SAE SSH 
 SSS x ASS 
 
 ES 
 S 
 SSS 
 
 Ss 
 
 SS 
 SS 
 
 ws 
 . SV 
 
 SSNS 
 = 
 
 ~ 
 < 
 
 S SI 
 SSS 
 SEN 
 SR 
 WS 
 
 Se 
 
 we 
 SS 
 SS 
 OS 
 
 see 
 
 < 
 
 SSS 
 SEES 
 4 
 
 Nae 
 Tena 
 
 SS 
 
 SSS 
 OSS 
 
 SSS 
 SSS a 
 
 SS WSS 
 
 SES 
 oS 
 SS 
 
 a 
 Sys 
 
 SSS 
 
 San 
 
 = 
 
 iow abare rent’ 
 AS 
 
 
 
Ay An GF PHI 
 
 Mar s 
 MA 1.01926 
 
 
 
 . - © . ~ i A / a \ 
 Division (Jf + 36 
 
 Section «4 & <4 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
a th ¥ 
 Wat Pi See ‘yi 
 idee } 
 
 he 
 : 
 
 
 
wha 
 AL} Pi: 
 
 
 

 
 i. 
 
 ail’ 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Vv 
 Sal 10 1926 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 By THEO. “GRAEBNER 
 
 Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Author of “Evolution: An Investigation and a Criticism’’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE 
 1925 
 
 
 
 
 
THE ESSAYS IN THIS VOLUME ARE RE- 
 PRINTED, WITH REVISIONS, FROM THE 
 
 THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY, THE LUTHERAN 
 WITNESS, AND THE WALTHER LEAGUE 
 MESSENGER. 
 
 
 
 Copyright, 1925. 
 CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, 
 Str. Louis, Mo. 
 
jd jae 
 
 Table of Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction: The Dayton Trial—an Aftermath .............. 5 
 
 Hee Chem Goniictere ue ctu citaeccre onus mers cake eee sie etste o's ein vig ea « 1g 
 Dae VOI LION ANG pReEVel a GlO Neer areas fe rte ties cialis ince rateck ese a1 oes ssydlie ile) aie) 6 26 
 Bit eT CTINANONCE OF ISPOCLES. sabia lniette a snal sales “aio vin shh tle sets supe + andes 34 
 Aree Dee Barrier cole NSLINCt maddie ccctstets Secs dee ieee lant eee ne cron; «eteiaeelanaleits 39 
 DeeHivOlULION SANE DISEASE eer aus, spake cleccue ree cae 6. os Gen cienss she) 5-0, Sus duals 44 
 6. The Assured Results of Science and Dr. Einstein ............... 48 
 7. Haeckel’s Fictitious Links and Certain Pliocene Remains ........ 51 
 8. Evolution of Man — The Verdict of History .................... 61 
 BD AS Kane LONE AES, INGE W Ae ints Me coca ene cue men Oat see MIE NCR ih eae a So A 69 
 free Laie a OMA CTR VEN heres Neracly tics se Aes oxalate Vatele ely Gea eles ogee 92 
 ieeUnsolvedeMysteries: Off Liveryva Dayacre sities citi ce asses she lee 97 
 
» 
 ‘ 
 4 
 ¢ 
 ‘ 
 Ay 
 ‘ 
 * 
 ~~ 
 » 
 ‘ 
 -# 
 . 
 \ 
 * 
 ’ 
 . 
 \ 
 - 
 . 
 a 
 Uy 
 : : * 
 - 
 P ‘ 
 
 
 
4 de da den dander dando dan dordsndandandandend 
 y, NY. y, Y: af y. ¥: Ys cy. y,. y, Ve y, y, 6 y; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 The Dayton Trial— An Aftermath. 
 
 The decision came July 21, 1925, when John Thomas Scopes, 
 twenty-four-year-old high school teacher of Dayton, Tenn., was 
 found guilty of violating the Tennessee Anti-Evolution Law. When 
 the jury had returned its verdict, Judge Raulston summoned Scopes 
 before the bar and imposed a fine of $100. 
 
 Attorney-General Stewart had thus stated the case of the State 
 when the trial opened: “John T. Scopes, a teacher in the Rhea 
 County High School, violated the Anti-Evolution Law by teaching 
 a theory that man descends from a lower order of animal life, and 
 therefore taught a theory which denies the story of divine creation 
 of man as set forth in the Bible. This is in violation of the Anti- 
 Evolution Law.” 
 
 Bail for Seopes was fixed at $500, pending appeal of the case 
 to the Supreme Court of Tennessee at Knoxville. 
 
 Since then we have had the aftermath. 
 
 The climax probably came with the Associated Press announce- 
 ment of the excommunication of E. A. Kundred by the Lutheran 
 church at Kendallville, Ind. Kundred is a gladiolus grower, and 
 the church authorities decided that in hybridizing his gladioli to 
 produce new varieties he was interfering with the divine scheme of 
 things. They voted that “if the Almighty had wanted gladioli to 
 be hybridized, He would have made them that way,” and excommuni- 
 eated Mr. Kundred. Now, according to the statement of Pastor M. F. 
 Kretzmann, of Kendallville, Mr. Kundred never was a member of 
 the Lutheran Church, probably never attended church after his 
 confirmation, has not lived in the neighborhood of the Kendallville 
 church for the last eighteen years, and was certainly never dealt 
 with in the manner described in the press dispatches. But this 
 disavowal will never overtake the sensational report, and the excom- 
 munication of the Indiana hybridizer of gladioli will go down in 
 history in connection with the Dayton trial as an example of the 
 opposition of the Church to modern science. 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Meanwhile the Ku Klux Klan has once more come to the rescue 
 of Christianity. It had sponsored the Anti-Evolution Bill and will 
 devote to the suppression of the Darwinian doctrine hereafter what 
 strength it can spare from its fight upon K. C’s, Kykes, and Koons. 
 
 In London, Prof. George M. Price, the geologist who believes in 
 the Genesis account of Creation, was howled down by the audience 
 when he appeared for a lecture entitled, “Is Evolution True?” 
 
 In Jewell County, Kans., the school board of a rural district 
 ordered a set of books burned which contained a discussion of the 
 theory of evolution. 
 
 From Oslo to Adelaide. 
 
 But these are high spots only. The discussion of the Dayton 
 trial has reverberated around the earth. I have before me a copy of 
 Hjemmet, published in Oslo, Norway, containing on its first page 
 pictures of the Neanderthaler and of Pithecanthropus, illustrating 
 an article on the “Adventure of Man’s Origin.” The author is one 
 of the multitude upon whose mind the judgment of anatomists 
 regarding these reconstructions has made as little impression as water 
 running over a marble slab. 
 
 Presbyterian and Anglican papers in Australia have come to 
 the rescue of Darrow, describing the whole action of the State of 
 Tennessee as “handcuffs on science” and protesting that “we need 
 no longer apologize for saying that man has developed from a lower 
 animal life.” An Anglican theologian addresses a Melbourne paper 
 with a letter, pointing out that it has long been recognized by all 
 educated Christians that “much of the Bible is the poetic and alle- 
 gorical representation of religious ideas, and to regard these books 
 as literal science and history is to misunderstand the intention of 
 their writers, indeed, to misunderstand the whole nature of the 
 essentially poetic Hebrew ways of thinking.” The “farmers and 
 townspeople of the American Middle West” are held up to the 
 Australians as horrible examples of “folks who have allowed their 
 minds to grow hard and rigid from disuse and who are apt to 
 take a short way with notions which threaten their certitudes.” 
 
 Thus Dayton is more than an incident, it is a shibboleth. 
 Around it rages, and will continue to rage for a long time, the 
 controversy between Creation and Evolution, and the world-views 
 which these two words represent. The attempt which was made by 
 the lawyers for the defense to inject the discussion of the truth or 
 falsity of evolutionary doctrine into the trial was unsuccessful. But 
 enough was said both by the defense and by the prosecution to 
 reveal the underlying issues. And these issues are not so much two 
 mutually exclusive views of the beginning of things as two diametri- 
 
INTRODUCTION. ts 
 
 cally opposed attitudes regarding the truth of Revelation. In this 
 there is no little merit. The American people may remember little 
 even now regarding the wrangles of lawyers in the Dayton court 
 July 10—21. But they do remember, and will remember, Darrow’s 
 protest against opening the court with prayer. They will overlook 
 the constitutional justice of that protest; they will recognize in it 
 an attitude. Darrow, the atheist, protesting against prayer, will 
 remain to millions an Emblem. 
 
 The Blunder of the Defense. 
 
 And, indeed, if ever that hatred of revealed Truth and Divine 
 Law which we have elsewhere termed the “Fatal Bias” of the evolu- 
 tionists has led them into a series of egregious blunders, it was in 
 the Tennessee trial. Mr. Bryan’s comment upon the employment of 
 an atheist as chief counsel —of Darrow, the defender of the young 
 Chicago murderers, who had stressed their faith in evolution — was 
 unanswerable, withering. Millions have read his statement and 
 have nodded their assent: “Mr. Darrow’s connection with this case 
 and his conduct during this case ought to inform the Christian 
 world of the real animus that is back of those who are attempting 
 to enforce upon the schools the views of a small minority, regardless 
 of the fact that the philosophy of life based upon evolution robs the 
 individual of a sense of responsibility to God and paralyzes the 
 doctrine of brotherly love.” 
 
 Well might the New York World say: “The truth is that when 
 Mr. Darrow, in his anxiety to humiliate and ridicule Bryan, resorted 
 to sneering and scoffing at the Bible, he convinced millions who act 
 on superficial impressions that Bryan is right in his assertion that 
 the contest at Dayton was for and against the Christian religion.” 
 
 The clause “who act on superficial impressions,” sounds uncon- 
 vineing, particularly also in view of the fact that Darrow’s right- 
 hand bower was the Unitarian clergyman Potter of New York, who 
 soon after the trial boasted “that he was the religious expert who 
 wrote out the questions which Darrow presented to Bryan,” and who 
 in the same interview, in reply to a direct question, said it would 
 be “perfectly possible for a Christian church to accept an agnostic 
 as a pastor.” Even the thinking millions will find a strange agree- 
 ment between Potter’s assertion that we “don’t think that God made 
 man; we think that man made God,” and the declaration of a Jewish 
 infidel, Rabbi Urich of Milwaukee, who in his comment on the 
 Tennessee trial said: “God is an instance of evolution, for He is 
 merely the creation of man’s mind. The science of religion proves 
 that God did not create in His own image, but that man created God 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in his image. What we must do is to pull God down from the 
 heavens and have Him inhabit the earth; not merely reside in the 
 ethereal vacuum.” 
 
 So far, good and well. The world has heard Darrow state with 
 all possible clearness that the intention of the defense lawyers was 
 to “turn back the tide that has sought to force itself on the modern 
 world — the testing every fact of science by religious dogma.” Those 
 who remember the fanatical crusade which Huxley waged against 
 the Bible (Science and Hebrew Tradition, p.X: “The infallibility of 
 Seripture delenda est. Essays in present and following volume are, 
 for the most part, intended to contribute to this process of deletion”) 
 will not fail to see the point of a remark made by Forrest Bailey 
 of the American Civil Liberties Union (which backed the defense) : 
 “This case offers a unique opportunity to take the wind out of the 
 Fundamentalists’ sails and to do even more effectively what Huxley 
 did in England and America between 1860 and 1880.” 
 
 Where the Church Failed. 
 
 All this is so clear that he who runs may read. The line-up 
 was between the believers in supernatural Revelation and those who 
 deny it. Now, what the people might have expected in the aftermath 
 of the Dayton trial is a clear and unmistakable line between the 
 Church, which must stake everything upon the inerrancy of the 
 Bible, on the one hand, and the forces of infidelity, on.the other. 
 What has actually happened must be a great disillusionment to those 
 who harbored such hopes. Not only scientists who announce their 
 belief in religion, but even Protestant clergymen have allied them- 
 selves with Darrow. 
 
 Typical of the Modernist attitude is a series of articles con- 
 tributed by Rey. Geo. E. Hunt (Presbyterian), of Madison, Wis., to 
 the Milwaukee Journal. The Bible “makes no claim to divinity,” 
 “does not claim to have been dictated by God.” Hunt declaims 
 against “the ancient notion of a divinely dictated book, sent from 
 heaven to guide men into all knowledge,” and against the “liter- 
 alists”: “These bats and owls who live among the dry cobwebs and 
 ancient dust of theological lofts, who have voiced their sad hoots at 
 the teaching of evolution.” He is unable to accept the time-honored 
 belief “that God took a lump of clay, molded it with His hands into 
 the form of His own body, and then breathed into this clay image 
 the living spirit, and that this was done in a single day of twenty- 
 four hours.” 
 
 The Lutheran clergy has entered the lists in defense of the 
 doctrine of Creation, the only rift in the lute being a newspaper 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 article by Rev. Newton H. Boyer of the United Lutheran Church, 
 who in the Daily Oklahoman answers with a decisive No the ques- 
 tion: “Is the Creation of Genesis Literally True?” “If I were 
 a literalist,” he says, “I would have to believe that serpents would 
 always have to crawl on their bellies because one once tempted Eve. 
 If I were a literalist, I would be under the necessity of believing 
 that God cursed the earth; weeds, noxious growth, are the results 
 of man’s sin; in other words, that unconscious, inanimate nature 
 suffers for what my ancestors did; I would be obliged to believe that 
 God often acted at the prompting of a whim, a caprice, and that 
 His eternal judgments are based on an arbitrary desire to punish. 
 All of which is either pagan in conception or utterly irrational.” 
 
 To all of which Clarence S. Darrow would unhesitatingly 
 subscribe. 
 
 The effect of such sponsorship of the evolutionary theory by 
 Christian clergymen must be greatly confusing to the man in 
 the pew. The saying of our Lord regarding those who deserve that 
 a millstone be tied around their neck surely applies to these infidels 
 in the pulpit. 
 
 Introducing a Withered Virgin. 
 
 Nevertheless, the expressions of the lawyers and experts in 
 attendance at the Dayton trial contain scant comfort for the camp- 
 followers of evolution. Science falsely so called was represented by 
 some of its spokesmen, yet never has looked to us so much like 
 a godless Samson who “thought he could go out and shake himself 
 as of old, but he could not.” Really, there is no more telling argu- 
 ment against evolution than the words of its spokesmen who ad- 
 dressed the crowds at Dayton or made the trial an occasion for 
 interviews to the daily press. 
 
 Dr. M. M. Metcalf, a Johns Hopkins professor of Zoology, admits 
 concerning the lowly beginnings of organized matter that “their 
 nature is not by any means fully understood,” yet bravely continues: 
 “Now from these first living things which could live on inorganic 
 substances there developed a whole series of forms,” etc. A little 
 farther down follows this classical expression worthy of being pasted 
 on the wind-shield of all Americans who have their first infection of 
 evolutionism : — 
 
 “The difference in the development of animals and plants was 
 largely due to their food habits. The plants stood still and let food 
 come to them while animals hustled for it. The consequence was 
 that animals developed organs for moving themselves and for grasp- 
 ‘ing food, and these developments led in turn to many other changes 
 and advances, so that the divergence between animal and plant life 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 became increasingly broad” —! <A theory is in its second childhood 
 that can offer such mythological meditations to the public and eall 
 them “science.” 
 
 An extremely unsuccessful wriggle we would call the statement 
 of Prof. M. F. Guyer, Wisconsin University professor of Zoology. 
 He is now satisfied to call evolution “change” and let it go at that. 
 He said in an interview: “Evolution does not always mean progress 
 from simple to more complex forms, though that is the generally 
 understood definition. To the scientist it means change. Most of 
 these changes are from simpler to more complex forms; but there 
 are other instances of what we call regressive evolution, where the 
 process is reversed.” 
 
 It is when confronted with such expressions as quoted that we 
 hesitate to call evolution a scientific hypothesis. A hypothesis, if 
 worthy of the designation “scientific,” must be a proposition not 
 contradicted by the facts which it is intended to explain. Yet every 
 effort to raise the evolutionary theory from the domain of speculation 
 into the realms of scientific hypotheses has met with disaster. It is 
 admitted by scientists that the “method” of evolution is unknown. 
 This destroys evolution as a scientific hypothesis, since it is, in its 
 very essence, a quest for a “method” or origins and nothing else. 
 
 In the speeches made at Dayton, and in the newspaper discussion 
 which followed, there was again in evidence an almost pathetic 
 reliance of the evolutionist upon the data supplied by geology, — data 
 supplied by geology only after they had been transferred to its account 
 through a very deft sleight-of-hand by the evolutionists themselves. 
 The fallacy crops out in such statements as these (Chas. C. Ziegler, 
 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of September 6): “To my mind the 
 indirect or corroborative evidences of evolution are just as strong as 
 the direct. The succession of living forms, as shown by their fossils 
 in the geological strata, was from the simple to the complex, from 
 the lower to the higher.” Or, quoting from Rev. Hunt: “There, in 
 the form of fossils, lying in these various strata of rock, from the 
 earliest up to the latest layers, is plainly visible to the human eye 
 the whole course of the growth and unfolding of plant, insect, 
 reptile, and animal life of the earth. Im the long series of rock 
 deposits one cannot help but note the gradually ascending scale of 
 life, running through uncounted millions of years. In these later 
 deposits are forms of manlike ceatures that suggest very significantly 
 that man himself is a product of the whole process.” 
 
 Now, as was pointed out first in our Hvolution: An Investigation 
 and a Criticism, this entire argument from geology is based upon 
 a tremendous “circle in reasoning.” Prof. Geo. M. Price has recently 
 
INTRODUCTION. ii! 
 
 expressed it thus: “We have awakened to the idea that this entire 
 classification is merely the geological phase of the theory of evolu- 
 tion, and that this geological series is in reality the last and most 
 important stronghold of the whole theory of evolution. Not only so, 
 but a multitude of discoveries are now known which prove conclu- 
 sively that the rocks and fossils placed at the bottom of this series are 
 not necessarily older than the others.” The argument is more fully 
 dealt with on pages 59—61 of the text just quoted. The theory of 
 overthrusts, which is made to account for strata that occur in the 
 reverse of the order demanded by evolution, receives proper attention 
 in Professor Price’s New Geology, p. 277 ff. 
 
 Naturally, one of the first scientists to be called to Dayton by 
 the defense lawyers was Prof. Edwin G. Conklin, the Princeton 
 biologist. While not permitted to testify, eager interviewers obtained 
 his opinion. He is quoted as saying: “It is plain that the causes 
 are complex, and they have not yet been fully discovered. It is even 
 probable that some of the proposed causes are erroneous and will 
 have to be abandoned. But the same may be said with regard to 
 the causes of gravitation, light, electricity, chemical affinity, life, or 
 any other natural phenomenon.” And again: “Lowly origin is not 
 incompatible with ultimate greatness, as none knows better than the 
 countrymen of Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, and Grant. All the 
 greatest leaders of men were once babies and germ cells, and yet 
 this humble origin does not preclude a glorious destiny. It is odd 
 to see our Great Commoner objecting so strenuously to this demo- 
 cratic doctrine.” 
 
 A theory must be in dreadful straits when its spokesmen are 
 compelled to descend to such levels. Professor Conklin cannot be 
 unaware of the fact that the common people will understand him to 
 say that evolution is as clearly understood in its laws as we under- 
 stand the laws of physics and chemistry, and that there is something 
 analogous between evolution and the development of “grown men 
 from babies and germ cells.” It is when we note the intricate sword- 
 dances which the masters of evolution must perform in order to 
 razzle-dazzle the public into trustful security, that we experience 
 a feeling like nausea at the entire subject. By comparison it is 
 refreshing to read the straightforward statement of Professor Mil- 
 liken, of Chicago, who brought consternation to the Darrow crowd 
 when he uttered his “Not proven!” Robert A. Milliken is winner of 
 a Noble prize in physics. Addressing the American Chemical Society 
 August 6 at Los Angeles, he said: “The pathetic thing is that we 
 have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist 
 ever can prove.” 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Prof. William Emerson Ritter, of the University of California, 
 is one of the outstanding scientists in the world. We take the word 
 of scientists for this. Very recently he said: “If one scans a bit 
 thoughtfully the landscape of human life for the last few decades, 
 he can hardly fail to see signs that the whole battleground of evolu- 
 tion will have to be fought over again, this time not so much between 
 scientists and theologians as among scientists themselves.” 
 
 The Antichristian Bias. 
 
 Nor has the antichristian bias, to which the evolutionary 
 hypothesis owes its vogue, failed to assert itself at Dayton and in 
 the Dayton aftermath. Dr. Osborn has gone on record with the 
 statement that since Darwin’s time scientists have “been eager to 
 discover some natural cause of evolution and to abandon the idea 
 of supernatural intervention in the order of nature.” Plain enough, 
 ig it not? 
 
 According to an article in Asia (Vol. 24, No. 6) Professor Osborn 
 means by soul “the spiritual, intellectual, and moral reaction to 
 environment and to daily experience. When we speak of ‘the soul of 
 a people,’ ‘the soul of Japan,’ ‘the soul of China,’ ‘the soul of France,’ 
 we refer to something created, not in an instant, but in eons of time. 
 This racial soul is the product of thousands of years of past expe- 
 rience,” ete. So the soul is an abstraction only, an attitude, not an 
 essence, destined for immortality. A bleak naturalism, not sur- 
 prising in a scholar of Thomas Huxley. 
 
 Professor Conklin’s religious views find expression in the inter- 
 view already quoted, thus: “The religion of evolution is nothing new, 
 but is the old religion of the world’s greatest leaders and teachers; 
 the religion of Confucius and Plato and Moses, and especially of 
 Christ, which strives to develop a better and nobler human race and 
 establish the kingdom of God on the earth.” This is not so much the 
 antichristian as, even upon superficial analysis, the irreligious atti- 
 tude, which simply rules out the supernatural. Noble words, they 
 cannot cover up the hideousness of a theory which places an animal 
 at the beginning of human history. From this theory the ordinary 
 mind will draw the conclusion voiced in a newspaper letter by an 
 Illinoisan: “One thing is certain, if our ancestors were beasts, I care 
 not how far back you go, we, too, are beasts. And if beasts, what 
 right have we to hope for a future estate beyond the grave any more 
 than any other beast?’ This is the plain English of the philosophical 
 statements of Osborn regarding the soul and of that naturalism which 
 Conklin is able to utter with such spiritual accents. 
 

 
 INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 Roman Rationalism. 
 
 The comparative liberality which the Roman Catholic Church 
 accords to its priests and people in this same matter has again been 
 evident in the discussion which has followed the Scopes trial. After 
 quoting from Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Professor Windle of 
 the University of Toronto said: “The matter may be summed up by 
 saying that if and when the state of science is in such a position as 
 to establish the fact of evolution either on limited or unlimited lines, 
 there most surely will be nothing in any attitude so far taken up by 
 the Church to render acceptance of the view impossible or even 
 difficult. Nay, more; it will be found that it has been accepted in 
 advance as a perfectly possible— many would say highly probable — 
 method of creation.” 
 
 McCann’s God — or Gorilla takes the middle-of-the-road attitude | 
 regarding organic evolution in general while denying most strenuously 
 the pertinence of the so-called proof from fossil human remains. 
 Mr. McCann, who is a Roman Catholic, says: “I have never failed 
 to admit that God might have worked, had He seen fit, by some 
 evolutionary process in His creation. It is altogether possible that 
 as far as our bodies are concerned, we have derived them from some 
 preexisting form, which took its own body, in turn, from a still 
 earlier form. All this is nothing to me, because I am still con- 
 fronted by the phenomenon of the soul, which by its very nature, 
 a simple spiritual substance, could not have been evolved from matter 
 under any theory of evolution ever proposed.” 
 
 On the other hand, Prof. Geo. B. O’Toole of St. Vincent Arch- 
 abbey, Greensburg, Pa., in his more recent book T'he Case against 
 Evolution, not only denies the validity of the evidence adduced for 
 human evolution, but charges the evolutionists with destruction of 
 religion and morals: “Had evolutionary enthusiasts adhered more 
 strictly to the facts, had they proceeded in the spirit of scientific 
 caution; had they shown, in fact, even so much as a common regard 
 for the simple truth, the ‘progress of science’ would not have been 
 achieved at the expense of morals and religion. As it is, this so-called 
 progress has left behind a wake of destruction in the shape of under- 
 mined convictions, blasted lives, crimes, misery, despair, and suicide. 
 It has, in short, contributed largely to the present sinister and 
 undeserved triumph of materialism, agnosticism, and pessimism, 
 which John Talbot Smith has fittingly characterized as the three 
 D’s of dirt, doubt, and despair. A little less sensationalism, a little 
 more conscientiousness, a little more of that admirable quality, 
 scientific caution, and the concord of faith and reason would have 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 become a truism instead of a problem. But such regrets are vain. 
 The evil effects are here to stay, and nothing can undo the past.” 
 
 Such conflicting views on a matter vitally touching religion are 
 permitted within the Catholic Church. All that it prescribes to its 
 teachers is the doctrine that the human soul is a divine creation. 
 So much granted, its teachers may go the whole length with Darwin 
 and Huxley. 
 
 A Moribund Hypothesis. 
 
 Meanwhile scientific research is going on serenely unconcerned, 
 so far as it is scientific, about the Scopes trial and its implications. 
 And wherever it penetrates below surface appearances, it finds diffi- 
 culties mountain-high rising against the acceptance of the evolu- 
 tionistic scheme of causes. It has been argued that certain mutations, 
 or variations, such as Luther Burbank has produced, and the develop- 
 ment of high-producing cattle, such as the cow that yields thirty 
 thousand pounds of milk a year, show variation in the direction of 
 progress; but the answer is obvious: All the artificial breeds, if left 
 to themselves, would soon revert to the ancestral type. David Starr 
 Jordan has quite recently said: “A species is a race that has run the 
 gauntlet of the ages in the open and survived. None of the new 
 species created in the laboratory would last five years in the open. 
 A greenhouse variation is easily secured. It is like calling a military 
 school cadet a soldier. A soldier is one who has stood.” This, of 
 course we have all known a long time. But the earth begins to rock 
 under our feet when we read the following sweeping admission of 
 Prof. M. F. Guyer: “Most biologists no longer believe that changes 
 in form are brought about as a result of external conditions, that is, 
 by the action of outside influences upon the parent, which after 
 a long period begin to be transmitted to offspring. Biologists believe 
 changes are first impressed upon the germ plasm and that these 
 changes are transmitted to offspring, which then begin to differ from 
 the parent. How these changes are induced in the germ plasm is 
 a problem we are trying to solve.” This throws back the entire 
 discussion to where it was before Darwin wrote his famous treatise. 
 
 Chas. D. Stewart writes entertainingly in the July Atlantic 
 Monthly on the mystery of the honey-bee and comes down to cases 
 in his description of the wonderfully complicated knee-joints of 
 the bee. Referring to the idea of natural selection, which gives an 
 animal a “spontaneous” tendency to vary in all sorts of aimless and 
 undirected ways and then builds up from some primitive or one- 
 celled form by a long series of coincidences, Mr. Stewart says: “The 
 human mind, starting out to give this theory definite application, is 
 immediately brought to a halt. A man will ask questions, and so he 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 wants to know whether the bee’s antenna existed first and needed 
 a cleaner for long periods of time, or whether the cleaner happened 
 first and was in need of something to clean. As to the gradual 
 evolution of tools, here is a bothersome thought: Some tools are of 
 such a nature that they are not of use till they are complete. 
 A wheelbarrow without a wheel, a pipe-wrench without a jaw, would 
 be an entirely unevolved piece of evolution. The antenna-cleaner 
 seems to belong to this class of tools. One cannot imagine its pro- 
 gressive stages and see how any one of the imaginary states of 
 incompletion would give its possessor any advantage over other 
 insects in the struggle for existence.” 
 
 Evolution and Scripture. 
 
 As for the major and all-essential question: Can evolution and 
 the Scripture be harmonized? David S. Clark says in a recent 
 number of the Princeton Theological Review: “As far as material- 
 istic or naturalistic evolution is concerned, the answer must be 
 a decided no. In behalf of theistic evolution the attempt has fre- 
 quently been made, but it cannot be said with entire success. It must 
 not be assumed, however, that, even if such harmony could be estab- 
 lished, this would prove evolution to be true. The proof of evolution 
 must rest on positive grounds. It is not a mere choice between 
 a naturalistic uniformitarianism and a supernaturalistic uniformi- 
 tarianism, but whether even the latter is true. As long as evolution 
 defines itself as ‘development,’ ‘history,’ or ‘orderly change,’ — as long 
 as evolution confines itself to the limits of species, one need hardly 
 enter the lists. But when evolution transgresses these limits and 
 affirms the transmutation of species, deriving all sentient being, the 
 race of man, body and soul included, from a primordial germ, then 
 discussion arises and opposition ensues. Transmutation is of the 
 essence of evolution — is really what evolution means. There may 
 be room for difference of opinion as to the limits of species, some 
 more, some less, inclusive, as the case may be; but that there are 
 such limits the sterility of hybrids and the laws of Mendelism con- 
 clusively show. The laws of nature show a very decided respect for 
 the limits of species, and to this the first chapter of Genesis bears 
 witness: ‘And God said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb 
 yielding seed and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose 
 seed is in itself.... And the earth brought forth grass and herb 
 yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit whose seed 
 was in itself after its kind.” Gen.1,11.12. ‘And God created every 
 living creature that moveth ... after its kind, and every winged 
 fowl after its kind.’ V.21. ‘And God said: Let the earth bring forth 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast 
 of the earth after its kind.... And God made the beast of the earth 
 after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that 
 ereepeth upon the earth after its kind.” Vv. 24.25. How careful the 
 Scripture is to stress the words ‘after its kind’! These are statements 
 for the Christian and the scientist to ponder. And there are many 
 who hold that the physical law of the inviolability of species and 
 these express statements of Scripture are cogent and conclusive evi- 
 dence that transmutational evolution is in harmony neither with the 
 Seriptures nor with the laws of nature.” 
 
 Not only this, but it stands as a denial of every essential 
 Christian belief. As a layman wrote to the Adelaide Register when 
 the Dayton excitement was at its height: “Whenever the standard 
 of Christianity is lowered, there is a marked increase of worldliness 
 in the Church. There is no doubt that much of this is due to the 
 conduct of the clergy, many of whom have imbibed the teachings of 
 the higher critics and the evolutionists and have, in turn, passed on 
 these pernicious doctrines to their congregations in place of the pure 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ. The severest indictment that must be 
 brought against the God-dishonoring theory of evolution is that it 
 denies that there was a fall; therefore there is no need of the plan 
 of redemption or of the Savior, the central figure of that plan to 
 redeem and restore to original purity and sinlessness. While higher 
 criticism denies the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, 
 the virgin birth and deity of Jesus, and practically every other funda- 
 mental doctrine of Christianity, their preaching has consequently 
 lost converting power. The Spirit of God cannot work where the 
 fundamentals of Christianity are denied.” 
 
 And Finally: What of the Tennessee Law? 
 
 And now, what will become of the Tennessee law ? 
 The lawyers of Mr. Scopes have appealed their case, and very 
 _ probably the Supreme Court of the United States will have to say 
 the final word. ; 
 
 Is the law in harmony with the American doctrine that the 
 individual’s right to his particular belief shall remain inviolate? 
 
 A Twin City paper comments: “It is this issue which makes 
 the case one of transcendent importance, since, if such legislation 
 should be held constitutional, there is no reason why legislatures 
 and congresses should not, in effect, set up that very ‘establishment 
 of religion,’ forbidden in the first Amendment to the Constitution 
 of the United States. If the teaching of the evolutionary hypothesis 
 can be forbidden, there is no limit to legislation along collateral 
 lines. The religious liberty which the American people have enjoyed 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 for more than a hundred years would be destroyed, and we should 
 have in free America such persecutions as have marked ascendancy 
 of various religious sects since medieval times. Against so dire 
 a peril it seems to us that every American, evolutionist or funda- 
 mentalist, must earnestly contend.” 
 
 Judge Raulston has given the Tennessee point of view as follows: 
 “T cannot conceive how the teachers’ rights under this provision of 
 the constitution would be violated by the act in issue. There is no 
 law in the State of Tennessee that undertakes to compel this defen- 
 dant, or any other citizen, to accept employment in the public schools. 
 The relation between the teacher and his employer are purely con- 
 tractual, and if his conscience constrains him to teach the evolution 
 theory, he can find opportunity elsewhere.” 
 
 Prof. J. G. Halland, formerly State Superintendent of the North 
 Dakota public schools, has voiced his agreement with this line of 
 thought as follows: “The evolutionist has a hypothesis, or creed, 
 that explains to his satisfaction the origin and nature of things, of 
 man and of mind and matter. This is his religion. With him it 
 takes the place of Genesis and all other theories of creation, or 
 cosmogonies. To this religion he is entitled. It is his constitutional 
 privilege. If, however, in the enjoyment of this privilege, he becomes 
 enthusiastic and feels a great urge or desire to spread his religious 
 belief, it is also his privilege to build a lecture-hall or climb a soap- 
 box, where he doesn’t interfere with traffic, and to invite his neighbors 
 to listen to his explanation of his creeds, theories, ete.; but he must 
 not expect the taxpayers of any American community to build school- 
 rooms, compel the children to attend, and then turn him loose on 
 them to teach his particular brand of religion, even if he attempts 
 to disguise the nature of his efforts by calling it science.” 
 
 Much speculation is even now rife regarding the application of 
 the Oregon decision to the present case. Certain broad principles 
 have been laid down by the court which will be invoked by the 
 attorneys of both sides in arguing the right to teach the doctrine 
 of evolution. 
 
 The Supreme Court says significantly that “no question is raised 
 concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, 
 to inspect, supervise, and examine them, their teachers and pupils.” 
 
 From this the defenders of the Tennessee law are going to 
 argue that the court itself agrees that such a power is vested in the 
 States. The opponents of the statute, on the other hand, will derive 
 inspiration from other parts of the same decision, which says the 
 child is not the creature of the State, but can be educated at the 
 direction of the parent in whatever schools are chosen. 
 
 Essays on Evolution. 2 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In the Tennessee case the legislature simply prescribes what 
 shall or shall not be taught in the public schools, whereas in Oregon 
 the legislature undertook to compel all children to attend one kind 
 of school, namely, the public schools. William Jennings Bryan 
 insisted that parents who want their children taught evolution may 
 send them to private schools which have this branch of study in 
 their curriculum. The Oregon case, however, lays down some prin- 
 ciples as to the right of the parent with respect to education generally, 
 and the opponents of the Tennessee law are planning to argue that, 
 since the people are taxed to support the public schools, such doc- 
 trines shall be taught as are not inimical merely to the public 
 welfare. They will say that any regulation which touches the broad 
 ground of religion is an interference by the State in the right of 
 religious worship, whether the interference is in the form of a regula- 
 tion requiring the teaching of the Bible or the prohibition of any 
 particular religious doctrine. 
 
 The Tennessee case will, therefore, hinge largely on technical 
 rights such as were raised in the Oregon case and not on the merits 
 of the doctrine of evolution, whether it is harmful to the education 
 of the young if taught or suppressed. 
 
 
 
1. The Conflict. 
 
 “When this talk-fest and publicity stunt,” the Dayton, Tenn., 
 evolution trial, “is over, the Bible will still live as the inspired Word 
 of God, the scientific search for undiscovered truth will continue. 
 And no one need be alarmed that any truth discovered by man, the 
 creature, can overturn or undo that which is made manifest by 
 his Creator.” 
 
 Christians everywhere have realized the truth of this statement 
 by John E. Edgerton, president of the National Association of 
 Manufacturers. 
 
 The lawyers for the defense of man’s descent from the monkey * 
 started out to prove two things: 1) That all who are fighting evo- 
 lution are fighting science, and 2) that evolution is not in conflict 
 with religion. Those who followed the case had the definite impres- 
 sion that the defense lawyers were filled with venom against Biblical 
 Christianity and left no stone unturned to introduce evidence which 
 would unsettle popular faith in the Bible. But if we ever thought 
 we had definite impressions of what evolution is or how it works, we 
 surely have lost them if we followed the reports of the trial. Never 
 has the hollowness of evolutionistic claims become so apparent as 
 in the expressions of scientists who sought a hearing at the Scopes 
 trial in Dayton, Tenn. 
 
 A House Built on Quicksand. 
 
 Every American of newspaper reading age should at this time 
 know that the structure of evolution is built on quicksand. Not on 
 fact, not on observation supported by experiment, but on mere 
 hypothesis, all the arguments which evolution brings against the 
 Bible have been erected. Maynard M. Metcalf of Johns Hopkins 
 says through an interviewer: — 
 
 “The fact of evolution is perfectly clear. The sequence of 
 organism on the earth is a fact, and that fact is evolution. It is 
 simply one of those things which are too obvious to be denied. On 
 the other hand, it is by no means clear how it occurred, and there 
 
 * Sometimes it is flatly and even indignantly denied that Darwin 
 held to the monkey origin of man. But Darwin’s own words ought to be 
 convincing. I quote directly from his Descent of Man (second edition, 
 chap. VI, pp. 220.221): “The Simiadae then branched off into two great 
 stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at 
 a remote period of time, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, pro- 
 ceeded.” If that is not first-hand testimony, it would be hard to find any. 
 
20 THE CONFLICT. 
 
 are various conflicting theories as to how and why it occurred, most 
 of them seeming to be supported by certain evidences. 
 
 “Tt is extremely doubtful if there will ever be as much certainty 
 about any one theory of evolution as there is about the fact of 
 evolution. This is true about every great fact or basic set of facts 
 in the scientific world.” 
 
 This is a plain attempt to throw sand into people’s eyes. The 
 word “fact” as used among men means “proved instance,” or it 
 means nothing. Yet Dr. Metcalf knows well enough that there is 
 not a single proved instance of evolution in all the records of 
 science. To rail at Mr. Bryan and all those who hold that evolution 
 is unproved as if they were opponents of science is the last resort of 
 those who now, after nearly a century of evolutionistic biology, must 
 admit themselves beaten. 
 
 A theory which is supported by fact does not require evasion, 
 trickery, and misrepresentation of the opponent. In a recent book 
 a photograph was shown which brought out a remarkable resemblance 
 between the gorilla’s foot and the human. The resemblance to the 
 human foot is so true as to be startling. If it were true, then 
 a brute was found that in physical structure nearly resembled man. 
 Perhaps it was the Missing Link! Naturally the book and the 
 illustration made a stir in the scientific world. 
 
 Enters here Sir E. Ray Lankester, who examines the photos, then 
 the cast from which they were made, and comes to the deliberate 
 conclusion that the whole thing is a fake. Of the photograph he 
 says: “It is entirely misleading, since it suggests a resemblance 
 between the great toe of the gorilla and that of man, which does not 
 exist.” Then he goes on: “I wish to record my opinion that the 
 actual gorilla’s foot from which the cast was taken was distorted by 
 post-mortem changes and by pressure tending to bring the big toe 
 alongside of, and parallel with, the other toes as in man, instead of 
 allowing it to diverge widely from them as it does when not arti- 
 ficially constrained.” . 
 
 Indeed, the English scientist does not hesitate to charge the 
 author with having made a photograph of a cast “deceptively illu- 
 minated and made to present a false resemblance to the foot of man.” 
 And to prove it, he illustrated his reply with other photographs of 
 the same cast made by reputable photographers. One cannot omit 
 mentioning in this connection the fact that Ernst Haeckel, the 
 greatest disciple of Darwin, has conclusively been proved a forger 
 of photographs representing human embryos as closely resembling 
 those of various animals. These forgeries are known to every 
 naturalist and have been demonstrated by the foremost scientists 
 
THE CONFLICT. ral 
 
 of Germany. A theory which is true does not need such falsehoods 
 to support it. 
 
 Nor does it require a scientific mind to recognize the futility 
 of evolution as an explanation of the universe. Only last year 
 a lecturer in Harvard University, speaking in the Lowell Institute, 
 explained the rattlers of the rattlesnake as due to fear of the buffalo. 
 The buffaloes so often stepped on the snakes which would stray into 
 their feeding-grounds that the party of the second part decided to 
 defend itself by acquiring a set of rattlers. So they grew some 
 rattlers on the tips of their tails, and ever after the buffaloes would 
 jump six feet sideways when they heard the r-r-r. This saved the 
 rattlesnake. Lest my readers think that I am slandering modern 
 science, let me quote from the lecture just referred to: “These 
 ponderous animals, traveling over the plains, must have been dis- 
 tinetly dangerous to snakes living in the open, and while a bite, even 
 after the snake had been mortally wounded by the feeding buffalo’s 
 hoofs, would be distinctly unpleasant to the buffalo, still death would 
 probably but rarely ensue. Nevertheless, it would surely cause great 
 pain, and the buffalo would gladly keep out of the snake’s way if 
 warned, and this warning the rattle gave.” It seems to me that any 
 normal American big enough to look over a four-foot wall can see 
 that this is perfectly ridiculous. In order not to be obliged to bite 
 the buffalo with its poison fangs, a snake develops a set of rattlers 
 at the other end! 
 
 I wish some of the scientific talent which gathered at Dayton 
 would take the time to read an article in the July Atlantic Monthly, 
 entitled “The Bee’s Knees,” by Charles D. Stewart, who seems to 
 follow in the steps of the great scientist Henri Fabre, who denied 
 Darwin’s theory. Referring to several facts about bees, especially 
 neuters, he says: “Right here is where Darwin’s theory of evolution 
 went on the rocks. To every theory of evolution, heredity, the ability 
 to transmit evolved traits to offspring, is absolutely necessary. 
 Darwin acknowledged the difficulty found in bee life.” 
 
 The difficulty in the case of the bees consists in this, that the 
 workers are endowed with instincts (honey-gathering, etc.), which 
 they cannot have inherited because these instincts are possessed by 
 neither the mother (queen-bee) nor the father (the drone). Since 
 evolution absolutely depends upon heredity, it is disproved by the 
 case of the bee. Indeed, although there are two or three millions 
 of animal species on earth, it has, according to Dr. N. S. Shaler, 
 Professor of Geology in Harvard, not yet been proved that a single 
 species has been established solely or even mainly by the operation 
 of natural selection. Even Darwin himself said: “We cannot prove 
 that a single species has changed.” (Life and Letters, Vol. III, p. 25.) 
 
99 THE CONFLICT. 
 
 One of the most recent authoritative publications by a German 
 anthropologist urges that “the apes are to be regarded as degenerate 
 branches of the prehuman stock.” This means in a word that “man 
 is not descended from the ape, but the ape from the man.” 
 
 As if to mock the efforts of the Dayton aggregation of scientists, 
 science discovered just at that time on a canyon wall of Arizona 
 the picture of a dinosaur, drawn by a prehistoric hand. If man 
 lived in the age of dinosaurs, he lived ten million years (according 
 to the theory) before there ever were apes! 
 
 Evolution Atheistic. 
 
 Evolution means that everything has come into being by forces 
 that dwell in matter. Its first assumption is that both time and 
 matter are endless, eternal, uncreated. If you bring God into the 
 equation, you can cancel Darwin. One or the other gives us 
 a system. Each makes the other superfluous. A god that does not 
 create, but is himself bound by the laws of nature, is not God. 
 And still evolutionists try to overcome the scruples of Christians 
 and to stem the tide of resentment which is sweeping over the 
 nation by telling us that there is no conflict between evolution and 
 religion. 
 
 Another dishonest trick is involved in this very statement. 
 Reading it, every one supposes that the Christian religion is meant. 
 What evolutionists really have in mind is the belief in the super- 
 natural, in a higher being or power. This may be conceded if you 
 do not take power in the sense of person. The doctrine that God 
 is a Being with the personal characteristics of Wisdom, Love, Power 
 finds no place in the genuine evolutionistic scheme. 
 
 In the Outlook for July 12, 1916, the editor, Dr. Lyman Abbott, 
 quoted with approval the following from a recent book by John 
 Burroughs: “The creative energy shows itself to be very human, 
 very fallible, often vacillating and short-sighted. God has gone on 
 with His work very much as man goes on with his — blundering, 
 experimenting, but doing the best He could.” What blasphemy! 
 A “vacillating,” “very fallible,” indeed, “very human” Oreator, 
 a “blundering, experimenting” god, who “does the best he can”! 
 No amount of fine phrases can gloze over the atheism of such 
 doctrine as this. 
 
 Evolution destroys the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible 
 by denying its inerrancy and its infallible and final authority. Over 
 and over again in the early verses of Genesis we are told that God 
 created the various species to reproduce “after their kind.” But 
 evolution says that this is not true and asserts that the various 
 
THE CONFLICT. AS 
 
 species have continuously evolved from one to another all the way 
 to man. 
 
 Evolution destroys the doctrine of the fall of man and its result, 
 total depravity. The Word of God says that man has gone down 
 from a condition of purity and innocence into a condition of such 
 sinful enmity against God that he is not only not subject to the Law 
 of God, but is utterly incapable of bringing himself into subjection 
 to it. And the experience of every Christian gives sorrowful, but 
 certain evidence of that fact. 
 
 Now hear what the evolutionists say: — 
 
 “Theology has much to say about original sin. This original 
 sin is neither more nor less than the brute inheritance which every 
 man carries with him.” (John Fiske, The Destiny of Man, p. 103.) 
 
 “Science has shown us that what is popularly called ‘original 
 sin’ . . . consists of man’s inheritance from his brute ancestry.” 
 (Dr. H. D. A. Major at Oxford Conference of Modern Churchmen.) 
 
 According to the evolutionary philosophy, sin cannot be “ex- 
 ceeding sinful,” for it is either inherent in the process of evolution 
 or, at worst, but an unfortunate slip in the working out of that 
 process, if, indeed, it is not even a mark of budding virtue. And 
 if this is so, man is in no way responsible for his sin. Punishment 
 for sin is therefore absolutely out of the question. Sir J. William 
 Dawson, speaking of the evolutionary doctrines as speculations, 
 says: “They are accepted as affording a welcome deliverance from 
 all scruples of conscience and fears of a hereafter.” 
 
 Man’s natural heart is strongly predisposed to the acceptance 
 of any doctrine, contrary to that of the Bible, whereby he may 
 account for the conspicuous fact of his moral condition, his hatred 
 of his fellows, his readiness to do them injury, even to the shedding 
 of blood, in order to gain some advantage for himself, his idolatries, 
 his blasphemies, his licentiousness, his wars and strifes, his insanities 
 and suicides, his thefts, his lies, his frauds, his debaucheries, and so 
 on to the end of the dark chapter. 
 
 From this it is easy to perceive how it is that evolution as 
 a religious doctrine, though without one fact to support it, finds such 
 numerous adherents and such ardent defenders. What commends it 
 to the unrepentant and unregenerate heart is that it offers an 
 explanation of man’s origin and of his moral condition which not 
 only accords with his good opinion of himself, but which quiets his 
 conscience as to the whole question of sin and even makes his fears 
 of the Judgment to come a subject of contempt and ridicule. For 
 evolution presents a man to his own admiring gaze, not as a perishing 
 creature, lost and undone, but as a conquering hero, not as a fallen 
 being, but just the reverse, a being in process of development from 
 
94 THE CONFLICT. 
 
 a lowly origin and ever advancing to as yet unimaginable heights of 
 perfection and glory. 
 
 The late Mr. W. J. Bryan’s words at Dayton, Tenn., will appeal 
 to every Christian: — 
 
 “The evolutionary hypothesis robs man’s conscience of its com- 
 pelling force. What feeling of duty can man have or what sense 
 of responsibility to God if it must be strained through the blood of 
 all the animal life below man? Religion, on the contrary, inspires 
 to action. Christianity is not a lazy man’s job. It represents the 
 highest ideal known. 
 
 “We fear no scientific truth. What we object to is having these 
 scientists and professors ask us to put somebody’s guess ahead of 
 the Word of God. And we object to their telling us that not only 
 their ancestors, but ours, were monkeys and insisting that we adopt 
 a philosophy that looks down, not up. 
 
 “Some of these scientists of America are dishonest scoundrels, 
 afraid to tell their beliefs, burrowing in the ground and stealing 
 away the faith of your children. But we’ve got them now where 
 they’ve got to come up and fight.” 
 
 The reaction of Christian scholars against the’bold assertions 
 of evolutionists is being reckoned with. At one great Eastern univer- 
 sity, so we are informed on best authority, the professors of biology 
 are cautioning their students against making too free use of the 
 very term “evolution” when called into teaching positions. The term 
 now being passed out as substitute is “adaptation.” Plants and 
 animals in the course of time have “adapted themselves” to soil, 
 climate, and environment generally. In the very latest high school 
 texts on biology the term “evolution” is studiously avoided, being 
 introduced only in the closing chapters of the text-books. It is all 
 “adaptation” —in order to avoid the opposition which is apt to be 
 raised in the classroom against “evolve,” “evolution.” Arguments 
 between pupils and teachers are highly distasteful, and school boards 
 do not like to receive protests from parents. While the teachings of 
 evolution are thus being instilled in a more insidious form, we have 
 in this concession to public sentiment a clear indication that evolu- 
 tionists have been forced to reckon with a Christian scholarship 
 which not only from the religious, but also from the scientific stand- 
 point has been waging an aggressive fight against science falsely 
 so called. 
 
 After all, common sense does not so readily fall in with the view 
 that man is essentially an animal. Railroads cannot be run on 
 nebular hypotheses, but must be governed by common sense, other- 
 wise neither freight nor passengers would be safe. I should hesitate 
 to entrust myself to the trains of any system if I knew that the 
 
THE CONFLICT. 95 
 
 construction engineers had acted on wild guesses, like the high 
 school teachers of zoology when they teach man’s descent from the 
 ape. Recently this matter was tested out, with fine credit to the 
 Santa Fe. The story is worth repeating. 
 
 It begins somewhat weirdly with the enrolment, at a Kansas 
 college, of a boy who, as was later discovered, had entered merely 
 in order to “smouch” the football signals and with this precious 
 information return to his own college, a rival institution. At any 
 rate, this was the construction placed on the presence of the man 
 from the other college, and the punishment measured out to him 
 by the students was according to the most refined forms of scholastic 
 torture. When the worst was over, they kept him in a cage a few 
 days and fed him through the bars. Then they took him on a truck 
 to the Santa Fe depot, crated as he was, and demanded that the 
 agent accept him as freight, to be taken to the other college town. 
 The agent refused pointblank. He said, “That is no animal,’ and 
 so they had to knock out a few bars, and the young man traveled 
 home as a man and not as an animal. 
 
 Godless science makes of man an animal. Revelation says that 
 he was made as the son of God. Luke 3,38. And to that agrees 
 sound common sense, business sense, railroad sense, government 
 sense; and we cannot conceive that the day will ever come when 
 government will look upon people as a higher type of brute, or when 
 railroads will ship men like cattle. He that regards man as an 
 animal is an enemy of human society, though he speak with a soft 
 voice, and is a fool, though he wear thick glasses. 
 
 Evolutionistic propaganda is now reaching out for childhood. 
 Chiefly through the printed page, but also by means of a dechristian- 
 ized pulpit, the evolutionary hypothesis is set forth to the “man in 
 the street” and even to the child in school as the result of historical 
 and scientific research, to contradict which would classify one as 
 a barbarian. Ab the Cave Man was, I believe, the first of the texts 
 for collateral reading by which the grade scholars were introduced 
 to their ancestor as pictured by the evolutionist. That was some 
 twenty. years ago. We now have Hendrik Van Loon’s two books, 
 Ancient Man and The Story of Mankind, which drop the mask of 
 the story-teller still maintained in Ab the Cave Man and purport to 
 relate the history of mankind from the earliest times to the present 
 age. According to Van Loon it took our ancestors “almost a million 
 years” to learn how to walk on hind legs. The author takes pains at 
 every turn to disparage Christianity. Yet there are schools which 
 require their scholars to read this alleged history. Fancy a child 
 having learned the Bible story of the creation of man in the image 
 of God and then being invited to accept Mr. Van Loon’s picture of 
 
26 EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. 
 
 primitive man: “Quite small, his entire body covered with hair, 
 hands like those of a monkey, forehead low, eating his food raw, 
 jabbering like an animal in the zoo.” The wickedness of the im- 
 posture can be fully realized only when it is considered on what 
 shreds of evidence evolutionists construct this picture of the ape- 
 man —a hatful of bones, some kept by their finders under lock and 
 key, their inspection denied even to scientists (Du Bois and the 
 Trinil bones). 
 
 Another set of books of the same general character is the 
 “Tndustrial and Social History Series,” four small volumes published 
 by Rand McNally. The titles are: The Tree Dwellers, The Early 
 Cave Men, The Later Cave Men, and The Early Sea People. While 
 these books do not so bitterly attack Christianity as do the works 
 of Van Loon, they are even more vicious, since the pretense of 
 history is more consistently carried through. Moreover, they are 
 intended for the little ones, to be read at mother’s knee or in the 
 earlier grades, while Van Loon wrote for the upper grammar school 
 classes. 
 
 Just now H. G. Wells’ Outlines of History is the rage. Wells is 
 a British author who wrote some remarkable novels fifteen and 
 twenty years ago. Since that time he has joined Bernard Shaw and 
 George Moore as one of the three most bitter enemies of Christianity 
 living in England to-day. He made his Outlines of History 
 a vehicle for the antichristian world-view of evolutionary philosophy. 
 
 There is no possibility of compromise. Between these two — 
 the teachings of the Bible and the speculations of the evolutionist — 
 there is an impassable gulf fixed, which no compromise of “theistic 
 evolution” is able to bridge. 
 
 2. Evolution and Revelation. 
 
 The evolutionists are coming back at us. A class in high school 
 was reading Emerson’s Hssays, and the teacher of English took 
 occasion to sound her pupils out on the question of evolution. 
 A Lutheran girl défended the Scriptural doctrine of Creation. Soon 
 after, the teacher gave her some home reading, which proved to be 
 a presentation of the evolutionary theory as applied to literature. 
 
 The Lutheran girl, not to be outdone in conferring favors, 
 offered her teacher the December (1923) number of the Walther 
 League Messenger. 
 
 When the paper was returned to the high school student, she 
 found a note pinned to the article from which I copy the following :— 
 
EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. oT 
 
 “So far as the Bible is concerned, the theory of evolution and 
 the Bible do not contradict each other. At one time, people who did 
 not attempt to get to the bottom of things and who were thoughtless, 
 or who were incapable of scientific or clear thinking’ on a subject, 
 jumped to the conclusion that they were contradictory, but since that 
 time many of the world’s most devout and great men have accepted 
 without question the theory of evolution, and many — perhaps most 
 scientific researchers — have been thoroughly in acceptance of the 
 religious spirit of the Bible. In fact, the further into the study of 
 the laws of the universe one goes, the more profound is one’s feeling 
 of reverence for the Great Spirit responsible for the establishment 
 of such a system. Man’s mind inevitably searches to reduce things 
 to order—to a system. If man is ‘created in the image of God’ 
 (and it is the spirit that matters, the soul, the mind), shall we 
 attribute less than a reasonable system of order to His universe?” 
 All of which is not argument, but assertion. Only on one point 
 does the writer try to adduce proof: “Instinct is another indication 
 of evolution. Instinct is the stored-up wisdom of countless genera- 
 tions of fore-bears in learning to survive. Other species have per- 
 sisted in this process.” 
 
 As for developing instincts, more will be said in our chapter 
 on “The Barrier of Instinct.” But what about the relation of 
 evolution to religion? Is it true that only ignorance and prejudice 
 keep us from harmonizing the two? 
 
 Now, it can easily be shown that the Bible and evolution are in 
 conflict at least on ten essential points: — 
 
 1. The Bible teaches that God is a factor in human life; 
 evolution eliminates Him. 
 
 2. According to the Bible, man was created. Observe that of the 
 animals it is said that the sea brought them forth, or the land 
 brought them forth, each as a species or kind; while man was not 
 created “after his kind,” as a species of animal, nor was he brought 
 forth out of the earth like the animals, but God said: “Let Us 
 make —!” Evolution declares all this to be myth or poetry and 
 says man has developed by a long process from lower forms of life. 
 
 3. The Bible teaching concerning the creation of the first woman 
 is cast aside as a fable by every evolutionist. 
 
 4. The Bible teaches that God spoke to man; evolution teaches 
 that there is no direct communication or revelation from God. 
 
 5. The Bible teaches that God has performed miracles; evolution 
 rejects all miracles. 
 
 6. The Bible teaches that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary; 
 evolution says that Jesus was born like all other men. 
 
28 EVOLUTION AND REVELATION, 
 
 7. The Bible teaches that the soul is immortal; evolution teaches 
 that men perish like the beasts. 
 
 8. Both Mr. W. J. Bryan, who was a Christian, and the Unitarian, 
 Rey. Frank S. 0. Wicks, of Indianapolis, who is an infidel, agree that 
 so long as the Bible teaches the fall of man, evolution will be the 
 deadly enemy of Christianity. 
 
 9. The Bible says that man was made in God’s image, with 
 a holy and righteous moral nature; evolution says that morals have 
 developed from animal instinct. 
 
 10. The Bible teaches that man is responsible to his Creator; 
 evolution teaches that there is no universal moral law binding on 
 conscience and hence no moral responsibility. 
 
 By far the greater number of evolutionists are agnostics. An 
 agnostic is a person who answers all questions regarding God and 
 religion with “we don’t know.” Darwin was an agnostic. Many 
 are atheists. Spencer, Huxley, and Haeckel were atheists. An 
 atheist takes the position that the existence of God is not only not 
 proved, but that it is disproved by science. Their attitude is that 
 of the bug pictured by the cartoonist Paul Bransom in the Minne- 
 apolis Tribune. This bug is just issuing from the horn of a cornet 
 and remarks to a fellow-bug: “I have been all through, and I couldn’t 
 find any music!” 
 
 How our high school teacher in the face of all this can say that 
 only prejudice and ignorance keep us from harmonizing evolutionary 
 science and the Bible, is hard to understand. The explanation prob- 
 ably is that she is ignorant of the principles of evolutionary science, 
 or of Bible doctrine, or of both. Certainly, if God did not create 
 Adam in His own image, then there could have been no fall of man. 
 And if man has not fallen into sin from a state of holiness, then 
 there is no restoration of the divine image, no redemption, no sal- 
 vation. Prof. Wm. H. Wood of Dartmouth College has written 
 a book printed by the Macmillan Company in 1922 on The Religion 
 of Science. Professor Wood himself is not an orthodox believer, 
 but his entire book is written in order to prove that the religion of 
 evolution is something radically different from the religion of the 
 Bible. And let us not fail to note that those who accept the evolu- 
 tionistic religion are forced to accept also its morality, the teaching 
 of evolution regarding right and wrong. 
 
 In 1907 the Century Magazine contained an article defending 
 the proposition that the Ten Commandments have been evolved 
 rather than given by revelation to Moses. The author tries to show 
 that even the animals are governed by the principle of the Moral 
 Law. Honest scientists, like Alfred Russell Wallace, Agassiz, and 
 Dana, to mention only these, admit that there is absolutely nothing 
 
EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. 29 
 
 corresponding to a moral sense among the animals. As Professor 
 Wood says, there is nothing in the animal corresponding to the 
 sentiment: “How can I do this great wickedness and sin against 
 God?” But since the evolutionist denies that God reveals Himself 
 and hence declares the giving of the Ten Commandments to be 
 a fable, like the creation story, it is clear that he cannot accept the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 metiiha\e f 
 riety toy) Y 
 
 
 
 fA0)-BRaKSo% » 
 
 Just Like the Atheistic Bug. 
 
 Paul Bransom, in the Minneapolis Tribune, makes 
 the emerging bug say: “I’ve been all through, and 
 I couldn’t find any music,” a striking parallel to the 
 attitude of unbelieving scientists toward the universe. 
 
 idea of an absolute Moral Law, that is to say, a Moral Law binding 
 on the conscience of all men. If conscience tells man that this is 
 wrong or that is right, the evolutionist says that this is only the 
 result of custom and the outgrowth of certain instincts. “Sin and 
 crime are largely physical brain defects.” 
 
 Remember that according to evolution, man is an animal. As 
 Dr. Lyman Abbott said: “Man is an animal; concerning this there 
 
80 EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. 
 
 ean be no doubt.” And John Fiske: “Theology has much to say 
 about original sin. Oirginal sin is nothing else but the animal nature 
 which every man bears in himself.” Observe how in the following 
 the evil passions of man are declared to be simply remnants of our 
 former animal existence: “As he stands before us in all his primi- 
 tive shagginess, grasping his heavy wooden spear in the moonlight, 
 he thrills us. This is our ancestor; this is the creature from which 
 we evolved; this thing is bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh. We 
 are stirred by his passions, urged on by his nameless instincts. Forty 
 thousand years separate him from still lower animals. He stands 
 close to us — this cunning, fighting, hunting, ferocious Neanderthal 
 man.” (Quotation from Professor Knight describing the cave-man.) 
 
 Sin, then, is held to be nothing more serious than the remnants 
 of the monkey in man. There is no devil seeking to lure men to 
 destruction. 
 
 Take God out of our thinking, and what remains of conscience? 
 Disbelieve the existence of the soul, and what remains of a belief in 
 the hereafter? If there is no life of rewards and penalties after 
 death, then why walk the straight and narrow path,— thus reasons 
 the brain infected with evolution. Indeed, being without a soul, man 
 is really a mere thing. What he calls conscience is a mere movement 
 of atoms in the brain. Do you suppose that those who hold such 
 doctrines will feel a check on their greed, their passions, their 
 instincts? What follows from this is that no man is responsible for 
 his acts, and hence that no man is to be blamed or punished, even 
 for crimes. ; 
 
 Evolutionists do not shrink from this last ditch. Dr. A. W. 
 McCann quotes Robert Blatchford: “Suppose a tramp has murdered 
 a child on the highway, has robbed her of a few coppers, and has 
 thrown her body into a ditch, do you mean to say that tramp could 
 not help doing that? Do you mean he is not to blame— not to be 
 punished? Yes, I mean to say all these things, and if all these things 
 are not true, this book is not worth the paper it is written on.” 
 Haeckel argues many times that man has an unquestionable right to 
 end his sufferings by suicide ; that we are justified by the use of 
 a dose of painless and rapid poison, morphia, for instance, in killing 
 lunatics, sufferers from cancer and other diseases, cripples, deaf- 
 mutes, ete. The same doctrine has been announced lately by 
 Mrs. Atherton in a magazine article. Mrs. Atherton says that the 
 time is coming when “all morons [half-wits] will be painlessly 
 destroyed.” Get that, dear reader? How would you like to be one 
 of a committee of six to select the half-wits in your town who are 
 to be painlessly destroyed? They have even given this painless 
 
EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. 31 
 
 destruction of sufferers from cancer, of the insane, etc., a Greek 
 name, they call it “euthanasia,” which means “happy death.” 
 That the theory of evolution is contradicted by true religion 
 and morality these few examples should suffice to prove to the 
 satisfaction of every one, even of the high school teacher whom we 
 
 “Destroy These Painlessly.” 
 
 
 
 Evolution Says: 
 The Church has built an asylum to provide for these epileptic children. 
 
 
 
 have quoted. And while the evolutionary theory is not proved, the 
 Christian religion has proved itself true a thousand times. Deny 
 that the Bible is inspired, that Jesus spoke the truth when He 
 proclaimed Himself the Son of God, and you are face to face with 
 a greater riddle than any riddle of science or religion; you must 
 then account for the fact that a book written by victims of all 
 kinds of delusions has been able to elevate mankind wherever it is 
 
39 EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. 
 
 read, liberating the mind, freeing it from ignorance and superstition, 
 and enabling man to conquer the powers of nature, to conquer even 
 himself. How is it possible that the book which works such tre- 
 mendous results should be written by deluded fools? And how is it 
 possible that One who only believed Himself to be the Son of God 
 
 
 
 The Only Power that Makes All Things New. 
 The Chinese mother in the upper picture boasts that she drowned several 
 of her daughters at birth. Contrast with this the opportunities which the 
 Gospel opens to Chinese girls in mission-schools. A change of this kind 
 cannot be explained or effected by evolutionism. 
 
 and was crucified for His strange “delusion” should through His 
 apostles in a few centuries destroy by His doctrine of love the very 
 foundations of the Roman Empire and to-day, through His Gospel, 
 rule every land in which life is worth living at all? Thus evolution 
 raises greater problems than those of science itself and in this proves 
 its own unscientific nature. 
 
EVOLUTION AND REVELATION, 33 
 
 In his book Descent from the Monkey a German scholar, E. Loh- 
 mann, cites a number of cases which prove the insufficient character 
 of the evidence being used by evolutionists. Much has been made of 
 the great age of certain trees in order to disprove even the longest 
 of Biblical chronologies. A hundred years ago Alexander von Hum- 
 boldt found a tree of the species Dracaena Draco on the island of 
 Teneriffe which had a circumference of 15 meters. Von Humboldt 
 estimated the age of the tree at ten thousand years. Another tree 
 of the same species was found on this island in 1857. Its trunk 
 measured 94 meters. This same tree was again measured in 1884. 
 It developed that in 27 years this tree had already gained 2% meters 
 in circumference. Hence the specimen measured by Von Humboldt 
 was then only about 210 years old! 
 
 The tooth of time has not been able to gnaw away a single 
 sentence of the Bible. The schemes of ingenious wickedness have 
 all proved signal failures. The efforts of pretended friends to cloister 
 it in concealment, and of open enemies to crush it beneath the foot 
 of malice, have been equally impotent. Ridicule, sword, and flame 
 have all alike failed. The many books of infidelity have perished, 
 with the exception of a few, which modern infidelity has much ado 
 to keep alive. Hence its change of tactics. But here is the Book, 
 now in larger circulation than ever, translated and being translated 
 into all the languages of the earth, and by what it has done proves 
 what it will do. This fact is not equaled in the history of any other 
 book. Long since, judging by human productions, it ought to have 
 perished by the force of adversities no other has ever passed through. 
 
 God is its Preserver no less than its Author. Deny this, and the 
 Bible, with its history, becomes the most embarrassing of all miracles. 
 
 Every time a ship crosses the Atlantic, there is an additional 
 proof that the science of navigation is a true science ; and every 
 application of an honest method of reason to Christianity proves it 
 to be the embodiment of Revealed Truth, perfectly adapted to the 
 highest welfare of humanity. 
 
 Revealed truth is a matter of fact, which took fifteen hundred 
 years for its own completion in well-authenticated and well-preserved 
 records. For nearly two thousand years it has not only established 
 itself in the confidence of tens of thousands who have died for 3% 
 and of millions who have lived and labored for it, but has outlived 
 its most demonstrative enemies. And in spite of all this violent 
 opposition, the truth of the Bible now appeals to all men, as did the 
 Master, “Believe Me for the very works’ sake”; and every man is 
 responsible for his neglect of this appeal. 
 
 Between Moses and John there was an interval of more than 
 
 Essays on Evolution. 3 
 
84 THE PERMANENCE OF SPECIES. 
 
 fifteen hundred years, during which the whole of revelation was 
 made. All the books were written amid the strangest diversity of 
 time, place, and condition; they are written in different forms of 
 history, biography, poems, and prophecy; yet there is an evident 
 unity of design pervading the whole, which proves a unity of origin 
 in some source not within the minds of the authors, but without. 
 This Source controlled them so as to bring each man’s thoughts to 
 crystallize around the same thread extended through all these cen- 
 turies, and especially with regard to the Messiah, the Hope of Israel. 
 How is all this to be explained? Shall we say it may be accounted 
 for by the infidel’s suggestion that the Old Testament was forged to 
 make people believe the New? This is not only absurd in itself, 
 but plainly impossible, since the Old Testament was translated into 
 Greek nearly three hundred years before the birth of Christ. Yet 
 here the titles of the Messiah are all recorded and when brought 
 together, make an anticipated biography of Him wonderfully minute 
 and distinct for an outline. The supposition of forgery is therefore 
 a monstrous foolishness. This question, then, pushes itself before us: 
 How could such a variety of events be predicted by such a variety 
 of men living amid such a variety of times and places, and not one 
 of the predictions fail, as proved by correspondent events? There 
 can be but one answer: — 
 The Christian religion is the truth of God! 
 
 
 
 3. The Permanence of Species. 
 
 “We dare not take our religion and our religious instruction 
 from professed agnostics like Darwin and accept his reasoning 
 against the inspired Word of God.” 
 
 With this declaration the editor of a metropolitan daily, the 
 New Orleans States, ranged himself on the side of the great body 
 of educated Americans who are not ready to accept the doctrine of 
 evolution. The States had previously been outspoken in its pro- 
 fession of belief in the Bible. Reacting on this stand of the paper, 
 a student of the Louisiana State University addressed a letter to 
 the editor which was published October 14, 1924. So characteristic of 
 the mental attitude of many are the views set forth in this letter 
 that I shall quote its line of reasoning.— This university student 
 writes : — 
 
 “You misunderstand the word ‘evolution.’ In a correct sense 
 I believe it is used to denote a change due to circumstances. For 
 instance, you do a great amount of hard work, and soon you have 
 horny places on your hands known as ‘corns.’ But if you do no work 
 
 
 
THE PERMANENCE OF SPECIES. 85 
 
 your hands become tender. It was in such a manner that the hoof 
 of animals was formed. The ‘corns’ after generation on generation 
 formed the hoof. Is it not probable that the whale, finding life 
 nearer the shore more congenial and free from dangers, lived there 
 for a time, swimming away from shore when danger made it neces- 
 sary, and finally becoming part fish and part land animal, that finally 
 took to the seas?” 
 
 Two questions are suggested by this statement: — 
 
 I. What Is Evolution? II. Do Species Change as Here Described? 
 ae 
 
 Evolution is defined in this paragraph: “change due to cireum- 
 stances.” If this definition were correct, none of us would hesitate 
 to accept evolution as a fact. That there is constant change in 
 nature as in human society is evident. No one can deny that from 
 simple beginnings we have complicated machinery. In this sense no 
 one will deny that there has been an evolution. Consider only how 
 the modern tractor and harvester have been developed from the 
 original plow and threshing-flail; the ocean liner from the birch- 
 bark canoe; the modern flour-mill from the original two millstones; 
 the high-power rifle from the bow and arrow; the modern printing- 
 press from the original chisel or goose-quill. Here is evolution, if you 
 want to call it that. Even so we admit a sort of development in 
 nature. The first, wild apple-tree was something entirely different 
 from the modern juicy product of Pocatello. The Marshal Niel 
 rose is developed from the ordinary briar-rose. Those wonders of 
 the race-track, Zev and Papyrus, have been bred from wild, untract- 
 able ancestors roaming the prairies. Everybody knows about Bur- 
 bank’s plums and roses. And so if the change from wild to tame, 
 from wolf-dog to St. Bernard, if the line that connects the wigwam 
 with the steel sky-scraper, are to be called evolution, then we are all 
 evolutionists. 
 
 But the strange thing is that the moment we pass the boundary 
 of human activity, of human thinking, training, and striving, we 
 strain our eyes in vain for a scrap of evidence in favor of evolution. 
 Among the activities of animals there are no signs of development. 
 The birds construct their nests, the beavers their dams, the bee- and 
 ant-colonies carry on their complex operations, precisely as they 
 always have done. Moreover, each of those creatures does its work 
 perfectly at the very first attempt, whereas man makes innumerable 
 failures before he can do anything even passably well. 
 
 Evolution, in the accepted sense, is much more than develop- 
 ment. It means a change brought about in plants, animals, and in 
 
36 THE PERMANENCE OF SPECIES. 
 
 human affairs through the action of forces that reside in matter. 
 In the letter before us we find an intolerant attitude towards the 
 miracles related in the Bible. The writer of it believes that the 
 wonderful incidents related in the Bible may be “nice stories,” but 
 are pure fiction or fable. It is precisely in a mind of this type that 
 the evolutionary theory will find a ready response. Much has been 
 made by Mr. Bryan and others of the tendency which this theory has 
 
 
 
 (c) Underwood 
 
 Zev —and Other Winners of the Race Track — 
 Not the Result of Natural Selection. 
 
 Without the breeder’s science the descendants of In Memoriam, Zey, and 
 Papyrus stock would in a few generations again be scrub ponies 
 of the prairies. 
 
 to destroy man’s faith in the Bible. In far the greater number of 
 cases, however, faith has long departed from the heart when a man 
 becomes an evolutionist. Remember that submission to the historical 
 truth of the Bible involves a submission to the Moral Law which it 
 teaches. Man loves sin. He hates the Law of God. To get rid of 
 this terrible taskmaster, the simplest short-cut is to deny that God 
 gave this Law. Hence all those who prefer to lead an evil life seize 
 with eagerness every doctrine which permits them to sin without fear 
 
THE PERMANENCE OF SPECIES, 37 
 
 of future punishment. Hence a doctrine which does away with all 
 miracles, with all laws, with creation, is received with much alacrity. 
 And this is just what the theory of evolution does. It places, instead 
 of the will and decree of a divine Creator, Natural Law. By reason 
 of certain forces that are believed to reside in matter, all things have 
 of themselves become what they are. 
 
 Evolution, then, is far more than simply a doctrine of develop- 
 ment. It is a doctrine which permits God at one or two points to 
 make a start, —as when life was created and when man received his 
 reasoning powers, — but which treats God at best as an absentee God, 
 who has nothing to do with human life and conduct. And since 
 a God who is not active, creative, and self-revealed, is not God at 
 all, the doctrine of evolution is very properly called a godless, 
 atheistic doctrine. 
 
 Lis 
 
 The young evolutionist refers to the gathering of “corns” (no 
 doubt callouses are meant) on the hands, due to hard use. In this 
 way, he says, the hard hoofs of animals have developed. This is, 
 indeed, the contention of evolutionists. No one, to be sure, will deny 
 that animals and plants change their form and even habits as they 
 change their home (environment). Trees at the timber-line of the 
 Rockies are stunted. Or compare the magnolia of Louisiana and of 
 Illinois. But though climate and food may work changes also in 
 animals, these changes never amount to the change or transformation 
 of one kind into another kind. There is never an origin of 
 a new species. 
 
 Ants have been found enclosed in amber said to be two million 
 years old; yet these ants in the smallest detail are like ants of to-day. 
 
 To the present day, microbes possess a simple form, like a comma, 
 
 a ring, etc. Since the universe was first made, they have not 
 changed their form or habits. 
 Even species closely related have existed from the beginning. 
 The dingo, or wild dog, of Australia is a true dog in every sense as 
 to structure, habits, etc.; yet he is found in fossil forms embedded 
 in the rocks, which proves that he existed as a separate species from 
 the oldest times. By selective breeding we have produced numerous 
 varieties of dogs, chickens, pigeons, etc., from one or two common 
 stocks, but we have never succeeded in getting any of these to cross 
 the line of species. 
 
 By cross-breeding species it is possible to produce new species 
 which will endure for a time, but which invariably die out. These 
 are called hybrids. Of the 40,000 “blackberry plus raspberry” hybrids 
 obtained by Burbank, only one is still in existence. The strange 
 thing is that the hybrids cannot reproduce! Thereby falls the whole 
 
388 THE PERMANENCE OF SPECIES. 
 
 theory of natural selection; for even if species are crossed and 
 a different animal results (as, for instance, the mule), the develop- 
 ment stops right there, because these animals are neuters (unfertile). 
 
 If the study of plants and animals has proved anything, it is 
 that in the state of nature, animals do not change into new species. 
 Everybody knows that if the artificially cultivated pouter or carrier- 
 pigeons are turned loose and allowed to mingle with others, their 
 offspring in every case after a few generations will be the blue 
 rock pigeon with the three black bars across its wing, from which 
 all pigeons are descended. If it were not for continual scientific 
 breeding, our noble full-blooded horses, our feathered aristocrats — 
 chickens, pigeons, ducks,— would soon again be the scrub beasts 
 from which they were developed by the direction and oversight of 
 man. The immense herds of mustangs roaming the prairies of the 
 West and South in the past were descendants of noble Spanish horses 
 reverted to a state of nature after the withdrawal of the cultivating 
 hand of man. 
 
 The same applies to animals in a state of nature. One example 
 must suffice. In certain Austrian caves exists a blind fish called 
 proteus. Due to the absence of light, the eyes of the proteus have 
 completely disappeared, the skin being unbroken by any mark where 
 the eyes usually are. In 1914 a Vienna zoologist, Dr. P. Kammerer, 
 took some of these fish into an aquarium when they were newly born. 
 To the amazement of European scientists these specimens of proteus 
 grew eyes, perfect eyes, with lens, retina, and the necessary muscles 
 to move the eye-balls! Furthermore, by observing the motions of 
 these fish when worms were dangled before them outside the 
 aquarium, it was absolutely proved that these eyes could see. This 
 is one of the most famous experiments in the history of biological 
 science. It conclusively proved that species never permanently 
 change their form in a state of nature. Countless generations of 
 proteus have been blind, eyeless. Yet under normal conditions the 
 eyes again were there. 
 
 And so, wherever the tests are made, it is proved an undeniable 
 fact that species do not evolve. They are what scientists call “fixed.” 
 The modern ox has not derived his hoof from ecallouses on his toes. 
 It is very easy and simple to say that the plants and animals have 
 acquired their form and colors through use, that what was useful 
 to preserve life again appeared in the offspring. But while a fine 
 theory, not a vestige of proof has ever been produced that this takes 
 place, and the greatest British authority on heredity, Dr. Bateson, 
 said only four years ago: “That particular and essential bit of the 
 theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature 
 of species, remains utterly mysterious.” 
 
THE BARRIER OF INSTINCT. 39 
 
 4. The Barrier of Instinct. 
 
 We called him Archibald. He had been caught in a V-trap 
 half-way up a hill on the banks of the Big Piney River. When we 
 brought him down to the cottage, he was “playing ’possum.” 
 Naturally. He was an opossum. : 
 
 The opossum is not a very pleasant companion, for his odor is 
 a trifle strong. We kept Archibald three days, then carried him up 
 the hillside one evening at dusk, and he quickly disappeared up 
 a giant oak. 
 
 Archibald’s habits and appetite were a mystery to us. But he 
 and his tribe are an even greater mystery to the evolutionists. In 
 their writings they give him a wide berth. This extraordinary 
 creature has a tail covered with scales, like the tail of a rat, but, 
 unlike the tail of a rat, he can suspend himself with it from a branch, 
 as by a fifth and powerful hand. All the toes are equipped with 
 ~ claws, except the inner toe of the hind foot, which acts like a thumb. 
 In his jaws there is one more wisdom-tooth than is possessed by 
 any ape. The female is provided with a pouch in which the young, 
 after birth, are nourished. According to the doctrine of evolution 
 all existing species are the descendants of common ancestors, from 
 which they diverge in various degrees. The only animals related to 
 the opossum are the kangaroo of Australia! So the evolutionist 
 must assume that, independent of each other from some far-away 
 ancestor, the kangaroo developed its pouch in Australia and the 
 opossum its pouch in America! We are not surprised that evolu- 
 tionists avoid all discussion of the animal; for it is absolutely 
 necessary to find some connecting link between the opossum and the 
 other four-footed animals, and this is impossible. Furthermore, 
 the problem is complicated by the fact that Archibald’s cousin, the 
 kangaroo, had ancestors, now found as fossils in the rocks, of 
 monstrous size. Whereas the horse is said to have developed from 
 a five-toed animal the size of a cat, the kangaroo represents an evolu- 
 tion from larger to much smaller forms. And so when the question 
 of these “marsupial” animals is approached, the evolutionists wisely — 
 “play ?possum.” 
 
 This trick of the opossum, by the way, is one common to all 
 wild beasts. When you pass unexpected by a squirrel or a chipmunk, 
 he “freezes,” as the naturalists call it. While danger is nigh, the 
 animals are absolutely rigid. I have thus seen the mink “freeze” on 
 the river’s edge when it saw me at dawn in the fishing-boat. Turtles 
 and moccasin snakes, frogs and lizards act the same way, as well as 
 all wild birds and most insects. Why do they do it? So as not to 
 be noticed. But why escape notice? Because to attract attention 
 
40 THE BARRIER OF INSTINOT. 
 
 might endanger their lives. This the wild beasts know. Has expe- 
 rience taught them? Certainly not; one “experience” of this kind 
 would mean death to them. The opossum shams death, wild animals 
 take a rigid position (“freeze”), by instinct. We say this so lightly, 
 rarely thinking how great a mystery the word covers. 
 
 By what process of evolution, do you suppose, have these instincts 
 been developed in animals? (For according to that theory every- 
 thing has been evolved.) The problem is a serious one, for on the 
 functioning of instinct depends the very existence of all animals 
 and, through them, a great part of the vegetable world. If the 
 instinct does not “work,” the animal dies; not immediately, but 
 most certainly. The life of the animals, from the greatest to the 
 least of them, depends upon instinct. 
 
 There is the water-spider. It lives under water and rears its 
 young under water. It spins under the water an egg-shaped water- 
 proof skin, or envelope, open underneath. When finished, it goes 
 to the surface, and with its hind legs, which are covered with hair, it 
 takes hold of a large bubble of air, carries it down into the water 
 and releases it into the house, thus expelling a quantity of water. 
 This is continued until the cell is filled with air. In it the spider 
 lays its eggs and rears its offspring. The water-spider does all this 
 perfectly the first time. Unless its instinct directed it with®Such 
 utter perfection, it would never have living offspring, and the species 
 would die. By what means could such instincts be developed ? 
 
 Only three years ago the mystery of the European eel was solved. 
 A Danish expedition, 1921—22, sent out to investigate the depth of 
 the ocean, supplied the answer to the question: Where do the eels 
 rear their young? Every year great masses of tiny eels appear on 
 the coast and enter the streams. There they live and attain their 
 size. Where have they come from? The Danish scientists have 
 discovered that the eels have their breeding-places in the ocean, south 
 of the Bermudas, at a depth of 25,000 feet! Starting from the 
 European rivers, the eels travel more than a thousand miles to these 
 ocean depths and there lay their eggs, which during three years 
 develop into small eels. During these three years they move towards 
 the coast of Europe and there enter the rivers. That the instincts 
 necessary for all these operations should have been evolved through 
 natural causes (“by chance”) requires more faith, it seems to me, 
 than to believe in the creation and preservation of living things by 
 an almighty Creator. 
 
 The migration of birds at certain seasons is something with 
 which we are all familiar. But when you see the ducks going South 
 in the fall, do you ever consider that this is one of the greatest 
 mysteries of nature? Alfred Newton has said: “We are here brought 
 
THE BARRIER OF INSTINCT. 41 
 
 face to face with the greatest mystery which the whole animal 
 kingdom presents.” The night-hawk travels from Alaska to Argen- 
 tina, 7,000 miles! The golden plover, whose home is the Arctic 
 Circle, travels over land to Nova Scotia, thence 2,400 miles across 
 the ocean to South America. Endless theories have been supplied 
 
 . x WS 
 
 (LLL ye 
 eR 
 xf anh 
 
 
 
 Bere My pe 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 ia WINTER HOME 
 wene PRINCIPAL MIGRATION, ROUTES 
 
 (c) U.S. Biological Survey. 
 
 
 
 The Range of the Golden Plover. 
 
 The longest-known single flight of any bird is 
 that of the Golden Plover over the ocean from 
 Nova Scotia to South America, 2,400 miles. 
 Who taught it the way? 
 
 in order to account for this migration instinct, but there is no 
 solution. Any one can see that the despair of evolutionists to explain 
 how such an instinct could evolve is well founded. 
 
 Polecats (skunks) will, to feed their young, instinctively catch 
 and mutilate frogs and toads so that they cannot get away, while 
 
42 THE BARRIER OF INSTINOT. 
 
 they remain alive and therefore fresh and good for food. On one 
 occasion as many as forty frogs and two toads were found in a hole 
 beside a nest of young polecats. They were alive, but only capable 
 of sprawling a little, because they were all dexterously bitten through 
 the brain. 
 
 An analogous instinct is possessed still more perfectly by a kind 
 of wasp. It will pounce upon some caterpillar or spider and sting it 
 so adroitly as, without killing it, to destroy all its power of motion. 
 Then it will place it in its nest beside its egg, out of which comes in 
 due time a grub, which feeds on the victim, while the grub itself is 
 so helpless that it would be quite unable to deal with its prey had its 
 prey not been thus previously paralyzed. 
 
 The female carpenter-bee, in order to protect her eggs, excavates 
 in some piece of wood a series of chambers, one above another, 
 
 
 
 Wasp and Caterpillar. 
 
 Wasp paralyzing a caterpillar. If the caterpillar died, the young wasps 
 
 would be without food, since the dead caterpillars would shrivel up. 
 
 By paralyzing the caterpillars, the wasp makes sure that they will not 
 
 get away. How could such an instinct be developed? What good would 
 it do if half developed? 
 
 separated by partitions, the lower chamber communicating with the 
 exterior. She lays an egg in each chamber, beginning with the lowest. 
 From the lowest chamber the offspring — the grub — escapes by the 
 passage left for it. The inhabitant of the chamber next above 
 gnaws through the floor of its dwelling and makes its way out by 
 the same path as did its predecessor. The inhabitants of the superior 
 chambers then act similarly in succession. Evidently this complex 
 nest harmonizes in a most admirable way with the needs of the 
 grubs, which had hatched in order of age, the oldest, or one first 
 laid, being the first. But it is no less evident that the young mother 
 could have no knowledge of the series of actions which were to ensue 
 after she had completed her nest. 
 
 The larva of the emperor-moth, when about to become a chrysalis, 
 
THE BARRIER OF INSTINCT. : 43 
 
 spins for itself a double cocoon, but leaves an opening fortified with 
 elastic bristles, which point outwards, so arranged that, while they 
 readily yield to pressure from within (allowing the moth to make its 
 way out easily), the bristles firmly resist pressure from without. 
 As most persons know, moths and butterflies habitually lay their 
 eggs on the leaves of such plants as will nourish their young, although 
 the parents do not feed upon them or use them in any way. It may 
 even be that the parents do not feed at all, and it would be too 
 unreasonable to affirm that they can recollect what they did before 
 
 
 
 (c) From Kellogg, Animal Life, Appleton. 
 
 How Do They Do It? 
 The beaver fells trees, builds dams across streams, and builds elaborately 
 
 constructed villages of several-storied houses. The beavers do all this by 
 instinct. They do not learn, they simply know how. 
 
 they entered upon the chrysalis condition, and that they consciously 
 foresee that their eggs will give forth creatures such as they once 
 were. Still more monstrous, however, would it be to affirm that 
 a grub could foresee the shape of the body it is destined to have 
 when transformed, especially when the shape is widely different in 
 the two sexes. Yet the grub of the female stag-beetle, when she digs 
 the hole wherein she will undergo her metamorphosis, digs it no 
 bigger than her own body; whereas the grub of the male stag-beetle 
 makes a hole twice as large as his own body, in order to leave room 
 
44 EVOLUTION AND DISEASE. 
 
 for the enormous jaws (the so-called “horns”) which he will have 
 to grow. 
 
 Can we believe that the wasp which seizes spiders and cater- 
 pillars, accidentally stung them each, respectively, in the exact, but 
 very different spot needful to induce paralysis? Certainly the wasp 
 knew nothing of the internal anatomy of its prey. It is also incredible 
 that the complex excavation of the carpenter-bee is either due to an 
 accident or to a calculation as to the future. 
 
 Now observe that evolution means development by many slow 
 stages. But how could instincts preserve life when they were as yet 
 incomplete? The opossum shams death. If that trick had not at 
 first been made so perfect that the enemy’s attention was eluded, it 
 would only have made the animal’s extinction the more certain. 
 Unless the complicated system of instincts which exists in the bee- 
 hive had been functioning perfectly from the beginning, there would 
 be no bees to-day. In the hive is a queen, whose only work is to 
 lay eggs. There are the drones, whose only function is to fertilize 
 the queen; and there are the workers, which have no sex. These 
 workers build the hive, collect the honey, rear the young, all by 
 instinct; yet they could not derive these instincts from their parents 
 because their parents are not workers, but queens and drones. Study 
 the problem a little bit, and you will understand that the instincts 
 of the bee, not being inherited, cannot be the product of evolution, 
 which absolutely depends on heredity. Furthermore, if these instincts 
 had been only half developed at any time, the hive would have 
 perished. Even if the bee knew that it must have honey and wax, 
 and where and how to get these substances, but, coming back, would 
 feed the wax and try to build walls with the honey, the queen would 
 never have cells or food for her eggs to hatch in. 
 
 Instincts, it has been truthfully said, furnish the positive proof 
 that evolution is not only an impossibility, but an absurdity. 
 
 5. Evolution and Disease. 
 
 If the Bible-story of creation is true, Adam must have “survived 
 for 930 years all the germ diseases which afflict men to-day,” says 
 one Dr. Charles W. Stiles according to an address widely heralded 
 when it was delivered, in 1923. Dr. Stiles is said to be a “noted 
 zoologist and scientific research worker,” and evidently stands com- 
 mitted to the theory of evolution. His statement is part of the 
 barrage which scientists of major and minor prominence were then 
 laying down against Mr. W.J. Bryan’s assaults upon the theory of 
 evolution. In order to make him and all Bible Christians look 
 

 
 EVOLUTION AND DISEASE, 45 
 
 ridiculous, Dr. Stiles points out that unless the disease germs came 
 into being by a process of evolution, Adam must have borne them 
 in himself, — tuberculosis, smallpox, yellow fever, pneumonia, and 
 all the rest. And still he survived 930 years. 
 
 Dr. Stiles is just an ordinary scoffer at the Bible narrative, such 
 as the Church has had to contend with ever since the days of 
 Porphyrius and Galen, in her first age, and down to the present time. 
 Unbelievers always listen to such attacks with undisguised delight, 
 and the press dispatches, which gave half a column to the Stiles 
 address, provided much merriment for the ungodly everywhere. 
 What shall we say to the argument there raised? 
 
 Not an Evolution of Germs, but a Devolution of Man. 
 
 Mr. Stiles bases everything on the assumption that “if it is to 
 be conceded that germs which cause disease were originally created 
 in some form other than disease germs, the theory of evolution stands 
 admitted.” But how if there exist even now disease germs which 
 were certainly not created as such? Does Dr. Stiles know the pecu- 
 liarity of the tetanus (lockjaw) germ? When the germ exists in 
 the rust coating of an old nail, does he call it a disease germ? Will 
 he assert that it must have existed in the body of Adam in order to 
 exist to-day? He knows the life-cycle of the yellow fever germ and 
 of various malaria germs outside the human organism. When they 
 live in the body of a mosquito, — which suffers nothing from their 
 presence,—are they disease germs? Do these, and the tetanus 
 bacillus, and the organisms that cause hay-fever, and others, not 
 become disease germs only as they enter the human body? What 
 should prevent us from accepting the proposition that they existed 
 from primordial ages, and only when man’s body had beeome subject 
 to disease, after the Fall, became active as carriers of that physical 
 change which sets up lockjaw or malaria? Certainly, unless one 
 denies offhand the Bible-story of Creation, there is nothing unreason- 
 able in believing that disease germs existed from the beginning, being 
 created like the rest of the vegetable kingdom (most of these minute 
 structures being vegetable in nature), and only later, as they were 
 able to enter the tissues of man with disintegrating influence, 
 becoming active causes of disease. 
 
 The Doctor mentions the meningitis germ, the pneumonia germ, 
 the tapeworm (strange classification!), the infantile paralysis germ, 
 the tuberculosis and typhus germs. He knows, of course, that 
 animals are subject to all these diseases. Does it require a process 
 of evolution in these organisms in order to render man subject to 
 them? Is it unreasonable to suppose that the change — a devolution, 
 indeed, — took place in man? That man was once, in his state of 
 
46 EVOLUTION AND DISEASE. 
 
 innocence, immune to them, but later became subject to their ravages ? 
 Stiles mentions, with a sneer, the 930 years of Adam. To the 
 Christian believer there is an indication in the great length of life 
 of the men who lived in the first two thousand years or more of Bible 
 history, of an original immunity of men to the diseases that later 
 reduced their span of life to some fourscore years. Certainly it 
 requires no evolutionary process to account for the gradual invasion 
 of many germs that existed in plants and animals and upon minerals 
 into man’s organism. The change, in other words, took place not 
 in the germ, but in man. Even to-day we find that some men are 
 immune to certain diseases, while others are not, that some germs 
 attack only children, but not adults. In such eases, has the change 
 taken place in the bacilli or in man? Certainly it is not a difference 
 in the germs, but in the varying powers of resistance in man that 
 accounts for the difference. The writer is only an amateur in 
 medicine, but he knows that much, and so do his readers, whether 
 they be medical men or not. 
 
 Germs May Change Properties, but Do Not “Evolve.” 
 
 On the other hand, it is easily shown that certain changes do 
 take place in the ability of germs to set up disease. Their properties 
 change. They may be harmless, but become very dangerous. And 
 some of the once most dangerous have lost much of their deadly 
 power. Once harmless, or producing nothing more serious than 
 a bad “cold,” the grippe or influenza germ within most recent memory 
 became one of the most terrible of all pathogenic agents, slaying in 
 the one year 1918 more than ten millions on all continents. (Again, 
 its properties for evil seem to have lost their strength, and when 
 the last epidemic took place, this was generally remarked upon.) 
 So it is clear that some small organisms may become fatal 
 disease germs. 
 
 Does Dr. Stiles take into account the varying virulence of the 
 diphtheria, the typhoid, the smallpox, the scarlet fever, and the 
 measles germ? Evidently, in such cases, and in others that could 
 be mentioned, an actual change has taken place in the power of 
 these germs to set up those changes in the human body which we 
 call disease. What shall prevent us from assuming that only through 
 being able to develop unchecked in yarious generations of men they 
 have acquired their death-dealing property, even as, conversely, 
 through checks placed upon their development, as particularly in the 
 case of smallpox, they have again to a large extent been robbed of 
 these same properties? Harmless in the beginning, let us assume, 
 the germs just mentioned have gradually become agents of disease. 
 Would Dr. Stiles call this evolution? Then he is working with 
 
EVOLUTION AND DISEASE. 47 
 
 a definition of evolution which no evolutionist would accept. 
 Evolution is one thing, development another. That animals and 
 plants may be developed no one denies. The race-horse and the 
 bulldog, the grape-fruit and the navel orange, at once occur to us as 
 examples of development. But horse and dog, no matter how highly 
 developed, never have as a starting-point anything else than horses 
 and dogs — not crocodiles or bats. And the disease germs that have 
 developed qualities that now classify them as such are not, for that 
 reason, products of evolution, but have in the course of time acquired 
 those properties which make them harmful to man, even as they 
 lose these same properties to a large extent, sometimes under the 
 effect of counteracting measures, as is very evident in the case of 
 the smallpox germ. 
 
 Whence, then, disease germs? We do not know; but more 
 reasonable than the unproved evolutionary hypothesis are the lines 
 of thought developed above. Originally either harmless or existing 
 outside of man, in animals, plants, and minerals, they have, through 
 the breaking down of man’s disease-resisting powers, from the Fall 
 to our day, entered this province and have now become agents 
 of death. 
 
 Dangerous Ground. 
 
 If Dr. Stiles will look into a recent volume of the scientific 
 monthly Nature, he will find a record of some interesting observa- 
 tions upon the diseases with which certain fossil fish were affected 
 during their lifetime. He will note, too, that these diseases were the 
 products of germs, and that these germs are identical with certain 
 pus-producers to-day. Hence, at least, he ought to have made 
 a specific exception in the case of streptococcus and staphylococcus 
 when he enumerated the germs which inhabited the body of Adam. 
 He ought to have admitted that, on paleontological evidence, at 
 least these existed before man and must have originated not in man, 
 but outside of him and been introduced later. 
 
 Evolutionists will give this same subject of germs a wide berth, 
 if they are wise. The reader will forgive us if we become a bit 
 technical here. Evolution is, according to evolutionists of every 
 school, possible only through the transmission, from parent to off- 
 spring, of favorable variations. Thus the feather of the eagle’s wing, 
 the eye of the fly, and every organ in every plant and animal are 
 said to have been evolved. Hence the evolutionary process depends 
 absolutely upon the frequency with which animals reproduce in 
 a given time. Hence, again, the changes will be very slow where 
 the generations are long, as in the case of the elephant, or certain 
 parrots, while in animals which reproduce once a year or even oftener, 
 the chances for evolution are in the same ratio more favorable. 
 
48 THE ASSURED RESULTS OF SCIENCE AND DR. EINSTEIN. 
 
 Now, the germs which are under discussion, reproduce, on favorable 
 soil, as the diphtheria germ in the throat of a child, thousands of 
 times in a day. Hence it follows that in a thousand years the 
 chances of an elephant to evolve from a parent species are as one 
 is to countless millions compared with the opportunity of a tetanus 
 or diphtheria bacillus. But it is a marvelous fact that these bacilli 
 have changed in no particular since the days of Greek and Roman 
 medical diagnosis, the descriptions of-diseases recorded two thousand 
 years ago tallying exactly with the diagnosis made to-day. Yea, 
 even the diseases from which Egyptians died 2000 B.C. can be 
 definitely established by expert examination of their mummies. In 
 other words, those very organisms which, on account of their rapid 
 multiplication, possessed opportunities for natural evolution incal- 
 culably higher than any other plant or animal, have not changed 
 in any particular in historic and even, as in the case of the fossil 
 fishes referred to, since prehistoric times! 
 
 I fear that by raising the issue of disease germs, Dr. Stiles has, 
 as we say in common parlance, “caught a Tartar.” 
 
 6. The Assured Results of Science and Dr. Einstein. 
 (Letter to Timothy Smith, High School Junior.) 
 
 Dear TIMOTHY : — 
 
 And so your physics teacher has told the class that, after all, 
 foree and matter are sufficient to explain all existing things, and 
 that a creation through the Word of God, as described in Genesis, 
 is an outworn idea disproved by the “assured results of science.” 
 
 Now, instead of going into an argument on the subject, just let 
 me tell you what I heard at a meeting of the American Association 
 for the Advancement of Science here in St.Louis. But before 
 I tell you about it, just take this from me as a rule which you will 
 find true, no matter how deeply you may hereafter delve into science: 
 It is not science that contradicts the Bible, but the scientists. 
 Stated in another way: Not the facts of science, not what you find 
 in the test-tubes or see through the microscope, but certain specula- 
 tions built upon such data, are out of harmony with the Bible. 
 One may be a great scientist and remain a Christian. But let me 
 tell what I heard at the A. A. A. S. meeting. 
 
 A lecture on the Einstein Theory of Relativity had been 
 announced. The lecturer was Dr. Ames, president of the Physical 
 Section. Now, do you know what it means when a man is president 
 of the Physical Section? It means that this man is by common 
 consent recognized as one of the foremost physicists, if not the 
 
THE ASSURED RESULTS OF SCIENCE AND DR. EINSTEIN. 49 
 foremost, in the country. Ames is professor in Johns Hopkins 
 University, and has been made honorary member of the Royal 
 Institution. 
 
 We went to hear the great Dr. Ames and found ourselves in 
 a company of university professors from all over the country. 
 Dr. Ames spoke about an hour; fine enunciation, poor elocution, like 
 most university men. But we followed him closely, and I assure you 
 what he said was worth listening to. He said Dr. Einstein was 
 professor in Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin when he made his 
 great calculations. We were all duly mortified, but the lecturer soon 
 consoled us by saying that Dr. Einstein is “not a German, but a Swiss 
 Jew.” The first statement which really startled us was that “centri- 
 fugal force” is a “merely fictitious thing.” But then we remembered 
 that our physics teacher in the dim backward and abysm of time had 
 told us that “really” there was no such force; only a convenient 
 term. But matters soon became very serious indeed. Dr. Ames made 
 this statement: Gravity has no reality; it is but “the result of 
 transformation of your axes.” Put a pin there, Tim: Gravity does 
 not exist. This looks bad for the theory of physics. Nay, it knocks 
 the bottom clean out of it. Next came this, uttered in a quiet voice: 
 “Hinstein proved that energy has mass.” Every university man 
 present knew that this statement, if true, blows into infinitesimal 
 atoms the whole theory underlying present science. They gasped 
 audibly. You may not fully understand the full import of those 
 six words, but let me say that, if they are true, if energy has mass, 
 no more startling reversal of all that we held to be true regarding 
 the ultimates of science has come to mankind in modern history. 
 Finally, Dr. Ames said: “We note, in conclusion, that a number 
 of old friends have disappeared. There is no force, no potential 
 energy, no ether. Force,—we need the term, but it stands for no 
 reality. Potential energy,—nonsense. Ether disappears; you may 
 still use the term in your classrooms, but it stands for nothing.” 
 (I have quoted the lecturer literally.) Consider what this means. 
 1) “Force” is the basic concept of physics. When we observe that 
 a body moves, we call the cause of such motion, force. Now, 
 according to Einstein, force does not exist. 2) Every text on physics 
 says that energy may exist as a stored-up condition; the stone 
 lying on a shelf has potential energy; if it falls, it exerts kinetic 
 force; but that force was “potential” while the stone was at rest on 
 the shelf. “Nonsense,” says Dr. Ames; “there is no such thing.” 
 3) “Ether,” of course, has never been seen; but all physicists have 
 these many years maintained that it is a necessary assumption; 
 light vibrates, as it comes to us through space; since there must be 
 
 Essays on Evolution. 4 
 
50 THE ASSURED RESULTS OF SCIENCE AND DR. EINSTEIN. 
 
 a medium of vibration, we call that medium ether. Fairbairn says 
 in his Organic Evolution: “Science regards the existence of ether 
 as certain —as a matter no longer to be called in question.” And 
 so we all said until Einstein spoke. Now we know there is no ether 
 of space. 
 
 I might tell you much more. The fourth dimension figured 
 prominently. Fifteen years ago, the man who speculated in the 
 fourth dimension was an object of compassion to his friends; they 
 would shake their heads and say, “Too bad for Jack, getting those 
 bats in his belfry.” Now we hear a great scientist discuss the fourth 
 dimension as familiarly as if he had trained it to eat out of 
 his hand. 
 
 But the point is this: The theories which your high school 
 professor still believes in, and on the basis of which he tells you that 
 all things came into being simply “through force acting.on matter 
 according to certain laws,” are completely demolished by Einstein. 
 Force — there is no force! And the Jaws of nature have never been 
 understood. 
 
 But this is only half my story. On my way home on the street- 
 ear I bought a paper. Through some fourth-dimensional activity of 
 a reporter it already contained a report on another lecture which 
 had been delivered that same afternoon in the same building in 
 which we had our gravity, ether, etc., removed from our system. 
 And what do you suppose this lecturer announced? <A new theory of 
 the universe which “completely disproves the Einstein theory”!!! 
 He has “been able to determine the exact nature of the ether,’ and 
 furthermore, he has almost perfected a machine by means of which 
 force is extracted directly from the air, so that a cheap apparatus will 
 heat our houses without the use of fuel, and cool the ice-box without 
 the use of ice. No, this is not a report of observations in the 
 psychopathic clinic or padded cell; it was a lecture delivered before 
 the Section on Mathematics of the A. A. A.S. by Dr. H. H. Platt of 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 As between Dr. Ames and Dr. Platt, we may well permit the 
 members of our high school faculties to settle the matter between 
 themselves. One of the university professors, on leaving the hall, 
 said to me, with some feeling: “I shall continue to teach my class 
 that light undulates through ether, won’t you?’ He may, but he 
 will have an uncomfortable feeling that he may be teaching his 
 class “unrealities,” “nonsense.” 
 
 Well might Dr. Ames say that the first approach to under- 
 standing the Einstein system is “like discovering a new continent.” 
 He added that there may be truth in the statement that only ten 
 men in the world are able to follow Einstein’s mathematical demon- 
 
WAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. Bl 
 
 stration; “but by spending a few hours a day at the matter, I hope, 
 by and by, to be the eleventh or twelfth man.” The point is not 
 what I think of the lecture, — which was magnificent, for all its poor 
 delivery; or of the Einstein theory, — which brings such changes 
 into scientific thought that it requires the utmost stretch of the 
 imagination to conceive of them; the point is, — where are now the 
 “assured results of science” on the basis of which your professor 
 asserts that the story in the first chapter of the Bible is not true? 
 That assurance has gone glimmering together with faith in ether 
 and potential energy.* Q.H.D. 
 
 Continue to study science, Timothy. Physics is a wonderful 
 subject. Understand that I have been careful to say that the theory 
 of physics has (very probably) fallen. Science, experimental science, 
 has achieved great things, and will achieve greater if the world 
 stands. But do not permit men to raise doubts in your mind con- 
 cerning the Bible by urging the theories of science; these, it seems 
 to me, have received a mortal wound. Give your attention to science; 
 but remember “we also have a more sure word of prophecy; where- 
 unto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in 
 a dark place.” 2 Pet. 1,19. 
 
 
 
 7. Haeckel’s Fictitious Links and Certain Pliocene 
 Remains. 
 
 Tn 1922 a tooth was found on a Nebraska farm. The finder was 
 congratulated as though he had found a pearl of great price. A long 
 Latin name was given to the tooth, and Professor Osborn, of New 
 York, talked poetry. The news of this tooth was cabled all around 
 the world. Let all the earth rejoice, another proof was found that 
 we are first cousins to the monkey! 
 
 When a brain-pan and a hip-bone were found in Java, Professor 
 Haeckel, of Jena, traveled thither all the way from Germany in 
 order to feast his eyes upon the sacred spot where the bones of 
 a real ape-man had lain. Had he, Professor Haeckel, not prophesied 
 the Pithecanthropus Erectus? And here he was found! — at least 
 his brain-pan and a few assorted leg-bones. 
 
 Our high school boys and girls are still being told that our 
 ancestors were apes which dwelt in the trees. In the normal school 
 they study Crampton’s Doctrine of Evolution, which says, page 155: 
 “Human evolution has already been proved beyond question,” or 
 
 * Dr. Ames said repeatedly that Einstein’s conclusions were “not 
 theory,” but statements of demonstrable facts, mathematically arrived at 
 and proved by observation! 
 
52, HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS, 
 
 Dr. Daniel W. La Rue’s Psychology for Teachers, p.32: “We are all 
 descended from a simple, wormlike creature.” Or they will read 
 a Funk & Wagnalls folder, which says: “Suppose you were in that 
 particular stage of evolution in which man had just discovered the 
 use of the club” — etc. 
 
 The evolutionist indignantly disclaims the present apes, or 
 monkeys, as ancestors. He tells us the connecting link was a creature 
 superior to these, though inferior to man as he is now constituted. 
 Professor Morris, in his Man and His Ancestor (p. 67), gives a full 
 description of this unseen and purely imaginary ancestor of our race 
 as follows: — 
 
 “Tt [the missing link] was probably much smaller than existing 
 man, little, if any, more than four feet in height and no 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 somewhat 
 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 motion somewhat like 
 that of the gibbon. It had deep-set eyes, greatly protruding mouth 
 with gaping lips, huge ears, and general apelike aspect.” 
 
 You may be astonished, reader, that any one could penetrate 
 the dim vista of “millions of years ago” and transcribe so detailed 
 and circumstantial an account of what then existed. 
 
 Nor can we blame the text-book writers for being so cock-sure 
 when even Professor Haeckel went so far as to say that we are as 
 sure about the animal ancestors of men as we are about the persons 
 of Caesar and King Alfred. However, let us investigate and see 
 on what kind of evidence this dead-sureness of certain evolutionists 
 is based. 
 
 It is true that Professor Haeckel has “traced” the human race 
 back through more than twenty stages to the earth-worm. But it 
 would pay you to look up his three volumes on the descent of man 
 and see how he does it. At the bottom of the series he describes six 
 imaginary stages before he arrives at the earliest worm! He supposes 
 that there lived a class of animals which he calls gastraea because 
 they are required as ancestor for the gastrula, itself an imaginary 
 being! Everybody knows that there is no evidence of an animal 
 between the backbone and no-backbone animals; yet Haeckel in his 
 list has No. 8, the chordonia, which he calls “undoubtedly” the 
 ancestors of the backbone animals. He needs a link between the 
 amphibia (land-water animals) and other beasts and so makes No. 14 
 the sozura. They are “proved” to have existed because they are 
 
HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS, 58 
 
 needed as a link. And so we get the prodidelphia, of whom, Professor 
 Huxley remarks, “We have not at present the slightest knowledge.” 
 But these beasts are necessary in the line of human development, — 
 they must have lived in order to complete the chain. No. 21 is the 
 ape-man, not yet found, although the name was given by Haeckel to 
 the skull and hip-bones found on Java. 
 
 It cannot be asserted too strongly that for this descent of man 
 from the brutes there is at present no proof which goes beyond these 
 bare assertions of Haeckel, and it is a lasting disgrace to biological 
 science that these volumes of Haeckel could have been paraded as 
 true science. Professor Wood of Dartmouth College said only last 
 year: “No fossil or organic half-man has ever been discovered.” 
 And again: “The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence 
 that man as man has been evolved out of lower natural forms or 
 organisms.” There is, of course, the Neanderthal man, the Piltdown, 
 the Rhodesia man, each of them consisting not of a complete skeleton 
 or even as complete skulls, but as fragments of bone, concerning which 
 there is the utmost disagreement among scientists. Prof. Johannes 
 Ranke, a specialist of the first rank, has thrown out all proof from 
 fossil remains, and Erich Wasmann, another famous scholar, says 
 in his book Modern Biology and the Theory of Evolution that the 
 whole pedigree of man as once taught by evolutionists “has not the 
 support of a single fossil species.” 
 
 It is true that in the Natural History Museum at New York, 
 Professor Osborn has constructed casts of plaster and cement showing 
 just how the brute ancestors of man looked. And in his Outline 
 of History Mr. H. G. Wells, the British novelist, treats all these 
 various stages as if they could not be denied. There is the Neander- 
 thal skull, a piece of bone found in a Westphalian cave in 1856. 
 Does the ordinary visitor to Mr. Osborn’s cement menagerie realize 
 that there are now twelve complete opinions regarding the original 
 of this skull? The original Neanderthal man has been variously 
 described as an idiot, a Mongolian Cossack, an early German, an 
 early Dutchman, an early Frieslander, a relative of the Austrian 
 Blacks, a stone-age man, a primitive ape-man, etc., etc. But the 
 reader will be treated to the details of fossil human or pre-human 
 remains in a later chapter. : 
 
 To what length even reputable scholars are forced by their 
 theories, appears from the startling hypothesis lately put forth by 
 such scientists as Soddy, Joly, and Strutt, who assert that a super- 
 race of men, a million or more years ago, inhabited earth, mastered 
 radium, learned how to realize its energy, and migrated through 
 space to a globe with better conditions for intellectual expansion! 
 Thus are the wise made foolish in their own conceits. 
 
54 HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 
 
 In a paper read at the Victorian Institute in London, Dr. A. T. 
 Schofield said in April, 1922: “Some Japanese fossil skulls just 
 discovered, and some others of very remote date, have actually 
 a larger brain capacity than the average brain to-day. I believe it 
 has been gravely suggested that at that time their owners were 
 becoming men, and the effort was so great that extra brain capacity 
 was required for this purpose. This illustration shows how ridiculous 
 such attempted explanations may become.” 
 
 On scientific grounds it has lately been held that man is more 
 “primitive” than the higher apes, that the monkey is really descen- 
 dent from man! Thus Dr. Wood-Jones of England in 1918 wrote: 
 “Far from being a descendant of the apes, he may be looked on as 
 their ancestor. ... Indeed, from the point of view of anatomy 
 IT conceive it to be impossible to take any other ‘view.’” (The 
 Problem of Man’s Ancestry, 1918, pp. 38.39.) Please note that these 
 views were set forth before the University of London and were based 
 on the most recent anatomical research. 
 
 From the beginning the mistake was made of comparing only 
 the skull of man and apes. More recently the entire structure of 
 man and the brutes has been more carefully studied, and it has 
 been discovered that it is impossible to derive the body of man from 
 one single type of apes. And so Professor Mivart says in Lessons 
 from Nature, page 176: “If man and the orangutan are diverging 
 descendants of a creature with certain cerebral [brain] characters, 
 then that remote ancestor must also have had the wrist of the 
 chimpanzee, the voice of a long-armed ape, the blade-bone of the 
 gorilla, the chin of the siamang, the skull-dome of an American ape, 
 the hip-bone of a slender loris, the whiskers and beard of a saki, 
 the liver and stomach of the gibbons, and a number of other char- 
 acters in which the various several forms of higher or lower apes, 
 respectively, approximate to man.” Let us grip on to these facts, 
 for facts they are. Identifying a tooth or a leg-bone is now regarded 
 by specialists of the first order as an impossible procedure if the 
 object is to identify man with the brute. If there had been any 
 derivation of one from the other, it would be the ape that shows 
 signs of descent from a nobler stock. Is it not best to come back 
 to*the Bible and accept its plain teaching that, whereas animals were 
 created each “after his kind” (species), man was made in the image 
 of God? 
 
 It would seem to us that the discovery of human remains in 
 Pliocene rock, mixed with the remains of tools and other implements, 
 would convince the Darwinians that they have been barking up the 
 wrong tree. Let me explain. 
 
HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 55 
 
 Certain layers of rock are called Pliocene.* They are thought 
 to be very old, millions of years, in fact. All the so-called human 
 remains and fossils above referred to have been found in the soil 
 and not in the rocky layers of the earth’s surface. In recent years, 
 however, human fossils have been found in the so-called Pliocene 
 strata. In what seems to be undisputed upper Pliocene layers, 
 J. Reid Moir, the British archeologist, recently has discovered a work- 
 shop, or flint worker’s floor, sixteen feet below the present surface 
 of the ground. From this floor he has taken a large number of 
 
 * The following table shows the major divisions of geological time 
 as divided into eras and periods: — 
 
 ec *$*$—0Iaw»a»—\<—wmwm—=m—=—m=—0 
 
 Age Eras Periods Life-Forms 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Quaternary, or | Recent 
 Post-Tertiary,| Terrace Man 
 or Pleistocene] Drift (Glacial) 
 
 CENOZzOIC Pliocene 
 Miocene 
 Tertiary Oligocene Mammals 
 Eocene 
 Paleocene 
 
 Upper, or Cretaceous Proper 
 Lower, or Comanchean 
 
 { Upper (Malm) 
 Mesozoic |JUrassic Middle (Dogger) 
 Lower (Lias) 
 
 Cretaceous 
 
 Reptiles, Conifers, 
 and Palms 
 Dinosaur 
 
 
 
 ae Upper (Keuper) 
 Triassic Middle (Muschelkalk ) 
 Lower (Bunter Sandstein) 
 
 Upper 
 Lower Amphibians and 
 
 Pennsylvanian Coal Plants 
 Mississippian 
 
 Permian 
 
 
 
 Carboniferous 
 
 : Upper 
 Devonian Middle Fishes and Insects 
 Lower 
 
 
 
 PALEOZOIC Upper, or Monroan 
 Silurian Middle, or Salina. 
 Lower, or Niagara 
 
 Upper, or Cincinnatian 
 Ordovician Middle, or Champlainian Invertebrates 
 Lower, or Canadian 
 
 
 
 Saratogan. 
 Cambrian Acadian 
 Waucobian 
 Primary, or| Algonkian Few Fossils or 
 
 Primitive | Archaean None 
 
56 HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 
 
 “cores, flakes, flint implements, and stones exhibiting crackling and 
 other evidences of having been subjected to the action of fire.” 
 Commenting on this remarkable discovery, Henry Fairfield Osborn 
 says: “It is these flints, discovered by Moir, which firmly establish 
 the existence of Pliocene man in Britain. That this was a working 
 floor is indicated by the presence of flint cores and flint flakes with 
 the flint implements themselves.” 
 
 Read these quotations again and keep them well in mind. 
 
 They prove that man had reached a high state of development, 
 so that he was able to fashion tools and pottery and to use fire, at 
 a time much earlier than when the present soil or upper layer of 
 the earth was laid down, in which the remains of the so-called ape- 
 man have been found. In other words, man was an intellectual 
 being, far ahead of the highest animals (no animal has ever made 
 a tool or built a fire) at a time much earlier than the age in which 
 the people in Professor Osborn’s freak-show lived. 
 
 Why do the evolutionists say so little about the Calaveras skull 
 found in California? Here was a skull found 150 feet below the 
 surface of the earth without a sign of an inferior race in its form. 
 Dr. Keith, the famous British anthropologist, says: “The skull was 
 not the only evidence of man in the ancient gold-bearing river gravels 
 in Calaveras County. These gravels lie buried under tides of lava 
 which swept the western flanks of the Sierra Nevada in the Miocene 
 and Pliocene periods. There are the most circumstantial accounts 
 of the discovery, in the gravel beds of these ancient Pliocene streams, 
 of stone mortars, stone pestles, hammer stones, spear-heads, etc., not 
 only by miners, but by expert and reliable geologists. Indeed, were 
 such discoveries in accordance with our expectations, if they were in 
 harmony with the theories we have formed regarding the date of 
 man’s evolution, no one would ever dream of doubting them, much 
 less of rejecting them. Note that these human remains are found 
 buried underneath lava floods of Pliocene and Miocene (which is 
 still older) date, and that the only reason for discarding the 
 evidence is that it does not suit evolution.” Other worked flints 
 have been obtained in Miocene strata at Otta, in the valley of the 
 Tagus, and at Puy in France. “There is not,” says Keith, “a single 
 fact known to me which makes the existence of a human form in the 
 Miocene period an impossibility.” 
 
 Similarly Prof. Ludwig Hopf admits that stone knives, carved 
 bones, marks of fireplaces, and human skeletons have been found in 
 strata of rock which, according to the geologists, date from a period 
 in which man was represented only by a very remote brute ancestor. 
 Hopf refers to these remains as “clear proof of the existence of 
 Tertiary man.” (The Human Species, 1909, page 34.) 
 
HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 57 
 
 A genuine pair of human skulls has been found in Santa 
 Barbara, Cal., of late, which, it is claimed, are of immense antiquity, 
 and as they were found in connection with manufactured objects, 
 implements of all kinds, including fish-hooks, they would constitute 
 another instance in line with those just mentioned. It must be 
 remembered that quite a number of skulls have been found in the 
 United States and in South America exhibiting those characteristics 
 which we associate with the early race called after the Neanderthal, 
 where the remains of the first example met with were discovered. 
 Yet experts, after careful examination of these skulls, have so far 
 come to the conclusion that they belong to a relatively modern 
 variety of the Indian type. I have not seen the final findings as to 
 the Santa Barbara skulls. 
 
 The discovery of the dinosaur pictograph, which carries back 
 the origin of man as a reasoning creature ten millions of years 
 farther into the past than the Pliocene, is treated in a later chapter. 
 
 The Western fossil fields, for a great number of years, have been 
 a great comfort to evolutionists. Have not the Idaho fields produced 
 the bones of fossil horses with three or four toes? And has not the 
 faith of evolutionists been strong enough to accept these creatures 
 as ancestors of the modern horse in spite of the fact that the little 
 four-toed horse is about the size of a tabby-cat? + Has not more 
 
 + Another insuperable difficulty attaches to the evolution of the horse. 
 In all the texts on evolution (for instance, in Fiske’s Darwinism, p. 30 ff.; 
 Edw. Clodd’s Story of Creation, p. 31; Encyclopedia Britannica, Article 
 “Evolution”) the development of the horse from a four-toed to a one-toed 
 animal is pictured. It is not generally known, however, that these fosgsils 
 have been found more than five thousand miles apart, with the Atlantic 
 Ocean between. The early ancestry has been traced from Tertiary deposits 
 of North America while the later forms have been found in Europe. 
 Prof. Geo. B. O’Toole, in his remarkable Macmillan book The Case Against 
 Hvolution, points out that “it would be absurd to suppose that two inde- 
 pendent lines of descent could have ended in producing one and the same 
 type, namely, the one in Europe, the other in far-away America. Neither 
 could the transformists admit that the extinct American horse and the 
 living European horse could have converged from two distinct ancestral 
 origins.” So what is to be done to meet the emergency and to keep the 
 current theory on its feet? “Nothing remains, therefore,” says our author, 
 “but to hypothecate a Tertiary land-bridge between Europe and North 
 America.” Accordingly it is assumed that such a passageway was formed 
 by some remarkable upheaval that saved the hypothesis! Think it over: 
 The little Eohippus, or mayhap the Orohippus, the tiny progenitors of the 
 modern horse, creatures about the size of a cat or a fox, traveled from the 
 central part of the United States to the Atlantic coast, then continued 
 across the conveniently constructed Tertiary bridge more than three thou- 
 sand miles long over to Europe, and. there evolved through the ages into 
 the modern draught-horse and the graceful pacer! And yet the evolu- 
 tionists tell us that the history of Eohippus and his progeny is perhaps 
 the strongest available proof of their theory and places it upon an abso- 
 lutely scientific basis! 
 
58 HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS, 
 
 recently, on a Nebraska farm, a tooth been found to which Professor 
 Osborn has bowed himself seven times to the ground, hailing it as 
 the undoubted tooth of the long-sought missing link? But now, as 
 in Byron’s poem, a change has come over the aspect of their dream. 
 Evolutionists begin to listen with misgivings to the stories of 
 prehistoric finds that come from the West. The Santa Barbara man 
 lost no less than 17,000 years within one week after he was unearthed. 
 The duck eggs laid in soft pleistocene mud 600,000 years ago have 
 been found to be just balls of clay rolled up by the ocean waves. 
 Dr. George M. Price, the Western geologist, has published highly 
 distasteful facts about layers of rock that lie in the reverse order 
 which they should have according to geology, — that have old fossils 
 on top, young fossils below. 
 
 Last year Rev. F. A. Haedicke, of Reno, Nev., wrote me about 
 Mr. John T. Reid, a mining geologist of Lovelock, Ney., and about 
 the imprint which he found of a shoe-sole embedded in an ancient 
 layer of rock. In fact, the rock is of the triassic period, which is 
 about thirty million years older than the layers in which the remains 
 of “ape-men” have been found. Yet this rock bears the obvious 
 imprint of a human shoe, proving that at this early date man had 
 developed far beyond the brutes, so that he was able to fashion 
 clothing. About the classification of the rock, there seems to be 
 no question, since it was declared to be triassic by the United States 
 Geological Survey in 1873. As for the imprint of the shoe, Dr. Alfred 
 W. McCann says that by microscopic examination this has been 
 proved a genuine fossil of “superb perfection.” (Dr. McCann in 
 New York Globe, March 21, 1922.) Mr. Reid has addressed a per- 
 ‘ sonal letter to me, pointing out the technical works in which the 
 age of this particular layer of rock is discussed. At that time 
 Mr. Reid informed me also of a more recent find, that of a complete 
 horse’s foot, which he was about to take to New York. Soon the 
 newspapers began to report the astonishing find submitted by 
 Mr. Reid to the New York scientists. The fossil in question repre- 
 sents, to all intents and purposes, a horse such as we to-day know; 
 yet it was found in a layer of stone much older, according to the 
 scientists, than the layer in which the four-toed “horse” has been 
 found! Mr. Reid said to a reporter of the New York Times: — 
 
 “My theory, greatly strengthened by this fossilized horsefoot, 
 is that the good Lord originally made these things as we see them 
 to-day. Although I was an evolutionist in the beginning, I have 
 changed my view.” 
 
 From all of which we conclude that there has been no evolution 
 of the horse. Furthermore, the geological ages are becoming more 
 and more doubtful as we hear these conflicting claims of scientists. 
 
HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 59 
 
 When anthropologists summarize their findings concerning the 
 origin of the human race, they are now much more modest in 
 their claims than they used to be. Prof. Wm. Bateson of England 
 says that the doctrine has “developed too fast” and that “a great deal 
 has got to come down.” For over half a century the students of 
 plant and animal life have investigated the various clews which 
 would explain man’s relation to other living things. As Prof. G. M. 
 Price says: “We are now getting the returns of these investigations. 
 The reports are coming in. And these reports are to the effect that 
 there must be a mistake somewhere, for biologically this theory 
 eannot be true.” 
 
 One of the most startling books produced in twenty-five years 
 is Oswald Spengler’s massive work Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 
 published soon after the war and already translated into most modern 
 tongues. The title signifies, “The Decay of the Western World.” 
 In Spengler’s opinion modern civilization, as we know it, is in a state 
 of decay and is hastening towards complete and utter ruin. One of 
 my correspondents, Rev. F. C. Knief, of Santa Monica, Cal., has 
 found in Spengler’s book (Vol. IJ, p.35) the following significant 
 statement regarding evolution, which I shall endeavor to translate. 
 Spengler writes : — 
 
 “Our notions regarding the history of the earth’s crust and of 
 the various forms of life is still controlled by the theory of Lyell 
 and of other Englishmen, who stress a slow development extending 
 over long periods, rather than sudden catastrophes, as taught by the 
 great Leopold von Buch and by Cuvier. The fundamental error of 
 the theory is that it excludes all forms of energy which are not active 
 to-day. There is no more complete refutation of Darwin than the 
 study of fossils. As far as man is concerned, the fossil remains 
 prove that all forms which existed in the past correspond to those 
 living to-day. Not the slightest trace of a development of the race 
 towards higher structure has been found. Man has come as the 
 result of sudden change, of which the Whence, How, and Why will 
 be an unfathomable mystery. Thus the assumption of enormous 
 periods of time for human development is unnecessary. The most 
 ancient beginnings of Egyptian civilization may well fit into the 
 five thousand years of accepted history. The origin of the earth, 
 the beginning of life, the introduction of animated beings, are 
 mysteries which we must accept as such.” 
 
 Thus speaks a philosopher whom the entire world acclaims as 
 one of the greatest thinkers of the day. Although his sentiments 
 are not Christian, his rejection of Darwinism and of the geological 
 periods is absolute. 
 
 Similar revolutionary statements have recently been made by 
 
60 HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 
 
 certain followers of Einstein. If the statements quoted from 
 Spengler are a blow to the pseudoscientific cock-sureness of evolu- 
 tionists, the results which have been elaborated from the Einstein 
 theory of Relativity must be called staggering. These results mean 
 nothing less than that from the standpoint of the latest philosophical 
 thought the Ptolemaean system (which makes the sun move around 
 the earth) is as valid as the Copernican (which makes the earth 
 move around the sun)! A. Sommerfeldt writes in Sueddeutsche 
 Monatshefte (Vol. 18, 1921, No.2) concerning the effect of Einstein’s 
 theory on astronomy as follows: — 
 
 “Hereafter none must be prohibited from saying: The earth 
 
 
 
 Has this evolved from this? 
 
 Has the form and hand and brain of Raffael been evolved from the form 
 and hand and brain of the gorilla? Evolutionism says, Yes; the Bible, 
 true science, and common sense say, No. 
 
 is stationary, and the firmament revolves around the earth, or: The 
 sun moves, and the earth stands in a focus of its orbit. According 
 to Einstein’s theory a firmament revolving around a stationary earth 
 develops the same centrifugal forces in the earth that according to 
 Newton are developing in a revolving earth, and this has been 
 demonstrated mathematically by Thirring. It will always be more 
 convenient, and for the purpose of astronomical computation more 
 practical, to work from the basis of the Copernican system. But 
 it is not unreasonable to accept the Ptolemaean. Indeed, the theory 
 of Relativity has been able to make its conquest just because it has 
 shifted its standpoint regarding this question.” 
 
EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 61 
 
 In Unsere Welt (1920, No. 3) Doctor H. Remy discusses “The 
 ' Physical Principle of Relativity” and says: “From this point of 
 view the usual conflict between the Copernican and Ptolemaean 
 systems finds its definite solution. We cannot deny that it is sense- 
 less to call one of these systems the only correct one and to designate 
 the other as being false.” 
 
 It seems as if the world do move. 
 
 There is in all the museums of the world and in the laboratories 
 of all universities nothing that has proved untrue the words of 
 Scripture when it speaks of the origin of visible creation. 
 
 It is as true to-day as when first written in 1 Cor.15,30: “All 
 flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, 
 another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds,” — 
 ever separate and distinct, even to the point where a chemist can 
 now tell from what particular order of “flesh” a drop of blood 
 has come. 
 
 “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by 
 the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of 
 things which do appear.” Heb. 11, 3. 
 
 “And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that 
 He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?” 
 Matt. 19,4; Mark 10,6. 
 
 “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all 
 that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord 
 blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.” Ex. 20, 11. 
 
 8. Evolution of Man —the Verdict of History. 
 
 Ask ten Americans what idea they connect with “progress,” 
 and nine of them will answer “machinery.” When we point to 
 American progress, we think of oil-burning locomotives, submarines, 
 the aeroplane, the radio, the phonograph, moving pictures, the tele- 
 phone, the typewriter, the adding-machine, the addressograph, check 
 protectors, and fountain pens—all machinery, or the product of, 
 and made possible by, machinery. That modern times have scored 
 an advance on ancient times in the mechanical arts may be admitted. 
 Yet for that reason to speak of a steady progress of human evolution 
 would be a statement possible only if we take a very contracted view 
 of progress. 
 
 Even as regards the mechanical arts, is it true that great achieve- 
 ments are scored only in modern times? Every modern builder 
 stands in mute amazement before the pyramids of Egypt. Consider 
 that the huge granite blocks of which the pyramids are built were 
 
62 EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 
 
 transported 500 miles. By what knowledge of mechanics was this 
 task made possible? Who gave the Egyptians the knowledge and 
 skill to polish these granite blocks like glass and to fit them so that 
 the joints cannot be seen? You know that the pyramids, in spite of 
 their weight of millions of tons, have not settled in any part to the 
 extent of a measurable fraction of an inch. Mr. Ferguson, possibly 
 the greatest living authority on architecture, writes: “Nothing more 
 perfect, mechanically, has ever been erected since that time, and 
 we ask ourselves in vain how long it must have taken before men 
 acquired such experience and such skill or were so perfectly organized 
 as to contemplate and complete such undertakings.” 
 
 On turning to his pages describing the buildings at Thebes, 
 erected three thousand years ago, we find that these early Egyptian 
 builders in the palace temple at Karnac put forth “perhaps the 
 noblest effort of architectural magnificence every produced by the 
 hand of man,” “the greatest of man’s architectural works.” This 
 was in the days before Moses! And the average person thinks that 
 the epoch of big buildings commences with the Masonic Temple at 
 Chicago! “The farther we go back in Egyptian history,” says 
 Professor Brugsch, “the more perfect their works of painting and 
 sculpture”; and Professor Renouf says: “Of a state of barbarism 
 or even of patriarchal life anterior to the monumental period there 
 is no historical vestige. The earliest monuments which have been 
 discovered present to us the very same fully developed civilization 
 and the same religion as the later monuments. The blocks of the 
 pyramids bear quarry marks exhibiting the decimal notation and are 
 dated by the months of the calendar which was in use down to the 
 latest times.” . 
 
 In the Cairo Museum is a collection from Memphis which 
 surpasses in interest anything of the kind previously found. It is 
 a collection of modeled heads, now one hundred and thirty-two in 
 number, representing the different races and tribes of men and women 
 in that ancient world. All are characterized by that remarkable 
 development of the cartoonist’s skill, so peculiarly Egyptian, which 
 enabled artists of that land to catch in each case that personal 
 peculiarity which distinguished one person or people from another. 
 When these heads aré all identified and published by some competent 
 artist, we may have our Bible and ancient history illuminated with 
 “the races of men” in much the same fashion as the school geography. 
 The statues and plaques carved in stone and wood to be seen in the 
 Gizeh Museum prove that the priest mummifiers of Memphis four 
 thousand years ago possessed a profound knowledge of anatomy. 
 Science, therefore, as Lockyer remarks, is as old as art, and they have 
 advanced together. Another remarkable fact in this connection is 
 
EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 63 
 
 that excavations in Italy have brought to light scores of finely finished 
 surgical instruments for certain operations, which are in almost 
 every particular of form like some reinvented in modern times and 
 used by the most advanced surgeons of to-day. 
 
 “We are losing all our secrets in this shabby age,” an architect 
 recently said. “If we keep on, the time will come when we shall be 
 able to do nothing well. 
 
 “Take, for instance, steel. We claim to make good steel, yet 
 the blades the Saracens turned out hundreds of years ago would cut 
 one of our own blades in two like butter. 
 
 mya 
 
 Lo} 
 ' : 
 4 ; 
 j 
 i 
 
 
 
 Surgical Instruments Used by Roman Physicians Two Thousand 
 Years Ago. 
 
 These instruments, exhibited in the Field Museum, Chicago, are as perfect 
 as any of the same type in use to-day and point to high development of 
 surgical science in the days of the Roman Empire. 
 
 “Take ink. Our modern ink fades in five or ten years to rust 
 color; yet the ink of medieval manuscripts is as black and bright 
 to-day as it was seven hundred years ago. 
 
 “Take dyes. The beautiful blues and reds and greens of antique 
 Oriental rugs have all been lost, while in Egyptian tombs we find 
 fabrics dyed thousands of years ago that remain to-day brighter and 
 purer in hue than any of our modern fabrics. 
 
 “Take my specialty, buildings. We can’t build as the ancients 
 did. The secret of their mortar and cement is lost to us. Their 
 mortar and cement were actually harder and more durable than the 
 stones they bound together, whereas ours — horrors!” 
 
64 EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 
 
 Turning to America, we find that Dr. Hiram Binghan, assistant 
 professor of Latin American history in Yale University, who in 1912 
 visited Peru, declares that the oldest remains of Peruvian civiliza- 
 tion are the most perfect. He writes: “The pre-Inca remains are 
 much more interesting and denote a higher condition of civilization 
 than the Inca relics. No marble could be more exquisitely cut. We 
 learned that the workmanship of these pre-Inca peoples, preceding 
 those whom Pizarro conquered, exceeded in beauty the work of the 
 Incas of Pizzarro’s time.” 
 
 So wherever we turn in the world’s history, we find, not progress 
 from savage beginnings, but degeneration from an earlier perfection.. 
 
 No one should be misled by the common talk about the stone, 
 bronze, and iron ages as if the history of mankind could be arranged 
 in such an ascending order. We have all these “ages” in existence 
 somewhere in the world to-day. Strangely enough, the explorers of 
 Asia Minor found that the bronze age was before the stone age. And 
 America had the stone age when Europe had the metal age. 
 
 As to savage races, these are the very opposite of evolution. 
 They are races in ruins. The degeneration of the Akkas of Guinea, 
 of the Bushmen of South Africa, of the Australian Negroes and the 
 Fire Islanders is very great; but these barbarian races, representing 
 hundreds of thousands of human creatures, millions of them, are 
 a proof of terrible decay. Without Christianity no race has ever 
 been observed to rise from savagery to culture. 
 
 There is a distinct tendency towards greater care in the use of 
 such words as “primitive” with reference to savage tribes. Bulletin 
 No. 63 of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institu- 
 tion, Washington, published in 1917, contains an argument against 
 the evolutionistic view based upon studies of the Indians which 
 inhabit Tierra del Fuego, an island near the southern tip of South 
 America. It had been contended by leading evolutionists that the 
 aborigines of Tierra del Fuego possessed no ideas of religion, and 
 therefore religion represented only the result of human evolution. 
 More recent research has strengthened the position of the writers 
 in the Smithsonian Bulletin. It has now been proved absolutely that 
 the natives of the Fire Island not only have a religion, but have 
 a system of ceremonies by which the young men and women of the 
 tribes are introduced to a knowledge of “relatively high moral 
 standards.” Indeed, these natives “have a distinct and persistent 
 idea of God,” who is described as all-seeing and omnipresent and 
 who is greater than all other gods. The earlier impressions of 
 Europeans who visited these “primitive” men are proved to have 
 been based upon fallacies and ignorance. 
 
 Savages do not always progress toward civilization. There are 
 
EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 65 
 
 savages in the world to-day; as far backward as history gives us 
 a view of the matter there have been savages. Some of these in 
 contact with civilized Christian people have progressed toward civil- 
 ization. On the other hand, some, the descendants of the most 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Gone Down or Going Up? 
 
 Evolution says that all human beings were once 
 in a savage state like this African warrior. 
 A study of history, however, proves that the 
 savages are humanity in a state of decay. Look- 
 ing at the picture, we must say: “Man has come 
 down to this” rather than: “From this we 
 have evolved.” 
 
 civilized, have retrogressed toward the savage state. Instances of 
 this have occurred even among our own American people; the less 
 energetic and less “prosperous” out of some of our best families, 
 drifting into mountains and other less populated and less fertile 
 sections, have left descendants approximately savages. So far as 
 
 Essays on Evolution. 5 
 
66 EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 
 
 history and archeology can tell, we know absolutely nothing of the 
 first savages. Canon Rawlinson says in The Origin of Nations 
 (pp. 4.5): — 
 
 “Herodotus (IV, 108) tells us of the Geloni, a Greek people, 
 who, having been expelled from the cities on the northern coast of - 
 the Euxine, had retired into the interior and there lived in wooden 
 huts and spoke a language ‘half Greek, half Scythian.’ By the time 
 of Mela this people had become completely barbarous and used the 
 skins of those slain by them in battle as coverings for themselves 
 and their horses. A gradual degradation of the Greco-Bactrian 
 people is apparent in the series of their coins which is extant.” 
 
 The modern Copts are very degraded descendants of the ancient 
 Egyptians, and the Romans of Wallachia have fallen away very 
 considerably from the level of the Dacian colonists of Trajan. 
 Civilization, as is evident from these and various other instances, 
 is liable to decay, to avane, to deteriorate, to proceed from bad to 
 worse, and in course of time to sink to so low a level that the question 
 occurs, “Is it civilization any longer?” 
 
 Where we find a real history of a people, —and such histories 
 we have of civilized peoples, — we find clear indications of a Golden 
 Age. It is Eden as told in Genesis. A similar history comes to us 
 from the early times of the Persian race, as told in the Vendidad. 
 Hesiod sang the story of the beginning of history for the Greeks, and 
 it began with a Golden Age. The Chinese point backward to their 
 early ancestral age as a sort of “first heaven.” Prescott found well- 
 matured legends of a Golden Age in Mexico and of a paradise for 
 the ancient Peruvians on Titicaca’s shores. 
 
 We hear of ruined cities in Yucatan and New Mexico that 
 indicate an age of civilization for each of these lands far back of 
 the savage conditions found in them by white men, and vastly 
 superior. The aboriginal earthworks scattered over sections of our 
 own Southland tell certainly of a civilization exceeding and ante- 
 dating the best our fathers found among the Choctaws, Cherokees, 
 and Chickasaws. 
 
 In'the Lutheran Church Work and Observer of January 9, 1919, 
 an editorial appeared under the caption, “What About Evolution 
 Here?” The following is pertinent to the present discussion: — 
 
 “A very illuminating article by Dr. L.T. Townsend appears in 
 the December number of the Bible Champion. Its title is, ‘Pre- 
 historic Peoples of the Western Continent.’ Dr. Townsend’s conten- 
 tion is that the high civilization indicated by the ancient cities 
 exhumed in Mexico, Yucatan, and Central America, compared with 
 the present inferior civilization of many of the people in the same 
 regions at present, is absolute proof against the theory of evolution, 
 
EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 67 
 
 whatever adjectives may be put before the term. Let us quote in 
 proof of this position: — 
 
 “<“Of the wonderful prehistoric cities of Mexico much has been 
 written, but none too much. Where once were cities having 
 a hundred thousand or more inhabitants, adorned with parks, palaces, 
 and temples, are now to be seen the outlines only of deserted streets 
 and ruins of palaces that had been built and were in ruins long 
 before the Aztecs and Toltecs had settled in the country. In Yucatan 
 alone there are ruins that were once large and flourishing, where 
 now silence reigns; and noblemen who lived in royal palaces have 
 given way to half-clothed and half-fed peons living in adobe huts.’ 
 
 “Tt might almost be said, using a colloquialism, that evolution 
 was not ‘on its job’ in those countries. If there was evolution of any 
 kind, it was obviously evolution downward. This is the question 
 we should like to ask: If evolution is the outstanding and dominant 
 principle in the world, why is its working not more strikingly dis- 
 played both in the past and in the present? There is not one scintilla 
 of evidence that animistic and polytheistic peoples have ever risen 
 into monotheism by means of purely ‘resident forces.’ When such 
 degenerate people have been lifted to a higher level morally and 
 religiously, it has always been because they have been touched and 
 uplifted by forces outside of themselves; and in every such case it 
 has been the Bible and Christianity that have thus lifted them out 
 of their pitiful condition. But that is not evolution; it is the adding 
 of a supernatural force. In the world of nature and of man there 
 is the most tangible and striking evidence of the operation of two 
 principles: one is a ceaseless round without progress; the other is 
 degeneration. The proof of progressive evolution by means of 
 merely resident forces is conspicuous for its absence. 
 
 “Dy. Townsend speaks by the book of the status of affairs in the 
 countries named; for he has himself been on the ground, has 
 personally examined the ruins, and has made extensive collections 
 of relics from the marvelous ancient cities, which furnish indubitable 
 evidence of a high civilization in a remote antiquity. In view of 
 these things it is useless for certain classes of would-be scientists to 
 continue to go along in smug assurance that their evolutionary theory 
 has been proved, and that no more is to be said. That is conservatism 
 gone to seed; it is not science, which always has its mind open to 
 truth and reality.” 
 
 Mr. McCann very properly asks: “Why do the Haeckelites of 
 this generation resort to a rowboat load of mutilated skull-caps, 
 fragments of thigh-bones and grossly defective skeletal remnants to 
 support their theory of an ascending evolution from the ape when 
 here, now, alive in the world, they find countless millions of over- 
 
68 EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 
 
 whelming proofs of universal degeneration from the ideal primitive 
 described in the word: ‘And God created man in His own image; 
 in the image of God created He him’ ?” 
 
 Where to-day is the Hindu race that could build the Taj Mahal? 
 
 Dr. Patterson asks: “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.” 
 
 What overwhelming proof of decay of human intelligence is 
 told in the lecture of Wendell Phillips, “The Lost Arts”! Consider 
 the marvels of the engineer’s art as told by Phillips: “You may 
 visit Dr. Abbot’s museum, where you will see the ring of Cheops, 
 the pyramid builder. The signet of the ring is about the size of 
 a quarter of a dollar, and the engraving is invisible without the aid 
 of a glass. No man was ever shown into the cabinets of gems in 
 Italy without being furnished with a microscope to look at them. 
 It would be idle for him to look at them without one. He couldn’t 
 appreciate the delicate lines and the expression of the faces. If you 
 go to Parma, they will show you a gem once worn on the finger of 
 Michelangelo, of which the engraving is two thousand years old, on 
 which there are the figures of seven women. You must have the 
 aid of a glass in order to distinguish the forms at all.... Layard 
 says he would be unable to read the engravings at Nineveh without 
 strong spectacles; they are so extremely small. Rawlinson brought 
 home a stone about twenty inches long and ten wide, containing an 
 entire treatise on mathematics. It would be perfectly illegible 
 without glasses. Now, if we are unable to read it without the aid 
 of glasses, you may suppose the man who engraved it had pretty 
 strong spectacles. So the microscope, instead of dating from our 
 time, finds its brothers in the Books of Moses.” 
 
 As a matter of fact, evolutionists admit that there has been no 
 change whatever in the human race during the past thirty thousand 
 years. As Dr. Sayce says: “The whole application of a supposed law 
 of evolution to the history of the ancient Oriental world is founded 
 on what we now know to have been a huge mistake. The Mosaic age, 
 instead of coming at the dawn of ancient Oriental culture, really 
 belongs to the evening of its decay. The Hebrew legislator was 
 surrounded on all sides by the influences of a decadent civilization.” 
 
 And so we might proceed indefinitely, showing that the first and 
 oldest Gothic cathedrals, those at Amiens and Rouen, were never 
 surpassed; that no epic poetry has ever been written that surpassed 
 the earliest epic poems, those of Homer. Conversely, the Koran, or 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 69 
 
 Bible of the Mohammedans, is centuries later than the New Testa- 
 ment, hence ought to be a great improvement on it, and the Book of 
 Mormon on the Koran, and Mrs. Mary Baker Patterson Eddy Frye’s 
 text-book of Christian Science a vast improvement again on the 
 Book of Mormon. As a matter of fact there is so great a deteriora- 
 tion in these manufactured religions that one might aptly say that 
 even the devil is degenerating. 
 
 How, in view of the degeneration observable in human history, 
 serious students can still maintain that there is evidence of an 
 evolution from lower to higher forms of civilization, under natural 
 law, passes comprehension. There can be no statement more directly 
 opposed to the facts of history than the claim of Professor Conklin 
 of Princeton, who says that “everything goes to show that evolution 
 has always been progressive.” Everything goes to show the very 
 opposite. 
 
 9. ‘“How Old Is Man??’’ 
 
 The antiquity of man is discussed in an article contributed by 
 Theodore Roosevelt to the National Geographic Magazine.1) The 
 article purports to give a brief summary of that which has been 
 ascertained by anthropological science in answer to the question, 
 “How old is man?’ and by reason of the distinguished name of its 
 author has received wide attention. Mr. Roosevelt intends to trace 
 the prehistory of man, “the history of his development from an ape- 
 like creature struggling with his fellow-brutes.” He refers to a past 
 geologic age, when “man was slowly developing from the half-human 
 to the wholly human,” “from a strong and cunning brute into a man 
 having dominion over all brutes, and kinship with worlds lying 
 outside and beyond our own,” and intends to summarize “all that 
 has been discovered and soundly determined” since Darwin wrote 
 his Descent of Man. Mr. Roosevelt refers with undisguised disdain 
 to those who once “disbelieved in the antiquity of man,” and his 
 article leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that in the opinion of 
 Mr. Roosevelt this disbelief in the evolutionistic thesis concerning 
 the origin and ancestry of man has been amply proved unfounded 
 by the facts. His assertions are made with a calm emphasis, which 
 cannot fail to impress the unsophisticated reader. We are invited 
 to consider “man as he was up to the end of paleolithic times.” “The 
 records show that man has lived in France for at least 100,000 years.” 
 
 _ The illustrations which accompany the article add to the impres- 
 sion that the question, “How old is man?” may now be answered 
 
 1) February, 1916: “How Old Is Man?” 
 
70 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 with the testimony of well-established scientific proof; for have we 
 not here the “Ape-man of Java, a Prehuman Creature, Who Lived 
 Probably 500,000 Years Ago”? Have we not a head reconstructed 
 on the Piltdown Skull? Do we not observe the trend towards the 
 human in the reconstructed Neanderthal Man on page 1202 Does 
 not a half-tone on page 124 show this same Neanderthal Man 
 chipping a piece of flint into arrow-heads, and the Cro-Magnon Man 
 in the act of drawing a bison on the wall of his cave? The unavoid- 
 able impression is conveyed that we are moving along lines well 
 established by scientific research, and that it is no longer “necessary 
 to argue with those who disbelieve the antiquity of man.” It is with 
 this latter presumption that we intend to deal in our discussion of 
 Mr. Roosevelt’s article. Frankly, we disbelieve the antiquity of man, 
 and it is our purpose to show that Mr. Roosevelt has, in his discussion 
 of the question, “How old is man?” introduced no facts which have 
 caused us to waver in our adherence to the record in Genesis, and, 
 furthermore, that the distinguished contributor to the National 
 Geographic Magazine has withheld from his readers certain facts, 
 which, if presented, would have materially depressed the interest of 
 the public in his conclusions. 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt’s article is, in substance, a résumé of Mr. Henry 
 F. Osborn’s book Men of the Old Stone Age, which, in his opinion, 
 sums up the assured results of research and constitutes the unani- 
 mous consensus of scholarship. Is Mr. Roosevelt right in both these 
 assumptions? Only when the question is approached: Whence did 
 these various forms of ape-man originate, and how are they related 
 to one another and to recent man? does the author caution his 
 readers that here Mr. Osborn “states his conclusions as strong prob- 
 abilities, not certainties.” But this closing paragraph of Mr. Roose- 
 velt’s article serves the purpose of deepening the impression that. 
 all that has been said about the nature and antiquity of the fossil 
 remains in the preceding paragraphs is based upon the unques- 
 tioned and unanimous agreement of scholarship. Again we ask, Is 
 Mr. Roosevelt justified in this initial assumption? The question can 
 best be answered by taking up seriatim the evidence adduced for 
 the evolutionistic view of human origins. 
 
 Pithecanthropus Erectus. 
 
 Pithecanthropus Erectus is the name invented by Haeckel for 
 the “missing link” and given by Dr. Eugene Du Bois, a Dutch 
 physician, to certain remains discovered by him on the island of 
 Java in 1891. The remains consist of “an imperfect cranium, 
 a femur bearing evidence of prolonged disease, and a molar tooth.” 
 (Dana, Manual of Geology, p.1036.) The discoverer of these bones 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” Wal 
 
 asserts that he found them in Pleistocene deposits, and believes that 
 they are the remains of a being between the man-apes and man. 
 Prof. Virchow and other specialists in anatomy examined this find. 
 It was established that the femur was found a year after the cranium. 
 The Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. XXII, p. 336) describes the skull 
 as follows: “The forehead is extremely low, with beetling brow- 
 ridges, and the whole calvarium presents a curiously gibbon-like 
 aspect.” Some regard the remains as belonging to a low-grade man 
 or to an idiot. (Dana, l.c.) The cubic measurement of the skull is 
 60 cubic inches, about that of an idiot, that of a normal man being 
 90 cubic inches and that of an ape 30. These specimens were found 
 in separate places. The skull is too small for the thigh-bone. The 
 age of the strata in which they were found is uncertain. The assump- 
 tions on which the claims made for these bones are based are the 
 following: First, that they are as old as claimed, 100,000 years at 
 least, or a million, as stated by some. Secondly, that these bones 
 belong to the same individual. Thirdly, that they are the remains 
 of a full-grown individual. Fourthly, that they are the remains of 
 a human or semihuman being. An authority of the first rank, 
 Prof. Klaatsch, of Heidelberg University, says that the savants may 
 be right in inferring from the fragmental Javan remains that they 
 belong either to the most manlike of apes or the most apelike of men, 
 but that the creature does not supply the missing link in a pedigree 
 beginning in a simian and ending in homo sapiens. 
 
 Upon such a floating foundation of scientific surmise Mr. Roose- 
 velt presumes to build a very substantial structure. He says: After 
 the prehuman days of man, probably branching off from the stem of 
 the anthropoid apes, comes “the famous ape-man of Java, the pithe- 
 canthropus, the prehuman creature,— probably, however, only col- 
 laterally in our line of ancestry, — who appeared at the dawn of the 
 Pleistocene. This being was already half-way upward from the 
 beast, half-way between true man and those Miocene ancestors of 
 his who were still on the psychic and intellectual level of their 
 diverging kinsfolk, the anthropoid apes. He, or some creature like 
 him, was in our own line of ascent during the uncounted ages when 
 our ancestors were already different from all other brutes and yet 
 had not grown to be really men. He probably used a stone or club 
 at need and about this time may have begun very rudely to chip or 
 otherwise fashion stones to his use.” All this detail concerning the 
 pithecanthropus from its Miocene “ancestors” to its rudely fashioned 
 tools is purely the product of imagination, starting from three o 
 four broken bones and the evolutionary theory. We have not seen 
 Mr. Osborn’s book, upon which Mr. Roosevelt relies for his facts. 
 Possibly it treats the pithecanthropus as an ancestor in the direct line 
 
 LA 
 (he 
 
13 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 of the descent of man. If it does, the author stands alone among 
 modern scientists, who are substantially agreed with Dr. Klaatsch 
 that the being of which Du Bois discovered the remains is not 
 “probably,” but most certainly, outside the direct line of human 
 descent. These bones, then, have no place in a discussion of the 
 question, “How old is man?” 2) 
 
 The Piltdown Skull. 
 
 “After the ape-man of Java,” continues Mr. Roosevelt, “we skip 
 a quarter of a million years or so— according to Mr. Osborn’s con- 
 servative figuring — before we get our next glimpse of a near-human 
 
 
 
 (c) Am. Museum of Nat’l History 
 
 (c) Am. Museum of Nat’l History 
 
 The Restored Skull of the The Piltdown “Skull.” 
 
 “Java Ape Man.” 
 
 The black portion of this and the 
 other “skull” on this page is said 
 to denote the part that was origi- 
 nally found. The rest is the sculp- 
 tor’s imagination, and the whole 
 thing is one of the “scientific” 
 hoaxes of the present day. Ques- 
 tion: Where are these Du Bois 
 bones, and why are they kept from 
 every possible inspection? 
 
 To show that this was the “miss- 
 ing link,” this skull-bone was built 
 up with a brain-chamber of 1,070 
 cubic centimeters, half-way be- 
 tween man and monkey. Dr. Ed- 
 ward Keith, English anatomical 
 expert, found, however, that the 
 brain capacity must have been at 
 least 50 per cent. larger, so that 
 the Piltdown Man had a larger 
 brain-chamber than the average 
 man to-day. 
 
 predecessor of ours. This is the Heidelberg Man, who lived in the 
 warm second interglacial period, surrounded by a fauna of huge and 
 fearsome beasts, which included the saber-tooth and the hippo- 
 potamus, etc. He was a chinless being, whose jaw was still so 
 
 2) To build upon such slight evidence a theory of human descent is 
 hazardous also in view of the fact that 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. 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 73 
 
 primitive that it must have made his speech imperfect; and he was 
 so much lower than any existing savage as to be at least specifically 
 distinct; that is, he can be called ‘human’ only if the word is used 
 with a certain largeness. Again we make a long skip, this time of 
 somewhat over a hundred thousand years, and come to the Piltdown 
 Man, or near-man—a being seemingly little more advanced than 
 the man of Heidelberg, and in some ways less so, for he possessed 
 apelike canine teeth.” In a burst of confidence the author then 
 admits that there is room for “considerable difference of opinion” 
 regarding the age of these “very early near-human remains” and their 
 exact relation to the human race; yet this admission, if anything, 
 deepens the impression that as to the near-human characteristics of 
 all these remains and their significance as evidence of brute ancestor- 
 ship of man there can be no manner of doubt. What are the facts? 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt, on page 119, shows a reproduction of the Piltdown 
 Man, “believed to have lived in England and France 100,000 to 
 300,000 years ago.” ‘The wide disparity of these estimates. of an- 
 tiquity should in themselves bid one pause before one accepts the 
 very unprepossessing creature depicted here as an ancestor of man. 
 Our faith in this reconstruction is yet more rudely shaken when the 
 testimony of Dr. Arthur Keith, the anatomical expert of the Royal 
 College of Surgeons of England, is heard. It is true that Dr. Smith 
 Woodward and Dr. Charles Dawson, in reconstructing a man from 
 the Piltdown 8) skull, built up something essentially monkey-like, with 
 receding forehead, projecting brows, and a gorilla-like lower jaw. 
 Professor Keith, checking up on this reconstruction, comes to an 
 entirely different conclusion. He finds that the work of Drs. Dawson 
 and Woodward was done in open defiance of all that the scientists 
 know about skulls, whether ancient or modern. He writes: — 
 
 “That the Piltdown find is the most important discovery of its 
 kind ever made will be freely granted by all who have inquired into 
 man’s ancient history. 
 
 “Nothing can detract from the debt which we owe to Charles 
 Dawson and Dr. Smith Woodward on this score. It was natural that 
 they should be influenced by the beliefs of the time. The evidence as 
 regards antiquity of the Piltdown race pointed, in their opinions, to 
 a very early phase of the Pleistocene period. It was the date at 
 which man should still be struggling toward a human form, if the 
 accepted opinion was well founded. 
 
 “Tn the chin region of the lower jaw of the Piltdown skull the 
 discoverers found that the characters were absolutely apelike, abso- 
 
 
 
 3) Discovered in 1912 on Piltdown Common, near Ucksfield, Sussex, 
 England. 
 
74 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 lutely unhuman. The characters of the chin dominated their work 
 when they came to fit the parts of the skull together; so certain were 
 they that they had found a real intermediate stage between ape and 
 man that they abandoned all the precepts of the ordinary anatomist. 
 It was recognized that all the parts of the skull, barring their massive 
 thickness, had the same characters as modern man, only the chin 
 was different. In the skull, eventually reconstructed, representing 
 the form of man’s head in the early Pleistocene, one could recognize 
 a mixture of features, recalling a microcephalic idiot’s skull on the 
 one hand and a chimpanzee’s on the other. 
 
 “This hybrid skull was received with open arms by the orthodox 
 anthropologists. They were comforted to know that their beliefs 
 had been well founded, even if their early-Pleistocene ancestors 
 proved to be but half an ape. As for myself, it was necessary to 
 examine again my facts, inferences, and beliefs, and see how they 
 could be fitted to meet the evidence yielded by Piltdown; for at first 
 I accepted implicitly the skull reconstructed. 
 
 “Until Mr. Dawson’s discovery I was certain we had followed 
 the modern man back beyond the middle of the Pleistocene, and on 
 other evidence had postulated that long before the dawn of the 
 Pleistocene period it would be found that man had attained a full- 
 sized brain. There were also the important discoveries of Benjamin 
 Harrison and J. Reid Moir. They had found flints which had been 
 shaped by the hand of man before the middle of the Pliocene period. 
 
 “Matters had reached this stage when I returned from a glorious 
 golfing holiday in Cornwall early in the summer of the present year. 
 On my return I found waiting me excellent casts of the various 
 fragments of the Piltdown skull, which had been prepared by F. O. 
 Barlow. Sitting down to mark out these Piltdown fragments on 
 a modern skull in order that visitors to the museum of the Royal 
 College of Surgeons might quickly perceive how they differed from 
 the corresponding parts of modern man, I was surprised to find that 
 the area of the ancient parts was much larger than their modern 
 representatives. I also observed that the squamosal— the bone which 
 forms the side of the skull between the ear and the forehead — was 
 much larger than in modern skulls. 
 
 “That was altogether unexpected, as in all ancient skulls, espe- 
 cially skulls of the Neanderthal race, this bone is particularly small. 
 My curiosity was aroused. I soon saw that the parts of the recon- 
 structed Piltdown skull had been apposed in a manner which was 
 in open defiance of all that was known of skulls ancient and modern, 
 human and anthropoid. Articulating the bones in a manner which 
 has been accepted by all anatomists in all times, I found that the 
 brain-chamber, instead of measuring 1,070 cubic cm., as in Dr. Smith 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 75 
 
 Woodward’s reconstruction, measured 1,500 cubic em.—a _ large 
 brain-chamber for even modern man. 
 
 “Comparing the impressions left by the convolutions of the brain 
 on the Piltdown skull with those on a modern skull, I found a close 
 correspondence. It was then apparent a very great mistake had 
 been made; the ancient man of Piltdown had a brain as big as 
 modern man.” 
 
 Until the controversy has been settled by the scientists now at 
 loggerheads over the Piltdown skull, no one should pass off one of 
 the several “reconstructions” of the Piltdown Man with an air of 
 scientific finality, as was done by Mr. Roosevelt in the National 
 Geographic Magazine. An honest presentation of the facts would 
 not have ignored the wide divergency in the opinions of Drs. Wood- 
 ward and Dawson, and Dr. Keith, and the controversy which the 
 disagreement of these leaders has called forth. The statement that 
 there is “room for considerable difference of opinion” as to the age 
 of these specimens and their relation to human ancestry does not 
 touch the matter which concerns us here. The impression is left by 
 Mr. Roosevelt’s article that, whatever the age of these fossils, and 
 whatever their relationship to our race, the reconstructions based 
 upon them,— with “primitive jaw,” “chinless being,” “lower than 
 any existing savage,” etc., —are the unquestioned result of scientific 
 research. They are not. Until the leading authorities have settled 
 their dispute concerning the appearance of the man of Piltdown, that 
 specimen must be ruled out, even on scientific grounds, as evidence 
 pointing to the descent of man from animal ancestors. 
 
 The Neanderthal Man. 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt discusses the Neanderthal Man, next in line of 
 “prehuman predecessors of ours,” with a wealth of detail which 
 argues close acquaintanceship. He writes: “These Neanderthal men 
 were squat, burly, thick-skulled savages, with brows projecting over 
 cavernous eyes, knees permanently bent, and jaws almost chinless. 
 Their brains were of good size, but the portions which represented 
 the higher intellectual attainments were poorly developed.... They 
 were a low race of men, distinctly human, but far nearer the beast 
 than any existing race.” More detail is added regarding the fashion- 
 ing of tools, their hunting-grounds, and cavern-life. Again we ask, 
 What basis of fact underlies these confident assertions? 
 
 The Neanderthal skull was found in 1856, in the neighborhood 
 of Duesseldorf, by Dr. Fuhlrott, of Elberfeld. When the skull and 
 other parts of the skeleton were exhibited at a scientific meeting 
 held at Bonn the same year, a wide divergence of opinion at once 
 developed among the specialists. By some, doubts were expressed as 
 
76 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 to the human character of the remains. Others held that the remains 
 indicated a person of much the same stature as a European of the 
 present day, but with such an unusual thickness in some of them 
 as betokened a being of very extraordinary strength. Dr. Meyer, of 
 Bonn, regarded the skull as the remains of a Cossack killed in 1814! 
 Other scientists agreed with him. Modern Science accepts the 
 antiquity of the Neanderthal Man, but the controversy has never 
 ceased. Mr. Roosevelt admits that Darwin practically ignored this 
 discovery, “though it was exactly the ‘missing link’ he hoped to find.” 
 The great Virchow declared the peculiarities of the bones to be the 
 result of disease. Mr. Roosevelt chides Virchow for his “wrong- 
 headed insistence, which delayed for a full generation the full under- 
 standing of its importance.” However, when, following Osborn, 
 Mr. Roosevelt terms the Neanderthal race “distinctly human,” 
 “human beings” (p.125), he is not supported by Schwalbe, who in 
 his standard work on the subject (Der Neanderthalschaedel, 1901) 
 says that this species, though extremely ancient, is “distinctly not 
 human” — “ist ausserhalb der Variationsbreite des Menschen,‘) weil 
 er eine groessere Anzahl von Merkmalen aufweist, die keine der 
 ausgestorbenen oder jetzt lebenden Rassen des Homo sapiens besitzen. 
 Er ist eine besondere Art,” a distinct, independent species. In the 
 article “Mensch” in Meyer’s Konversationslexikon the man of Nean- 
 derthal and Krapina (referred to hereafter) is called a type quite 
 divergent from recent man—“ein Typus, der von dem rezenten 
 Menschen durchaus abweicht.” An authority on organic evolution, 
 Professor Cope, thinks that the Neanderthal specimens are specifically 
 different from Homo sapiens, because the Neanderthal skull “has 
 a smaller brain-cavity, a retreating forehead, and also a retreating 
 chin.” He thinks the Pithecanthropus of Du Bois “may go with 
 Homo Neanderthalensis, though its chin is not known.” 5) Here it 
 should be stated that an entire group of scientists believes, on the 
 evidence of the Piltdown skull, that the prehistoric race from which 
 we are descended never became so bestial as the possessors of the 
 skulls found at Neanderthal, at Spy in Belgium, and La Chapelle- 
 aux-Saints in France are believed to have been, and that the latter 
 
 4) “Beyond the range of the variability of the human type.” 
 
 5) In other words, Mr. Cope, unquestionably a man competent to speak 
 on matters concerning speculative science, believes that the Pithecanthro- 
 pus and the Neanderthal Man might well have been coeval. According 
 to Mr. Roosevelt’s authorities, they were separated by a chasm of at least 
 350,000 years, “conservatively figured.” How may any one speak with such 
 assurance as Mr. Roosevelt when leading theorizers are so far apart in their 
 estimates? (See Cope, The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution, Open 
 Court Publishing Co., 1896.) 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” iT 
 
 belonged to a branch of the race which gradually degenerated, until 
 it finally became extinct, while the other and superior branch kept 
 on improving until man as we know him gradually developed. 
 
 However, the “bestial” character of the Neanderthal remains 
 is by no means admitted on every hand. Near Liége, in Belgium, 
 not more than seventy miles from the Neanderthal, the Engis skull 
 was found. After careful measurements it was proved not to differ 
 materially from skulls of modern Europeans. This fact should 
 prevent us from making any assertions respecting the primitive 
 character, in race or physical conformation, of these cave-dwellers. 
 Indeed, Professor Huxley, in a very careful and elaborate paper upon 
 the Neanderthal and Engis skulls, places an average skull of a modern 
 native of Australia about half-way between those of the Neanderthal 
 and Engis caves. Yes, he says that, after going through a large 
 collection of Australian skulls, he “found it possible to select from 
 these crania two (connected by all sorts of intermediate gradations), 
 the one of which should very nearly resemble the Engis skull, while 
 the other would somewhat less closely approximate to the Neander- 
 thal skull in size, form, and proportions.” And yet, as regards blood, 
 customs, or language, the natives of Southern and Western Australia 
 are probably as pure as any race of savages in existence. In fact, 
 it would, no doubt, be possible to find in Europe or America among 
 persons of abnormal underdevelopment, such as idiots, skulls of 
 a formation which would match that of the Neanderthal.6) “The 
 Engis skull, perhaps the oldest known, is,” according to Professor 
 Huxley, “a fair average skull, which might have belonged to a phil- 
 osopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brain of a savage.” 
 In this opinion Mr. Huxley is supported by one of the greatest 
 anthropologists of his time, Daniel G. Brinton, who says concerning 
 the cave-men of France and Belgium: “Neither in stature, cranial 
 capacity, nor in muscular development did these earliest members 
 of the species differ more from those now living than do these among 
 themselves. We have no grounds for assigning to these earliest 
 known men an inferior brain or a lower intelligence than is seen 
 among various savage tribes still in existence.” 7) 
 
 Confusion has become worse confounded since Professor Gor- 
 janovic-Kramberger, of Agram, found the remains of ten prehistoric 
 individuals in Krapina cave in Croatia, Austria. Professors Schwalbe 
 and Klaatsch produced facts which “prove positively” that the 
 Krapina skull is of a type much lower than the lowest human skull 
 of to-day and represents a creature separated from the man of to-day 
 
 6) Keary, The Dawn of History, p. 8. 
 7) Universal Encyclopedia, VII, p. 470. 
 
78 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 by a far greater difference than was the difference between him and 
 the ape. Dr. Hagen writes: “Our organs of speech, particularly the 
 tongue, are governed by a group of muscles which are fastened to 
 a little double-pointed growth of bone on the inside of the chin. In 
 the anthropoid ape, who lacks the power of articulate speech, we find 
 a groove in that place instead of a growth of bone. That same groove 
 we find in the man of Krapina.” But there is still a difference of 
 opinion concerning several very important points. The Belgian 
 scientist Fraipont believed that the Krapina skeletons showed that 
 this man could not walk upright, or at least did not walk upright 
 habitually. Other scientists say that the study of the bones does 
 not justify this opinion. The teeth of the skulls found at Krapina 
 are of immense size, greater even than those of the ape, and in some 
 respects differing from the dentition of modern man. ‘These 
 divergencies have convinced the scientists that, whatever the age of 
 the Krapina specimens, they do not constitute the “missing link” 
 between the brutes and man. “Their facial features were certainly 
 animal-like, being even behind the ape in the absence of forehead 
 and chin. The conclusion that this creature was not merely dif- 
 ferent from recent man in kind, but actually different in species, is 
 unescapable.” 
 Has the Missing Link been Found? 
 
 In all this we note a truly formidable conflict of first-class 
 authorities. Mr. Osborn, whom Mr. Roosevelt follows, pronounces 
 the Neanderthal Man “distinctly human,” “human beings.” Schwalbe, 
 the greatest specialist in this field of research, says: “This species 
 is distinctly outside the field of human variability; it is essentially 
 a distinct species.” In this, Schwalbe has the support of the pro- 
 fessional evolutionist Cope. Yet Cope would have the Neanderthal 
 Man go with Pithecanthropus, whom Roosevelt makes 350,000 years 
 (“conservatively figured”) older than the Neanderthaler. Others 
 hold that the latter is a degenerate type of man. Huxley says it 
 resembles the skull of some Australians in size, form, and propor- 
 tions, and in this he is supported by Brinton. Others again classify 
 the Neanderthal remains with the Krapina specimens, which, how- 
 ever, differ in the immensely important factor of dentition from 
 modern man, and must, “by unescapable conclusion,” be regarded 
 specimens of a creature radically different from recent man. How, 
 in view of this clashing of opinions, can Mr. Roosevelt say that he 
 is presenting a summary “of all that has been discovered and soundly 
 determined”? He calls the Neanderthal Man the “missing link.” 
 “Not our ancestor,” “savages lower than any existing human type,” 8) 
 
 8) This in flat contradiction to the opinion of Huxley and Brinton, 
 above quoted. 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 79 
 
 yet “exactly the missing link which Darwin hoped to find” (p. 125). 
 How does this square with contemporary scientific opinion? No one 
 can read Mr. Roosevelt’s article and escape the impression that not 
 only one, but many missing links have been found. There is an 
 outline of development from the Pithecanthropus through Piltdown 
 and Neanderthal to the ancestors of Homo sapiens. Let us ask: 
 What basis is there for the assumption that these missing links have 
 been found, that the genealogy of man has been traced? 
 
 The unanimous opinion of evolutionistic science is that none of 
 the remains found in so-called Tertiary deposits, in the Pliocene, 
 or even in the Pleistocene strata of the Quarternary age, supply 
 the missing link in the evolution of man from the brute. These 
 fossil remains are either plainly related to the brute, as when the 
 bony process in the lower jaw, which is necessary for the growth of 
 a human tongue, is missing, or they are quite evidently the remains 
 of men that differed in no essential from recent man, Homo sapiens. 
 The link that connects the two has not been found. This is the 
 verdict of science. 
 
 Dr. Beck says in Der Naturmensch, Vol. IIT, p. 53: “The presence 
 of man in the Tertiary period is not sustained by the facts.” Alfred 
 Russell Wallace, cooriginator with Darwin of the “Darwinian theory,” 
 quotes Huxley as follows in his book Darwinism:9) “In conclusion 
 I may say that the fossil remains of man hitherto discovered do not 
 seem to me to take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid 
 form, by the modifications of which he has probably become what 
 he is.” “Certain California remains of Pliocene man,” Wallace 
 continues, “give no indication of a specially low form of man; and 
 it remains an unsolved problem why no traces of the long line of 
 man’s ancestors, back to the remote period when he first branched 
 off from the pithecoid type, have yet been discovered.” On another 
 page Wallace again expresses his wonderment at the fact that there 
 is a “complete absence of human or prehuman remains in all those 
 deposits which have furnished in such rich abundance the remains 
 of other land-animals.” (Darwinism, p.309.) Wallace refers to the 
 Pliocene period, the same age of which Mr. Roosevelt so confidently 
 asserts that during this time “developed the primates, from which 
 came the monkeys, the anthropoid apes, and finally the half-human 
 predecessors of man himself.” Where is the proof? The statement 
 is unsupported by a shred of tangible evidence. Speaking of the 
 oldest skulls, Wallace says: “What is still more extraordinary, the 
 few remains yet known of prehistoric man do not indicate any 
 
 9) 1889, p. 307. 
 
80 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 material diminution in the size of the brain-case.” 10) The latest 
 - finds substantiate this opinion. Mr. Roosevelt makes no reference to 
 the human skeleton found in the African Pleistocene, the Oldoway 
 Man. This remarkable fossil was found in the Oldoway gulch in 
 northern German East Africa, in 1913, by an expedition of the 
 Geological Institute of the University of Berlin. The remains con- 
 sist of a complete skeleton, which was found deeply imbedded in 
 firm tufa. Unquestionably ancient as these remains are, — the bones 
 are completely fossilized,—they have contained lamentably “few 
 primitive characteristics” and hence have not been exploited in the 
 interest of the evolutionary theory. A fragment of skull, a tooth, 
 a thigh-bone, offer much more inviting fields to the evolutionist, 
 since they permit his imagination to range without the restraint of 
 fact. The Oldoway fossil, which is in every essential respect 
 a normal human skeleton, possesses no special attractions for those 
 who would represent man as a descendant of brutish ancestors. 
 Says Professor Virchow:!) “We seek in vain for the missing 
 link. There exists a definite barrier separating man from the animal 
 which has not yet been effaced — heredity, which transmits to chil- 
 dren the faculties of the parents. We have never seen a monkey 
 bring a man into the world nor a man produce a monkey. All men 
 having a Simian appearance are simply pathological variants. It 
 was generally believed a few years ago that there existed a few human 
 races which still remained in the primitive inferior condition of 
 their organization. But all these races have been objects of minute 
 investigation, and we know that they have an organization like ours, 
 often, indeed, superior to that of the supposed higher races. Thus 
 the Eskimo head and the head of the Tierra del Fuegians belong 
 to the perfected types.” “All the researches undertaken with the 
 aim of finding continuity in progressive development have been 
 without result. There exists no proanthrope, no man-monkey, and 
 the ‘connecting link’ remains a phantom.” Dr. Berndt, of Berlin, 
 says in a recent contribution to a scientific journal: “Since 
 Dr. Dubois’s Pithecanthropus Erectus, once so far famed, must 
 without question now be excluded from the direct genealogy of man, 
 at least of European man, we must admit that there is no link which 
 really bridges the chasm between the manlike animals (as, e. g., the 
 living chimpanzee and the fossil Pliopithecus, the Dryopithecus, and 
 others) and even the most primitive men (as, e. g., the Australian of 
 
 10) This, as has been shown by the cubic measurements quoted above, 
 applies even to the Javan specimen of Dr. Dubois. 
 
 11) Quoted by Fairhurst, Organic Evolution Considered; Standard 
 Press, 1913. 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 81 
 
 to-day or the prognathous of the Ice age, the Neanderthal or 
 Heidelberg Man).” 12) It had been suggested by some that in the 
 Dryopithecus Darwini, referred to by Dr. Berndt, a fossil ancestor 
 of man had been found. However, also this hope of the evolutionists 
 has been dashed. The Enclycopedia Britannica says:18) “It has been 
 suggested that it is clearly related to man, but this idea is dis- 
 countenanced by the great relative length of the muzzle and the 
 small space for the tongue.” Thus every new find, upon investiga- 
 tion, proves the truth of Virchow’s words: “We must really acknowl- 
 edge that there is a complete absence of any fossil type of a lower 
 stage in the development of man. Nay, if we gather together all the 
 fossil men hitherto found and put them parallel with those of the 
 present time, we can decidedly pronounce that there are among 
 living men a much greater proportion of individuals who show 
 a relatively inferior type than there are among the fossils known up 
 to this time.... Every positive progress which we have made in the 
 region of prehistoric anthropology has removed us farther from the 
 demonstration of this theory.” Not one of these loudly heralded 
 missing links has stood the test of scientific investigation, but has 
 either been recognized as undoubtedly Simian in character or has 
 been ranged by competent anthropologists with some existing human 
 type. There is so far not a scintilla of evidence for the evolution of 
 man from the beast, of which Mr. Roosevelt so glibly speaks: “The 
 evolution of man from a strong and cunning brute into a being 
 having dominion,” ete. 
 
 The Cro-Magnon Race. 
 
 According to the view adopted by Mr. Roosevelt, the Nean- 
 derthal race died out, and “these savages, lower than any existing 
 type, were supplanted by the tall, finely built Cro-Magnon race of 
 hunters, who ... belonged to the same species of man that we do — 
 Homo sapiens.” He believes that an interval of at least 25,000 years 
 separated the immigration of the Cro-Magnon race from the appear- 
 ance of the Neanderthal race. Once more we ask, What are the 
 ascertained facts which underlie these definite assertions? 
 
 So much is true that in certain caves in France the remains 
 of an earlier race of inhabitants have been found, mixed with bones 
 
 12) Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau der Chemikerzeitung, April, 
 1914, .This very recent testimony is interesting also for its assigning of 
 true human characteristics (with Huxley, Brinton, Wallace) to so-called 
 Pleistocene remains, such as the Neanderthaler, whom Mr. Roosevelt classes 
 with the half-beasts. 
 
 13) Vol. XXII, p. 336. 
 
 Essays on Evolution. 6 
 
82 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 of land-animals now extinct. Also, on the walls of these caves and 
 on stones and bones these cave-dwellers engraved with no mean skill 
 outline drawings of bisons, reindeer, mammoth, horses, and the like. 
 Beyond these unquestioned facts we again move in a maze of con- 
 tradictory opinion, of which the National Geographic article once 
 more contains no hint. According to the article on Caves in the 
 Encyclopedia Britannica the skeletons found in these French caves 
 are not the remains of the artists whose work was found in the same 
 chambers; yet, according to Mr. Roosevelt’s article, just this is the 
 case. It was at one time supposed that these cave-men had well- 
 developed animal characteristics. This idea is now given up, and 
 instead of assigning to them an age of 100,000 years, as did Schmer- 
 ling and many others, most anthropologists are satisfied with a period 
 of 12,000 to 15,000 years, though some remains found in French 
 caves were by Spring and Buckland regarded as no more than 4,000 
 years old. Indeed, drawings of human features have recently been 
 found in the cave of La Colombiere, which in no wise resemble the 
 traditional cave-man physiognomy. They are described as follows: 
 “The head is large, the forehead round and prominent, rising slightly 
 obliquely. The face is long and is distinctly projected forward; 
 the chin is prominent, the nose long and very thick.” When the 
 drawings of animals made by these cave-dwellers are pronounced 
 intensely realistic by all who have seen them, are we not permitted 
 to conclude that the features of human beings portrayed in these 
 caverns come close to the general appearance of men in that remote 
 age? Yet the features described by Messrs. Mayet and Pissot (1913) 
 can be duplicated a thousand times on a walk down Broadway. 
 There is not a trace of the animal in the drawings which they show 
 in facsimile. 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt refers especially to the Cro-Magnon Man and 
 supplies an illustration showing him in his cave in the act of drawing 
 a bison on the wall. The Cro-Magnon Man is described in the article 
 as a race of hunters, “who in intelligence evidently ranked high.” 
 Yet competent investigators have held that the Neanderthal Man 
 and the Heidelberg Man, which Mr. Roosevelt classes with the brute- 
 links in the descent of man, were of the same race as the French 
 cave-dwellers. In his lectures on “Nature and the Bible” Dr. J. W. 
 Dawson, the well-known geologist and principal of McGill University, 
 classes the Cro-Magnon, the Engis, and the Neanderthal skulls as 
 “Paleocosmic skulls.” Of the Cro-Magnon cave remains he says: 
 “The brain-case is very long, more so than in ordinary modern skulls, 
 and this length is accompanied with a great breadth, so that the 
 brain was of greater size than in average modern man; and the 
 frontal region was large and well developed. In this respect this 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 83 
 
 most ancient skull fails utterly to vindicate the expectations of those 
 who would regard prehistoric men as approaching the apes.... The 
 celebrated Engis skull, believed to have belonged to a contemporary 
 of the mammoth, is also precisely of the same type, though less 
 massive than that of Cro-Magnon; and lastly, even the somewhat 
 degraded Neanderthal skull, though inferior in frontal development, 
 is referable to the same long-headed style of man, in so far as can 
 be judged from the portion that remains. Let it be observed that 
 these skulls are probably the oldest known in the world, and they 
 are all referable to one race of men.’ 14) This opinion of Dawson, 
 who was an expert craniologist, surely outweighs that of an amateur, 
 who merely sums up the theories of one group of scientists and passes 
 them off on the public as “soundly determined” fact. Indeed, 
 Quatrefages, the great French anthropologist, believes that the 
 Cro-Magnon people were of the same stock as the large-limbed and 
 shapely Kabyles (Berbers) of modern Mauritania! Virchow says: 
 “The old troglodytes, pile-villagers, and bog-people prove to be quite 
 respectable society. They have heads so large that many living 
 people would be only too happy to possess them.” 15) And Le Conte 
 cites the French authority on cave-men, M. Lartet, concerning the 
 skeletons found in the Aurignac cave to this effect: “This was 
 formerly a family or tribal burial-place; in the cave, along with 
 the bodies, were placed funeral gifts in the form of trinkets and 
 food; the funeral feast was cooked and eaten on the level space in 
 front of the cave; carnivorous beasts gnawed the bones left on the 
 spot. It is evident that the Aurignac men practised religious rites 
 which indicated a belief in immortality.” 1) 
 
 Perhaps one of the most interesting and curious cases is that 
 of the Talgai skull found in Australia some few years ago. It was 
 
 Lay pr iit. 
 
 15) Quoted by Samuel Harris, The Philosophical Basis of Theism. 
 Scribner’s, 1892, p. 460. The following Chicago Tribune cable, dated Cape 
 Town, South Africa, August 5, 1925, is apposite in more than one respect: 
 “A modern native with a prehistoric head has been discovered in Africa. 
 The discovery was made while working in a dissecting-room on the cadaver 
 of a native who died a few weeks ago. The skull is exactly of the same 
 type as that of the Boskop prehistoric man discovered in the Transvaal 
 twelve years ago. The present skull has a brain capacity of 2,000 cubic 
 centimeters, whereas the average European has a brain capacity of only 
 1,500. Previously the Boskop type has only been known in the fossil form. 
 Professor Drennan, who made the find while measuring the brain capacity 
 of different skulls, said: “The present skull measures 212 millimeters, which 
 is several millimeters longer than the longest skull known.’ ” 
 
 16) Elements of Geology, p. 596. 
 
84 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 dug up in a billabong (a little stream flowing out of a river and 
 ending in a pool). Undoubtedly it is the cranium of a person of 
 small brain and presents other characters generally associated with 
 a low level of civilization. It was claimed to be of great age and 
 to represent an inhabitant of the country of great antiquity. In fact, 
 we had the old ascription of a million years made use of in a lecture 
 on the subject. Others, more conservative, put its age down as 50,000 
 years. Then there appears upon the scene one Mr. Archibald Meston, 
 who for years held the position of “Protector of the Aborigines” in 
 Queensland, who says that “it is a somewhat sorrowful duty to remove 
 the Talgai skull from the realms of romance,” but that to his 
 knowledge a black fellow was shot by the native police and buried 
 in that billabong, the grave being filled with red basaltic clay of the 
 kind in which the supposed ancient skull was found. That, one 
 would have thought, was an end of the Talgai skull. But Prof. Elliot 
 Smith, brother to the gentleman who is the sponsor for this skull, in 
 his recent work on the Evolution of Man, still stands by it and speaks 
 of it as of great antiquity and fossilized. That makes the whole 
 thing very mysterious and at least causes one to feel that caution 
 should be exercised where it is so doubtful as to what the period of 
 this object may be. 
 
 Man and the Primates. 
 
 It is evident that in answering the question, “How old is man?” 
 Mr. Roosevelt has taken counsel with a naturalist who has adopted 
 the most extreme opinions of modern scientists, and that he has - 
 represented much controverted subjects as if they were the assured 
 results of science. It should be said, however, that in one point 
 Mr. Roosevelt is in agreement with the consensus of modern theorizers 
 on the antiquity of man: all hold that man is the product of an 
 evolution extending over eons of prehistoric time. We cannot leave 
 this subject without briefly investigating the grounds upon which 
 this general assumption rests. 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt says: The mammals “developed along many dif- 
 ferent lines, including that of the primates, from which came the 
 monkeys and anthropoid apes and finally the half-human predecessors 
 of man himself.” (p.112.) Here again the distinguished writer 
 adds to a doctrine generally held by scientists certain features which 
 by no means reflect orthodox university belief of to-day. Let us 
 concede that biologists are now nearly unanimous in the conclusion 
 that there has been some kind of evolution; yet they are very 
 doubtful as to its rationale, its causes, and the probable lines of 
 phylogeny, or the “tree of life.’ No reputable scientist, be he 
 geologist, paleontologist, anthropologist, or biologist, would state the 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 85 
 
 matter as Mr. Roosevelt states it, that “from the primates came the 
 monkeys, the anthropoid apes, and finally the half-human prede- 
 cessors of man himself.” True, Haeckel’s Natural History of 
 Creation contains a complete and circumstantial history of human 
 ancestry in twenty-two stages of existence, from the unicellular 
 Monera up to perfect Man. But Du Bois-Reymond, many years 
 ago, declared Haeckel’s genealogical tree (Stammbaum) to be “as 
 authentic in the eyes of the trained naturalist as are the pedigrees 
 of Homer’s heroes in those of an historian.” Thereby Du Bois- 
 Reymond incurred the bitter and unappeasable wrath of Haeckel; 
 yet there is no scientist to-day who does not, with Du Bois-Reymond, 
 as against Haeckel, reject the notion that animal forms as they are 
 to-day can actually be traced through fossil ancestors to the original, 
 simple cell. 
 
 We may go a step farther. The best authorities are no longer 
 unanimous in classifying man biologically with the order of 
 Primates.!”) Science gives increasing weight to the opinion that 
 man is not a member of the same order of creatures as the monkey 
 and the ape. Homo sapiens is being differentiated from the order 
 of Primates, even as the bat, which Linné classified as a Primate, 
 
 17) Mr. Roosevelt seems to distinguish the anthropoid apes, the mon- 
 keys, and man from the Primates. He refers to “the Primates, from which 
 came the monkeys,” ete. Now, “Primates” has in biological language al- 
 ways included monkeys, apes (7.e., tailless monkeys), and man. Huxley 
 divided the Primates into seven families, among them man being the first. 
 Max Weber originated the classification: Anthropoid Primates, with sub- 
 orders Simiae (species: Man, apes, baboons, monkeys), and Prosimiae 
 (lemurs). Professor Dorn, of Fort Wayne, informed us that neither Brehm’s 
 Tierleben nor the Cambridge Natural History, the greatest works on zoology 
 in German and English, respectively, draw a distinction such as Mr. Roose- 
 velt appears to draw, between Primates and the order which includes man 
 and the apes, but use “Primate” as a class name for Lemuroidea and An- 
 thropoidea (monkeys, apes, man). Mr. Roosevelt’s employment of the term 
 “Primates” is so very unusual that we took occasion to make inquiry by 
 letter. Under date of May 8, Mr. Roosevelt replied as follows: — 
 
 “My Dear. Sir: — 
 
 “That sentence seems to me to be clear. At any rate, what I meant 
 was that one of the original mammalian lines was that of the Primates, 
 which originally consisted of low lemuroid forms. From the original stem 
 the monkeys broke off at some date when the anthropoid apes and the 
 predecessors of man were still part of the same stem. Then this second 
 stem divided, the anthropoid apes splitting from the branch which led to 
 the half-human predecessors of man. In other words, I regard these half- 
 human predecessors of man not as descendants from the anthropoid apes, 
 
86 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 was differentiated long ago. The differences which have greatly 
 impressed all who have given the matter special consideration are 
 (aside from the intellectual superiority of man) the peculiarities 
 of the human walk and his unique dentition. Professor Dana, the 
 greatest paleontologist our country has produced, says in the final 
 edition of his Manual of Geology, p.1017: “Man stands in the 
 successional line of the Quadrumana, at the head of the Animal 
 Kingdom. But he is not a Primate among Primates. The Quadru- 
 mana (apes) are Brute Mammals, as is manifested in their Carnivore- 
 like canines and their powerful jaws; in their powerful muscular 
 development; in their walking on all fours; and the adaptation 
 thereto exhibited in the vertebrae, producing the convexity of the 
 back; and also in other parts of the skeleton. Man, on the contrary, 
 is not Quadrumanous.!8) His limbs are of the primitive type so 
 common in the Eocene. He is plantigrade,” has neither hoofs nor 
 claws to his five toes, but something between the two. “Moreover, 
 in his teeth ‘Man is thoroughly primitive, he having in fact the 
 
 but both as descended from remote ancestors, who had split off from the 
 monkeys; all, of course, tracing back to the early Primates. Of course, 
 the order of Primates includes all of them alike. If you turn to Professor 
 Osborn’s book, you will see the matter gone over in some detail. 
 
 “Sincerely yours, 
 “THEODORE ROOSEVELT.” 
 
 This statement clears up the reference to Primates earlier than man 
 and the monkey; these Primates “originally consisted of low lemuroid 
 forms.” This was the opinion held fifteen years ago. But if anything has 
 been definitely established since that time, it is the fact that the fossil re- 
 mains once depended upon supply no evidence for this hypothesis. No 
 direct line leading from man to extinct lemurs has been traced. See the 
 opinions of Cope and Hubrecht hereafter quoted. 
 
 18) We have traveled a long way since Dr. Moscati taught that the 
 upright walk of man is a cause of much inconvenience and disease, proving 
 that he was misled by reason and imitation to deviate from the first ani- 
 mal arrangement. Thus, for example, if man had continued to walk on 
 all fours, his intestines would not have come into their present “pendulous 
 and half reversed condition,’ which is a cause of “deformities and nu- 
 merous diseases.” Again, “the heart, because it is compelled to hang free, 
 elongates the blood-vessels to which it is attached, assumes an oblique: po- 
 sition, since it is supported by the diaphragm, and slides with its end 
 against the left side —a position wherein man differs from all other ani- 
 mals and thereby receives an inevitable inclination to aneurism, palpita- 
 tion, asthma, chest-dropsy, ete., ete.” Thus it is proved that man is really 
 by nature intended to be, and originally undoubtedly was, quadrupedal! 
 (Quoted in Kant and Spencer, by Dr. Paul Carus, p. 44.) 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 87 
 
 original quadrituberculate form of molar, with but little modifica- 
 tion’ . .. All these low-grade characteristics and despecialized 
 conditions of the structure evince that man does not pertain z0o- 
 logically to the group called Primates, either to the higher or lower 
 end of the series. The divergence from the Quadrumana is mani- 
 festly great.” These divergencies, says Dana, p. 1036, “are admitted 
 proof that he has not descended from any existing type of ape. In 
 addition,.man’s erect posture makes the gap a very broad one. The 
 search for ‘missing links’ has been carried forward with deep 
 interest during recent years. But although fossil skeletons have 
 been found among remains of the Pleistocene mammals in Europe 
 and America, none show any departure from the erect posture or 
 have smaller brain cavity than occurs among existing races of 
 men. ... Since man’s structural relations are, in several respects, 
 closest with the precursors of the Quadrumana,” 7. e., with fossil 
 specimens which are, geologically, “earlier” than the monkeys and 
 apes, “his derivation from any known type of man-ape has been 
 pronounced impossible.” The reader will observe that this opinion 
 of the dean of American paleontologists flatly contradicts the primate 
 or ape ancestorship which Mr. Roosevelt with such insouciance 
 summarizes in the introduction to his paper. 
 
 Agassiz says, simply: “Man does not descend from the mammals 
 which preceded him in the Tertiary age.” Nor is this merely the 
 view of an old-school geologist, but it is the regnant opinion among 
 scientists to-day. The structural differences between man and the 
 modern ape are held to be absolutely insuperable. All “other” 
 Primates have a tendency to elongation of the canine teeth. All 
 apes support themselves on the sides of the feet and the bent knuckles 
 of the hand.19) They are, as Dana says, not plantigrade. Geologically 
 speaking, the characteristics of man’s teeth and of his walk are 
 “more ancient,” less “developed,” than the dentition and walk of 
 the Primates. In addition, Mr. Tylor is constrained to say, in 
 the Encyclopedia Britannica (II, 110): “The differences between 
 a gorilla’s skull and man’s are truly immense.” He quotes Huxley: 
 “On psychological grounds, Huxley acknowledged an immeasurable 
 and practically infinite divergence, ending in the present enormous 
 psychological gulf between ape and man.” 
 
 Thus, aside from the great disparity between the intellect of 
 man and of the ape, the laws of development which are generally 
 applied in establishing degrees of relationship in the plan (or “tree’) 
 of life have been seen to militate against ranging man with any 
 existing animal, and the idea that man has living ancestors among 
 
 19) Encycl. Brit., II, 109. 
 
88 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 the apes and monkeys is definitely given up. And this is truly an 
 amazing fact. Far from establishing a close relationship between 
 man and the ape, scientific research has established the fact that 
 there is not only among existing species, but even in the fossil 
 remains not a single specimen which can properly be called a link 
 in the chain of man’s descent.) So far as man is concerned, the 
 development of which Mr. Roosevelt speaks, from “small warm- 
 blooded beasts to the Primates,” etc., is mere hypothesis. There is 
 not only one missing link (viz., the one between ape and man), but 
 the entire genealogy of man is made up of missing links, in other 
 words, is speculation pure and simple. 
 
 Reputable scientists, who should be carefully distinguished from 
 irresponsible amateurs, who have no ballast of information to keep 
 them on an even keel, make no secret of this disheartening fact. 
 Dr. Berndt, in the article from which we have already quoted, says: 
 “Trees of life, apparently built for all ages, have fallen or have 
 become mere shrubs of life (Stammbuesche), covered with a tangle 
 of scientific doubt.” “We are farther than ever removed from the 
 answer to the question, Whence the vertebrates?” Animals once 
 confidently termed “primitive” are now recognized as high in the 
 scale of development. “And Max Weber, one of the best authorities 
 on mammals, regards the anthropoid apes of to-day as a branch 
 parallel to the human branch. Scholars like Cope, Adloeff, Klaatsch, 
 prefer to push the origin of man back to the earliest Eocene, whence 
 he went his way from the very outset separate from the apes.” This 
 is a highly significant utterance. It means nothing more than this: 
 there is not one recognizable link which unites man with the animal 
 kingdom. All the intermediate forms between man and the original 
 jelly-fish, which according to Haeckel and Vogt was his ancestor, 
 have disappeared. For their existence we have nothing but the 
 word of a rapidly diminishing number of scientists. 
 
 Positive denial of the Darwinian theory of human descent was 
 made in 1923 by no less an authority than Prof. Arthur Coutiere, 
 famous author of numerous biological and medical works. Address- 
 ing the Academy of Medicine at Paris, Professor Coutiere declared 
 that the ape was created after man and that “the human being and 
 the ape have always been types apart.” 
 
 The latest conception which has been advanced by evolutionists 
 is that of Multiple Origin. By this is meant that the same species 
 have originated independently at: various places on the earth’s 
 surface. It is held, for instance, that the animals of South America 
 have had an evolution independent from the same animals on other 
 
 20) See quotations from Wallace, above; also Virchow. 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 89 
 
 continents. It is believed, too, that the natives of the Amazon 
 country were evolved from the brute right on the spot and did not 
 immigrate from elsewhere. Mr. W. H. Ballou, defending Multiple 
 Origin, invites attention to the fact that the natives of Brazil are 
 the most expert of all the swimmers and can remain long under 
 water. He continues: “Associated with them are other land 
 mammals.... Inference is that men and other mammals, including 
 monkeys, arose in the Amazon country from varied types of amphibia 
 which precede them.” Now, the supporters of this Multiple Origin 
 theory are very bitter against the Single Origin evolutionists. 
 Listen to Mr. Ballou: “American proponents to the single (Asiatic) 
 orign theory have been cowed and led by the nose [the italics are 
 my own] for years by a group of bureaucrats intrenched in Wash- 
 ington. These bureaucrats, now all discredited, have attacked every 
 scientist who described their American human fossil or skeleton finds 
 as prehistoric. They languidly pawed over such bones and learnedly 
 dubbed them ‘modern Indian.’” He adds that the Multiple Origin 
 evolutionists have “effectually crushed these bureaucrats, leaving 
 them discredited and ridiculed, turning into trash some costly mono- 
 graphs and volumes, paid for by taxation of the American people 
 and the funds of misguided philanthropists.” 
 
 The truth is that the tree of life looks less and less like a tree, 
 the farther research traces out in fossil remains the actual history 
 of life. About 1890 Mr. Topinard still told us that the common 
 origin of man and the anthropoid apes is to be found in an animal 
 of the type of the Old World monkeys, while all monkeys, in turn, 
 find a common root in a type like that of the lemurs. It became 
 somewhat different when Professor Cope suggested that advancing 
 knowledge led to the belief that the Anthropomorpha (7. e., man and 
 the anthropoid apes) are not derived from the monkeys, but the two 
 branches run back independently to find their first connection in the 
 lemurs, the common ancestor of both; not, however, he added, in 
 any existing type of lemur, but in extinct types of the Eocene period, 
 that is to say, of the oldest geological period in which traces of 
 animal life appear. This, again, is simply saying that there is no 
 paleontological evidence for a tree of life with connecting links 
 between man and the brutes. 
 
 The truly amazing fact that the various forms of life appear 
 not more, but less related, the farther the evidence is being looked 
 into, is admitted in every up-to-date text-book of paleontology or 
 geology. Dana says in his great work, in a discussion of the 
 development of life on the globe: “The lines of succession seldom 
 connect the grander divisions of classes or tribes. ... Instead of 
 
90 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 
 
 lines from Amphibians to Reptiles and thence to Birds or to 
 Mammals, all three groups, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals, were 
 probably derived directly from the Amphibians.” (Manual of 
 Geology, p. 1031.) Hence anthropologists were for decades much 
 divided on the question whether the different races of men have had 
 a common or a separate origin. Dr.S.G. Morton thought he could 
 point out twenty-two centers in which the human race originated. 
 The majority now believe that man originated in some one locality, 
 and from a single pair. The origin of this pair, however, is shrouded 
 in Cimmerian night. Only so much is pretty well agreed that no 
 animal now living supplied the species from which modern man has 
 “developed.” As we have noted, a feeble attempt has been made to 
 trace man through a side-line of the Primates, through the monkeys 
 called lemurs, Lemuridae. These are a species of woolly-haired 
 monkeys, about the size of a cat, with long, bushy tails and foxlike 
 faces. They do not distantly resemble a human being, but have 
 several structural similarities in common with man. An Eocene 
 fossil has been found, the earliest known four-handed creature, called 
 Anaptomorphus homunculus. The Neo-Lamarckian E. D. Cope 
 traced the pedigree of man through the anthropoid apes to this 
 minute animal, which he regarded as a lemur. (An illustration in 
 Dana’s Manual, p. 906, shows the skull of this creature to have been - 
 one inch in diameter.) But this identification is now pretty well 
 relinquished by the evolutionists. Only five years ago Prof. A. A. W. 
 Hubrecht, of Utrecht University, “conclusively” showed that Anapto- 
 morphus belongs not to the lemurs, but to a line of its own approach- 
 ing the anthropoid apes and sharply separated from the lemurs.2!) 
 This again signifies that whilst the Eocene Anaptomorphus, to quote 
 Mr. Cope, “strongly suggests a line of descent leading to man, the . 
 gap is much wider than men used to regard it, and the intermediate 
 links are still missing.” Such retrogression in the claims of “assured 
 results” should make all amateurs careful. All dogmatic assertion — 
 
 21) The Descent of the Primates. Scribner’s, 1897. Professor Hu- 
 brecht suggests that it may not be unwise to assume as the ancestor of 
 man and the anthropoids an early Eocene Primate, differing from the 
 apes, whose descent must be traced back, independently of the ancestors 
 of the modern apes, to the amphibian father of all. It has been perti- 
 nently said that this “tree of life” “will soon begin to look amazingly like 
 a plantation of canes, each growing independently from a common soil” 
 (The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1898, p.782), in other words, 
 will resemble very closely the tree of life suggested by Genesis, chapter 1. 
 Professor Hubrecht says: “The genera known to us very rarely converge 
 toward known predecessors as we go backward in geological time,” 7. e., 
 
“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 91 
 
 and in this Mr. Roosevelt’s article abounds —is out of place where 
 the leaders in scientific research are admittedly at sea. The caution 
 uttered by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species is still in place; 
 he says that in our present state of knowledge it seems to him “about 
 as rash to dogmatize on the succession of organic forms throughout 
 the world as it would be for a naturalist to land for five minutes on 
 some barren point in Australia and then to discuss the number and 
 range of its productions.” 
 
 Anthropological research has produced no FACTS that are at 
 variance with Genesis, chapter one. Concerning the Neanderthaler, 
 the Cro-Magnon Man, etc., Dr. Dawson has said: “Geological evi- 
 dence resolves itself into a calculation of the rate of erosion of river 
 valleys, of deposition of gravel and cave-earths, and of formation of 
 stalagmite crusts, all of which are so variable and uncertain that, 
 though it may be said that an impression of great antiquity beyond 
 the time of received history has been left on the minds of geologists, 
 no absolute antiquity has been proved; and while some, on such 
 evidence, would stretch the antiquity of man to even half a million 
 years, the oldest of these remains may, after all, not exceed our 
 traditional six thousand.” 22) “These skeletons ... tell us that 
 primitive man had the same high cerebral organization which he 
 possesses now, and we may infer the same high intellectual and 
 moral nature, fitting him for communication with God and headship 
 over the lower world.” 23) Similarly Figuier held that “we know of 
 no archeological find [stone hatchets, etc.] that could not be pro- 
 nounced only five thousand years old as well as fifty thousand.” 
 This would bring back the Age of Man to the limits given to human 
 history by that object of scientific derision, the Ussher dates, in the 
 margin of the Authorized Version. 
 
 there is no evidence of development according to the lines of the evolu- 
 tionary theory; “their respective genealogies run much more parallel to 
 each other, the point of meeting being thus continually transported back- 
 ward toward yet older geological strata.” (The Descent of the Primates, 
 pp. 39. 40.) Viewing this endeavor of the evolutionists to lay down new 
 hypothetical lines of descent here, there, and everywhere, rather than to 
 ask seriously whether any such really exist in nature, one is tempted 
 to suspect that, if writers of this kind did not put “evolution” into their 
 premises, they would hardly find it in their conclusions. 
 
 22) Nature and the Bible, p. 160. 
 23) Ibid., p. 175. 
 
99 MAN AND MONKEY, 
 
 10. Man and Monkey. 
 
 Rather, let us say, three monkeys. For according to an article 
 entitled “Fresh Evidence of Our Apish Ancestry,” appearing in 
 a 1925 issue of Current Opinion, the human race is derived from 
 three different monkeys, the Orang-utan, the Gorilla, and the Chim- 
 panzee. Moreover, it is the simplest thing in the world to discover 
 just which of these tailless monkeys or apes is your own particular 
 ancestor. How, if you permit the somewhat indelicate question, do 
 you hold your legs when you squat? If you seat yourself with your 
 legs crossed level in front of you, you have a Mongol strain in your 
 blood and your great-x-grandpa was an orang. Do you arrange your 
 legs perpendicularly in front of you? Then trace your line to the 
 gorilla, who squats in this position. Do you at the same time lean 
 forward on your feet? Boy, page Mr. Chimpanzee! 
 
 We are writing in a spirit of levity ill becoming the discussion 
 of a scientific question. But we beg to differ; the Current Opinion 
 article is not science, but a caricature of science, a badly drawn 
 cartoon of science. Yet three pages of the magazine are given to 
 this bit of balderdash. Listen: “The American Indian sits like an 
 Oriental and is therefore definitely grouped with the orangs.” 
 Again: “When a group of children in their bathing-suits squat 
 around in a sand castle on the beach, we can determine at a glance — 
 their remote ancestry.’ And the article which contains this un- 
 qualifiable rot begins and ends with a fling at “Fundamentalists” — 
 by which believing Bible Christians are meant. “Dr. Crookshank’s 
 entire thesis will, of course, infuriate the Fundamentalists.” Oh, no, 
 my editor-friend, nothing of the kind! A little concentrated non- 
 sense like this every three months will be sufficient to convert old 
 Uncle Osborn himself to the belief that evolution is a hoax. 
 Infuriate? We could wish for nothing better than to have that 
 sentence about the bathing beach inscribed with inch-high letters 
 on the footboard of the bed of every evolutionist, where it will 
 strike his eyes as they open from slumber. He might in the course 
 of time awaken from what Immanuel Kant called “dogmatic 
 slumbers,” — the faith in theories which parade as verities. And 
 under the sentence about the bathing-beach children we should like 
 to inscribe the words HAVA SUPAI and draw next to these the 
 rude picture of a dinosaur. 
 
 Hava Supai is the name “a a canyon in Northern Arizona. 
 Where it joins Lee Canyon, a scientific expedition has found pictures 
 cut into the wall by the hand of some prehistoric artist. These 
 pictures show a variety of animals, most of them extinct in America, 
 elephants, ibex—and a dinosaur. Now, the discovery of this 
 
MAN AND MONKEY. 93 
 
 drawing of a dinosaur is the greatest sensation in the history of 
 anthropological science. For, if man lived in the age assigned to the 
 dinosaur, then he lived countless eons before there ever was an ape 
 or monkey. This picture completely annihilates every theory which 
 would derive man from an ape ancestor. But do scientists now begin 
 to give some credit to the story of man’s creation as recorded in 
 Genesis? By no means. The conclusion which one of them, Samuel 
 Hubbard, curator of an Oakland, Cal., museum, draws, is that man 
 is not a descendant from, but ancestor to, the ape!! We quote from 
 a Los Angeles dispatch of May 19 to the Chicago Journal: — 
 
 “The pictographs show a variety of animals — elephants, horses, 
 mountain sheep, ibex. Also men hunting these are shown. 
 
 “But, most important of all, in Mr. Hubbard’s estimation, is the 
 picture upon one of the canyon walls of a dinosaur, standing and 
 balancing itself upon its tail. It is a dinosaur sketched, as it were, 
 upon its native heath. 
 
 “<This picture of the dinosaur,’ says Mr. Hubbard, ‘was drawn 
 by some prehistoric artist, some man who actually had seen a living 
 dinosaur. There is no good reason to believe that this dinosaur was 
 not contemporaneous with the elephants, the ibex, the horses, ete., 
 whose likenesses, though crude, also were found upon these walls. 
 
 “<But right here I am challenged. I am told the dinosaur dis- 
 appeared from this earth 12,000,000 years before the advent of man. 
 To this my rejoinder is: Would this prehistoric artist draw a sketch 
 of an animal—and a live one at that—vwhich had disappeared 
 from the earth 12,000,000 years before he came? No, he would not. 
 Rather, as inferred by the pictures of the animals generally upon 
 the walls, he sketched those of which he had vivid recollection. And 
 among such was the dinosaur. 
 
 “<Therefore, if some prehistoric man drew a dinosaur standing, 
 this probably means that man goes back in geologic time to the 
 Triassic period when dinosaurs flourished.’ ” 
 
 Now, then: — 
 
 “This being the case, we then are face to face with this con- 
 clusion: The monkey, to use the word popular to cover the species, 
 is descended from man, with the great apes a degenerate form of 
 man. Of course, the scientific theory which we have accepted is that 
 in the orderly processes of nature man was the last animal created. 
 I now am convinced, mostly by this picture of the dinosaur, that the 
 theory thus is not true, but that, instead, its reverse is true. 
 
 “This reversal of theory, in my estimation, also accounts for 
 the fact that most prehistoric skulls as we encounter them have 
 
94 MAN AND MONKEY. 
 
 practically the same brain capacity as has the present-day skull 
 of man.” 
 
 At this point I would suggest that all my readers uncover 
 and bow their heads for one minute in reverence before the scien- 
 tifie mind. 
 
 No one is so blind as he who does not want to see. 
 
 That existing theories about the age of man and of his derivation 
 in line of descent from the apes are demolished by the discovery of 
 these pictographs, is clear from the following paragraph, which 
 I quote in full, in spite of its length, from an article by Dr. Arthur 
 Selwyn Brown in the New York Herald-Tribune of January 4, 1925: 
 
 “Man has had a vast ancestry. If we could clearly trace it to 
 its source, we should probably find it in some active unicellular 
 organism living in the Archean era. He became known to nat- 
 uralists through his bone remains, his stone implements, and his 
 pictorial drawings and ornaments. But he was then a well-developed, 
 intelligent being, not very different from the modern man. He or 
 his more immediate apelike ancestors must have gone through a long 
 preparatory training and development before an animal so wonder- 
 fully intelligent arose that he was entitled to be called sapient. 
 
 “The geological record shows that gigantic animals like the 
 dinosaurs arose in the Triassic era. These were followed in the 
 Jurassic era by the development of birds and flying reptiles. 
 Flowering plants appeared in the lower Mesozoic period. Then there 
 was a wide development of reptilian life and its extinction in the 
 latter part of the Mesozoic era. Great archaic mammals appeared 
 in the Paleocene period, and the Eocene era witnessed the advent 
 of many species of the higher mammals. This was the period in 
 which the immediate ancestors of man made great progress in their 
 evolution from a primitive condition to a high mammalian status. 
 Anthropoid apes were well established in the Olgicene age, and the 
 Miocene era saw the full flowering of mammalian life. Here the 
 seeds were set for one of the greatest events in organic evolution 
 and one of the most startling dramatic moments in history — the 
 transformation of an apelike animal into man, which occurred in 
 the Pliocene period. Just as this great event passed off, there were 
 startling changes in the climatic conditions of the earth. A warm 
 or mild climate was succeeded by a cold one, which ushered in the 
 long and important period known as the Glacial epoch.” * 
 
 This paragraph offers nothing new to students of evolution. 
 Dr. Brown merely summarizes in popular form the generally accepted 
 
 * See geological divisions of time above, p. 55. 
 
MAN AND MONKEY. i 95 
 
 views regarding man’s origin. According to it, millions of years are 
 demanded for the interval between the age of the giant lizards and 
 the age of man’s animal ancestors. These millions of years are 
 wiped out by the dinosaur pictograph in Hava Supai Canyon, as 
 the millions in Confederate paper were wiped out when Lee sur- 
 rendered. It is like withdrawing from a public accountant permission 
 to use the multiplication table. He’s out of a job. Man living in 
 the age of dinosaurs leaves the teacher of ‘evolution without a job. 
 
 In Oxford, Sir Arthur Keith, an expert in anatomy, lectured 
 last January on a skull found in Rhodesia, South Africa. He 
 believed this skull to be “the oldest in existence.” Its owner must 
 have lived “between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.” Everybody 
 sat in mute admiration of speculative science. Now, this same 
 Professor Keith some years ago said that the Galley Hill skull was 
 
 
 
 McCann: God — or Gorilla 
 
 Rhodesia Cave-Man. 
 
 The drawing to the right was made by a newspaper artist; it shows 
 
 an apelike skull with a very low crown. The actual photograph shows 
 
 that it is a very human skull with a considerable forehead. The drawing 
 shows how evidence is manufactured by evolutionists. 
 
 250,000 years old, 50,000 years older than the skull from South 
 Africa. But the Galley Hill skull was submitted to a jury of experts, 
 who, after careful examination, reported that the thing was not 
 a skull at all, but merely an oddly shaped bit of stone. And as for 
 the Rhodesia skull, Prof. B. Windle has just affirmed that it is not 
 even fossilized, and that “it was found in a cave into which it had 
 probably fallen through a crack.” 
 
 In a quarry near Rutherford College, in North Carolina, a large 
 bone was found last year, which was inspected by scientists from 
 various parts of the country, some of whom declared it to be the 
 tooth of some prehistoric reptile, while others said that it was the 
 knee-cap of a monster not less than 300,000 years old, “when the 
 _ Mississippi Valley was an inland sea.” Later the owner of the quarry 
 
96 MAN AND MONKEY. 
 
 in question, Mr. A. T. Abernethy, of Burke County, N. C., announced 
 that it was one of the joints from the backbone of a whale which 
 had been washed ashore on the North Carolina coast in 1882. He 
 recognized it by a split in the bone where his brother had sawed out 
 a piece when he needed some bone to repair a part of his violin. 
 Moreover, he had himself deposited the specimen in the quarry in 
 order to test the ability of scientists to determine the age of bones 
 taken from the earth! 
 
 It will be objected that even sound science may fail at times, 
 and that such errors as just instanced need not affect our opinion of 
 the age of man, as stated by scientists. However, the argument 
 cannot be terminated by any such evasion. We hold that the doctrine 
 of evolutionists regarding the origin of man is not only not proved, 
 but that it is disproved, particularly through the dinosaur pictograph, 
 which places man’s existence as a rational being in a period in which 
 even his more proximate “ancestors,” the apes, had not yet been 
 evolved. It would be a simple matter to quote anthropologists who 
 have, even before the Hava Supai drawings were found, declared 
 that more accurate anatomical research has raised unexpected diffi- 
 culties for the theory which connects man with the prehistoric apes. 
 Furthermore, it will not do to say that, after all, “all scientists are 
 agreed on the general truth of the theory of evolution.” We have 
 heard this asserted so often, particularly during the turmoil raised by 
 the Tennessee evolution case, that it is worth our time to investigate 
 this claim. 
 
 That scientists, as a rule, are evolutionists can readily be 
 granted. That they are agreed on a single fact, mode, or process 
 involved in the theory of evolution must as strenuously be denied. 
 We shall here set in parallel columns two statements about the 
 general truth of evolution, one (to the left) by Dr. H. L. Fairchild, 
 taken from his valedictory as president of the American Association 
 for the Advancement of Science, the other from a recent address by 
 Professor Bateson, president of the British Association of the same 
 name : — 
 
 “The modern biologist goes a 
 step farther (than Darwin) and 
 is looking for the origin of 
 variations and the mechanism 
 of heredity, problems far beyond 
 Darwin’s times. But he stands 
 on the foundation built by Dar- 
 
 win since the whole structure of — 
 modern philosophy rests on that 
 
 foundation.” 
 
 “We go to Darwin for his 
 incomparable collection of facts. 
 We would fain emulate his schol- 
 arship, his width and power of 
 exposition, but to us he speaks 
 no more wth philosophical 
 authority.” 
 
UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 97 
 
 It will be observed that these two men, of equal standing in the 
 scientific world, differ on the fundamental question whether Darwin’s 
 idea is the foundation of modern philosophy, or whether his authority 
 shall be denied. According to Fairchild, the idea of Natural Selec- 
 tion (for this is the essence of Darwinism) applies to all philosophy, 
 hence also to the human stock. If he is right, then a stock-breeding 
 establishment, the stud-farm, is the shining exemplar for human 
 society, and it becomes a matter for a jury of middle-aged cranks 
 of both sexes to decide whether a boy or a girl is to mate, and whom, 
 and whether their offspring is fit to live (for the “survival of the 
 fittest” is simply the “non-survival of the unfitted”). On the other 
 hand, if Bateson is right, we are now, seventy years after Darwin, 
 again without any voice that can speak with authority regarding 
 the essence of what evolution is or was. We are again where one- 
 third of us started, if Dr. Crookshank is right, with the chimpanzee 
 “up a tree,” when asked, What IS evolution? 
 
 11. Unsolved Mysteries of Every Day. 
 
 “Tf birds could talk, what stories we might hear! We might 
 learn of a time, ever so long ago, when their grandfathers were not 
 birds at all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings 
 nor feathers. The grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long 
 tail, and jaws set with teeth. After a time, feathers grew upon their 
 bodies, and their four legs became changed for flying. These were 
 strange-looking creatures. ‘There are none living like them now.” 
 
 I have copied, in the above, a quotation from the Home Primary 
 Geography, by Harold W. Fairbanks, Revised Edition, published by 
 the Educational Publishing Company. The extract is from page 124. 
 This is the doctrine our American children in the public school 
 imbibe in their geography lesson. 
 
 Concerning the descent of man another schoolbook has this: 
 “His [man’s] structure indicates descent from ancestors of apelike 
 habits, living in trees and on fruits.” (High School Geography, by 
 Charles R. Dryer, page 255; American Book Company.) 
 
 These statements are put forth with an assurance as definite as 
 the statement that a straight line is the shortest distance between 
 two points. Birds are descended from reptiles, man has once been 
 a brute; 3 and 7 are 10,—take it or leave it. 
 
 It is quite sure that the authors of these text-books were absent 
 when the grace of humility was bestowed upon tthe children of men. 
 They are cock-sure of everything, these writers of school-texts. 
 
 Essays on Evolution. 7 
 
98 UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 
 
 IT have on my shelf a book written for the little tots, entitled What 
 Every Child Should Know About Earth and Sky, which on 244 pages 
 sets forth how all things came into being by evolution. 
 
 All of these authors assume that they know something about 
 events according to their reckoning a hundred million years past. 
 It is a pertinent question to ask, What do they know about the 
 present? And it is a remarkable thing to observe how modest true 
 scientists become when we ask them the question, What do you 
 really know? Most of them are ready to answer even regarding the 
 commonest things: Jgnoramus, which is Latin for the plain English, 
 We don’t know! 
 
 Thomas A. Edison, in the American Magazine for August, 1921, 
 said: “We don’t know one-millionth part of one per cent. about 
 anything. We don’t know what water is. We don’t know what 
 light is. We don’t know what gravitation is. We don’t know what 
 enables us to keep on our feet to stand up. We don’t know what 
 electricity is. We don’t know what heat is. We don’t know anything 
 about magnetism. We have a lot of hypotheses, but that is all.” 
 
 Voltaire, the ablest of France’s infidels, who is a patron saint of 
 the evolutionists of to-day, was in his generation considered the 
 wisest and wittiest man in Europe. Yet did he know anything? 
 Hear him: “The more we have read, the more we have learned, and 
 the more we have meditated, the better-conditioned we are to affirm 
 that we know nothing.” 
 
 Concerning the very elements of science, Prof. William Bateson 
 said in Science, August, 1914: “Of the physics and chemistry of 
 life we know next to nothing. Living things are found by a simple 
 experiment to have powers undreamed of, and who knows what may 
 be behind?” An address by Dr. Nicholas M. Butler, president of 
 Columbia University, is quoted by the Catalyst, an organ of the 
 American Chemical Society, as follows: “Theoretically the average 
 scientific investigator will admit that many of his beliefs are merely 
 hypotheses, but practically he will fight for them as though they 
 were demonstrated facts. In view of the constantly shifting grounds 
 of scientific data the men of science ought to be thankful for the 
 comparative tolerance with which their dogmatizing is received.” 
 
 Observe the extremely cautious statement of Professor Coulter, 
 of Chicago University, the foremost botanist of America, regarding 
 the present state of evolution: “Darwin carried the method of 
 observation and inference to its limit; but inference is not demon- 
 stration. Evolution is a very intricate process, and the earlier expla- 
 nations deal only with the more superficial phenomena. They are 
 true as they go, but they do not get at the fundamentals.” 
 
UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 99 
 
 Then he propounds as questions still open, the following: “What 
 is the cause of variation? What is the nature of the variations that 
 are important in evolution? How may variations be perpetuated and 
 multiplied? How are the variations manipulated to effect progressive 
 evolution ?” 
 
 (The reader will understand that thirty years ago we were told 
 that all these questions had been answered and that those who 
 opposed evolution were simply fighting windmills.) 
 
 When I was a boy, science said the atom was the smallest 
 possible division of matter; now “science” says the atom is a whole 
 system of gyrating worlds. A few generations ago science said the 
 sun revolved around the earth; then science denied that and said 
 the sun is standing still and the earth does the revolving; now 
 science says both statements are false, and both earth and sun are 
 whizzing through space. A year or so ago science said that light is 
 a form of motion; now science says that light is matter and subject 
 to gravitation. Of course, a few old mossback professors have not 
 come around to it yet, but Professor Einstein says it is so. 
 
 Which scientist has been able to explain why the Quebec bridge 
 collapsed during construction — collapsed not once, but three times, 
 although built absolutely in accord with the accepted theory of 
 strains? How can they expect us to trust them when they say what 
 has happened in the gas-ball stage of the universe if they are not 
 sure of the laws which govern bridge-building ? 
 
 True scholars have always been humble, and the greatest of 
 them have been Christians. It was Isaac Newton, one of the 
 mightiest intellects of all time, who said that all he knew amounted 
 to a few pebbles gathered on the shores of infinity. Pascal, the 
 mathematical genius, Faraday, the physicist, Sir William Dawson, 
 the Canadian scientist, Linné, the greatest botanist,— all had the 
 humble spirit, the contrite heart, and the lowly mind. It is the 
 two-cylinder, key-winder scientist, who writes high school texts for 
 a living, that knows it all. 
 
 Some time ago I read the story of a little boy with a stick in 
 his hand going to his father. The boy was puzzled. He had observed 
 a fact for which he could give no account. He submitted the 
 problem to his father, saying: “Papa, why is it that, when I take 
 hold of one end of this stick and pull, the other end comes along?” 
 The story made the father reply, “My son, I do not know.” Some 
 time after reading the story, I found in a philosophical religious 
 journal an article by the father who was said to have made this 
 confession to his son. In the article I came with delight upon an 
 authentication of the story. The father there wrote: “No man 
 
100 UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 
 
 living knows why, when you take hold of one end of a stick and 
 pull, the other end comes along.” The writer of the article and the 
 father of the story were the same man, Sir Oliver Lodge, past master 
 in physics! 
 
 Well has a modern thinker said: “Developing science, 2. e., 
 objective knowledge, is encountering obstacles everywhere. Science 
 studies phenomena; just as soon as it attempts to discover causes, 
 it is confronted with the wall of the unknown and unknowable... . 
 At the present time the situation is just this: the number of 
 unknown facts in every region of scientific knowledge is rapidly 
 increasing; and the unknown threatens to swallow the known — or 
 the accepted as known. One might define the progress of science, 
 especially latterly, as a very rapid growth of the regions of nescience 
 [things we don’t know]. 
 
 “Nescience, of course, existed before, and not in less degrees than 
 at present. But before it was not so clearly recognized — at that 
 time science did not know what it did not know. Now it knows 
 this more and more, and more and more knows its conditionality. 
 A little more, and in every branch of science that which it does 
 not know will become greater than that which it knows.” (Ouspensky, 
 in Tertium Organum, p. 2338.) 
 
 In his Introduction to Biology, Arthur D. Darbishire is honest 
 enough to say: “We are accustomed to express our faith in the fact 
 of evolution; but no one pretends to know in detail how it has been 
 brought about. ‘These, then, are some of the unsolved problems in 
 biology. And a biologist is successful if he proves one of these 
 mysteries less of a mystery.” 
 
 Gerald B. Winrod has said in a lecture: “Physically we live in 
 a realm of mystery. To illustrate: Housewife, you baked bread 
 yesterday. Where did you get the flour? From the grocer. Where 
 did he get it? From the jobber. Where did the jobber get it? From 
 the miller. Where did the miller get it? From the farmer. Where 
 did he get it? From the soil. Where did the soil get the creative 
 force that was communicated to the germ of wheat that produced 
 the wheat-field? Mystery. Chemists made an egg; it looked like 
 an egg, had a yolk like an egg, had a white like an egg, and tasted 
 like an egg, but all the hens and incubators in the country could not 
 hatch a chicken out of it, because it lacked life. Mystery. Water is 
 composed of two elements, hydrogen and oxygen; but concerning 
 the ultimate substance from which the two elements come forth 
 chemistry can tell us nothing. Mystery. Suns and solar systems 
 operate in obedience to fixed laws, but astronomy does not know from 
 what source force comes. Mystery. We have learned that the 
 
UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 101 
 
 tiniest atom of solid substance that enters into the anatomy of the 
 planet is made up of about 1,740 electrons. What are atoms? 
 Correlated electrons. What are electrons? Mystery.” 
 
 Lord Kelvin, the English scientist, once said: “One word 
 characterizes the most strenuous of the efforts for the advancement 
 of science that I have made perseveringly for fifty-five years. That 
 word is ‘failure. I know no more of electric and magnetic force 
 or of the relation between ether, electricity, and ponderable matter, 
 or of chemical affinity, than I knew and tried to teach my students 
 of natural philosophy fifty years ago in my first season as professor.” 
 
 Haeckel said: “We grant at once that the innermost character 
 of nature is just as little understood by us as it was by Anaximander 
 and Empedocles 2,400 years ago.” 
 
 When Halley’s comet in 1910 swung across our sky, a number 
 of opinions held by scientists were proved wrong. A humble 
 Ignoramus — “We don’t know” — would again have been much more 
 in place. The Yoledo Blade said, much to the point: “Certain 
 assertions about the nature of Halley’s comet were accepted until 
 last Friday as facts. It appears now they were theories. The 
 scientists had been guessing; but their guessing carried such a fine 
 air of plausibility that the world at large assumed they knew a few 
 things about the comet beyond the danger of dispute.” 
 
 Some every-day facts of plant life are a riddle to-day. Diligent 
 study made by scientists to discover an explanation for the attrac- 
 tion of the root part of a germinating seed toward the earth, and the 
 upward growth of the other part has been productive of no solution. 
 An analysis of the chemical composition of both root and upward 
 shoot shows them to be exactly alike, and yet, beginning at a point 
 where they unite, they develop a distinctly opposite inclination, one 
 being attracted by light and a tendency to grow upward, and the 
 other inclined to grow downward into darkness. When, again, we 
 contemplate the fact that of plants growing in the same soil, watered 
 with the same water, and in appearance physically alike one will 
 produce a brilliant scarlet flower, another, right next to it, will 
 produce a perfectly white flower, without a trace of color, and 
 another alongside produce a flower of clear blue, we wonder where 
 the coloring comes from! It is, indeed, wonderful and mysterious. 
 Also, we should note that growing in the same soil, watered with the 
 same water, and all growing conditions alike, one plant will produce 
 sweetness, another will be quite bitter, another sour, another quite 
 peppery. No living scientist can explain these marvels and mysteries 
 of nature. 
 
102 UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 
 
 A contributor to the Kiwanis Magazine, speaking of the igno- 
 rance of scientists regarding the ocean floor, illustrates his statement 
 by supposing that an inhabitant of Mars approaches the earth to 
 within five miles in a flying-machine and then begins to dip down 
 to investigate the surface of the globe, as the oceanographer lets 
 down sounding-lines to bring up bits of matter from the bottom. 
 “The visitor from Mars cannot approach closer than five miles 
 because he cannot live in air (just as the oceanographer cannot live 
 in water). Our Martian lets down a sounding-line to the surface of 
 the earth he cannot see. Repeated grapplings reward him with 
 a dead cat, some pink silk underwear, a straw hat with a hole in it, 
 a garden party’s Chinese lantern, and a wheelbarrow. 
 
 “From this collection the Martian proceeds to reason what the 
 inhabitants of the earth are like. Obviously, since he has one, he 
 concludes that they are limp, furry creatures, very small when young. 
 They must be large when grown, because the clothing is for a large 
 animal. The climate is very mild, because the clothing is thin. 
 The grown animals have horns on their heads, because the headgear 
 has a hole in it. It is dark on the earth, because the large, furry, 
 horned animals use lanterns. The civilization is slight, because the 
 lantern is crude. There is little gravity on the earth, because a one- 
 wheeled vehicle will travel over it. The earth is smooth, because the 
 vehicle has no springs.” 
 
 So little, says our Kiwanian, do we know about the millions of 
 square miles of ocean bottom through efforts to bring up particles 
 of matter by means of sounding-lines. 
 
 In spite of all this admitted ignorance concerning facts of our 
 every-day life, evolutionary science continues to speak with the 
 utmost assurance of events that are said to have taken place when 
 this globe of ours was formed, endeavoring to force upon us as an 
 ascertained fact that which any person of ordinary intelligence can 
 at once perceive is a mere conjecture; a conclusion founded on 
 arguments of which the premises have not been proved. For instance, 
 no evidence has yet been produced of the occurrence in nature of 
 the phenomenon upon which the whole theory is founded — namely, 
 a favorable variation; that is to say, an instance of a favored indi- 
 vidual possessing such an advantage in the struggle for life as to 
 become the progenitor of a new species. 
 
 A great demand is made upon our faith by these skeptical phil- 
 osophers when they ask us to believe that the wondrous universe, 
 in its diversity of animal and vegetable life, sprang from a molecule 
 of a congregation of atoms driven out by force; but it would be 
 more easy to accept even such a doctrine if they could only give us. 
 
UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 103 
 
 some reasonable hypothesis as to whence the primary germ, the 
 wondrous atoms, or the marvelous slime originated, and how it 
 happened that, independently of a Creator, any of these came to 
 possess in themselves the power of developing a universe. 
 
 Men of science, of all persons, should seek to be free from 
 bigotry and prejudice. Yet it is evident that when once entangled 
 in the deadly meshes of skeptical pride, while “they profess them- 
 selves to be wise, they become fools,” and in very truth “worship 
 and serve the creature more than the Creator.” As has been well 
 said: “It is asking too much of inanimate material to make a system 
 of worlds such that one star shall send heat and light upon an earth 
 and make its soil send forth violets, grasses, trees, then animals, and 
 finally man. It is asking too much of material things to have them 
 arranging the deposits of dew at night, the showers of rain, and the 
 ripening influence of the autumn months. It is asking too much 
 of dust and ashes to expect them to make beautiful birds to fly in 
 the air, beautiful gold and silver fish to live in the crystal brooks — 
 too much to expect the power of dust to originate the idea of purple 
 grapes and blushing peaches. We know that the material forces of 
 nature can help along all these shapes of the wonderful; but if 
 dead material can do such wonderful works, man should lament 
 that he has a mind, for he has at the outset been wholly surpassed by 
 clay that had neither life nor mind!” 
 

 
 
 EVOLUTION. 
 
 An Investigation and a Criticism. 
 
 
 
 
 By PROF. TH. GRAEBNER, 
 
 Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 
 
 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chapter 1. An Outline of the Theory................ ll 
 Chapter 2. Unexplained Origins —..00020000000.... 29 
 Chapter 3. The Testimony of the Rocks.......... 47 
 Chapter 4. The Fixity of Species 0.000.000... 62 
 Chapter 5. Rudimentary Organs —..0.0..0.000.. 70 
 Chapter (6: linstinct so... ea ete. oo eee 74 
 Chapter /. “Heredity 022 2h ee 80 
 Chapter 8. A Scientific Creed Outworn............ 87 
 Chapters, 9. Marti tires, cc wees ete 94 
 Chapter 10. The Verdict of History.................... 113 
 Chapter 11. Evidences of Design ~....0..........0-0---- 124 
 Chapter12. Thess Fatal Bias jap 141 
 
 
 
 Size of book, 514734. 148 pages, bound in heavy art paper cover. 
 Price, 80 cts. 
 
 
 
 It is the most satisfactory treatise in a small compass 
 that is now available, and it can be recommended heartily 
 and without qualification. — Sunday-school Times. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 It effectively exposes the evolutionary theory. Of ines- 
 timable value to the Church. May God grant it a wide 
 distribution! — New York Lutheran. 
 
 No more useful book could have been put on the market 
 just now than this brief, but accurate and scholarly treatise 
 on the great delusion of evolution. True, real scholars have 
 long ago pointed out the utter untenability of the basic sup- 
 positions upon which the whole scheme of evolution is built. 
 
 J.T. M., in Lutheran Witness, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 For sale by 
 
 CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, 
 St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 
 
 
 
 [104] 
 

 

 
 
 be te oh 
 2 (Vv eI5 hia 
 
 F Ho" 
 > . 
 Ms we oe eee tt 
 i! : ‘ ie a 
 , ns > Seo a ; 
 
 ie 
 
 
 
 ~ 
 -. . 
 a a 
 . 
 | - a 
 4 : 
 Pi é ; 
 j ae 
 . ; ‘ ; i. 
 — 4 ; 
 ’ ares a 
 - 7 . 
 ; - 
 “ my 
 1 
 4 Th ” 
 j , we ' or 
 a e ~ a 
 ‘4 r] « 
 / - Py. ae 
 v 
 ‘ : ¢-t8 
 
 
 
 
 ty a 
 * . ' 7 1 
 * i =i, ~ _ 
 , ‘= aa fe 
 i ~ . wv! oe ae, Yar His Py 
 A Pa fs tn “OX ~ 
 

 

 

 
Date Due 
 
 Ct E y Sy 
 
 
 
 ee 
 
Te 
 
 ae 
 
 —_— . - 
 an i a ein py Ee oe oT