we have but little concern, our object being to inquire what, if any, foundation in fact there is for the basic theory. If that falls, the auxiliary factors must of necessity fall with it.

According to Mr. Herbert Spencer, the leading exponent of the theory, evolutionary changes are of three principal sorts: (1) a change from a less coherent to a more coherent state; (2) a change from a more homogeneous to a less homogeneous state; (3) a change from a less definite to a more definite state.

Le Conte defines Evolution as "(1) continuous progressive change, (2) according to fixed laws, (3) by means of resident forces."

It is important to note the expression "resident forces," which excludes the idea of a Creator acting in or upon the universe.

Such is the theory in its broad outlines; and it is evident that thus far it is wholly imaginative and speculative, every essential feature being assumed without a particle of proof. Indeed it may be clearly seen that the theory is self-contradictory, as in assuming that (under the supposed conditions) latent heat could discharge so as to permit concentration to take place, when there were no cooler regions into which it could discharge.

Further it is self-evident that the action of Infinite Wisdom and Power would be as much needed for the creation of the supposed Matter and Force, with their supposed capacity for development and diversification, as for the creation of separate elements, compounds, and living species. In fact both Darwin and his co-laborer Wallace had to admit that it was necessary to concede, at various points in the supposed evolution of the world, as well as at the starting point, the working of an outside power, a power not resident in matter. From this admission it follows that there is nothing "unscientific" in the doctrine of Creation by an intelligent Creator.

"Cosmic"
and "Organic"
Evolution

Nature is seen to exist in two great departments, one comprising things having life, the other things not having life. The former is the "organic" department of nature, the latter the "inorganic." Between these two departments is an impassable gulf. Evolutionists have to concede this; for as Mr. Huxley said, "The present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the not-living.'

This is a fatal admission; for assuredly, if the entire organic kingdom emerged out of the inorganic, there would be innumerable "links" between the two. It is simply impossible that all traces of such a stupendous transformation should have been obliterated.

To accommodate the theory to this state of the division of nature, Evolution has been correspondingly divided into "Organic Evolution" and "Inorganic" or "Cosmic Evolution.' Thus we have, at present, two distinct Evolutions, each rigidly confined to its own department of nature. The original Evolution, which evolved living creatures out of inanimate matter, no longer exists. It has gone entirely out of business, and has ceased to exist from the time, whenever it was, that the world of living creatures was separated, by an impassable barrier, from the not-living. It would follow that Evolution is not what it once was. Having once crossed the line which separates the living from the not-living it has lost the power to do so again.

Cosmic Cosmic Evolution, or Evolution as it is Evolution supposed to operate in the universe at large the starry heavens, the earth and sea and air-calls for but brief notice in this article. Proof of the existence, either now or in past ages, of any such "law" as that of Evolution, is altogether lacking. Suffice it, therefore, to say that if, anywhere in the universe, at any stage of its existence, undif

ferentiated matter has been gradually transformed by means of resident forces, into the various substances of earth, sea, and sky, with their widely different and often antagonistic properties, there has never been discovered by mortal man the shadow of a shade of a proof thereof. The results of all investigations that have been made up to the present hour bear accordant witness to the fact that stability of forms and of the properties of inorganic substances, is the fixed rule of nature. Those who accept the idea of Cosmic Evolution must needs do so without any evidence whatever to support it, for none exists.

Organic How then stands the case with respect to Evolution "Organic Evolution"? Is it any better supported than "Cosmic Evolution" In this field it will be necessary to make a closer examination of facts and phenomena; for living creatures do undergo changes. In fact their existence is one of continuous change.

What characterizes the organic department of nature is the existence of individuals, each living an independent life of its own, and each having its own life-history. Each of these individual organisms comes suddenly into being; it goes through various stages of growth until maturity is reached; it reproduces its kind; it declines and suddenly ceases to exist. This is what we find throughout the entire organic field. But there is nothing in the inorganic department of nature which even remotely resembles this life-story of individuals. That field will be searched in vain for anything out of which the details of the organic world, comprising several millions of species, each with an infinitude of structural and other peculiarities, could conceivably have been evolved. Yet, the theory of Evolution, as an universal or cosmic process, requires us to believe that the entire organic world emerged, at some past era, from the inorganic.

Surely, if such were indeed the case, then the latter would contain abundant evidences thereof, showing how individual entities, with their characteristic lifechanges, came into existence. And not only so, but we should also find everywhere inorganic groupings of atoms gradually reaching forth towards organic existence; and most certainly it would be possible by laboratory methods to transform the one into the other.

Due notice should also be taken of the striking fact that the beginning of the existence of each living creature is sudden, that its term of life is short, and that its changes are rapid. Whereas Evolution requires a very gradual coming into existence, exceedingly long histories, and changes of prodigious slowness. The fact then is that, in the field of the living, as in that of the not-living, there is no evidence whatever in support of evolution; but on the contrary every fact and phenomenon cognizable by the senses strongly contradicts that theory. This will become more and more apparent as we proceed.

Breaks in the
Continuity

CHAPTER II

As we trace in imagination the supposed course of evolution from its assumed beginning in undifferentiated matter onward and upward to the infinite diversities of the organic kingdom, we not only encounter difficulties at every step and in connection with every detail, but we also find certain gaps, deep and wide, for which evolutionists themselves can offer no definite explanation. The first and greatest of these is the gap between the living and the not-living. The entire world of living creatures is assumed to have emerged, sometime and somehow, and through "resident forces," out of the inorganic realm. Yet no trace of this marvellous process remains, and the inorganic world exhibits no progressiveness at all, no power or disposition to advance one hair's breadth.

The next gap is that between the vegetable and animal kingdoms. If the latter, in its entirety, arose out of the former through gradual and infinitesimal changes, no trace of that marvellous development remains; nor can there be found in the vegetable kingdom anything from which the characteristic features of animal life could be evolved.

Next we encounter the great gap between the vertebrates and the invertebrates; then that between the mammals and other vertebrates; then the gaps between each of the two million or so of distinct species of organisms and every other; and finally the immense gap between Man and the highest of the brutes.

In considering these great gaps, and the many lesser ones, it should be borne in mind that Evolution is set forth expressly as a theory of origins, that is to say,