■nl aHr \BT v \ Ml tSit 3j Zj !i • • m- v]f r I ffi Jte JAN 17 1924 v /// 4 J ^eiCAL '010' BL 263 . F3 1923 Fairhurst, Alfred, 1843- 1921. Atheism in our universities Division Section \ / Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/atheisrninouruniv00fair_0 Atheism In Our Universities BY ALFRED FAIRHURST, A.M., D.Sd. Author of “Organic Evolution Considered/* “Theistic Evolution/* Etc. CINCINNATI, OHIO THE STANDARD PUBLISHING COMPANY Copyright, 1923, The Standard Publishing Company CONTENTS Page Introduction . 7 Preface . 9 I. Law . 15 II. Evolution a Fashion . 23 III. Design in Nature . 35 IV. Spontaneous Generation . 42 y. Failures of Evolution . 51 VI. Answers to Questionnaire By Chancellor David Starr Jordan and Dr. Ray Leman Wilbur, of Leland Stan¬ ford University . 72 3 Contents VII. Answers to Questionnaire By Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard University, and by Arthur T. Hadley, Ex-President of Yale . 104 VIII. Answers to Questionnaire By Dr. John J. Coss, for President Butler, of Columbia University ; Prof. R. M. Wenley, for President Hutchins, of Michigan University; Professor Nach- tricht, for Pres. Marion L. Burton, of University of Minnesota ; Pres. Frank J. Goodnow, of Johns Hopkins Uni¬ versity; Pres. William S. Currell, by Prof. A. C. Moore, University of South Carolina . 129 IX. Answers to Questionnaire By President Campbell by Prof. John F. Bovard, of University of Oregon ; Pres. Robert F. Vinson by Prof. D. B. Cas¬ teel, University of Texas ; Pres. J. Ross Stevenson by W. Brent Greene, Jr., Princeton Theological Seminary; Pres. 4 Contents John Grier Hibben by Prof. E. G. Conklin, Princeton University ; Pres. Lemuel H. Murlin, of Boston Univer¬ sity . . . . 146 X. Letters and Answers to Questions Dean Franklin N. Parker, Candler School of Theology, Emory University; Pres. C. A. Barbour, Rochester Theological Seminary ; Pres. Henry C. King, Oberlin College ; Pres. W. 0. Thompson, Ohio State University . 175 XI. Other Letters and Answers From State Superintendents of Public Instruction and Others. Albert Olney, Commissioner of Secondary Schools, California; Thomas Johnson, Superintendent of Schools, Michigan ; F. G. Blair, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Illinois; L. N. Hines, State Superintendent of Indiana ; Charles F. Wheelock, Assistant Commissioner Secondary Education, New York; Robert I. Bramball, Division of Ele- 5 Contents mentary Education, Massachusetts ; Pres. Walter P. Morgan, Western Illinois State Normal School ; Pres. J. H. Coates, Eastern Kentucky Normal School . . 185 XII. Some Conclusions . 196 6 INTRODUCTION MY object in writing this volume is to counteract, to some extent, the influence of the agnostic and atheistic philosophy of evo¬ lution, and that view of theistic evolution which holds that this is God’s only method of work¬ ing. To this end I ask that this volume be given a place in the libraries of our universi¬ ties, colleges, normal schools and high schools, and, whenever the subject of evolution is taught, in as prominent a place as is given to the leading authors who favor this theory. In most cases the books selected on this subject have been in favor of the theory of evolution, and chosen with the view of propa¬ gating this theory, while the books opposed to it have been largely ignored. This method shows a lack of intellectual fairness. The mechanical display made by a library on evolu¬ tion is intended to impress the beholder with a sense of the futility of offering any opposi¬ tion. The average mind casts its vote with the majority. This philosophy of creation is now posing before the public under the name of the “scien¬ tific method,” and it is commonly classed as a branch of “science.” Alfred Fairhurst. Lexington, Ky., May 6, 1921. 7 PREFACE IT has been a great happiness to me to have had even a small part in the great work to which my beloved father, Alfred Fairhurst, devoted so many years of his life. I wish that I were able to adequately portray the strength and beauty of my father’s character, which seemed to me like a calm, broad stream, flow¬ ing through a turbulent world, sure in its power and majesty, and enriching the lives of all it touched. Almost as early as I can remember, my father studied and wrote upon the subject of “evolution.” His last years were con¬ centrated upon an effort to combat the per¬ nicious effect of the popular construction put upon the so-called Darwinian theory of evolution. I use the word “so-called” ad¬ visedly, for Charles Darwin never dreamed to what limits future generations would carry his entertaining hypothesis. There are a number of good people in the world who sincerely think they believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution. In their human desire to follow the “lead of fashion,” 9 Preface they do not realize that they are following a cult founded upon matter and force only, the foundation stone of which is an impossibility, for scientists agree upon the one fact that “life comes only from life,” and, to follow evolution to its logical beginning, it is neces¬ sary to cast aside this axiom. It is to these good, but misinformed, people that my father addressed his efforts. There is no conflict between geology and Genesis. They are only written from different viewpoints; the one with the idea of teaching the process of the physical formation of the world, the other with the object to show that the earth and all that dwell therein are the handiwork of God. The word “day” is used to express a period of time, as when we say “in that day,” meaning “in that period of the world’s history.” Although in many States of the Union the Bible is not permitted to be read in the pub¬ lic schools, in these same schools and in our universities the people’s money is being spent in employing teachers who, knowing really but very little about the subject of evo¬ lution, dogmatically teach it as a “science” instead of as a “theory,” and thus, little by little, slowly but surely, are sowing the seed of destructive criticism of the Bible. 10 Preface It is my belief that the tide is now begin¬ ning to turn, and that a small army of lead¬ ers is forming who will carry on the good work in which Alfred Fairhurst was the pioneer who blazed the way. It seems appropriate to give here a brief sketch of my father’s life. He was born in Bruceville, Ind., on April 28, 1843, the son of Dr. William Fairhurst. His mother, before her marriage, was Margaret Bartley. He was one of a large family of brothers. He received his education at Butler College and at Har¬ vard University. He taught for several years at Butler and at Akron, 0. Later he entered the practice of law, and went into partner¬ ship with my mother’s brother, John A. Hol¬ man. The latter was afterward elected judge, thus dissolving the partnership. In 1879 he married Elizabeth Holman, daughter of George Holman, then a leading dry-goods merchant of Indianapolis. Finding his law practice to be extensive, but unremunera- tive, and having a growing family to be pro¬ vided for, he accepted the call to occupy the Chair of Science in Kentucky University at Lexington. He went to Lexington in 1881, and con¬ tinued to fill the position of professor of science there for over thirty years. Largely as a result of his efforts, Andrew Carnegie 11 Preface was prevailed upon to make a gift to the university of the handsome Hall of Science, which now adorns the campus. After he retired from active teaching, he served as pastor in several of the Kentucky churches, and spent much time in writing and studying. In 1897 he had published his first book on the subject of evolution — “Organic Evolution Considered” (Standard Publishing Co., Cincinnati, 0.). In this first volume, written largely for scientists and students of evolution, he endeavored to give a general statement of the claims of evolution as applied to the origin of organic forms, and then offered objections which went far toward invalidating those claims. His second book on the subject, “Theistic Evolution” (Standard Publishing Co., Cin¬ cinnati, 0.), was published in 1919. This book is a most concise and readable treatise on the subject, and delightfully entertaining to the average reader. In it he emphasized certain things to which he thought ministers and teachers especially ought to give the most thoughtful consideration. He held that the¬ istic evolution destroys the Bible as the in¬ spired word of authority in religion as effectual¬ ly as does atheistic evolution. In it he warns against teaching that evolution is a fact, or a science , when it is only a theory , impossible of 12 Preface verification. Even then, the objections to it, he urges, should be presented so that the pupil may have both sides to the question. He ex¬ presses the belief that the teaching of evolution should be eliminated from the primary and secondary schools, by law, if necessary, on ac¬ count of the immaturity of the pupils and the incompetence generally of the teachers of such schools to properly present, explain or teach the subject. The present volume, “ Atheism in Our Uni¬ versities,’ ’ represents a study of this angle to the subject, and presents material collected over a period of several years. One of the pleasantest memories of my whole life, and one which will linger always, is that of the six weeks’ visit which my father paid to my home in Arizona just prior to his death. However, instead of resting and relaxing during this visit, he was continually at work upon the manuscript of this book. When urged to rest, he would reply, 4 ‘No, I must finish it.” He was in the best of health, yet it seemed as if he knew that his time on earth was short. For many years before his death he lectured in different cities, churches and colleges, on the subject of “Science and Religion,” covering the entire range of all three of his books on the subject of evolution. 13 Preface My father returned to Lexington from his visit at my home, in April, 1921. On the 13th of May, following, he suffered a partial stroke of paralysis, and the end came peacefully, eleven days later. Just three of us are left behind — mother, sister Helen, and myself. The manuscript here presented in book form was published in the winter of 1922 in the Christian Standard, in the exact form in which my father left the material. He had given it a general arrangement, but had not had time or opportunity to polish it or correct small errors before his death. These he would have done before he sent it to the printer, had he lived. It has been my great pleasure to make these minor corrections in the form, so far as I could, but I have not in the least changed the subject-matter. I wish that I could have been of more assistance in this great work, and especially do I wish that I could inspire, to greater efforts, those leaders of to-day who, happily, are taking up and carrying on the good fight in which my father pioneered the way — all to the end that the in¬ fluence of the Holy Bible as an authority in re¬ ligion may never be destroyed, and that Chris¬ tianity may be saved to the world in all its sacred purity. Mary Fairhurst Baughn. Phcenix, Ariz., June 28, 1923. 14 ATHEISM IN OUR UNIVER¬ SITIES i. LAW. Some Introductory Considerations. IF we include all things under the head of matter and force, then we may define law as being the manner in which force acts. The study of things that happen mechanically is a study of the action of forces. The reign of law is not universal in the sense that a given quantity of a force — heat, for example — necessarily produces one invari¬ able result. When mind enters the field, the process of producing mechanical results that were inevitable gives way to results obtained by intelligence, and brought to pass by free will. It is evident that, under like conditions, a given force will act in like ways. In this sense law reigns. But conditions are not fixed and invariable under the control of mind. They 15 Atheism in Our Universities are changed by free mind, and one force is often converted into another in order to serve new purposes. The human mind is not under the absolute dominion of the forces that prevail in the world. Any one of these forces in the inor¬ ganic world can be converted by the agency of mind into all the others in succession. When so changed they are known by differ¬ ent names, and are directed into new channels to do endless kinds of work. Mind, in control¬ ling forces, must take notice of the ways in which each force acts. These methods of action of forces, laws, do not dominate mind, but mind directs the forces for special purposes. There are no “laws of nature” which pre¬ determine what work a given amount of the force of gravity shall do. A thousand tons of water falling over Niagara may simply warm the water which it strikes, or it may turn a dynamo that converts the force suc¬ cessively into mechanical motion, electricity, light, heat, chemical action, magnetism, the lifting of weights or the motion of many ma¬ chines, for endless purposes. There is noth¬ ing in the mechanical processes of nature to determine what free mind shall do. Mind is an intelligent determining cause that controls forces so that they produce countless results that could never otherwise happen. 16 Atheism in Our Universities It has not been determined that the forces in the inorganic world can be converted into mind, but it is certain that mind can control these forces. They are the tools with which the mind of man has revolutionized the world. The great fact of the correlation of energy, and man’s ability at will to bring it about and to control energy in all its phases, is of vast importance. The “ reign of law” does not mean the subjugation of mind. The human will is not a slave in chains at the chariot-wheels of “law,” but it is the charioteer with “four in hand,” directing the forces of nature to work in countless ways. The practical results show that the will has been free to choose, and conscience is a living witness of this truth. The control of results in dealing with forces of all kinds, in all sciences and in all realms of nature, pro¬ claims the supremacy of mind. Mechanical force can only move matter. All work is done by force overcoming re¬ sistance. Kinetic energy is force at work. Latent energy is force stored up, as a weight at rest. Motions produced in masses of mat¬ ter are resultants of the action of more than one force. Gravity is always present, produc¬ ing a perceptible effect. Cohesion and ad¬ hesion oppose the modification of masses of 2 17 Atheism in Our Universities matter. Frequently a single force so pre¬ dominates that we attribute the entire effect to that one force. The chemical force will cause almost every element to unite with oxygen. But most of the oxides of the metals can be decomposed with hot carbon. When they are heated with carbon, the carbon unites with the oxygen of the metal, leaving the latter in the free metallic condition. In such cases, we say that the affinity of the carbon for the oxygen is stronger than the affinity of oxygen for the metal. And so we can overcome a countless number of chemical affinities by means of others. A simple equation will show the com¬ mon method in chemistry of obtaining results by overcoming one force by means of another, AgN03+NaCl=AgCl+NaN03. This equa¬ tion represents silver nitrate and sodium chloride as reacting on each other in such a way as to bring about the decomposition of each and the formation of two new com¬ pounds. It is evident that in this decomposi¬ tion the stronger chemical force has overcome the weaker. It is said that the chlorine has a stronger affinity for the silver than it has for the sodium, and that consequently an interchange takes place. Light, in photography, decomposes a silver compound; electricity decomposes a large 18 Atheism in Our Universities number of chemical compounds, and heat will decompose many inorganic, and the majority of organic, compounds. Chemical results, in most cases, are brought about by overcoming force with force. The growth of the plant involves the decomposition of mineral compounds that serve as plant food. The growing plant ab¬ sorbs, through the pores of the leaves, carbon dioxide, C02, and, under the influence of sun¬ shine, the chloraphyl in the leaves decomposes the C02, giving off the oxygen and retaining the carbon as food. The roots of the growing plant absorb potassium nitrate, and other mineral foods in solution in the sap, and the life forces in the plant enable it to decompose these mineral foods and appropriate the useful substances, and elaborate them into organic materials, such as woody fiber, starch, sugar, vegetable oils, and protoplasm in various forms. There is ceaseless warfare in the growing plant between the anagenetic (or life) forces and the catagenetic (or death) forces. They are pitted against each other, and the fact of living and growing in the vegetable world is due to the continual triumph of life over death — of forces in the living world that can overcome the forces in the mineral world. Science knows no method by which the forces in the mineral world can be converted into life forces. Herein 19 Atheism in Our Universities lies the hopelessness of “spontaneous genera¬ tion. ” Animal foods, with the exception of salt and water, are mostly organic, but these foods must be digested and assimilated in order to serve their purposes as food. During this process many chemical changes take place, involving a complex warfare that is not well understood. From the same foods, plants manufacture a countless number of products, and from like animal foods animals organize the most varied tissues and many peculiar chemical compounds. On every hand, in order to obtain desired results, force is pitted against force, and the stronger overcomes. The heat of the sun lifts the water, and gravity draws it back to the surface of the earth. Thus gravitation and sunshine are opposed to each other in their effects. Each can be converted into the other. They are but two phases of the same force. If we trace the order of creation by means of forces, we have, before life appeared, the forces in the dead world. Next come the life forces of the plant world that can overcome the chemical forces of the mineral world. We know of no way to con¬ vert the inorganic forces into living forces. Ascending to the animal kingdom, we find many kinds of feelings and instincts which can not be accounted for by means of any forces 20 Atheism in Our Universities in minerals and plants. Lastly, we ascend to the free human mind, with a conscience and self-consciousness, and many other powers that can not be explained in terms of anything be¬ low. Le Conte truthfully says: “From the physical point of view, it is simply impossible to exaggerate the wideness of the gap that sep¬ arates men from even the highest animal.” If man can direct the forces of nature to serve his purposes by producing conflicts of forces, is it not possible that God might per¬ form miracles without violating the laws of nature ? Of course, I recognize the existence of law, both in the inorganic and organic worlds. Astronomy is founded largely on the action of gravitation on the heavenly bodies. The time of an eclipse can be very accurately deter¬ mined, because gravitation reigns. Atoms, under like conditions, always unite to form compounds of invariable composition, so that one analysis of a compound determines its fixed composition. Chemistry, the greatest of all sciences, is founded on the laws of atoms. Physics determines and makes use of the laws of some of the forces of nature, such as gravity, light, heat and electricity. In the above instances the forces work ac¬ cording to regular methods, and these methods we call laws. 21 Atheism in Our Universities We know that certain foods and forces determine both the form and the growth in the vegetable world. The agricultural chemist is coming more and more into his own. We understand that certain conditions are necessary for the existence and well-being of men and animals. Without the “laws of nature’ ’ man could not exist here. They are his sole means by which he plans for the future. A lawless world would be a godless world. Kegularity in the processes of nature is of the utmost importance to the well-being of man. While this is true, it is also true, as I have stated, that a man, a free moral agent, as declared by his conscience, is not absolutely under the dominion of the forces of nature, but he dominates certain quantities of these forces to accomplish his purposes. His mind is not under the dominion of physical force or law, but of moral law. His moral freedom elevates him above all else on earth. 22 \ II. EVOLUTION A FASHION. Further Introductory Considerations. HE question may well be asked, Why has 1 there been such a rush by leading men in educational positions to adopt the word “ evo¬ lution,’ * when it is evident that the majority of them have given little study to the sub¬ ject? The general remark that they make, even in their confessed ignorance of the sub¬ ject, is that all universities and colleges teach it. When interpreted, this remark means: ‘‘We have counted noses, we have taken the vote, and the result is all biologists, all scholars, all universities, accept it, and so we are bound to believe it.” Thus we extend our democracy into the scientific world, and determine truth by a popular vote. If you can only get an idea started so that people will think that it is generally accepted, then the crowd will fall into line and yell. The educational world is now in that condition with regard to the word “evolution.” Seemingly it prefers “error” to being considered “out-of-date.” 23 Atheism in Our Universities Whatever virtue there may be in the word when properly used, its acceptance in the majority of cases has become a fad. The folly of foot-binding by the Chinese, of tight cor¬ sets, of high heels and pointed toes, of many extreme fashions in clothing and of many other objectionable fashions — how can these be met? Regiments of soldiers, cannon and rapid-fire guns can not defeat a fashion, how¬ ever foolish it may be. A fashion is due to crooked thinking by the public mind. Many years ago, it is said, there was a tulip craze in Holland that wrecked fortunes. Few persons will dare to take a firm stand against a fashion in dress. This season’s style of hat, dress or coat may not do at all for next season, although one’s judgment may approve the old rather than the new. Origin, propriety and cost do not figure largely with most people. Style, the latest thing, wins. To be fashionably dressed is considered by many a mark of good breeding. To many people it is very uncomfortable not to be dressed in fashion. A fashion represents only a form of cur¬ rent thought, which, like an earthquake, has somewhere a center. It propagates by conta¬ gion. It is mighty and must be noticed. The unwary are captured and bound. Reason, logic, precedent, poverty and cleverness are 24 Atheism in Our Universities not proof against it. All must submit, if they would be recognized. A fashion is possible only because people are content to let others dictate to them. The mass of the public walks intellectually in chains; they travel the lines of least intellec¬ tual resistance marked out by others. There have been fashions in all depart¬ ments of life — in religious thought, in politics, in systems of philosophy, in eating and drink¬ ing, in sports and in all kinds of dress. The prevalent fad now among the college-bred and among those who have some claim to education is evolution. Any up-to-date col¬ lege man from most of our institutions is proud to claim that he is “an evolutionist.” In fact, he is afraid not to do so. To him it represents the latest culture — the finishing touch, without which a gentleman’s educa¬ tion would not be complete. Generally, he does not know what the word means. He may not have been in a class where evolution was taught, but, in some way, he has heard that it is the accepted “science,” and so, by adoption, he makes it a part of his education. Perhaps he may have heard that the Eocene horse had four toes in front and that the Archaeopteryx had a lengthened verte- brated tail — conclusive evidence to him of the ancestry of the modern horse and birds! Atheism in Our Universities The great number of the unsolvable problems in the theory, however, have never been pre¬ sented to him. Still, he takes great comfort in believing the theory, for he feels that it places him in good company. I have even heard a professor say that when his son shall go to a leading institution to obtain an advanced course, he would feel ashamed to say that he was not an evolution¬ ist. And yet the evolution taught in such an institution is, in all probability, atheistic or agnostic, if reports can be trusted. I have heard this same professor say that he did not study science more than a year in college, that he is not a zoologist, but that he accepts the theory of evolution because it represents the consensus of scientific opinion. Many of the vital facts involved in this theory are not difficult to understand. I take it that no man is under obligation to accept this theory without inquiring into the facts upon which it is based. It is true that the universal theory in all of its details is of vast proportions. Few have the time and knowl¬ edge fully to understand it. The differences of opinion, as shown by answers to my ques¬ tionnaire, show some of the diversities of opinion on the subject. It seems to me that, in this case, a suspended judgment would be a virtue. If I were called upon to determine 26 Atheism in Our Universities the architecture and strength of materials for a great suspension bridge, I might well pause without considering that I had disgraced my judgment. That would certainly be quite as safe as to join in a fad, even if I acknowl¬ edged my ignorance. Many of those who have answered my questionnaire, it is evident, have simply echoed current opinion. Some presidents of univer¬ sities have said, “We can not answer your questions because we have not the scientific knowledge,’ ’ but they have expressed the opinion that evolution is taught in all higher institutions of learning. It is evident, how¬ ever, that they attach different meanings to the word “evolution.” Some seem to think that it comprehends all the changes that have taken place in the history of the world. All people agree as to continual changes, but change alone is not evolution. The majority, probably, apply the word to organic evolu¬ tion, and admit miracles as a part of the proc¬ ess. They consider it to be partly a natural and partly a supernatural process. Many Christians accept this statement as to method of creation. But evolution in its widest sense is entirely naturalistic. Its only data are matter and force, or, if it is theistic, it confines God to natural processes, and thus eliminates the 27 Atheism in Our Universities supernatural. According to this theory, all religion is naturalism, and the Bible is only a human book, to be judged simply as litera¬ ture. A recent writer aptly says: “Naturalism has run riot for twenty years, to go no fur¬ ther back, and we are still smeared with it.” An acute critic has said that, if it was the task of the last century to put man into na¬ ture, it is the task of this century to get him out again. He is still neck deep in it, having followed nature to “the last ditch and ditch water.” The existence of man’s spiritual nature and the need of spiritual culture in our educational system have been largely neglected in our chase after material results. The minds of many are still wallowing in gross materialism in trying to prove that man is only the highest animal. On this low plane man can never command much respect. As a son of God with an immortal soul, his entire relation to time and a spiritual world is changed. If man is made to feel that he is born to perish like the brute, his soul is warped and stunted. It is only in the light of a limit¬ less expanding future that the soul is at its best. Our modern education is too material— too much grasping after material results. “Will 28 Atheism in Our Universities it enable me to add to my wealth ? ” is too often the question. “Will it help me to live a model life?” ought to be a fundamental ques¬ tion in education. College curricula are not shaped in the interest of character, but most¬ ly with regard to getting on in the world. It sometimes happens that the alumnus, who ought to stand for what is best for society, is only an educated knave. His knowledge, unguided by character, is only “German kultur. ’ ’ I take it for granted that no man who does not stand for a high order of character ought to be a member of a college Faculty. If a man is an atheist or an agnostic, he ought not to be allowed to impose his views upon Christian young people. Liberty to teach does not mean liberty to destroy Christian faith. I know that it is said that the Chris- tian young man when he enters college is con¬ fronted with the problem of adjusting his faith to the new problems of science, and that it becomes necessary for him to adjust his theology to science. This is said especially with regard to evolution, which is regarded as “science.” Evolution, as I have claimed in another chapter, is but a philosophy of creation founded from beginning to end upon an im¬ probable series of assumptions. Christianity 29 Atheism in Our Universities is under no obligation to do obeisance to this materialistic philosophy. But the student must take notice, we are told, of the contradiction between Genesis and geology as to creation. Taking the days in Genesis to be indefinite periods, as do Sir William Dawson and Prof. Joseph Le Conte, the matter of conflict disappears. Both of these high authorities accept the account in Genesis. The presidents of universities and colleges generally have it in their power to determine who the members of their Faculties shall be. They preside over the future intellectual and moral destiny of the young people in their charge. It is their duty to know the charac¬ ters of professors and the quality of what they teach. They are to see that “academic freedom” is not made an excuse for teaching all kinds of destructive doctrines. The athe¬ ist, the agnostic and the materialist have no rightful claim to a place on a college Faculty. The public does not support State universities for the propagation of atheism. A godless philosophy aims at the very foundations of Christian civilization. Those in authority are ignorantly bearing with godless teaching in many of the highest institutions. Christian young men and women are being ignorantly subjected to the assaults of a godless philoso- 30 Atheism in Our Universities phy under the name of “evolution.” They have neither the ability nor the information to resist the attacks. “Academic freedom” is but a thin cloak under which all villainies seek to hide. A godless philosophy is more destructive of human welfare than Krupp cannon and “U” boats. A godless spiritual dwarf, whose faith and hope and high aspirations have been para¬ lyzed by a destructive philosophy under the name of the “scientific method,” is the most worthless member of society. Without an abiding, inspiring faith his life is zero. A Christian had two sons. He sent the older one, a very bright boy, to a university. He graduated with honor. He brought home much Latin and Greek and things he had learned, but he left his Christian faith behind. The teaching he got did the work. The second son was kept at home. He was a great worker in the church and a man of undimmed faith. Must a university , dependent on public funds , be so organized as to destroy Christian faith? A father wrote to me in great agony, saying that he had sent his son to Illinois State Uni¬ versity; that when he sent him he was an ex¬ cellent Christian worker in the church, but that a teacher of philosophy in that university had destroyed his son’s faith. Was that young man’s education an improvement? 31 Atheism in Our Universities I was recently told by a young man who had attended Missouri State University the last two years that they have a three years’ course in biology, and that 60 per cent, of the students who take that course come out atheists. Are we to conclude from this that 60 per cent, of the parents of these young people want that kind of teaching? Are atheists in professors’ chairs to carry on their destructive work, un¬ opposed, with a high and mighty hand? Is the public helpless in their hands? Is there no remedy by which Christian young people can be saved from the clutches of these ghouls? About a year ago I visited a classroom in Ohio State University at Columbus to hear a professor of zoology lecture to a mixed class of about seventy-five young men and women on evolution. During the lecture a young woman asked the professor substantially this question: “Is the doctrine of evolution consistent with the Christian religion?” I was told by one who sat near the professor that he answered in substance: “It makes no difference to me whether there is a God or not.” His answer was understood to be a declaration of his athe¬ ism. I was told by a young woman there, who was ready to enter the Senior year, that three- fourths of the professors in that university were atheists, and that the other fourth were agnostics and Christians. It was also told by 32 Atheism in Our Universities a student that the library on evolution contains two or three hundred volumes in favor of the theory and only two or three against it. This shows that the art of lying has there been re¬ duced to a science. It can easily be seen that there are more ways of lying than one. The process can easily be shown in the selection of a library. The men who teach the subject and select the books understand the advantage of one-sidedness . Leland Stanford University has an unen¬ viable reputation as to the effect of its teaching on Christian students. I have given a quota¬ tion on this in connection with that university. I am constrained to believe that many of our leading universities are in some depart¬ ments destroying the Christian faith of young men and women. I have spoken on this sub¬ ject in various places, and have repeatedly been told that, as to destructive teaching in the uni- * versities, my statements are correct. I am not unmindful of the many excellent things that are taught in our great universities. It is true that, in many respects, their teaching excels, but it is also true that, owing to the harmful teaching in some departments, many Christian men will not send their sons and daughters to them. The following is from the Christian-Evan - gelist, Dec. 23, 1920: 3 33 Atheism in Our Universities “The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America in the Fourth Quadrennial Meeting. “A Survey of the Religious, Moral and Economic Needs of the World. “In this survey we have the following: “Polite, Suave and Apologetic Skepticism. ‘ ‘ There is everywhere in this country, especially in our high institutions of learning, a skepticism — polite, suave and apologetic — far more deadly than any ever known here be¬ fore, in the opinion of Rev. Charles L. Thomp¬ son, president of the Home Missions Council, who discussed a nation-wide program for Chris¬ tianizing American life, at the evening session in Ford’s Hall. “ ‘This skepticism/ continued Rev. Mr. Thompson, ‘is all the more insidious for the reason that it can be recognized only as the approach of an iceberg is recognized by mari¬ ners, through the icy chill which permeates the atmosphere at its approach. ... We must vitalize our Christianity and our Christian forces. The time has come when America will no longer stand aside and see the world drift toward disorder and from revelation.’ ” 34 III. DESIGN IN NATURE. I DESIRE to point out certain facts that in¬ dicate an intelligent Creator in connection with the world’s history. The existence of an intelligent, directing Creator seems to me to be clearly manifested in the preparation of the world for living things. There was prob¬ ably a long period, before life appeared, dur¬ ing which the earth was losing energy in the form of heat. It was a dying world, so far as energy is concerned. Some may think of the changes that were taking place as evolu¬ tion, but it was not evolution in the sense in which the word is applied to the organic world. The two processes are fundamentally different. I assume that the existence and well-being of man physically and mentally was a design worthy of an intelligent Creator. There are fewer than one hundred known simple substances in the composition of the earth. Four of these elements — namely, car¬ bon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen — are 35 Atheism in Our Universities necessary for all plants and animals. Sixteen elements compose the human body. If any one of the four elements had been left out, no living thing, so far as we know, could exist. The existence of the human being re¬ quires the presence of most, if not all, of the sixteen elements. Carbon exists in the earth in small per cent. It is deposited in carbon¬ ates, in coal, carbonaceous shale, petroleum and in gas. The atmosphere contains one volume of carbon dioxide in thirty-three hundred. Plants are dependent for their supply of carbon on the small fraction of one per cent, of carbon dioxide in the air. If carbon had been absent from the earth, or carbon dioxide from the air, plants, consequently animals, could not exist. All of the carbon dioxide might have been bound up in carbonates or other forms not available for plant growth. The carbon dioxide of the air is being con¬ stantly renewed by the combustion of fuel, by the decomposition of carbonates by means of organic acids, and by the decay of organic matter and exhalations from animals, so that the supply for plant growth promises to be of long duration. Oxygen constitutes more than 40 per cent, of the earth’s crust, nine-tenths of the weight of water and about 23 per cent, of the weight 36 Atheism in Our Universities of the atmosphere. It combines with most of the other elements directly. If there had been much less oxygen than there is, it might all have combined to help form the solid crust of the earth, leaving none for water and air, in which case life, as we have it, could not exist. The same result would have followed if the balance after forming solids had all been used up in forming water, leaving none free for the air, in which case no animal life could exist. It was necessary that oxygen should be sufficiently abundant to unite with most of the simple substances that form the earth’s crust, to help form water to the extent of two miles in depth if spread over the whole earth and still have a residue free for the air. It must be present and in certain quantity to serve the purpose. Nitrogen is a third element that is a neces¬ sary part of every living thing. Its com¬ pounds in the crust of the earth are very limited in quantity. It comprises about 77 per cent, of the weight of the air. It com¬ bines directly with but few elements. Its compounds in the earth, in the form of nitrates, ammonium compounds and certain organic substances, are very soluble in water, and are being washed away continually by running water. The atmosphere is the in¬ exhaustible source of nitrogen for plants. 37 Atheism in Our Universities Nitrogen dilutes the oxygen of the air so that it is less rapid in its oxidizing effects, and thus reduces danger from conflagrations. It is evident that, if the amount of nitrogen in the air were greatly increased so as to dilute the oxygen much more than it is, the efficiency of oxygen in creating high tempera¬ tures for the reduction of metals and other purposes would be greatly decreased. Hydrogen, the lightest known substance, is a fourth element that must exist for every living thing. It exists mostly combined with oxygen in the form of water. If it existed in quantity large enough to combine with all the oxygen to form water, no life could exist. What are the 'probabilities, according to any chance, that these four elements, each necessary for living things, would occur and in the proper quantities to render them avail¬ able for life? We are here in a region where evolution is absolutely unavailable. When we ask this question with regard to the sixteen elements that compose the human body, how infinitely impossible it seems that these should all be present by chance. We know that most of these substances are neces¬ sary. Calcium and phosphorus and oxygen are necessary for the phosphate of the bones; sodium and chlorine in the form of common salt are necessary; sulphur, potassium, mag- 38 Atheism in Our Universities nesium, iron and probably other elements are also necessary. The building materials for the human body did not happen here by chance. A wise Architect planned in advance the building of man’s body. All of the above elements, except some salt and water, come ultimately through plants. The design shown in preparing food for plants is supplemented and strengthened by the use of plant substances as food for men and animals. The plant is a conservative organism. It stores up energy in the form of organic com¬ pounds, which animals use as food. The plant is a deoxidizing agent. The animal is an oxidizing agent. It burns up materials which plants have prepared. The plant and the animal largely supplement each other in their work. A designing Creator was looking forward in many ways, not only to the coming of man, but to the coming of a progressive man who could fully take possession of and have dominion over the whole earth, and utilize the many things placed here for his benefit. The many kinds of food widely distributed over the earth, adapted to man’s use; the vari¬ ous things that can be converted into clothing for his protection and comfort ; the great storehouses of coal, carbonaceous shale, petro- 39 Atheism in Our Universities leum, gas and wood for fuel; the building materials available for shelter; the numerous metals and metallic ores that have been brought more and more into use as knowledge has increased — these, and many other things, speak of a far-reaching intelligence that was contriving for the physical and spiritual well¬ being of man. “But,” says one, “there are so many things in which I can see no design.” The absence of our ability to see design is, I take it, only an indication of our ignorance. The savage fails to discover and to use most of the metals and other elements and their compounds. His ignorance blinds him and prevents him from understanding the uses of things. Blessings come as a reward for rightly exercising the powers that have been given us. Nature re¬ veals her secrets to the intelligent, persistent inquirer. There may be many things in which we can see no design, and yet if there are some things in which we can see design, this fact unmistakably proclaims a designer. The Patent Office of the United States contains hundreds of thousands of models. It is not necessary for us to understand each model before we can logically conclude that some have been designed. When we look at a great printing-press we are constrained to ask : 40 Atheism in Our Universities Which is greater, the printing-press or the man who designed it? When we see the vast provision in this world for the well-being of men physically and spiritually, we ask : Which is greater, the things designed or He who designed them? I have not dwelt upon the adaptations of organisms to their environment, for the reason that it is claimed that these adaptations have been produced by evolution, but I have con¬ sidered those things which, for the most part, are beyond the process of evolution. 41 IV. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. THE theory of universal evolution neces¬ sarily includes spontaneous generation. This fact has been recognized by many lead¬ ing writers on evolution. Prof. H. W. Conn, of the Wesleyan University, in the “Method of Evolution” says: “For a long time, the term ‘evolution’ was to most persons synony¬ mous with the idea of organic evolution, the broader aspects of the problem being over¬ looked. The term ‘evolution’ is certainly much broader than the simple problem of the origin of plants and animals. At the same time, it is so evident that organic evolution forms the keystone of the evolutionary arch, without which it would fall to pieces, that the whole debate for years centered around the problem of organic evolution.” Le Conte says: “Evolution is universal. The process pervades the whole universe, and the doctrine concerns alike every department of science — yea, every department of human thought. Therefore, its truth or falseness, 42 Atheism in Our Universities its acceptance or rejection, is no trifling mat¬ ter, affecting only one small corner of the thought realm. ... It determines the whole attitude of the mind towards God.” As a universal process it necessarily in¬ cludes the origin of living things. Professor Conn further says: “An impor¬ tant part of the evolution problem is, of course, the origin of life, which appears to mean the origin of the first protoplasm. Upon this subject it must be confessed we are in as deep ignorance as ever. Indeed, if anything, the disclosures of the modern microscope have placed the solution of this problem even further from our grasp. So long as we could regard protoplasm as a chemical compound, definite though complex, so long was it possi¬ ble to believe that its origin in the past geo¬ logical ages was a simple matter of chemical affinity. It was easy to assume that under the conditions of earlier ages, when chemical ele¬ ments were necessarily placed in different re¬ lations from those of to-day, chemical opera¬ tions could arise which would result in the formation of the complex body — protoplasm. This has been the supposition that has laid the foundation of the various suggestions as to the origin of life. But, having now learned that this life substance is not a chemical com¬ pound, but a mechanism, and that its prop- 43 Atheism in Our Universities erties are dependent upon its mechanism, such a conception of the origin of life is no longer tenable. In its place must be substi¬ tuted some forces which build a mechanism. But even our most extreme evolutionists have not yet suggested any method of bridging the chasm, and, at the present time, we must recognize that the problem of the origin of life is in greater obscurity than ever. The origin of chemical compounds we may ex¬ plain, but their combinations into the organic machine which we call protoplasm is, at pres¬ ent, unimaginable.” “So far as we know, unorganized proto¬ plasm does not exist. The properties of life appear to be manifested by nothing simpler than the organic cell. Everything that grows and reproduces is in some way differentiated into cells, and the cell seems to be thus the simplest condition of matter which can mani¬ fest the properties of life. But the cell is any¬ thing but simple. It consists of many parts acting in adjustment to each other. The more it is studied the more complex it appears. . . . It acts rather as a machine. It must be re¬ garded as a mechanism, and can not be called a chemical compound. Its properties are the properties of the cell as a mechanism and not of the cell as a chemical compound. ... If we trace variation to * organic composition/ it 44 Atheism in Our Universities must be to the mechanical rather than the chemical composition of this substance. . . . With all our research, the essence and origin of life has thus far eluded our grasp. The scientist should go no further than the evi¬ dence leads him, and should not indulge too much in philosophical speculation.” This advice the evolutionists are slow to take. Darwin said that “the inquiry as to how life first originated is hopeless.” Tyndall concluded, after nearly a thousand experiments with organic infusion, that, so far as his experiments showed, living things come only from the living. Romanes said: “The theory of descent starts from life as a datum already granted. . . . Science is not in a position to furnish so much as any suggestion upon the subject; and therefore our wisdom as men of science is to frankly acknowledge that such is the case.” (“Darwin and after Darwin,” p. 15.) Professor Dana, in his “Manual of Geol¬ ogy,” says: “Science has no explanation of the origin of life. The living organism, instead of being a product of physical forces, controls these forces for its higher forms, functions and purposes. Its introduction was the grandest event in the world’s early history.” 45 Atheism in Our Universities Professor Tyndall said: “I share Virchow’s opinion that the theory of evolution, in its complete form, involves the assumption that at some period or other of the earth’s history there occurred what would now be called spon¬ taneous generation; but I agree with him that the proofs of it are wanting. I hold also with Virchow that the failures have been so lamenta¬ ble that the doctrine is utterly discredited.” Prof. Lionel S. Beale said: “There is a gulf between life and non-life that is unfathom¬ able, and I can not believe it will ever be bridged. ’ ’ In 1893 Lord Kelvin said, in an address: “Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country, if he believed that the grass and flowers which we saw around us grew by mere chance force. He answered : ‘No; no more than I believe that a book of botany describing them could grow by mere chemical force. ... It is not in dead matter that men live, move and have their being, but in creative and directive power which science compels us to accept as an article of faith. Is there anything so absurd as to believe that a number of atoms, by falling together of their own accord, could make a crystal, a microbe, or a living animal?’ ” “The Origin and Evolution of Life,” by H. F. Osborn, contains one of the most recent 46 Atheism in Our Universities efforts to account for spontaneous generation. The author, after devoting nearly one-half of a large volume to this subject, ends with this conclusion: “The more modern scientific opin¬ ion is that life arose from a recombination of forces pre-existing in the cosmos.” His sup¬ posed facts in favor of spontaneous generation end in stating an opinion. But why call it a “ scientific opinion”? That “life comes only from life” is an accepted fact of science. In the face of this admitted fact why should a “scientific opinion ” that living things come from dead matter and force have any stand¬ ing? It is because spontaneous generation must be accepted by the evolutionist. His only factors, as he claims, before life appeared, were matter and force. These furnish, theo¬ retically, a scientific basis and exclude the supernatural. To admit God into the process, to admit a miracle or any other supernatural event, is beyond the province of science. The evolutionist, in his vain endeavor to exclude God, must hold that life comes from non-life. There is no escape from this conclusion which contradicts the known facts. Jordan and Kellogg, in “Evolution and Animal Life,” page 41, say: “Finally, we may refer briefly to the ‘grand problem’ of the origin of life itself. Any treatment of this question is bound to be wholly theoretical. 47 Atheism in Our Universities We do not know a single thing about it. We have some negative evidence. That is, we have no recorded instance — and men have searched diligently for examples of spontaneous generation. No protoplasm has been seen, or otherwise proved, to come into existence except through the agency of already existing proto¬ plasm. All life comes from life. The biologist can not admit spontaneous generation in the face of the scientific evidence he has. On the other hand, he has difficulty in understanding how life could have originated in any other way than through some transformation from inorganic matter.’ ’ The authors have just stated that “all life comes from life.” This being true, it is cer¬ tainly not easy for the “biologist” to under¬ stand how life can come from death by spon¬ taneous generation — by the action of force upon dead mineral matter. He must claim it. He must deny the known fact in favor of his theory. Is this science? Prof. E. D. Cope says, in the “Introduc¬ tion to Primary Factors of Organic Evolu¬ tion”: “The doctrine of evolution may be defined as the teaching which holds that crea¬ tion has been and is accomplished by the agency of the energies which are intrinsic in the evolving matter, and without interference of agencies that are external to it. It holds 48 Atheism in Our Universities this to be true of the combinations and forms of inorganic nature as well.” This definition renders spontaneous generation necessary. Cope further says: “Failure of the attempts to demonstrate spontaneous generation will prove, if continued, fatal to this theory.” He also recognizes two classes of force. He says: “I have termed these classes the ana- genetic, which are exclusively vital, and the catagenetic, which are physical and chemical. The anagenetie class tends to upward progress in the organic sense; that is, towards the in¬ creasing control of its environment by the or¬ ganism, and towards the progressive develop¬ ment of consciousness and mind. The cata- genetie energies tend to the creation of a stable equilibrium of matter, in which molar motion is not produced from within, and sensation is impossible. In popular language the one class of energies tends to life; the other to death.” Both of these classes of energy are mani¬ fested in the growth of a tree, in which the life forces of the tree during growth overcome the inorganic forces in the carbon dioxide and other plant foods, and thus obtain their nour¬ ishment. When the plant dies the death forces prevail, and its substance is finally reduced to the stable inorganic forms of matter. Again, Cope says: “If the tendency of the catagenetic energies is away from vital phe- 4 49 Atheism in Our Universities nomena, it is impossible that they, or any of them, should be the cause of the origin of living matter. This logical inference is con¬ firmed by the failure of all attempts to demon¬ strate spontaneous generation of living organ¬ isms from inorganic matter.’ ’ Herbert Spencer spent much time in trying to establish evolution on “matter, motion and force” as the only data. I need not add that he proved nothing in favor of spontaneous generation. As an agnostic, he referred all to the “unknown and “unknowable ” power. It is evident from the preceding that spon¬ taneous generation is a necessary part of evolu¬ tion; that the efforts to prove it true have re¬ sulted in total failure, and that the fact that life comes only from life is the established fact of science. The very basis of organic evolu¬ tion is thus eliminated. The theory can have no standing even as a philosophy, since it plainly contradicts a well-known fact. It be¬ gins evolution without a beginning — without a living thing. 50 FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. I SUBMIT a summary of some of the more evident places where, in the progress of events, naturalism fails to account for what has taken place. It is well to remember that changes have taken place through the long ages of the earth’s history, but to call all of these changes evolution in the Darwinian sense is entirely misleading. I have elsewhere considered this. I think it is evident that intelligence and design, calling for more than natural forces can accomplish, are manifested in the history of the earth. I believe that the supernatural, including what we call miracles, has often occurred, and yet without violating the so- called “laws of nature.” These “laws” are only the methods according to which the forces of nature act. As I have stated elsewhere, the natural forces, under the control of intelligence and free will, can be made to bring about many different results that would otherwise not occur. I believe that the history of the 51 Atheism in Our Universities world has been under the control of God, and that he has exercised his power in both a natural and a supernatural way. The expression “laws of nature” is liable to be misleading when applied to the action of free mind which can choose and determine results produced by forces. The “laws of na¬ ture” are not forces and they govern nothing. There can be no conflict between the natural and the supernatural, for God is the author of both. Neither includes nor excludes the other. As to design in the mind of an intelligent God, I have claimed that the physical and spiritual well-being of man, made in the image of God, is entirely worthy of Deity. Evolution, naturalism, fails, among others, in the following respects: 1. It can not account for the simple sub¬ stances of the right kinds and quantities that are necessary for the bodies of all living things. There is no possibility that evolution could have prepared these elements by chance nor that the process could have provided the six¬ teen elements that are components of the body of man. I have referred to this in a previous chapter. 2. The origin of life is beyond evolution to account for. All attempts to discover life’s origin have been hopeless failures. “All life comes from life” is the known fact. That a 52 Atheism in Our Universities living, self-nourishing, self-propagating being has been produced by dead, inorganic matter and the forces of nature is, and must be, assumed as the beginning of the process of organic evolution. This assumption is the necessary foundation of the whole theory. This violent assumption is a strange beginning for the so-called “scientific doctrine ” of evolu¬ tion. The word “ science’ ’ implies knowledge and not assumption. 3. Evolution can give no account of the separation of the organic world into plants and animals. Plants alone can live on in¬ organic food, while animals live mostly on organic food. Plants are deoxydizing agents; animals, oxydizing. Without the plant the animal can not exist. The functions of the two are largely opposed to each other. Evolu¬ tion knows nothing as to how the two groups of organisms ever became so widely separated. The plant is engaged largely in storing up energy and the animal in dissipating energy. 4. Evolution fails to explain in any way the origin of sex. The first organisms, accord¬ ing to this theory, were individual plant cells, which multiplied by the division of the nucleus and the constriction of the cell into two parts, thus becoming two new organisms. This is the simplest known method of reproduction. In the sexual method of reproduction two unlike 53 Atheism in Our Universities cells, generally from male and female individ¬ uals, unite in a wonderful and complex way, thus producing one new individual. The changes that take place in this process have been described by Komanes as among the most wonderful that the microscope has ever re¬ vealed. 5. If you try to imagine how the sub-king¬ doms of animals branched from a common an¬ cestral stock, you only laugh at your folly. Try to think of fish, brachiopod, trilobite, spider, coral-forming polyp, onthoceras and insect as branching from a common stock ! These, and many other forms, appeared early in the geological history of the earth. We are required by the theory to accept without evidence the statement that they branched from a common stock. 6. Evolution knows nothing whatever as to how any of the organs of the body have origi¬ nated. The feeble effort which she makes to explain the origin of legs from no legs is indeed laughable, if not pitiable. The effort rather excites one’s contempt for the man who makes the ignoble effort. It has been truthfully said that “you can not get blood out of a turnip.’ ’ No wonder that Darwin almost had a cold chill when he considered the evolution of the eyes of vertebrates. I almost lose my respect for the human mind when I see men trying 54 Atheism in Our Universities to trace the evolution of the human eye from “eyespecks” that are found in starfishes and other low forms. The faith required to believe it true is far greater than the faith of Abra ham. Evolution demands of its devotee gulli¬ bility at every step. Bergson, in his “Creative Evolution, ” pages 64 and 65, calls attention to some of the insuperable difficulties of account¬ ing for the evolution of eyes. We know noth¬ ing as to the origin of any of the numerous eyes, legs, wings and other organs that exist in the animal kingdom. Endless “ifs” and “ pre¬ sumptions’ * and “ assumptions’ * are necessary at every step of evolution. But it is said that it all occurred according to the “scientific proc¬ ess!” It is claimed that the fact of organic evolution needs no further proof. (?) Dr. Romanes has shown that the electric organs of certain fishes can not have been preserved be¬ cause useful nor for any other known reason. He presents this as a vital fact against Darwinism. 7. Evolution only guesses at the origin of mammals. Remains of the oldest known mam¬ mals of the size of rats and mice have been found in the Triassic of the Mesozoic age. During all of this age, which was quite long geologically, no larger mammals than rats and mice are known to have existed. How these warm-blooded mammals with non-nucleated 55 Atheism in Our Universities red blood corpuscles, and covered with hair, and possessing milk glands developed for nurs¬ ing their young, could have been evolved from a cold-blooded reptile with nucleated red blood corpuscles and with no milk glands and covered with scales, is a problem for the evolu¬ tionist which he easily solves by saying that it undoubtedly took place. We imagine the small, lizard-like vertebrates reclining in the Mesozoic sunshine, clasping their young to their bosoms in order to induce the milk of kind¬ ness to flow into the mouths of their hungry offspring. The nursing instinct in both mother and offspring and the milk glands must all appear at the same time, otherwise the process fails. It all had to be developed suddenly in a single generation in order to succeed, and then to be handed down to their posterity. It was easy and simple to evolve the hair of these mammals from the scales of the lizards because the two are homologous. These “scientific” facts necessary to “scientific evolution” are easily verified by the use of the scientific im¬ agination. The beauty of the whole process is that it is scientific , and does not need God. It needs only matter and blind force. Immediately after the Cretaceous of the Mesozoic age, in which only a few remains of mammals have been found, and which belonged to animals of the size of rats and mice, there Atheism in Our Universities appeared in the Tertiary of the Cenozoic age many large mammals of many kinds belonging to various orders. These were found in great abundance and were widely scattered. Among the mammals was the zeuglodon whale, seventy feet long, which existed in the Gulf of Mexico. The only known geological source from which these numerous large mammals could have been derived was the few extremely small mam¬ mals of the Cretaceous. There is no evidence that they thus originated. That this whale was evolved from some land mammal which was forced into the sea to seek its food is an as¬ sumption that evolution must accept without proof. But the stress, or the distress, of abso¬ lute necessity declares that the whale thus originated. Thus the process of evolution glides merrily along and every chasm is easily bridged with a new assumption. 8. The absence of connecting links can not be accounted for by evolution. Mr. Darwin says: “I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links be¬ tween the species which lived at the commence¬ ment and close of each formation pressed so hardly on my theory. ” If the “ transitional links’ ’ ever existed, their absence can not be accounted for. They were composed of the 57 Atheism in Our Universities I, . . 1 1., . . n t same kinds of materials as those preserved. Romanes speaks of the geological record as a “chapter of accidents,” because of the fewness of necessary connecting links. Again, Darwin says : ‘ ‘ The number, both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the number of generations which must have passed away, even during a single forma¬ tion. ’ ’ Le Conte says: “We think the fragmentari¬ ness of the geological record has been over¬ stated.” He says that there are hundreds of feet in succession of Tertiary fresh-water deposits crowded with fossils of many species and the connecting links are absent. He speaks of the absence of “connecting links” as “the greatest of all objections” to evolution. He also says: “The change is apparently by sub¬ stitution of one species for another, and not by transmutation of one species into another. So also in successive geological faunas, the change seems rather by substitution than by trans¬ mutation. ’ ’ According to Darwin and Romanes and others, the missing links far outnumber the known species , and these missing forms are simply assumed to have existed because the theory of evolution demands it. There is no escape from making this assumption. 58 Atheism in Our Universities Huxley says: “There is not a single class of vertebrated animals which, when it first appears, is represented by analogues of the lowest known members of the same class. Therefore, if there is any truth in the doctrine of evolution, every class must be vastly older than the first record of its appearance upon the surface of the globe.” In other words, there is no evidence from fossils that any one of the highly developed, oldest-known forms of vertebrates was evolved from lower forms. As stated elsewhere, if the so-called “tree of life” be considered beginning with the first organic cell as a seed and, from this, growing up and branching so as to include all animals and plants that would be necessary according to the theory of evolution, then the whole lower half would have to be erased for lack of fossils that show that it ever existed ; and nearly all of the upper half would have to be erased, thus leaving a few separated spots which show no organic connection between each other. A tree is an apt figure if evolution took place, but, as a matter of fact, it exists only in the imagination of the evolutionist. 9. Evolution of species has not been proved. Darwin’s son, in writing his father’s biogra¬ phy, says: “We can not prove that a single 59 Atheism in Our Universities species has changed/’ And yet evolutionists claim that all species have changed. Huxley wrote: “After much consideration, and with assuredly no bias against Mr. Dar¬ win’s views, it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence now stands, it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by species in nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or natural. Groups having the morpho¬ logical character of species, distinct and perma¬ nent races in fact, have been so produced over and over again; but there is no positive evi¬ dence, at present, that any group of animals has, by variation and selective breeding, given rise to another group which was even in the least degree infertile with the first.” In other words, cross-sterility between the many varie¬ ties of pigeons, which Mr. Darwin studied, was not produced. All of these varieties, however different from each other in appearance, were cross-fertile with each other, and their off¬ spring were fertile. It is admitted that if all these varieties had been turned together, they would have disappeared as varieties and a common form would have resulted. Nature has no method to produce cross¬ sterility between varieties. But cross-sterility between groups of animals, known as species, is the rule. According to the theory of evolu- 50 Atheism in Our Universities tion, these species, which are now cross-sterile, were evolved from varieties which were cross- fertile. There was no other source from which to get them. The fact is that cross-sterility be¬ tween varieties has not been produced nor is it known to have taken place in nature. Occa¬ sionally, closely related species cross, but their product is not fertile, as in the case of the horse and the ass. 10. Evolution has no means in a state of nature to prevent variations in individuals from being lost by merging in the common stock. If a variation occurs, it is soon lost by mingling, and the species is thus kept at a common level. Variations take place in all directions, and, by mingling these, the species is kept constant. 11. Mr. Darwin says: “In what manner the mental powers were first developed in the lowest organisms we have no conception.” He admits that the inquiry is hopeless. Herbert Spencer says: “That a unit of feel¬ ing has nothing in common with a unit of mo¬ tion, becomes more than ever manifest when we bring the two into juxtaposition/’ Evolution based on “matter, motion and force” knows nothing as to the origin of feeling. Sensation, sometimes very dull, is found in all animals. Evolutionists know not how it came. They sim¬ ply assume that it was evolved from matter and force. This assumption is to be accepted as 61 Atheism in Our Universities a fact in their assumed scientific process. Logic suffers all violence at their hands. 12. Evolution can offer nothing as to the ori¬ gin of the many complex instincts. True, Mr. Darwin has attempted to explain the origin of the highly developed instincts in the neuters of certain colonies of ants and in the neuters of the honey-bee which leave no offspring. How the many instincts in the neuter honey-bees, which leave no offspring, could have been evolved is, I think, beyond all reasonable ex¬ planation. Mr. Darwin says, in concluding his chapter on instincts: “I do not pretend that the facts given in this chapter strengthen in any great degree my theory; but none of the cases of difficulty, to the best of my judgment, annihilates it.” In referring to the difficulty of the instincts of two kinds of sterile ants in the same colony, he says : ‘ ‘ This is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered.” I have devoted a chapter to “Instincts” in my book “Organic Evolution Considered.” 13. Matter and force, the only data of the philosophy of evolution, totally fail to account for the mind of man. This philosophy is a question of origins, from beginning to end. When Mr. Darwin says, “In what manner the mental powers were first developed in the low¬ est organisms, is as hopeless an inquiry as how 62 Atheism in Our Universities life first originated/’ he simply evades two of the most important questions that are necessary parts of his theory when projected backward to a beginning. Mr. Darwin at no place in his process of creation acknowledges an intelli¬ gent God, but relies strictly upon natural proc¬ esses which are based upon matter and force. Prof. H. W. Conn says of natural selection: “But, after all, the greatest strength of the law of natural selection has been in the fact that it has furnished a natural law as a substi¬ tute for supernatural intelligence.” He under¬ stands that Darwin excludes intelligence from the whole process, and this leaves only matter and fluid force as factors. He acknowledges that he has no beginning for even the simplest mental process in the lowest animals and much less, if possible, for the faculties of the human mind. His process is atheistic. In saying this I do not mean that organic evolution might not in part be theistic, but Mr. Darwin does not make it so. He claims that man’s powers of mind differ in degree, but not in kind, from those of the lower animals. He holds that man, body and mind, has been evolved from an anthropomor¬ phous ape. I can point out only a few of the cases where man’s mental powers are not possessed by animals. Conscience belongs to man alone. No animal has it. We do not 63 Atheism in Our Universities attribute moral quality to a brute. No animal is known to suffer in conscience for any mis¬ deed. Freedom of the will to act from mo¬ tives that conscience approves, belongs to man alone. Without this freedom, there could be no conscience; that imperious word “ ought’ ’ could make no demands. Self-consciousness is possessed by man alone. He can think about his own mental conditions, compare his thoughts as if they were external objects, bring together the past, the present and, in imagination, the future, and reason about them as realities. He can realize that he is the same person, though changed, that he was in his youth. He can examine his own mental being and pass judgment upon it as if it were another person. No animal has this power. In no important sense do animals have the power to reason, compared with man’s power to carry on an extensive process of reasoning in many fields of thought. The sounds made by animals, by means of which they communi¬ cate, are not to be dignified as language by comparing them with the speech of man. Human languages, with their many thousand words, embody the thoughts of the human mind. Language embodies thought. Animals have no thoughts to embody. Their so-called language is but the instinctive expression of 64 Atheism in Our Universities their feelings. No animal can entertain an abstract idea snch as is embodied in any one of a multitude of human words. This is beyond their power. Think of the mind of a dog, horse or ape in connection with chemistry, physics, Greek, Latin, medicine, surgery, best method of farming, or any great subject, and you only smile at the thought. Universal love, the “noblest power of man,’7 is acknowledged to be beyond their ability to entertain. They do not contemplate sending relief to their kin¬ dred in China or Armenia. Man has flooded the world with tools and inventions of a million kinds for all conceivable purposes. He has modified and directed the forces of nature to utilize his inventions. It is said that an ape will sometimes use stones to crack nuts or roll them downhill against his enemies. That is all. The idea of one spiritual God — omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent — a God of universal love and holiness who condemns sin in all its forms, but who can forgive the penitent sin¬ ner, is the most comprehensive that can enter the human mind. The idea of the one spiritual God, as set forth in the first chapters of Gen¬ esis, could not have been born of the human mind, but it came as a revelation, as a light¬ ning flash from heaven to man. This idea came not by reason, by philosophy nor by science. 5 65 Atheism in Our Universities “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” is a conclusion, the greatest that was ever drawn, and without human premises. Modern materialistic philosophy, in the form of universal evolution, is no substitute for this first sentence of the Bible. All of the nations except Israel were poly¬ theists. The Greeks, with all their culture in art, literature and philosophy, did not build their civilization upon monotheism, but upon polytheism. Their civilization perished for lack of a moral basis. The Israelites, a small nation surrounded by polytheists on every hand, with the idea of the one God firmly rooted in their mind by their inspired teachers, kept on their way, as the Gulf Stream in the ocean, enduring perse¬ cutions, wars and captivities in the name of Jehovah, and so they have endured unto this day. The idea of the one God runs as a golden cord through the sixty-six books of the Bible and binds them together as one consistent whole, although these books were written through a period of hundreds of years and in widely separated regions. The idea of the existence of the one spiritual God originated in the human mind, not through matter and the blind forces of nature, but necessarily as a direct revelation from God, as set forth in the Bible. 66 Atheism in Our Universities No animal has a religions nature. It would seem superfluous to make this statement. Mr. Darwin says: ‘‘The feeling of religious devo¬ tion is a highly complex one, consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and mysterious superior, a strong sense of depen¬ dence, fear, reverence, gratitude, hope for the future, and, perhaps, other elements. No being could experience so complex an emotion until advanced in his intellectual and moral facul¬ ties to at least a moderately high level.” This confirms my statement. Prayer, praise, rever¬ ence, love, gratitude, a sense of dependence, hope, belief in a future life, consciousness of sin and forgiveness — all related to the existence of a supreme spiritual God — are beyond the powers of any animal to realize. We at once realize that we can not substitute any animal for man as a religious being. Even the lowest savages accept Christianity. Still, Mr. Darwin does, and must, claim that man as a religious being has been evolved from some animal. 14. The mind of man with a free will is not subject to the Darwinian theory of evolution as applied to organisms. Continuous genetic descent must exist among animals if the theory of evolution is true. Unbroken physical con¬ tinuity must have existed between any living species and the first living thing from which the process of evolution started. Continuity 67 Atheism in Our Universities must exist, otherwise the process ends where continuity is broken. There can be no continuity between the mental actions of minds that have free will. Thoughts are not inherited. If they were all inherited, the individual could not advance beyond his parents. Neither does the in¬ dividual obtain all his ideas from his contem¬ poraries, for the world is full of improvements and inventions that represent original thought. Men are under obligations to their fellow-men for much thought, but their individual efforts often lead them far beyond what they receive from their fellows. The history of the world is a history of human thought in all fields of effort. This, for lack of continuity, can not be regarded as evolution. There has been continual change, sometimes progress, but these alone do not con¬ stitute evolution. Genetic continuity can easily be traced in case of real evolution of organic forms, but no such continuity can exist in the case of free mental action. Evolution and freedom of the will are incompatible. 15. Evolution founded on matter and force alone, and that theistic evolution which confines God to naturalism, eliminates the Bible as the book of authority in religion by denying every¬ thing that is supernatural. Miracles, revela¬ tions and objective answers to prayer could 68 Atheism in Our Universities not have taken place by the so-called scientific method. It was not by the process of evolution that God called Abraham, that He called to Moses out of the burning bush, that He gave to Moses the Ten Commandments on the mount, that He sent down fire on Elijah’s altar in answer to prayer, or that He healed Naaman when he had dipped himself seven times in the river Jordan. It was not by the scientific process of evolution that the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Virgin Mary, so that she conceived and bore a son. It was not by evolution that Jesus turned water into wine, gave sight to the blind, cleansed lepers, raised the young man alive from the bier, and called forth Lazarus from the tomb. It was not by evolution that the Holy Spirit descended in the bodily form of a dove at Christ’s baptism, and that a voice from heaven announced, “This is my beloved Son.” It was not evolution when, on the mount of transfiguration, a voice was heard saying, 1 ‘ This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.” The body of Christ was not raised from the dead by the “scientific” process of evolution. Miracles not being possible as a part of the universal process of evolution, there was noth¬ ing miraculous in the birth of Christ, and, consequently, He was only a man, and had not 69 Atheism in Our Universities all authority in heaven and on earth; there being no miracles, Christ’s body did not rise from the dead, and He, not having arisen from the dead, did not associate with His disciples forty days, nor did He command His apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. On the day of Pentecost, the apostles did not speak with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance, nor did Christ speak to Paul when he was converted, nor did any of the apostles perform the miracles that are recorded of them. Christ, according to this theory, was only a man who came by evolution. The confession of Him as the Son of God can not mean that He is Deity. The shedding of His blood, baptism and the Lord’s Supper have no authority except that of a man. Forgive¬ ness of sins could not take place according to this theory, for nature’s laws are all merciless. Man “fell up” and not down. He does not sin, but only makes mistakes and needs no forgiveness. Man, being under the dominion of law, has no free will and so ought not to have a conscience. But the fact that he has a conscience is un¬ mistakable evidence that his will is free. Our own self-consciousness confirms this beyond all arguments to the contrary. No logic can defeat the validity of the conclusions of our own consciousness. 70 Atheism in Our Universities The supernatural, that which nature can not perform according to any known laws, is a dominant idea throughout the Bible. The natural and the supernatural are not identical. Science has a natural basis only; the religion of the Bible contains a large supernatural ele¬ ment. There can he no conflict between true science and true religion , for God is the author of both. The difficulty arises when naturalism attempts to usurp the whole field, by claiming that it is the only method by which God works, 71 VI. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONNAIRE By Chancellor David Starr Jordan and Dr. Ray Leman Wilbur, of Leland Stanford University. HE following is a copy of the letter which 1 was sent to Chancellor Jordan, accompany¬ ing the questionnaire. The letter is substantial¬ ly the same as those sent out to the other university presidents whose answers are con¬ tained in this volume, and will not be repeated in considering each answer: Lexington, Ky., June 12, 1920. Chancellor David Starr Jordan, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif. Dear Sir: — I have been making inquiry for the pur¬ pose of obtaining reliable information as to the status of the subject of Darwinism or any doctrine of evolu¬ tion in our educational system. A number of the super¬ intendents of public instruction and presidents of normal schools have written to me on the subject. From their answers, I infer that Darwinism, or some other theory of evolution, is commonly accepted and taught in prac¬ tically all of our high schools, normal schools, colleges and universities. There does not, however, seem to be 72 Atheism in Our Universities agreement as to the meaning of the word ‘ 1 evolution. ’ ’ For the purpose of obtaining a correct definition especially, I write to you and a number of others. Alfred Fairhurst. Chancellor Jordan strikes out the word 4 ‘ other’ ’ before 4 ‘ theory/ * inserts the word “organic” between “of” and “evolution,” and inserts the words “including it” after the word “evolution.” He then says: “Darwin¬ ism is evolution by natural selection, a constant factor among living beings, but not the sole one. ’ ’ Again he says : “ I do not like to use the word ‘evolution/ Organic evolution, planetary evolution, topographic evolution, have different meanings. Whenever time elapses, change appears, and this may always be called evolu¬ tion.” Questionnaire with Jordan’s answers: 1. Is Cope’s statement that “ evolution is the science of creation” correct? Answer — ‘ 1 A good epigram. ’ ’ 2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution “is (1) continuous, progressive change; (2) according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of resident forces,” correct? Answer — Chancellor Jordan inserts between the words “forces” and “correct” the words “and their re¬ actions to external conditions.” He says: “A law is merely the ascertained succession of events.” 3. Is not evolution a univeisal process, beginning in the inorganic world and flowing as a continuous stream through the ages, including all material and psycho¬ logical changes that have taken place or that will take 73 Atheism in Our Universities place in the future? In other words, is it not the one universal process? the one universal science? Answer — “It may be, as philosophically considered. But as causes, effects and modes of operation in organic beings are wholly unlike those of world production, mountain-forming and the like, there is much chance of self-deception in uniting the two types.’ ’ 4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science, or only a theory? Answer — “Assuredly a matter of scientific knowl¬ edge, if the word is not too much diluted. ’’ 5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution consistent with the miracles commonly attributed to Christ in the New Testament? Answer — ‘ ‘ The doctrine of evolution is not con¬ cerned ; the conflict is with common experience. ‘ Science and religion must each run its course; I am not responsi¬ ble if the meeting-point be far away. ’ — Darwin. ’ * 6. What, in your opinion, has been, and what will be, the effect of the teaching of evolution in our public schools on the commonly accepted teachings of the New Testament? In what way must this teaching be modified? Answer — ‘ 1 The teaching of evolution is only com¬ mon sense and common experience expanded. I take it that the essence of the teaching of Jesus does not lie in the recorded miracles. ’’ 7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolution ac¬ cepted and taught in the university of which you are chancellor? Answer — “To the same extent as the doctrine of gravitation. The living questions relate to the details, on many of which, for lack of complete evidence, there is much difference of opinion. In both cases any other theory consistent with the facts would be given equal 74 Atheism in Our Universities credence. All theory is provisional. But one could no more return to the idea of separate creation of species than to the old idea of planets steered through space in the hands of angels.” David Stakr j0RDAN. (In behalf also of Dr. Bay Leman Wilbur.) I think that Chancellor Jordan is correct when he says: “I do not like to use the word ‘ evolution. ’ Organic evolution, planetary evo¬ lution, topographic evolution, have different meanings. Whenever time elapses, change appears, and this may always be called evolu¬ tion. ’ ’ There is much confusion in the minds of those who accept the theory as to what the word “evolution” means. I think that the word is used largely to indicate the changes that have taken place in time without reference to causes or methods. It is easy to understand how this definition can be accepted, and with- out much thought. Most people seem to think that when they accept the above idea they are “up to date,” and especially that they have the “dynamic,” which is opposed to the “static,” theory of creation. As a matter of fact, every one must accept the idea that, as time has elapsed, changes have continually taken place in both the dead and the living worlds. The fact of change is not the whole of evolution. The fundamental question is one of 75 Atheism in Our Universities cause and method. Can science and scientific methods explain the present order of things? In “Evolution and Animal Life,” by Jor¬ dan and Kellogg (p. 1), it is stated: “This volume treats of the elements of the science of organic evolution. This science belongs to the con¬ sideration of the forces which govern the changes in organisms. It includes the influences which control development in the individual and in the species which is the succession of individuals, together with the laws or observed sequences of events which development ex¬ hibits. Prom another point of view, this is the science of life — adaptation. ’ ’ In the above quotation, Chancellor Jordan claims that organic evolution is a science. He also claims that the principal thing involved in the study of this science is “the considera¬ tion of the forces which govern the changes in organisms.” In reading the volume, however, I have failed to see what forces are involved in organic evolution. The word “bionomics,” first suggested by Prof. Patrick Geddes, is preferred by the authors to “organic evolution.” To quote further: “To use the word ‘ evolution * in regard to this proc¬ ess, is to use a philosophic term in connection with a group of scientific facts. For the word ‘ evolution* means ‘unrolling.’ It carries the thought that some¬ thing which was previously hidden is now brought to light. This naturally leads to the philosophic sugges- 76 Atheism in Our Universities tion that whatever is evolved must be previously in¬ volved. This may be true as a matter of words, but not necessarily so as a matter of fact. ‘‘The word ‘evolution,’ then, belongs to philosophy, rather than to science. In the philosophy of nature the idea that present conditions are brought about through unrolling or unveiling has had a long existence. The word ‘evolution’ has been frequently applied to the process of growth and maturity of the individual plant, and again to the process of the derivation of species from ancestral organisms, and again to the progressive changes in the forms of inorganic bodies, as planets or mountains. Each one of these meanings is essentially distinct from the others, and each is distinct from the theory of evolution which existed in the dawn of bio¬ logical science. “Biological evolution and cosmic evolution are not the same (p. 6). They are not true identities, because not arising from the same causes. It is not clear that science has been really advanced through the conception of the essential unity of organic evolution and cosmic evolution. . . . The laws which govern living matter are in a large extent peculiar to the process of living.’’ From the above it is seen that the word * * evolution ’ ’ is a philosophic term. It is in¬ correctly used in all of its applications. Few words in the English language have been so widely and joyfully received as the word “ evolution.’ ’ It seems to many to be the uni¬ versal panacea that explains all events. It can be applied at any time and in any place in the universe, yielding perfect results. Some of the answers which I have received to my 77 Atheism in Our Universities questions indicate almost a hilarious condition of mind from the use of the word “evolution.” It is a conjure word to be hung as an amulet from the neck, ready for immediate use in all emergencies. Men use it without having any true conception as to what it means. They seem to think that it has an invariable mean¬ ing, when, in fact, it has a variety of meanings in the various fields to which it is applied. The word always implies the question of causes that are unseen, and, for the most part, beyond the power of science to trace, and yet it is generally defined by visible physical results. In my book entitled “Theistie Evolution,” I have called attention to some of the various senses in which the word is used. It is evident, I think, that when we properly discriminate between the various parts of cosmic, or universal, evolution, we can readily see that there is no genetic connection between them — that the one has not grown out of the other, according to any known or ascertainable laws. Chancellor Jordan, in the book cited (p. 11), speaking of bionomics, or organic evolu¬ tion, says: “This theory is now the central axis of all bio¬ logical investigation in all its branches from ethics to histology, from anthropology to bacteriology.” 78 Atheism in Our Universities Also (p. 49) he says: “The days are now by when the truth or falsity of the law of organic descent is a debatable thesis. ’ } He has spoken of organic evolution as a science, but in the above he speaks of it as a theory that reigns supreme in considering the organic world, and in the last quotation he in¬ dicates his belief that the evidence in favor of this theory is conclusive. Again he says: “Organic evolution, or bionomics, is one of the most comprehensive of all the sciences, including in its subject-matter not only natural history, not only proc¬ esses like cell division and nutrition, not only the laws of heredity, variation, segregation, natural selection and mutual help, but all matters of human history and the most complicated relations of civics, economics and ethics. , * The above definition of “organic evolution ” comprehends the entire organic world, both physical and psychological, all human history. It would account for the origin of all species, for man’s body and his mind as well. As a logical necessity, the theory must be projected backward from living things into the inorganic world, and, as pure science, which it claims to be, accept Spencer’s data — “matter, motion and force.” With these alone, it makes but limping, 79 Atheism in Our Universities halting progress along the upward road of a hypothetical evolution. In traveling this road it soon becomes evi¬ dent that one is chasing a theory that calls for facts that do not exist — a philosophy whose base hangs over a vacuum. Chancellor Jordan, in the book cited (p. 70), says : “Finally, we ought not to suppose that we have al¬ ready reached a satisfactory solution of the evolution problem, or are indeed near such a solution.’ ’ “We must not conceal from ourselves the fact,” says Roux, “that the causal investiga¬ tion of organisms is one of the most difficult problems which the human intellect has at¬ tempted to solve.” Again, he says with regard to organic evolution : “After some years of controversy, mostly theoretical, the discussion has been tacitly dropped by biologists generally. It is recognized that the sole critical test is that of experiment, etc.” (p. 197). The discussion that has been dropped is as to method, but the “consensus of the opinion” of biologists is that organic evolution is a fact. The proof of this fact must depend on experi¬ ment. Evolution is to have the “critical test” of experiment. In the meantime, however, it is 80 Atheism in Our Universities to be accepted as a fact. It would seem that judgment might have been suspended till the “critical test’7 had been satisfactorily made. The attitude of suspended judgment in doubt¬ ful cases would be most wholesome, but, if it prevailed in this case, the acceptance of the theory would be, if ever, in the distant future. The theory of evolution, as held by many, is an effort by naturalism to preside at the funeral of supernaturalism, which it has murdered. Chancellor Jordan 7s Answer to Question Five. Question — Is the scientific doctrine of evolution con¬ sistent with the miracles commonly attributed to Christ in the New Testament? Answer — 1 1 The doctrine of evolution is not con¬ cerned. The conflict is with common experience. ( Science and religion must each run its course; I am not responsi¬ ble if the meeting-point be far away.’ — Darwin It is easy to understand that known facts of science are “not concerned77 with miracles, for the one involves only the natural, while the other involves the supernatural. It is the business of science to make certain her facts, and religion, which appeals to the supernatural, must harmonize with known facts of science. But when the writer says, “This conflict is with common experience,77 he seems to “beg 6 81 Atheism in Our Universities the question.’ 9 This old way of disposing of miracles by saying that they are opposed to human experience has not been accepted as a satisfactory solution. Mr. Darwin’s statement that “science and religion must each run its course; I am not responsible if the meeting-point be far away,” seems to indicate that he was not much con¬ cerned as to the bearing of his theory on the Christian religion. Yet the vital and all-im¬ portant question which evolution raises is : Can the supernatural, in the Christian sense, survive in its presence? Chancellor Jordan says: “All processes in the universe are alike natural. . . . All are alike supernatural, for they all rest on the huge unseen solidity of the universe, the im¬ perishability of matter, the conservation of energy and the immanence of law” (“Evolu¬ tion and Animal Life,” Jordan and Kellogg — p. 9). The author makes no distinction between the natural and the supernatural. This places the Bible and the Christian religion on a pure¬ ly naturalistic basis — they are made simply human inventions. Effect on Teachings of New Testament. Question 6 — Wliat, in your opinion, has been, and ■what will be, the effect of the teaching of evolution in our public schools on the commonly accepted teachings 82 Atheism in Our Universities of the New Testament? In what way must this teach¬ ing be modified? Answer — ■* ‘ The teaching of evolution is only common sense and common experience expanded. I take it that the essence of the teaching of Jesus does not lie in the recorded miracles. ’ ’ The above question is most vital, because it involves the life of the Christian religion. We have been careful to exclude the Bible from our public schools, and yet, in our igno¬ rance, we permit a theory to be taught that destroys the Bible as a book of authority by denying miracles, revelations and what the Christian regards as supernatural. I have sent the above list of questions to the heads of the leading universities in the United States, in¬ cluding presidents of State universities, and have received answers from many of them. Question 4 is: “Is evolution to be regarded as a science, or only a theory?” The great ma¬ jority of answers by the presidents or their representatives are that it is a “theory.” A theory is not a science. The theory of evolu¬ tion is the greatest, the most comprehensive, that the mind of man has grappled with. It is an all-comprehensive theory of naturalism, that eliminates the God of the Bible, or forces Him into the background. This theory can have no place for the Lord’s Prayer, for the cross or the resurrection. Its God, if it 83 Atheism in Our Universities acknowledges a God, is not “Our Father who art in heaven. ” In no respect can He be a Father — a God of love and mercy. He does not see the sparrow fall, nor the individual, but, at most, He presides, through His laws, over the destiny of the race. It is indeed amazing that the theory of evolution, over which many master minds have exhausted their powers without coming to an agreement, should be taught with approval in many of our public schools and in most higher institutions of learning. The vast scope of the theory is not compre¬ hended by most teachers. The average evolu¬ tionist is a dogmatist of the strictest type. To him there is but one side to the theory. What he knows on the subject has been pumped into him mechanically. The books that he has read are all on one side. These books are conclusive. To him there is no other side. He says: “I agree with consensus of the opinion of men of science.” I am told that in the Ohio State University library there are from two to three hun¬ dred volumes advocating evolution, and only two or three volumes against it. This repre¬ sents the kind of honesty that “stuffs the ballot-box.” Why can not men of science be honest ? Why may not both sides be pre¬ sented by the teacher? Why place the books 84 Atheism in Our Universities of all leading evolutionists in the library and leave out all which oppose evolution? This university library needs renovating on the sub¬ ject of evolution. I have written to the libra¬ rians of ten of the leading universities asking how many books in their libraries favor and how many oppose the theory of evolution, but have received no information, except from two, who state that they are well supplied with books on the subject. I have no positive in¬ formation as to the kind of books on this subject in the libraries of universities, but I suspect that the condition of Ohio State University represents the condition of many of them. Some time ago I was present at a class of about seventy-five young men and young women, when a professor of zoology lectured on the subject of evolution. In fine style he trotted out the little four-toed Eohippus and the other hippuses of succeeding periods to prove that the modern horse had been evolved. I exclaimed in mind : Give the Eohippus a rest ! The loss of a toe, if granted, does not show how he got that toe by evolution. If you want to tackle the real problem, show how the horse got his toes, beginning with animals that had no toes, nor legs, etc. — back, back to the pri¬ mordial cell. The professor regarded the loss of toes as good evidence of evolution. 85 Atheism in Our Universities warm A young woman in the class asked whether the theory of evolution was consistent with the Christian’s idea of God or not. To this the professor replied, in substance: “It makes no difference to me whether there is a God or not.” The public who employ teachers have a right to know what they teach. Does it accord with the genius of our Government or with our Christian civilization for a professor to pro¬ claim his atheism to a class of young men and women in a State university? Is this to be accepted as a part of our educational sys¬ tem ? Are citizens voluntarily giving their money to support such teaching? Who is responsible for the appointment and retention of this class of professors on our Faculties? As a rule, the president of an in¬ stitution selects the teachers. I know not who does this at Ohio State University. Is it true in this country, as it has been especially in Germany, that, on the ground of “academic freedom,” a man may proclaim his atheism or any other doctrine, however damnable to morals and to the Christian re¬ ligion, and be secure from public criticism? Can any moral or religious qualifications be demanded of one before he is permitted to teach in our public institutions? No President of the United States or pub¬ lic official in a high place has, so far as I know, 86 Atheism in Our Universities dared to proclaim that he is an atheist. I take it that our national motto (“In God we trust”) is not entirely void of meaning to the majority of our people. Think of the spectacle, if you can, of a teacher, a product of a modern university, who has been dogmatically taught the theory of evolution as a science, who has sat at the feet of professors who have presented a one-sided view of the theory, but who have failed to present any objections to it. Think of this dogmatic fledgeling, with his brand-new Ph.D., standing before a class of boys and girls pour¬ ing his dogmatic teaching on evolution into their minds, which are like empty buckets ready to receive whatever is poured into them by a teacher. This theory, this naturalistic philosophy of the universe, is being insin¬ uated into the minds of our young people by dogmatic teachers, who know not what they do. One who had been a student in Ohio State University said to me: “Three-fourths of the professors in the university are atheists, and the other fourth are agnostics and Christians.’ ’ This I took to be an exaggeration, but it in¬ dicated a certain condition. Another who had been a student there said that a considerable number of the professors in that institution were agnostics and atheists. If such impres- 87 Atheism in Our Universities sions were made on these two students of good ability, what must have been the impression left upon the thousands of students in atten¬ dance ? I have noticed recently in print that this institution is proposing to give special atten¬ tion to the Y. M. C. A. A good house-cleaning would be a great help to the Y. M. C. A. workers. It will become more and more evident as I proceed in considering the answers to my ques¬ tions by various men that the fundamental difficulty in our educational system has its center in our greatest educational institutions. Not that the heads of our universities are in¬ tentionally adverse to that which is true and good, but that a good deal of the teaching is committed to those who do not wield the proper influence to mold sterling character. The modern rage is science and the “scientific method,” and especially evolution (falsely so called in most cases) running through the whole curriculum. In chemistry and physics there are many known facts and some theories, and we may speak of these as branches of physical science. In biology are some facts and endless theories, all of which are claimed by many to be science. The theory of organic evolution has become the backbone of all bio¬ logical teaching, and the false impression is 88 Atheism in Our Universities made by those who teach it that the theory is established science. It should be remembered that organic evolution is only a necessary part of cosmic evolution, and that the latter tries to account for conditions in all times and all places in the universe. Mr. Darwin began organic evolution with a few forms half-way up in the scale of organiza¬ tion, such as are found in the primordial period. But he had no logical right to begin there unless he projected his theory backward in time, to account for the evolution of the forms with which he began. It is admitted by evolutionists that the first living thing must have originated by evolution, if the theory is true. The following is an accepted fact, stated by Chancellor Jordan and other biologists: “All life comes from life.” But the theory of evolution, which, as science, accepts only mat¬ ter and force as the immediate data of all things, must include spontaneous generation as a part of her process. They were the only data in the world before life appeared, and men are still looking to “resident forces” to account for the origin of life. But they look in vain. Jordan and Kellogg say: “Finally, we may refer briefly to the ‘grand problem’ of the ori¬ gin of life itself. Any treatment of this ques- * 89 Atheism in Our Universities tion is bound to be wholly theoretical. We do not know a single positive thing about it.” E. D. Cope says: “Failure of the attempts to demonstrate spontaneous generation, if con¬ tinued, is fatal to this theory.” Professor Tyndall’s nearly a thousand ex¬ periments with organic infusion led him to conclude that life comes only from life. Darwin said: “The inquiry as to how life first appeared is hopeless.” Professor Conn says: “With all our re¬ search, the essence and origin of life has thus far eluded our grasp.” Again, he says that the simplest living thing is a cell, and that a cell is not simply a chemical compound, protoplasm, but an ex¬ tremely complex organism of “many parts act¬ ing in adjustment to each other. . . . The more it is studied, the more complex it appears. It acts rather as a machine. ... So far as we know, unorganized protoplasm does not exist. The properties of life seem to be manifested in nothing simpler than the organic cell.” The question of spontaneous generation is not simply chemical, but it involves the pro¬ duction also of a very complex organism in which life can manifest itself. The theory of universal evolution necessarily includes spontaneous generation, of which there is no evidence. A theory which must assume 90 Atheism in Our Universities an impossibility can not be “science.” This assumption is the beginning-point of organic evolution. The question may be asked: “Why not say that God created the first living thing?” For God to have done this would have been a miracle, a supernatural event, and science deals only with natural forces, and can not include a miracle as a part of her process. As Haeckel rightly says: “To admit one miracle opens the way to other miracles.” This all-inclusive theory of scientific evolu¬ tion, as it is claimed, assumes that the natural forces at its command are the only forces in the universe, and it claims that there can be no manifestation of supernatural power other than by natural processes. The assumption that the so-called scientific method is universal can not be proved. Science can not grasp all the processes of the universe. The theoretical high¬ way is broken in pieces by many impassable gulfs. Chancellor Jordan, in answering my sixth question, says: “The teaching of evolution is only common sense and common experience expanded.” As to what is meant by “common sense” in teaching the subject of evolution in our public schools I have already expressed my opinion. As to whether the “common sense” of teachers in our secondary schools, for 91 Atheism in Our Universities example, will enable teachers honestly and fully to present the subject or not, and whether these schools are proper places or not, may well claim Chancellor Jordan’s earnest consideration. Is it not true that what the pupils would get would be a few facts on one side of the subject, presented in a dogmatic way, and practically nothing on the other side ? The result of this kind of teaching is inevitable — harmful, useless, unscientific. There is enough real science of practical importance to occupy all the time of pupils in secondary schools. The teaching of evolution ought, in my opinion, to be excluded (by law, if necessary) from all public schools below the universities, and in the colleges and universities it ought to be taught honestly and fully to the select few who have the ability to comprehend it in all its bearings. Chancellor Jordan says: 4 ‘The teaching of evolution is only common sense and common experience expanded.” Organic evolution, if it has taken place, extends back over millions of years, while our “expanded experience,” at most, reaches back but a few years. When we see a living horse, we are absolutely certain that it had two living parents. And, by our various experiences with animals and plants, we conclude that life comes only from life. 92 Atheism in Our Universities This rule applied to the ancestors of living things would lead us into an endless past, and compel us to state that living things always existed in the world. But we know that life had a beginning here. The statement that living things always existed is squarely con¬ tradicted, if our experience could reach back to the first living thing. Our ‘‘experience ex¬ panded’ * knows nothing of the origin of a single species of the probable millions that exist and have existed in past ages. Nor does this “experience” reveal to us any method by which nature could render cross-sterile closely related varieties so that they could become millions of species. An impassable barrier has been erected at this point which no plausible theory explains. Varieties under domestica¬ tion, preserved by man’s selection, would soon cease to be varieties in a state of nature where all would be free to mingle. Man propagates varieties by selecting and separating, but na¬ ture obliterates varieties by mingling. Under domestication there is no struggle for existence, and, consequently, the law of natural selection does not apply. In a word, I may say that our “experience expanded” does not extend far enough along the road of evolution to help it over the most difficult points. “Experience expanded” by imagination will serve the purpose. 93 Atheism in Our Universities Question Seven. Question 7 — To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ tion accepted and taught in the university of which you are chancellor? Answer — “To the same extent as the doctrine of gravitation. The living questions relate to the details, on many of which, for lack of complete evidence, there is much difference of opinion. In both cases any other theory consistent with the facts would be given equal credence. All theory is provisional. But one could no more return to the idea of the separate creation of species than to the old idea of planets steered through space in the hands of angels. ’* No one doubts the truth of the laws of gravitation. Every teacher accepts them as firmly established. And so every teacher is to accept and teach organic evolution as estab¬ lished beyond question. No further proof of it as a fact is needed. The case has been closed in its favor, the verdict has been delivered, and there is no possibility of a suc¬ cessful appeal. The professor is not called upon to prove the fact of evolution. He has only to build upon the sure foundation, and to go forward with no uncertain footsteps ! Shades of Sir William Dawson, who spent much of his life in combating this theory, which is being widely heralded as an established fact! And what shall we say of Agassiz, America’s leading zoologist; of George Frederick Wright, a geologist of world-wide reputation, and of 94 Atheism in Our Universities a large number of others who maintained that evolution is only a theory unestablished? It is inevitable, I take it, that when ‘ ‘ Evolu¬ tion and Animal Life,” by Jordan and Kellogg, is used as a text, and I presume it is in Stan¬ ford University, that the students accept the theory that it advocates. Above, it is said: “Any other theory consistent wfith the facts would be given credence.” This is a fair statement, but, as a matter of fact, could it be expected that students in classes would be able to present any other theory? Is it not a fact that the student in a case of this kind is at the mercy of the teacher? A theory that rests on so sure a foundation as the laws of gravitation is certain to be more or less dog¬ matically taught. The evidence in favor of it is magnified, and that opposed is touched upon lightly or omitted. The theory of organic evolution, as is ad¬ mitted by evolutionists, necessarily includes the origin of the first living thing. Without life he has nothing with which to begin the living process. As to spontaneous generation, Chancellor Jordan says: “We do not know a single positive thing about it. . . . All life comes from life. . . . The biologist can not ad¬ mit spontaneous generation in the face of the scientific evidence he has. On the other hand, lie has difficulty in understanding how life 95 Atheism in Our Universities could have originated in any other way than through some transformation from in¬ organic matter.7’ He does not understand it in that way. Naturalism being his sole method, he must accept spontaneous genera¬ tion. “It is not clear that science has been really advanced through the conception of the essen¬ tial unity of organic and cosmic evolution.7 7 Certainly the claims of organic evolution, which is posing under the name of “the scien¬ tific method,” would be much relieved if it did not have to begin in the mineral world. Mr. Darwin cut various Gordian knots when he began half-way up in the animal kingdom and assumed spontaneous generation and the evolution of sub-kingdoms, etc. There is no proof as to how a star-fish, a snail, a spider or a fish came into existence by the process of evolution. None as to the origin of sex, wings of various kinds, legs, eyes of numerous kinds, or of any other of the various organs of the body. Feeling, instincts, mind with its many powers — these are all assumed to have origi¬ nated by the “scientific process” of evolution. We are told that the fact that these things have been brought about in this way is as cer¬ tain as the laws of gravitation. This being true, how is the pressure of “ science ” to be resisted ? 96 Atheism in Our Universities Evolution is a theory that assumes every¬ thing of importance. That this theory, which is broken into a thousand fragments by im¬ passable gulfs that cross its pathway, should be called “scientific” is beyond same thinking. In organic evolution there must be an un¬ broken line of generic continuity among organ¬ isms, so that any living form, if we knew its ancestors, could be traced back to the first living thing with which the process began. The genetic continuity that is necessary in the physical organisms of the organic world is equally necessary in the psychological world, but we have no evidence of its existence there. All human history in which the actions of many millions of human minds have had their part as, to a large extent, independent units, is not an illustration of evolution. There is a lack of continuity in the thinking of differ¬ ent minds. The cotton-gin was the invention of Whitney, the sewing-machine of Howe, the steamboat of Fulton, the telegraph of Morse, and the telephone of Bell. There was no con¬ tinuity of thought conveyed by other people to each of these inventors, but their inventions represent their own original, individual thoughts in each case. It is true that in each case the inventor used the results of the labor of other minds, but his invention involved original material not contributed by other 7 97 Atheism in Our Universities minds. And so the millions of inventions fail to show continuity in the mental world. The freedom of the human will to choose and to exe¬ cute forbids mental continuity. The human mind would be a mere machine if its actions were all dictated by others. Its supremacy rests upon the fact that it is free. Men talk about evolution in human history. History is made by the mind of man. To be sure, there has been progress, but this progress can not properly be called evolution, because of the lack of genetic continuity. The progress all along the line is due to new, original thoughts of individual minds — thoughts which have not been contributed by others, and, consequently, are beyond the scope of evolution. Human history is not a fit field for the word “ evolu¬ tion. ” When thus used, it forsakes the mean¬ ing that it has in organic evolution. The word “history” alone will express the thought. I presume that the word “evolution” is used, in history and other fields, because it claims to involve natural causes only. A per¬ fect “philosophy of history” would involve at least a knowledge of the complete psychology of the principal characters involved. No prophet could have foretold the action of the principal minds that precipitated the re¬ cent World War. None could foresee the re¬ sults of the mental operations of the German 98 Atheism in Our Universities Emperor — self-centered, vain, overly ambitious, with greatly magnified views as to his place in the world’s affairs. With a mind half insane, thirsting for dominion, believing in the al- mightiness of the machine of death and con¬ quest that he had put in motion, he stood upon the portico of the Potsdam Palace and told the people that the war would be short, that his victorious hosts would return with flying banners when the leaves fell in the coming autumn. (