledge. A business 
 man in Illinois became addicted partly from use 
 in disease to alcohol and the use of morphine and 
 also cocaine. He used all these and in excessive 
 quantities; as much as forty grains of morphine 
 in a day. He tried seven “cures.” He visited 
 Europe to consult specialists. He spent in all 
 over $15,000 in seeking a cure and all in vain. 
 By the persuasions of Christians he was led to 
 seek relief in prayer and experienced what Chris- 
 tians call conversion and was immediately de- 
 livered from all his appetites. The author of this 
 saw him three months after and found him a 
 sober man and without any desire for drink or 
 drugs. He saw him again a year after and he. 
 was still rejoicing in full deliverance. Since be- 
 ginning this book, a correspondence was had to 
 verify the case still further, and he is reported as . 
 follows: “In January, 1899, his weight was 113 
 pounds. In January, 1901, his weight was 183 
 pounds. He is an official member of a prominent 
 church, a director of the Young Men’s Christian 
 Association and a great worker in both.” No 
 
 108 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 evolution can account for such a change. It is as 
 great a miracle as cleansing the leper. 
 
 Prof. George Romanes of Oxford, was, it is 
 said, brought back from infidelity to faith by the 
 letters of a Japanese missionary friend, dealing 
 with experimental and practical religion. Evolu- 
 tion asks for facts. Here are facts, and they 
 tell not of Evolution but of Regeneration. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND CHRIST. 
 
 Evolution cannot account for Christ. With- 
 out entering here on an argument for His divinity, 
 we simply present him and ask the evolutionist 
 to account for such a character and life. Let us 
 listen to what the enemies of Christianity say of 
 Christ. 
 
 Renan said: “The incomparable man to whom 
 the universal conscience has decreed the title of 
 the Son of God, and that with justice. 
 
 Between thee and God there will be no use 
 any distinction.” 
 
 Jean Paul Richter said: “The holiest among 
 the mighty, the mightiest among the holy, He 
 lifted with pierced hands empires off their hinges 
 and turned the stream of centuries out of its chan- 
 nel and still governs the ages.” (Dr. Liddon’s 
 Bampton Lectures.) 
 
 109 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 Rousseau testified as follows: “What sweetness, 
 what purity in his morals! What force, what 
 persuasion in his instructions! His maxims how 
 sublime! His discourses, how wise and pro- 
 found! such presence of mind, such beauty and 
 precision in his answers, such empire over his 
 passions! It would be much harder to conceive 
 that a number of men should have joined together 
 to fabricate this book than that a single person 
 should furnish out the subject to its authors. 
 Jewish writers would never have fallen into that 
 style, and the gospel has such strong and such 
 inimitable marks of truth that the inventor would 
 be more surprising than the hero.” (Emilius and 
 Sophia, or An Essay on Education, pp. 79, 80, 
 81.) 
 
 Thomas Paine: “The morality that he preached 
 and practiced was of the most benevolent kind. 
 It has never been excelled.” (Age of Reason, p. 
 5) | 
 
 Robert Ingersoll, to M. D. Landon, in a letter 
 giving permission to print his speeches: “In using 
 my speeches do not use any assault I may have 
 made on Christ which I foolishly made in my 
 earlier life. I believe Christ was the perfect man. 
 ‘Do unto others’ is the perfection of religion and 
 morality. It is the swmmum bonum.” (Homiletic 
 Review, November, 1899, p. 475.) 
 
 IIo 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 Theodore Parker: “Shall we be told such a 
 man never lived—the whole story is a lie? Sup- 
 pose that Plato and Newton never lived, that their 
 story is a lie? But who did their works and 
 thought their thoughts? It takes a Newton to 
 forge a Newton. What man could have fabricated 
 Jesus? None but a Jesus.” (Discourses on Re- 
 ligion, pp. 362-3.) 
 
 Napoleon Bonaparte: “Everything in Jesus 
 Christ astonishes me. His spirit overawes me. 
 Between him and whoever else in the world there 
 is no possible line of comparison. I search in 
 vain in history to find the similar to Jesus Christ, 
 or anything which can approach the Gospel. In 
 him we find a moral beauty before unknown, and 
 an idea of the Supreme superior even to that 
 which creation suggests.” 
 
 To say that Jesus was an evolution of that age, \ 
 as some evolutionists do say, and that we may | 
 look for even a greater in the future, is to be 
 guilty not only of blasphemy but of gross igno- 
 rance as to the age in which Jesus came. There © 
 was nothing in that age to give rise to such a char- 
 acter. He came as a flash of lightning in a dark 
 sky, or, according to the Bible figure, as the rising 
 of the sun in the world’s night. 
 
 LES 
 
GHAP LER. aie 
 
 EVOLUTION UNSCIENTIFIC AND UNPHILOSOPHICAL. 
 
 Before making so serious a charge against a 
 scientific theory as that it is both unscientific 
 and unphilosophical, we will show that others 
 have held a similar view and that among these 
 are many scholars. We have already seen Prof. 
 Paulsen’s remark that Haeckel’s reasonings are 
 a “disgrace to the philosophy of Germany.” Prof. 
 George Frederick Wright calls Evolution a “fad,” 
 “the cast-off clothing of the evolutionary philos- 
 ophy of fifty years ago.” The Duke of Argyle 
 says, “It is such a violation of and departure 
 from all that we know of the existing order of 
 things as to deprive it of all scientific base.” 7 
 
 EVOLUTION FAILS IN ALL THE STEPS OF SCIENTIFIC 
 PROOF. 
 
 There are four stages of proof necessary for a 
 full demonstration. 
 
 1. Observation of facts. 
 
 2. Classification of these facts. 
 
 3. Inferences legitimately drawn therefrom. 
 
 4. Verification of these conclusions. 
 
 Ii2 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 1. It fails in its facts. That this is true is evi- 
 dent from the reticence of the exact scientists to 
 commit themselves to the theory. If the facts 
 were all that they say, these laborious and faith- 
 ful laborers in the laboratory and field would 
 acknowledge the case. In the presentation of 
 facts, the theoretical evolutionist culls out and 
 magnifies those looking his way and passes in 
 silence or minifies those antagonistic to the theory. 
 It makes much of the change of a low salt water 
 animal into its fresh water form, and passes over 
 the immutability of all the great species. Evolu- 
 tion dwells upon the splints in the leg of the horse 
 and passes over lightly the vast unbridged gaps 
 between organic and inorganic matter, the origin 
 of the vertebrates, the countless missing links be- 
 tween the species. It rests its argument on the 
 “gill-slits’” in the necks of embryonic fish, pup- 
 pies and infants, and passes airily over the origin 
 of matter, of life, of consciousness and of Chris- 
 tian experience. It presents ex-parte evidence. 
 
 2. Evolution fails in classification. We have 
 seen the testimony of Evolution itself on this 
 point. Nor is there any agreed definition of 
 species. Nota single species has been traced to its 
 origin. The species defy chronological classifi- 
 cation. The most primitive species exist to-day 
 and the most advanced were in existence almost 
 
 8 113 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 at the first. Nor can the classifications which are 
 attempted be advanced as proof of evolution. 
 They are as evidential of manufacture or of crea- 
 tion or of any other process of intelligent mind. 
 
 3. Evolution rests on inferences. As its great 
 philosopher, Spencer, has said, no inference is 
 warranted unless it accounts for all the facts. 
 Not only does no inference of Evolution do this, 
 but it admits again and again that it is beset with 
 countless difficulties. Nor are these inferences 
 the only ones that might be drawn. It is not only 
 necessary to draw an inference but to show that 
 no other inference is possible. Some of these are 
 the wildest possible deductions from the facts,— 
 as for example, the theories as to the origins, al- 
 ready cited, as to whales and giraffes. Sir J. 
 William Dawson, the eminent geologist, says of 
 Evolution’s deductions as follows: “It seems to 
 indicate that the accumulated facts of our age 
 have gone altogether beyond its capacity for gen- 
 eralization, and but for the vigor which one sees 
 everywhere, it might be taken as an indication 
 that the human mind has fallen into a state of 
 senility and in its dotage mistakes for science the 
 imaginations which are the dreams of its youth.” 
 (Story of the Earth and Man, p. 317.) 
 
 The works of writers on Evolution abound in 
 such phrases as “seems to be—I infer—it is con- 
 
 114 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 ceivable—it might have been—it is probable—l 
 think—apparently—must have been—no one can 
 say—not difficult to conceive,’—and other unsci- . 
 entific terms, and on such deductions they project 
 other inferences, and so leap skilfully from one 
 supposition to another across the quagmire of 
 Evolution. 
 
 Evolution is undertaking a philosophical im- 
 possibility—the proving of a negative, that there 
 could be no other method than derivation. This 
 is the philosophical basis of the whole theory. 
 
 4. Finally Evolution fails in the fourth step. It © 
 admits again and again that it has not demon- 
 strated its case. Not a single instance of evolution 
 of species has been shown or produced, and no 
 law of the change is given. The gaps it does not 
 bridge are many. We specially need to notice 
 that it gives no account of the origin of matter or 
 force. It can give no account of the origin of life. 
 It utterly fails to account for man’s self-conscious- 
 ness or intellectual, moral or spiritual nature. It 
 takes no account whatever of the other world or 
 life and entirely disregards the facts of Chris- 
 tian experience. In short, so far from being a 
 great universal philosophy, it is simply a dis- 
 jointed combination of unproven theories. 
 
 The evolutionist, Prof. Conn, admitting the 
 missing factors, says candidly, “It is therefore im- 
 
 115 
 
A Meiieleiae 
 
 The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 possible to make Evolution a complete theory.” 
 (Evolution of To-day, p. 6.) 
 
 Sir J. William Dawson thus sums up the evi- 
 dence: ‘“The simplicity and completeness of the 
 evolutionary theory entirely disappear when we 
 consider the unproved assumptions on which it is 
 based and its failure to connect with each other 
 some of the most important facts in nature; that 
 in short, it is not in any true sense a philosophy, 
 but a mere arbitrary arrangement of facts in ac- 
 cordance with a number of unproved hypotheses. 
 Such philosophies, falsely so-called, have existed 
 ever since man began to reason on nature, and this 
 last of all is one of the weakest and most per- 
 nicious of all. Let the reader take up either Dar- 
 win’s great book or Spencer’s Biology and merely 
 ask, as he reads each paragraph, What is here 
 assumed and what is proved? and he will find the 
 fabric melt away like a vision. Spencer often ex- 
 aggerates or extenuates with reference to facts 
 and uses the art of the dialectician where argu- 
 ment fails.” (Story of the Earth and Man, p. 
 330.) 
 
 Prof. William Jones tells us Evolution is “a 
 metaphysical creed and nothing else ; an emotional 
 attitude rather than a system of thought.” (Homi- 
 letic Review, August, 1900.) 
 
 116 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 EVOLUTION RESTS ON IMAGINATION. 
 
 The evolutionist not only uses his imagination 
 but claims the right to do so. Tyndall has written 
 an essay on the Scientific Use of the Imagination. 
 Now when the pictures of an evolutionist’s im- 
 agination are held up as facts, as in the description 
 of man’s development from the brute, he leaves 
 the realm of science and enters that of fiction. 
 Mr. Gladstone has said of this: “To the eyes of 
 an onlooker their pace and method seem to be like 
 a steeple-chase. They are armed with a weapon 
 always sufficient if not always an arm of precision, 
 ‘the scientific imagination.’ They are impatient 
 of that most wholesome state a Suspended Judg- 
 ment.” (Homiletic Review, October, 1900, 
 quoted by Dr. Jesse B. Thomas.) 
 
 EVOLUTION IS THE DOCTRINE OF CHANCE. 
 
 - The language used by the evolutionist is pecu- 
 liar for persons claiming to believe in law as the 
 great agency of nature and to base their con- 
 clusions on the operation of fixed causes. The 
 changes which together make up the birth of a 
 new species are occasioned they say by “chance 
 happenings,” “undesigned variations,” ‘“‘accidental 
 variations,” “utterly undetermined antecedents,” 
 
 117 
 
nme, 
 
 a 
 
 The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 “wnintentional variations,” and other like expres- 
 sions. The synonyms of this idea are exhausted 
 by them in describing the way in which the 
 changes first occurred, by which one species be- 
 gan the journey up to another stage of existence. 
 It is simply a revival and revamping of the old 
 doctrine of chance. 
 
 Prof. Frank Ballard says of this: “Chance 
 manufactured protoplasm out of nebulosity. 
 
 To accept this after rejecting faith on the ground 
 of its difficulty, is to quibble and cavil.” 
 
 An illustration of the appeal to chance and its 
 use is found in the following account as given by 
 Prof. Ernst Haeckel, the greatest living teacher 
 of Evolution, of how tree-frogs became green: 
 “Once upon a time there were among the off- 
 spring of ancestral tree-frogs some which among 
 other colors exhibited green, not much, perhaps 
 not even perceptible to our eyes. The occurrence 
 of this color was spontaneous, a freak. The de- 
 scendants of these greenish creatures, provided 
 they did not pair with frogs of the ordinary set, 
 became still greener and so on, until the green 
 was pronounced enough to be of advantage when 
 competition set in.” (Last Link, p. 176.) Here 
 the origin of greenness in the tree-frog begins 
 with a chance happening and is promoted by a 
 chance union of the greenish frog with one not in 
 
 118 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 “the-ordinary set,’ but of the more select circle 
 of the green, and the favoring chances continued 
 in this same remarkable way until the color be- 
 came of use in protecting them. 
 
 It was with similar chance happenings, Evolu- 
 tion tells us, that all the great kingdoms, classes, 
 orders, families, genera and species originated. 
 It was by chance happenings that the present 
 beautiful and infinite variety of nature came. It 
 was by unintended accidents that the wonderful 
 adjustments in the universe came. It has been 
 calculated that the possibility of the letters of the 
 alphabet, if thrown promiscuously, coming to- 
 gether in the present order is once in five hundred 
 million million million times. What would be 
 the chances of the innumerable combinations of 
 nature coming together in the order in which they 
 are by the chance happenings to which Evolution 
 attributes them? | 
 
 119 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 The interest in the question of how things came 
 to be centers for the believer in the Bible narrative 
 and doctrine. We have been accustomed to bring 
 all things to Bible testing and so far with assured 
 results. ‘The Bible has never failed and we be- 
 lieve will not fail now. We therefore ask, What 
 does it teach as to Evolution? We are amazed to 
 «find Evolution makes no appeal to the Bible, and 
 ‘the Bible makes no allusion to Evolution. They 
 -are strangers to each other. The argument from 
 Scripture for Evolution has not yet been written. 
 The best the theistic evolutionist can say as to 
 the Bible account of the origin of man is an 
 apology for its narratives, or some explanation 
 which vaporizes its facts into figures of speech. 
 
 We have heretofore given the Bible account and 
 that of Evolution printed in parallel columns 
 (p. 61). The reader is again referred to these, 
 and asked to notice the differences in these two 
 accounts. The Bible account is not the descrip- 
 tion of the slow transformation of an ape into a 
 man-like ape, and that into an ape-like man, and 
 
 120 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 that into a cave man, and he into a stone-tool man, 
 and that again into a pottery-making savage, and 
 he into a weapon-making barbarian, and he into 
 a Chinese and after that into a Roman or Greek, 
 and last into an Englishman and American and 
 he into a spiritual being in the image and likeness 
 of God. Common literary honesty demands that 
 we give an author his own intended meaning. If 
 the Bible meant Evolution why did it not give it? 
 Two accounts more utterly dissimilar could 
 scarcely be given than the Bible account of man’s 
 creation and the account of Evolution. We may 
 take one or other and be consistent but the rules 
 of literary exegesis and common sense and Scrip- 
 ture alike forbid taking both. 
 
 To call it “poetry” or an “allegory” is no ex- 
 planation. Why did not the writer make poetry 
 or allegory which had some agreement with facts? 
 Why lead us into a perplexing situation when he 
 might as well have given us some other account 
 or omitted it altogether? 
 
 The differences between these two accounts 
 are obvious. The Bible account describes a 
 definite act, the Evolution account a long-con- 
 tinued process through millions of years. The 
 Bible account is a production de novo of a new 
 and original creature ; the Evolution account gives 
 one of a numerous line of ancestors; the Bible 
 
 I21 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 account presents us with a perfect creature “in the 
 likeness of God;”’ the Evolution account with a 
 brute slightly raised above the common herd. 
 The Bible account gives a descriptive narrative 
 with accompanying events; the Evolution account 
 leaves all the events unknown save as guessed at 
 by the imagination of the various writers. The 
 Bible account gives a high and noble origin by a 
 special and creative act of his Creator; Evolution 
 tells of a degraded origin from a brute by the 
 operation of blind forces. The Bible account is 
 noble and satisfying and,to one who believes in an 
 omnipotent God, credible, calling for belief in one 
 creative act; the Evolution account is filled with 
 difficulties and paradoxes calling for the wildest 
 stretch of imagination and the utmost application 
 of credulity. 
 
 The Bible account is frequently referred to as 
 an actual history by other Scripture writers; the 
 evolutionary account has not one Scripture refer- 
 ence or the slightest hint from Scripture of its 
 having any place whatever in fact. The Bible ac- 
 count agrees with and is the basis of the spiritual 
 teachings of the Bible; the evolutionary account 
 has no such agreement and needs to be explained 
 away to be allowed any place whatever in sacred 
 writings. If the Bible is the book the common 
 consent of the wisest of all mankind and of every 
 
 I22 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 age has affirmed it to be, it should have some inti- 
 mation of this “greatest discovery of the human 
 mind.” For the Bible does touch on the greatest 
 problems of the world and life. 
 
 Not only does the Bible give a very different 
 account of the origin of man, but also of nature. 
 Its definition of the beginning of things is as fol- 
 lows: “By faith we understand that the worlds 
 have been framed by the word of God, so that 
 what is seen hath not been made out of things 
 which do appear.” (Heb. 11:3.) The term it 
 applies to this is Creation. It gives also a circum- 
 stantial account of the coming of the present 
 order as we have it, closing with man’s creation. 
 
 EVOLUTION’S INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 In order to bring the evolutionary theories 
 within the possibility of Bible sanction, a theory 
 of interpretation is adopted which calls the nar- 
 ratives of Creation and the Fall myths, legends, 
 allegories, parables, “scenic representation,” or 
 “idealized history” according to the theological 
 
 bias of the interpreter. These all amount to 
 the same thing, for they do away with the his- 
 
 torical value of the accounts. It is only a play upon 
 words to say they are “parables” for parables are 
 not unhistorical. Every one of Christ’s parables is 
 
 123 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 true to life and facts. It is claimed that the Bible 
 narratives are poetry and therefore are not his- 
 torical. The evolutionist for his purpose con- 
 founds poetry and fiction. They are not synony- 
 mous. A poetical form does not imply fictitious- 
 ness. The Psalms have much history under their 
 poetical form. But the first chapter of Genesis is 
 not poetry. Hebrew poetry has a well-defined 
 form as seen in the poetical books. This chapter 
 does not conform to that form, and accordingly it 
 is printed not in poetical form but as prose in the 
 Revised Version. The mere repetition of certain 
 phrases is not the mark of poetry, but is character- 
 istic of the oriental languages in which the Bible 
 was written. 
 
 But who is to decide what in the Bible is his- 
 torical and what is not? What is to hinder any- 
 one from so discarding any fact whatever in the 
 Bible? Why has not the enemy of Christianity 
 the same right to apply this reasoning to the ac- 
 counts of the death and resurrection of Christ? 
 Where will this process end? The proclaimer of 
 such theories is putting a weapon into the hands 
 of the opponent of Christianity that he will use 
 one day to the destruction of the faith of many. 
 Once having permission to apply these terms, it is 
 easy to make these narratives, or anything else in 
 the Bible. mean anything or nothing as is desired. 
 
 124 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 As an ancient writer said, “Twenty doctors can 
 make a text read twenty different ways.” We 
 protest against this loose method of interpreta- 
 tion for many reasons: 
 
 1. We object to every new theory interpreting 
 the Bible to suit itself. 
 
 2. There is not the slightest warrant in these 
 narratives or elsewhere for such interpretation. 
 They are given as facts and are always so treated. 
 Creation and the Fall are everywhere spoken of 
 as actual facts both by Christ and all other Scrip- 
 ture writers. 
 
 3. It is on this system of interpretation that 
 every false system rests, such as Mormonism. All 
 the modern vagaries support themselves from 
 Scripture by accommodation of its language to 
 their doctrines. 
 
 4. The Bible is not a book of puzzles, .a delphic 
 oracle, to be read in any way suited to the oc- 
 casion or desires. It has a plain meaning and is 
 for everyday people and everyday needs. 
 
 5. The acceptance of the Bible account as un- 
 questioned fact and the literal interpretation of it 
 by Christ and his apostles ought to be enough for 
 anyone calling himself Christian or even for any 
 other who will accept good human testimony. 
 These writers were 1900 years nearer the date of 
 the events in question than we. They had access 
 
 125 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 to knowledge now lost to us. From any stand- 
 point, we may rest our view of these narratives on 
 the testimony of the New Testament Scriptures. 
 The references of the New Testament to the Old 
 are numbered by hundreds. Any Bible with ref- 
 erences, or any text book or Bible with Helps will 
 show these. It is enough here to give those 
 Christ refers to. 
 
 Christ himself cites from twelve books and 
 about twenty-four narratives as follows: Creation, 
 Matt. 19:4; Law of Marriage, Matt. 19:5; Cain 
 and Abel, Matt. 23:35; The Deluge, Matt. 24:37; 
 Abraham, John 8:56; Sodom and Gomorrah and 
 Lot’s wife, Luke 17:28-32; Manna, John 6:49; 
 Brazen Serpent, John 3:14; Shew Bread, Matt. 
 12:3, 4; Elijah and his Miracles, Luke 4:25, 26; 
 Naaman, Luke 4:27;Tyre and Sidon, Matt. 11:22; 
 Jonah and “The Whale,” Matt. 12:39; The Books 
 of Moses, John 5:46; The Psalms, Luke 20:42; 
 Moses and The Prophets, Luke 24:27; Isaiah, 
 Matt. 13:14; Daniel’s Prophecies, Matt. 24:15; 
 Malachi, Matt. 11:10; The entire Old Testament, 
 Luke 24:44. Of not one of these does he convey 
 the slightest hint of aught but trustworthiness 
 and literal interpretation. 
 
 6. The still more serious issue is presented of 
 asserting that both Paul and Christ either did not 
 know that these were myths, or knowing so gave 
 
 126 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 no intimation that they used them in any way other 
 than as true narratives. This would not only 
 shake all confidence in Christ as divine and his 
 apostles as inspired, but would shake all confi- 
 dence in any fact or teaching from Scripture 
 whatever. For Scripture rests on facts and these 
 facts on witnesses. To these, appeal is constantly 
 made. On the truth of these all depends. Here 
 then is a “mythical” Adam made the basis of mar- 
 riage; a “mythical” Adam and his fall, the argu- 
 ment for man’s need and Christ’s work, and the 
 same “mythical” Adam made the proof of the 
 resurrection. In short the whole system of Bible 
 truth is attacked by these theories, from credi- 
 bility in Christ himself to the last hope of the be- 
 liever in the world to come. 
 
 Whom shall we believe? Shall we credit Evo- 
 lution which admits that its theory is unproven 
 and full of difficulties, with not a single case of 
 Evolution to support it, nor a power which could 
 produce it, and with countless facts to antagonize 
 it, or shall we believe Jesus Christ who was never 
 mistaken, or false in his facts, or teachings, and 
 who believed these chapters, cited them and ac- 
 cepted their narratives without question? 
 
 127 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 
 
 EVOLUTION AND BIBLE DOCTRINES. 
 
 We have arrived at the vital point in this dis- 
 cussion. If Evolution were only a scientific ques- 
 tion, it would interest a limited circle. As a deep- 
 ly religious question it interests all. That Evolu- 
 tion affects vitally all evangelical belief is appar- 
 ent to the most superficial inquirer. It is not only 
 a matter of historic fact but of doctrinal teaching. 
 Man’s nature and need as a descendant from the 
 brute is one thing, and as a spiritual being, fallen 
 from the likeness of God, another. The responsi- 
 bility in either case is very different and therefore 
 has to do with eternal destiny for weal or woe, 
 and also with the work of Christ. 
 
 The theology of the Higher Criticism which is 
 also the theology of Evolution, of which it is the 
 Biblical branch, is thus summed up by an evolu- 
 tionary writer, in a recent article giving the arti- 
 cles of belief of the theology of Evolution: “The 
 Bible can no longer speak with unquestioned au- 
 thority. ... Poor old Adam disappears... . 
 Christ’s divinity is only such as we may possess. 
 . . . the atonement is only such as we see in all 
 life and nature. . . As to the future life we find 
 ourselves left very muchin the dark. . . . We no 
 longer regard going to heaven as the center of our 
 
 128 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 interest.” (Theodore D. Bacon quoted in Homi- 
 letic Review, Nov. 1902.) 
 
 Evolution teaches, as stated by Dr. George A. 
 Gordon, of Boston: ‘“Man’s state and fate is on 
 account of the irrationality he has brought up 
 with him from the animal world.” (Immortality 
 and the New Theodicy,’ p. 100.) The fu- 
 ture of man according to Evolution is that 
 as he has risen from the brute state he ought 
 not to be punished for his defects but rather re- 
 warded for having done so well. Evolution 
 teaches that man has in himself the elements of 
 his salvation. These if developed will produce 
 the change he needs for this world and that to 
 come. He will proceed on the same lines as he 
 has traveled to reach his present state. Develop-\ 
 ment is the Saviour of Evolution. The Bible says | 
 that to develop man is to develop sin and, “Sin | 
 when it is finished bringeth forth death.” It re- 
 quires the intervention of the Supernatural in 
 Regeneration to save man. Evolution is self- 
 saving. 
 
 The future is radically affected by the theory 
 of Evolution. The development of mankind is 
 its objective point. To bring man to a point of 
 development will bring the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 The fate of the individual is not made much of. 
 
 9 
 
 129 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 He is sacrificed for the race or species. But while 
 not much is made of the individual the general 
 teaching is that somehow it will be well with all 
 at last. It is a fact that all universalists are 
 evolutionists. E;volution makes Heaven and Hell 
 terms which mean little or nothing. The present 
 social state of man is the great quest. Evolution 
 is a bridge which reaches neither shore. It 
 knows not whence man came nor where he goes. 
 
 1. The Bible rests its doctrines upon its facts. 
 There is no character in Scripture aside from 
 Christ upon whose historical character so much 
 Scripture doctrine depends as upon Adam. ‘The 
 creation of man is made the basis for the sanctity 
 of marriage by Christ, who quotes the words of 
 the account in Genesis. (Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 
 10:6-9.) Paul makes this narrative the basis of 
 his great argument for the state and need of man 
 and the work of Christ. “Through one man sin 
 entered into the world and death through sin. 
 . . » Death reigned from Adam to Moses... . 
 By the trespass of the one the many died... 
 the judgment came of one unto condemnation 
 
 . as through the one man’s disobedience the 
 many were made sinners, even so through the 
 obedience of the one shall the many be made 
 righteous.” (Rom. 5:12-21, R. V.) Here the 
 
 130 
 
The Otber Sfde of Evolution 
 
 actuality of the narrative is the very basis of the 
 declaration of man’s state in sin and a type of 
 the extent and nature of Christ’s work. So also 
 the use by Paul in the account of the resurrection 
 doctrine: “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ 
 shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22-45.) 
 
 2. The Bible teaches that man was made in 
 the image of God. That image was Christ who 
 is elsewhere declared to be “the effulgence of his 
 glory and the very image of his substance.” 
 (Heb. 1:3.) In this image man was made. This 
 is a very different picture presented to us from 
 that given by the evolutionist of a brute “which 
 could stand on its hind legs and throw things with 
 its forelegs.” 
 
 3. The Bible teaches that all are guilty and 
 condemned and lost, and without excuse. It , 
 teaches that man fell from a high state as a race 
 and as a race is responsible for his condition. It — 
 cites death as the proof of this. It teaches that — 
 man is inherently averse to God by nature and 
 wilfully continues to do wrong and in short is 
 condemned and lost. It teaches that he once had — 
 the truth and wilfully gave it up for sin. That 
 he does so now in spite of the law of God written 
 in his conscience and that out of Christ he is lost 
 and without hope. (Rom. 1-5; Ep. 2:1-3, I1, 12.) 
 
 4. The Bible teaches that what man needs is a 
 
 131 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 pardon, a reconciliation with God, a ransom, a 
 regeneration, a resurrection. He must be trans- 
 lated from death to life, from the kingdom of 
 darkness to that of light. If he has not all this 
 he is lost and doomed. 
 
 5. The Bible teaches that in order that man 
 might enjoy this, Christ had to come and die, “the 
 just for the unjust that he might bring us to 
 God.” He died as a sacrifice, as an offering, as a 
 ransom, as a propitiation, as a reconciliation. His 
 death made it possible in justice as well as in 
 mercy to save man. 
 
 6. The Bible gives a description of man’s means 
 of salvation which is most opposite to the hope 
 held out by Evolution. It is by a radical and su- 
 pernatural change that he becomes right and only 
 as all men so change or are changed will the 
 world become right. Conversion is not Evolution 
 but regeneration, the implanting of a new and 
 ‘opposite nature. 
 
 7. The Bible teaches a different outcome of hu- 
 man life and history. It points to an end by su- 
 pernatural means to the world and a judgment 
 for mankind and the establishment of the King- 
 dom of Heaven by supernatural means. It cites 
 the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the 
 Deluge as examples of the world’s end. It gives 
 the most awful combination of earthly figures as 
 
 132 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 the picture of the doom of the impenitent and the 
 most beautiful figures earth and sky can furnish 
 or the mind of man conceive as the home of the 
 saved. Nothing could be more different than the 
 theologies of Evolution and of the Bible. 
 
 Many well-meant volumes have been written 
 to reconcile Evolution and evangelical belief. 
 None are satisfying, although the eagerness with 
 which some were at first received are witness to 
 the desire to retain both beliefs. 
 
 The theistic evolutionist thinks that to find a 
 place for the Creator somewhere along the line is 
 enough. St. James rebukes this insufficient the- 
 ology in these words: “Thou believest that there 
 is one God; thou doest well: the devils also be- 
 lieve, and tremble.” (Jas. 2:19.) So also Christ 
 himself said: ‘Ye believe in God believe also in 
 me. . . . Iam the way, the truth and the life. . .. 
 No man cometh unto the Father but by me... . 
 He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the 
 Father which hath sent him. ... For as the 
 Father hath life in himself even so gave he to the 
 Son also to have life in himself. ... He hath 
 committed all judgment unto the Son that all men 
 may honor the Son even as they honor the 
 Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth 
 not the Father.” Theism then is not enough in 
 the opinion of Jesus Christ. 
 
 133 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 , The whole Christian system is in question in 
 this theory. The whole aim of Evolution is to 
 ' dispose of the supernatural as much as possible. 
 The radical evolutionist gets rid of God entirely 
 he thinks. The theistic evolutionist limits the in- 
 ‘terference of the supernatural to the creation of 
 matter, of life, of man’s spiritual nature, and the 
 incarnation and work of Christ. The tendency of 
 evolution is to make the miracles of Christ mythi- 
 cal and the phenomena of conversion natural. 
 The theistic evolutionist is on a side hill. He 
 must go up or down. He is not consistent, and, 
 as the human mind asserts its right to consist- 
 ency, he is forced, willingly or unwillingly, often 
 unconsciously, to the one side or the other, and 
 he finds himself led along lines which take him 
 far from evangelical belief. In its consistent 
 form, Evolution leaves no room for a Creator. 
 Indeed Haeckel, the greatest of living evolution- 
 ists and the legitimate successor to Darwin’s 
 place and greatness, states, as already quoted, 
 thus: “It entirely excludes supernatural process, 
 every prearranged and conscious act of a personal 
 .character. Nothing will make the full meaning 
 of the theory of descent clearer than calling it the 
 non-miraculous theory of creation.” (History of 
 Creation, pp. 397, 422.) Another evolutionist, 
 
 134 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 Carl Vogt, says: “Evolution turns the Creator 
 out of doors.” Infidels all accept of it gladly. 
 Every atheist is an evolutionist. 
 
 EVOLUTION A RELIC OF HEATHENISM. 
 
 James Freeman Clark thus writes: “In the 
 system of the Greek and Scandinavian mythology, 
 spirit is evolved from matter; matter up to spirit 
 works. They begin with the lowest form of be- 
 ing; night, chaos, a mundane egg, and evolve the 
 higher gods therefrom.” (Ten Great Religions, 
 Pe2eziy) 
 
 Sir J. William Dawson, the late eminent geolo- 
 gist of Canada, writes of the theory as follows: 
 “The evolutionist doctrine is one of the strangest 
 phenomena of humanity. It existed most natu- 
 rally in the oldest philosophy and poetry, in con- 
 nection with the crudest and most uncritical at- 
 tempts of the human mind to grasp the system of 
 nature; but that in our day a system destitute of 
 any shadow of proof, and supported merely by 
 vague analogies and figures of speech and by ar- 
 bitrary and artificial coherence of its own parts, 
 should be accepted as a philosophy and should 
 find able adherents to string upon its thread of 
 hypothesis our vast and weighty stores of knowl- 
 
 135 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 edge, is surpassingly strange.” (Story of the 
 Earth and Man, p. 317.) 
 
 Evolution is working towards a_ pantheistic 
 atheism. This is expressed in the creed of the late 
 Cecil Rhodes, the late magnate of South Africa, 
 as follows: “I believe in Force Almighty, the 
 ruler of the universe, working scientifically 
 through natural selection to bring about the sur- 
 vival of the fittest and the elimination of the un- 
 ft75 
 
 136 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE SPIRITUAL EFFECT OF EVOLUTION. 
 
 It is apparent that the adoption of such a the- 
 ory as Evolution must affect the spiritual state of 
 the person receiving it. Man’s mental and spir- 
 itual natures are intimately connected. While 
 those in a settled previous spiritual experience 
 may carry Evolution as “ a working theory” only, 
 those in an immature state will be vitally affected. 
 Especially is this true of youthful minds. It is 
 indeed a fact that many young men have started 
 with high purposes to prepare for the ministry, 
 and even for foreign missions, and have, after 
 adopting these modern theories, abandoned their 
 purpose, and thousands have abandoned all per- 
 sonal religion. Pastors can tell of many such 
 instances. 
 
 Some have said that the adoption of Evolution 
 has helped their faith. They fail to see that 
 bringing the Bible down to their faith is not 
 bringing their faith up to the Bible. It is a weak- 
 ening of faith and not a strengthening of it. This 
 apparent increase of faith simply prepares the 
 way for its utter ruin. The first step leads to a 
 
 137 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 wider divergence, as many have shown, that leads 
 to wreck of all faith in a supernatural God or 
 world or Bible. The mind will follow its natural 
 workings. Loss of faith in the facts of the Bible 
 leads to loss of faith in its truths. The acceptance 
 of this theory still further leads to a lessening of 
 the sense of our need of Christ that the Bible 
 teaches and man should feel. And further the ac- 
 ceptance of this theory, while it may not affect 
 materially the minds of experienced Christians, 
 will through them affect others. 
 
 There is also a latent unconscious loss of faith 
 that is realized only in some great emergency, 
 when in “the storm and stress’ of life the soul 
 looks out for something to hold to. It is then 
 that the rotting platform of unbelief goes down in 
 wreck. The other extreme is also a cause of ruin. 
 In the time of great prosperity when all the 
 allurements of life and time and sense present 
 themselves, it requires all the purpose one has to 
 stem the tide of temptations. It is here that a 
 false belief will work havoc. The mind conceives 
 that after all sin is not so hateful or salvation so 
 needed or doom so fearful. } 
 
 The effect on experimental personal experience 
 is evident. Instead of looking for a regeneration, 
 a revolution of the inner state, the believer in 
 Evolution necessarily looks for a change from 
 
 138 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 education or other form of development. Such a 
 thing as conversion or a baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost he will cease to look for or desire. There 
 will come declining feeling, lessening devotion, 
 prayer will become perfunctory and there will 
 come increasing occupation with and love for 
 other things. Evolution as a belief makes right 
 many things that were before held to be wrong. 
 It is an easy religion to hold. It strikes the world 
 at the angle of least resistance and enables the 
 holder to accept almost anything that the natural 
 man desires. The conflict of “the flesh and the 
 spirit” ceases; the flesh, that is the natural man, | 
 has conquered. 
 
 These theories in many seem to be but evi- 
 dences of a previous wrong state of heart. The 
 wish is father to the thought. The theory is ac- 
 cepted because it allows the laying aside of views 
 that restrain the desires. Such persons are will- 
 ing to admit the existence of God and his contact 
 with man at Creation if relieved from any nearer 
 relationship. It is therefore worse than unbelief. 
 It is antagonism. It is enmity. Christ said, “Men 
 love darkness rather than light because their 
 deeds are evil.” The heart and life are the basis 
 of their opinions. It is evident that argument 
 here fails. “A man convinced against his will re- 
 mains an unbeliever still.” 
 
 139 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 Evolution is a comfortable theory to the world. 
 It elevates man/7It hides the presence of God. 
 It calls for no repentance or consecration. It 
 boasts of human progress and claims merit there- 
 for. In short it is the worship of man rather than 
 the worship of God. It deifies man and it ignores 
 Christ. Once committed to this theory, there is 
 no extreme the person may not reach. Some have 
 abandoned Christ and Christianity because of it. 
 It is in fact in doctrine and experience and con- 
 duct, the antithesis of Christianity. 
 
 Such a theory as Evolution and its vaporizing 
 method of Bible interpretation, prepares the way 
 for “isms” of every kind. It is to this we are in- 
 debted for the swarm of these that afflicts the 
 church to-day. Once allow that the Bible may 
 be interpreted to suit such theories and any heresy 
 or absurdity can prove its position from the Bible 
 as all of them by this same process do. 
 
 It is already weakening the power of the pulpit, 
 and this in turn is one great reason for the declin- 
 ing effect of the preached word. Once received 
 into a minister’s heart the edge of his sword is 
 dulled if indeed the sword is not itself sheathed. 
 He may not preach Evolution either as a method 
 of creation or a method of salvation, but his own 
 inner faith is weakened in the old truth which had 
 such power to convert the souls of hearers. When 
 
 140 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 
 
 openly advocated and taught, it is useless to seek 
 revivals among those so taught. So it is the fact 
 that conversions to-day are mainly confined to 
 the young and others not affected by the error. 
 
 All the indications point to the further weaken- 
 ing of the hold upon men of the supernatural and 
 the eternal. ‘To eliminate the former and, while 
 acknowledging the latter, to disparage all refer- 
 ence to the future life, seems to be the tendency 
 of the day. As already cited, one of its chief ad- 
 vocates tells us, “Heaven is no longer the center 
 of the Christian’s hope.” The consequence is the 
 material and intellectual interests receive chief at- 
 tention and other agencies take the chief place 
 religion should have. Education received in the 
 United States over $200,000,000 in gifts during 
 the last few years, to say nothing of the many fold 
 more received from incomes and public funds. 
 Meanwhile the causes of Christ are languishing, 
 missions are dwarfed, small churches in great 
 masses of the population are struggling for ex- 
 istence against fearful odds, while the money of 
 professed Christians pours in these mighty 
 streams for all other purposes. No sensible per- 
 son will disparage education, but “Religion is the 
 chief concern of mortals here below.” 
 
 Further it is the few who can take advantage 
 of the higher education for which these millions 
 
 141 
 
The Other Side of Evolution 
 
 are given. But five per cent of the common 
 school scholars can attend college. The many 
 must toil for existence. It is to the poor the gos- 
 pel was preached by its Founder. It is to the 
 _poor it means most. ‘To those who have little 
 /else it is the all in all. It is to these it should be 
 preached in its freedom and fullness. The prin- 
 ciples of natural selection of the fittest which 
 sends millions to higher institutions and neglects 
 ithe masses of the people is the opposite of the 
 | gospel. 
 
 Cardinal Newman wrote: ‘There is a special 
 effort made almost all over the world, but most 
 visibly and formidably in its most civilized and 
 powerful part, to do without religion. . . . Truly 
 there is at this time a confederacy of evil mar- 
 shalling its hosts from all parts of the world, or- 
 ganizing itself and taking measures enclosing the 
 church of Christ as in a net and preparing the 
 way for a general apostasy.” (Quoted in “Chris- 
 tianity and Anti-Christianity.” §. J. Andrews, 
 p. 4.) Whether this is the final form of unbelief 
 is difficult to say. It bears the marks of anti- 
 ) christianity the apostle speaks of. The unbelief 
 | of the latter days will rest on belief in the unvary- 
 ' ing stability of nature. (2 Peter 3:4.) The 
 coming of this theory is aimed to dissipate any 
 looking for supernatural changes such as the 
 
 142 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 Scriptures teach are coming to earth, such as the 
 last day, the coming of Christ, the resurrection 
 and all the vast series of changes therein de- 
 clared. Hence that wholesome fear of God so 
 operative in deterring evil and stimulating good 
 is removed. Based on this unbelief, the enemy of 
 God and man can advance to the accomplishment 
 of his purposes as never before. All satanic 
 methods before this have been crude and coarse 
 compared with this last invention. It is the most 
 subtle and sweeping of all evil methods to en- 
 snare the mind of man. Based on what is called 
 science, promoted by the scholars of the day, , 
 taught in the fountains of learning and preached 
 from pulpit and platform, it must have a wide- 
 spread effect. Heretofore attacks on Christianity 
 have been made from without. This is from with-. 
 in. It is the trusted leaders who are now under-’ 
 mining the fortress in which they live. 
 
 But revivals always begin at the bottom. It 
 was a few poor fishermen who commenced the 
 gospel age. It is their successors to whom we 
 must look as we have in the past for return of 
 apostolic power. “God chose the foolish things 
 of the world that He might put to shame them 
 that are wise; and God chose the weak things of 
 the world that He might put to shame the things 
 that are strong; and the base things of the world, 
 
 143 
 
The Otber Side of Evolution 
 
 and the things that are despised did God choose, 
 yea and the things that are not, that he might 
 bring to naught the things that are: that no flesh 
 should glory before God.” (1 Cor. 1:27, 28, R. 
 V.) So we look hopefully to God for that only 
 which will deliver the church from this and all 
 other pestilent evils, theoretical and practical, a re- 
 vival of true religion by the power of the Holy 
 Spirit, and the preaching of the old gospel of the 
 cross of Christ. 
 
 T4t 
 
Page 
 AEDUEVINLSS DEALDEUS coerce cians oe ruue ee eee 90 
 POE AE VIAIac des aun wale ve cman xi, 3 
 FIN e EN 49 fe) 91 Ree appar pg ame Wee ee MOREE AAI SORES 92 
 1 C1 PGS (opt a gs eign rot Reap PDN Ae ey Ree yt nee 77-127 
 PUIMSUNETICSN COMPILER re tae orn ai dairies eee wee 56 
 PIADLALOY OLLSUCCICR foes. vacecc ces soreness 55 
 [TEE US oe Been pape PRY On ened RRND PIPE wm Le 13, 50 
 PCR Gattuso ry vic doce d erty etl eneae 15 
 PRUE OLIN AN rey cede wea ee tee eae sees 90 
 PREISAU Por iy as ty er ar Fi aie ord EM ake eek 75 
 PLE UCH OL tase Stier e iu ieee erie a Piece cae 68 
 PIBSUEtALE ANIGUILY syn oe species: calcd oe OC Ae ee ae 93 
 SREEV IAAT LOAISIONGs (acres e coy rc exe ean de oe 8 103 
 IAG IOre detec give ts dvitd ae Cae we awe’ 43 
 PePeiOeLure Ge DOU Wy fasts Faas ada ease Page pees 58 
 POTATO OEY ou peed so pciie oe kyr oer Rae 9 
 Feat dele.) Abtei Ee | LU SE EAA ror ries Crete 16 
 Mr sGe BEE GUN ta eo coc oe eee oe ta Xiv 
 PADVODIAN CLVILLZAHON os dao s facet vets oe ee ck ae 99-103 
 PAM EM ISA TIOT NY Cb 2g a's hiss cokes aN oR wie aes 381 
 Ber tea PESO NOI Yrs xa bddcncs ben deed eee 9 
 Peer EGS TANCES Mi Sao caren law oak ee 59 
 Peatlanttin Pitta Tank ahh. oes oclte dene eee eae S 118 
 RAI TaUe  OACHINY xt hh Dade he bas awaa ee: 38 
 Barrows or. OnM FH GNTy 26s Sf ocditaoe ease tak > 62 
 
Page 
 PCAUMONT av ales she te hee rca once Ree Ve Ree 16 
 BEGmCel wits. cvs iis viet Sewn vee eee 57 
 GRIUGaeliZa LCS here cv ee tis tees een eee 44 
 BibieaCCOUn ten. n eee wel eee sie anges 61 
 Biblesnterpretationvarveaauec eee en ee 121, 123 
 Bibleheolosyaccen sue eran lew se secte est eee 131 
 Bonaparte, Napoleon isso cris eee 111 
 Bowers, Profiotephenkanc ch cette tne cee ree 81 
 Brainjwargumentsironi theese ee ae 84 
 Rrewsterpoirst Davids. wasn ey eee ae ee 59 
 STOW ch rins ees ee ee ein Oe et eet eee eee 4 
 Bruner eee ote epee ee oe ee ee 104 
 a teh yh oii yh ocaer Shee sote Wt air ope Ea len acer Aiia uh 9 
 @alAVaTas SKULL Cay oc that oesl steatosis ee eet 80 
 CPATIVIE, AL MGMAS sk -ccaise-tatsteletnlelyhetslete esta suis «ees 9 
 CRAMErAIN  LITe tL] ACOD car tetets) oie orate lett ciate les eae 103 
 ERAN CE Sy duivt ld ka wid dial ch al sAdacntae ohms nae teats 115 
 CGEM PANZE Crs dn-heisitetiels picid tigkivly dei eAG ae vesiaane & 74 
 CADTISt Coed dnd GARE Re Ab oes cma ati ene cteen were 109 
 Christ and the Old Testament ...0..0.. 5.444% 126 
 CBTIstlan EXPeLiEN Cs o.iacisb ills «mre gne came ee 107 
 Glassificatton oid s tie anteiat dure lst dd st Ads toe ee 41 
 Gload; Edward) fo..ct eet aunts 17, 29, 73, 75, 88, 84, 85 
 Golorado'skeleton.....:.bsissinstnuas sscte ee 81 
 Conn, Prof. H. W....5, 25, 27, 29, 30, 39, 42, 48, 50, 96, 115 
 Concensus ofsscholarships..acwa.uats ce eee oan ate 10 
 Gnelo lan Pua res camnecashsenece storie ans vitor eee ee 87 
 Cook, WoL GI O8E Diya ced mavens qm deen eh See eee 13 
 Cane hi, D oukucuinwe heen aoieade soe Aye eee 53 
 COFal ARGON Tr iiss ce ostadaln ead dd OoteL a eee 13 
 Crpatian skeleton: (205 11s onls wae reer ee 81 
 Cross, test of evolution........... SPP ER we yin os 106 
 
Page 
 
 Rerystallization ... sxe wate SEAR URS CR Senay ceed 57 
 POAT AM TOES ee bret eee cree ae Tice ee 42, 64, 86, 89 
 BV Arwit a GRAS es sta ayer ene ware als 5, 17, 29, 41, 55, 61, 87 
 EAT WVEDISIINE ott, ot rtic cine ccs kai peiee es eta eee te 29 
 MRA WsO i OA Witsie ee sae ae tae a 9, 36, 95, 114, 116, 135 
 MICPCHELALTION Sai ol pis os be cre meio air ee wii tee ae 53 
 PPE ROUTE. ser acen sa et a's eae sie ewe eg ne ae a 102 
 PPISCELOULIOU Cr PoE fi eee kine mw rte eaten eines ¢ 43 
 BU UOIS EOD GUC CNET. oc acrcate astt charted titers 82 
 At Dera OO ter PCTAtute’s cicials va cuit die aicieisy Ot 15, 20, 23, 58 
 Povpotmummicd animals... ..vess ess sees 4 53, 85 
 HRV DUAICVUAStIES fens pep vie sarees siibenes coves 92 
 MEV OUAMCININZAtION -.  iecka'en is eon oo cmt Sere 100 
 PEDO VOLOP Vir rile ain sale edie Pairs tale elton sald 49 
 OTT Sire terete hate coe ara es a ytaa ah eee eee te 46 
 SMEG. LADS Ns cidtde sient 5 cade vines ssy wep. tes 9, 59 
 BURT IC Serres eles Ait via oe acid «cig iceeres «was 105 
 PBC Ome VLC ANING iio ase nice ein di niejeieierciene cletae’s ¢ 1 
 DERNIMON Sse oe ess Teco e hs mn ess oles ke 3 
 MQPTOVEN 0a Hiv ssc cccaess «seas Ata Bee 5 
 SCICTILISISETCICCL un bic iiss lea ee so paler 7 
 ANSEIOP eT erent eek s ch hae eee thee 30 
 
 DRL COSCON on octautes na ns aan oe daa a sn atel ora ote 26 
 Geology against... ....0..cnccedcaseevaece 38 
 PRAM CLG Oe a's aa a's so ade ae dives cele oe 42 
 DIEM ater toa gaaak a isAs made ace ad oot 89 
 Era CO A Sa ANSE PES Ween eck art 112 
 NANCOM Ce ao das anand eee ad eso wos Seeks 115 
 
 Uday i Rn eee BCP P EY Ati Pe Perey 120 
 
 COU KEPRIOTE pie Wha nial & wa noo meine oe Oiohte 107 
 
 PEG) 9 hath 0a) pee ee re PEE Siwanene tee 32 
 
 147 
 
Page 
 PAIskePProl. a) ON ys c9s cs ews 6c wan eens ee eee 85 
 POTCE POLICY Ol ines sath es Se cites pee Suen eee 18 
 MOSSHS Ce scg nals occ Pid sa the nade eee Reet elles 59 
 MOOV AL EG US ee SRS i soled ale sid no vidiale dake le ake ee 8 
 PTENCH GNStitote News wiswe wees oh lete eb eee abe 12 
 Galle Ze.ss ac Phe ae Na OR oa Eaten ene 12 
 CFA LLOT Science oe eC eRe aay ee Rate ie eentaten eee 101 
 (VeOlOLY, ATOUMENL ATOM ys ss oe eae ee tat ee 37 
 Géologistsitestimony Of... js este co's Cubbie ntee 38 
 OTTO FIHE Ran ana cece ha SE ee oe ee tee 50 
 CyITAIE MOTIZID Oli yc. bse 0b5 6644 a5 wallets cae oe 33 
 (SIA CStONG iio cor ercew site teh w nih Sie bia ists cmalee ee bre 117 
 Re TGETULTOSS LT Wit cat ele tiene vinlakad tala Heit ated penne 118 
 Gsreat Pyramid tiio\ar nies ose tor helt ee 100 
 MSTEEKS 155d detain al diddcied a bhdw'e oki ne dated ol lei 101 
 ASTEO OLY; IT Ms ah erd aces peels viele ei visa chs viakatamiaielts 8 
 CETOLE, DOTS era toi alse oi uiahieln vie ooisleatays iclelatoticte cicbe cute Bes 8 
 Haeckel, Ernst... 45... .<. xiv, 3, 5, 8, 9, 19, 28, 39, 41, 118 
 Fi xeGK Or Tr. W aoe siscsc enti vain maha wate wht Eee 8 
 PeAtimasin AO a wie unstc ac tise pee eae eae 9 
 Harmack iPro ficceceswisnx tie sees ae 18 
 Harrison, “hredericks ><... ee neces center 14 
 PSTN ann Fei na vkaic cw Guna h ids Ae thec kn eens 102 
 Wcathen Oripin £i..chaeacuss teense ones 135 
 Peer Oswald inca nuciiced otaisasne ee cee ee 9 
 PLCTSCHEl fa cetuk ke bs Ghee oe anaes ae 15 
 Blilyrecht rok. 2.3.5.<k% 6 ssa tee epee ae 19 
 PANG“ V C0982 ah on batacnicsh wees ooo We ee ee 103 
 PEISLOTY: os wine bs icin ko ies 4 hie) ys nid ee ee 98 
 Pugher CriGicising s.c:s seis smncea-tevcet eee 13, 94 
 SAOHIMAUN aaa cesod week sabes sh Ane onkcaae eae ee 9 
 
 148 
 
Page 
 POM OF PTUME Val: MAN: cow de eoles tas cewes 0 he: 72 
 RISC, EO OO gee cia ces oo he rocks Ree ot xiv, 86 
 Beate CHATACLCTISHICS ...a25 see's las Savea ee sa 70 
 MECH PUTO Y, MxOTL,: osc ayer anc hens Keb Ce ramen ee ee 16 
 BRENIG Wate oct ss «elena 6, 18, 25, 29, 30, 44, 45, 48, 69, 72 
 BUPETAOL EE NODU aie acs sets otis resi eter anens 110 
 BeBe VV til ota. cre cece ues te case aned eee 116 
 Pee EAN aaa eAci ui gactcena cess oes 18, 24, 74 86 
 PAUP AUN Cate decas cvs sce sna divas acre Kove eas 45 
 POCA VETU oan ene dadeer tat oe cine. cay ewanas 16 
 SERS ee aie ada cava dnia ed saad sd tee aetoes 74 
 eee ee rr cesta vcetss ¢ eee aa4e ened a as 8 
 Land, animals, origin of......... MINCE POS 33 
 EM AT TES RRA Rane Mir arek pom Cane hire Va 102 
 Dae eet aa cae Poe sod cect seniosns +t eee e et 99 
 PRAUGUACCE aa dd eky cat eacsvacthcscd nada seveness 86 
 ie eRe Sy GOA MEP OOPS ine BPE P err eater ee 101 
 Peep eTOl [OSCDIL. ws aes acae eee cece tae ¢ 3, 28, 24, 40 
 DEIR IIT Ol oct a savace cede ca aasaietesicss wigs 32 
 15 Sy ae bette PROS ray ba Min ati CUPL: 24 
 BCP OUIIS OL dons caer ee case oc etewee cin edns ss 23 
 PEVIOMUN RIL e Bes ca dtes svce ne ovina Serr ak ents 91 
 PEt er ta es a een Piss Cone shee encs cress 16 
 MOMMA OL ANIAIES A us a can'ss'evieccde aka nena was 73 
 Mathematical adjustments..... ..cccdcesccdcoes 56 
 MAMICETs OTIMIN: OF, oss cap nce sacuscencaescs se edias 17 
 Mental Changes. fees csc cas duetenadneeaicted 90 
 Beenrone skeleton i y.aceswrcsenswensawewedects 89 
 BREVOD DIT stes cans eee oe so oc concen aves tudenks 81 
 
Mnoder 
 
 Page 
 Mind and ,CONSCIQUSNESS ....,....ssn lee os cses bbeede 85 
 WEISSING ILI e ac cca ccleweees seve tana aehtes 78 
 Mississippi jéltag. (sos cina ss cats cept mate cee ner 16 
 Nolécular creation 3sa0 sone dasa eae eee. ee 50 
 MOmIETADIEAVES DO Leb con sewn ratte veteae dete ee strere 104 
 MONKEY lanPUavewerismacss Hee Cv Con ee saiame This 88 
 Moon, Mountains Of +t i Ste eelddelece seeks 15 
 Morphologicalargumentssrcrwa-s soe oe coe 44 
 Maller PaviViak cee as wae fe ictea eek ait eer eis 86, 87, 97 
 Murchison: olrarodericKkes 75 saree hoe oe eee 38 
 Molaughiing a iecinieins ace cioe ates ce creme 57 
 NO alisiictats ts'ale stelaralalobaletotatelelahelatataloteterats lolefalaanatatd 8 
 Nattiral SelectiGh cx tcict oisiete lols \ateletctolatelclate latafoletntelc 29, 34 
 Neanderthal Skah cP i tidlelelidiesisiestieide 80 
 Nebularsll ypotnesis., ons sin ween ss aes nia saw nares 21 
 Wew: Orleans Skeletony:.. ves as etnies ete cae ears 91 
 ING Winal se -aTUina save ich ean a cereeeeenad 142 
 Gripin wl dife see eter sta seca vin eter 23 
 (Orion Nn ebilla wre cls Cae cece een ee 21 
 Bane NOMAS ee ce Race he icin nee eee viii, 110 
 Parker, i neodore x.capice obec came e cam teeter 110 
 Patterson, sr sRODEIt. bie nti cee eee tae ae 40, 70 
 PattisOnsoc Nien cee eee nee ve lacrde Be ee 95 
 Ratton; rrest::b rancisilsc. wana ccs a eee XIV 
 Paulsens rote: csurace ie ca eel ace enero 8 
 PetrievProts Minders. ae ausinosicece cio ete 110 
 Piatt dors Fredericks. ve bss 6 nite ie beh ee 79, 85, 95 
 Boreder, Protises ea vddioe dese see eee 62 
 BeNECANtHTOPUS-ETECtUS) acimrpeiscacinl Nore sete nelle 82 
 BGG A a Ss hic hoietc ce tervdnee asked ihn! detus ada. ae ete 121 
 Post, srs Geo. se ou deceda codon ahedlo aca 9 
 
Page 
 EPEMISCOFIC MADAVN EATEN beac Cee ewEes UU Re cules 89 
 PRULODIASINACUVS cE Aa Ue ce he kins viele Pe eens 49 
 MTALEALOPES ee acc aly's ss Cyne ca ia tenes deena: 45 
 be LTEPIOT ara siete ce ig ayo gee SAA nee ie DOr 102 
 PLL ADMN OE ers rc theca this Leta cole a'ait ret aleer ma were Hee 109 
 RECDOUL REN Y 1 ok CETERA TEA Cu sce tees CHS rOere 102 
 PE VINONG I UBGIN Clin cia ves tes obs See eee 9 
 POUL ES eC OCI NG as 050s 134 cae a Oe ee 136 
 EUCHLETIM CAUSE AIIIAA Nath chm Stree k einccira eee 109 
 Pec patiiy 1s Clarks secs asakek wes hateawe ce seks 41 
 ROCKS: OLIDULOLN A ht a ee oe Cees cleats at alae 37 
 PATI AR UR ee aie wc ee ae Ay es bine Fe secs os 103 
 BUMIORCAUC PRT RS as hdc sa ssa we clon se leese ecisaae 110 
 PoeGiMeNntaryrOrgans. ius. . bebe die eee wip eb ele = 67 
 ROUSKIIP eee eIe veka tuk Use cess corer wre cde aees 9, 67 
 PaVAS CRN ACES eect: cert iae'as Rave, aie cevets co Mae 96 
 Sele LOTR OMe teas crn ties cect s cctele a sels he otais ate cree ai 13 
 DAVCCELIOIN AMID re tects cre dene scene ate weenie 93, 100 
 PEPE CIPANI TOM rca! aca niu 2% Gee's ec wots cides urna es 13, 91 
 SOMATIC Cot OT ah ix GOR DL sites ste'a'n a eee tra giclee arm heats 5 
 eee eh a I CLLOTt rt cc a na d-<'ctatahate uiria ete ae ates 41 
 Paes CLICIN CHCOLICS reigts st ao a VAatera aisoeeie ciate bette wera 15 
 ECO WICK, AGAIN). iitch viclobs e/a diaw imines heels « 40 
 Sree LO re ale gicigt dota’st sclera eteio's Westaty® tetalstaalele te 19 
 eimultaneousNnesa. .. 4.0. 444.nes geen wt et tees 42 
 SELLE eee U's oes eho abe nile le a avalon whee bode Ke 8 
 SOL AT: SY SUOMI rsa talele a ralale Ulahrotataa te tele a etnteleler ott of 19 
 SOECIER, EVOLULION Of 5).74.5.5.)07.400 tetera ne elie wales ey 26 
 
 Spencer, Herbert....... xv, 2, 14, 17, 20, 31, 41, 105, 114 
 SAIL ITAL MCLLO CE: fan! here'ioia'o'alotete'etnMolaleln o's wiv ateue EAN 137 
 
 151 
 
Page 
 
 DEAT SETOLS pte cue hae Omen ce Gea CPN EE 101 
 DIONE AL Gene celine ua cien cae cine on cele wee Oe 91 
 SEUCKENMUTE) LIT: J, Lee cis ee wus aloe aa stele 8 
 DHCCESSION 11 .).7.6 Ulead OEE GLI weire nia rae ee ae eee 2, 37 
 Sully Proc, James. ois Sew rho savienee asc eou es 62 
 WE DLACOETs hin. tagte statis ain wletvie ance vis eines ast or 48 
 Wal Miahalvscgeecse eee ee erence a ae 97 
 Perta (Del Muego. ies cess ceca nse ees ae 87 
 AUCISHEEVOINTION eke ote eee ae 4, 77 
 MheisticgteA Gai  wircsr ce oe ek hae ce eee eae e ua 
 NCOIOSY Ol r, VOlNTON, nye. th es car siemens 128 
 hOmas, Wor eSSi@ lb, , cece cose ene ee tees 28 
 THOMSON. List WAd toe cece eee ered sone ee 18, 34 
 PHOMSON, WT, y, CALL er sa eee cate oe 30, 51 
 MNOMPSON FT. JAMES. ok cass a es elas coke 105 
 UNV G Sich pmcies site orenien eS Rin Ee ee ieee es ee eee 13 
 RTO aL mee te hoc epee s Cera Meise craw as 2, 5, 20, 24, 50, 52 
 Universe evolution Ofs4 weseee Chace see 17 
 GTOCTUOLL sees See eon Soe ren Ca 19 
 
 MV ATIGUER rg ee ler helene ait ste eialuie tite 28 
 VEGAS TlINGUse secu A awlets ta ele pee ee 103 
 Virchow, Dr. Rudolph.......... AAA ESS oe 7, 9, 65, 82 
 WARNED IM recente soot eenh 2. teen cee 8 
 Wallace Santa eas es Re Ae tae cae 66, 83 
 WVTIALES DOTID IN aia ahah wiclec gets wd Cates een ee Oe 33 
 WiititessAnOrewyo.5 oc aah tee eee tee anne 12 
 WinIIney UP TOlsc sari ace eeu Se ea ce eae aneas 5 
 WASemMan, AAtHiNngl oo eet ae a rn nee 12 
 WV TISON = WOOGIOW wieie 42 ce wee se a eae oe 15 
 Wilson; OR ANG :Cell. occ soe c On aes ca eee 25 
 
Tnodexr 
 Page 
 NOMSON ATIOALE We cite cat ce cae era centre ce eteenid s do 
 MIND lire errata ater irs caine ad wr aka ade 26, 94 
 Wright, Geo. Frederick........... xv, 12, 21, 58, 95, 112 
 io en Yond Bei, eae bee Popa eataes tgtiie ncn 5 4. 6, 12, 90, 94 
 AMET LETS rk cite vl erahcitine eit decae CROCS On OD 9 
 

 

 
Date Due 
 
 on i or 
 iE si 
 , 
 é . Ye lt yh 
 * 8 
 . Nd ° 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
i ad 
 a a 
 
 lt eee 
 aaa 
 
 ay 
 
 = 
 
 ot 
 “a 
 
 Lee 
 tl 
 : 
 
 =e 
 an 
 
 Pa 
 
 ~~: 
 
 50 ye 
 
 a . 
 
 < Ale 
 ee we 
 
 ete 
 
 wae 
 
 5 nll ge 
 Fats Soe 
 
 5 
 
 rel 
 = 
 
 
 

 
 - Co . 
 
 — EF 1012 0