as an explanation of how all the infinite varieties of things, living and not-living, came into existence. But origins, including those of the very broadest kind, are just what the theory conspicuously fails to explain. Thus, to begin with, the evolutionist makes no pretence that his theory can explain the origin of either Matter or Force. The existence of these he must take for granted, and attribute them to an Unknowable First Cause. The Origin Going on further we come to creatures of Life having that mysterious thing called Life. Does Evolution account for the origin of that? Quite the contrary; Darwin himself declared that spontaneous generation is "absolutely inconceivable." His co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, says that "the very first vegetable cell must have possessed altogether new powers"; and he adds, "Here we have indications of a new power at work.” Huxley admits that there is no evidence of any link between the living and the not-living; and other leading evolutionists could be quoted to the same effect. So, just where an explanation of the origin of a new and extraordinary thing is needed, Evolution-that great theory of origins-completely breaks down. Matter and force do not account for the origin of life. Therefore Darwin had to accept the truth of divine fiat to explain it. He seems, in accepting this truth, to seek, by the use of fine language, to disguise the fact that it is fatal to his theory. Note his words: "There is a grandeur in this view of Life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into the first forms or into one." If so, then is there not the same "grandeur" in the view of the direct action of the Creator in the origin of every substance and species? Mr. Darwin admits (because he must) that there is nothing "unscientific" in assuming the direct intervention of the Creator in originating the first liv ing forms; and if so there is nothing unscientific in assuming His intervention to create all living species. The Origin of the Going still further, we come to the animal kingdom, whose species have powers (as locomotion, feelings, etc.) not possessed by the vegetable. What has Evolution to say as to the origin of that? Not a word. Here again Mr. Wallace admits that the advance from the vegetable to the animal kingdom is "completely beyond all possibility of explanation by Matter, its laws and forces. It is the introduction of sensation or consciousness, constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and vegetable kingdoms." Thus, in respect to the origins of the major divisions of nature, the theory of Evolution is a confessed failure. It cannot even pretend to account for them. This fact will be emphasized when we come to point out, later on, that the foremost evolutionists, including Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, utterly repudiated the Darwinian theory of the Origin of Species. It would be difficult or impossible to find a naturalist of the first rank who would support that theory today. Haeckel alone, of the older naturalists, stood for its defense; and he was utterly discredited because of his audacious and unscrupulous conduct in forging evidences to support the theory. But we would at this point ask, what is the value of, and what credence should be given to, a Theory of Origins which admittedly is unable to account for the origin of Matter, Force, Life, the Animal Kingdom, and the Species ? Other Passing on, in our general survey of nature, Origins and without further reference at present to the Origin of Species (of which we have more to say later), we come to the Vertebrates, that is to say, that large and superior order of living creatures which have a back-bone. Does Evolution give us any explanation of that? None whatever. While the difference between the vertebrates and invertebrates is not so conspicuous and notable as that between the living and not-living, or that between the vegetable and animal kingdom, yet Evolution is just as impotent to explain the one as the other. There is not the slightest evidence to show that creatures having no backbone "evolved" the many species of vertebrates, nor is there even a plausible suggestion as to how such a thing could be brought to pass. Looking further, we come to the large and important class of Mammals, that is to say, species whereof the female imparts nourishment to its young from the breast. Certain species of vertebrates-the birds, reptiles and fishes-have not this peculiarity, nor anything approaching it. These, however, are far inferior to those creatures which have the nourishing breast. So we ask again the question: Does Evolution account for it? And again the answer must be in the negative. There is no connecting link between the two classes; nor are there any groups of non-mammals that are reaching out to enter the great class of Mammalia. We would at this point dispose of an unwarranted inference which is often urged (in the total absence of proofs) in support of the theory of Evolution. That inference is that because there are many species which have features in common-as back-bones, and nourishing breasts-those species must have had a common origin. That is to say, resemblances are supposed to point to an ancestor common to all. But the inference is without warrant. Such resemblances are just as consistent with the dogma of Creation as with the theory of Evolution. Resemblances are to be expected in the works of an all-wise Creator. For when He has devised a contrivance, as a back-bone, to serve a certain purpose, He would inevitably use the same device in whatever place that purpose was to be served, with only such modifications and adaptations as the varying needs of individual species might require. We need not continue any further, for our present purpose, our general survey of the field of the organic kingdom of nature. We deem it sufficient under this heading to say that, in not one of these orders and species, and in not one of the countless billions of organisms comprised in them, has there ever been seen the slightest tendency to advance, or to depart from its type. On the contrary, there is found in every living creature the most stubborn and unconquerable determination not to evolve. The whole universe, therefore, and every member of it, is a witness against Evolution. Furthermore, if Evolution were the law of progress of the universe, it is manifest that there would be no species or other lines of division. There would be only individual forms, shading imperceptibly one into another, each in the process of becoming something else, so that classification would be an impossibility. The world that lies before us, composed of clearly marked divisions, orders, classes, species, all sharply defined and separated one from another by impassable barriers, is just the opposite of such a world as the supposed law of Evolution would produce. We can, therefore, summon heaven and earth, land and sea, and all the hosts of them to bear witness, that Evolution is a myth. Permanence of The matter of the permanence of the Species species deserves special consideration. It is admitted on all hands that there is no Evolution in the individual organism —but that the contrary rule holds everywhere. For the individual comes into being suddenly, matures quickly, reproduces, and suddenly ceases to be. The evolutionist, however, claims that it is the species, not the individual organism, that has come into existence through Evolution. The species, says he, is governed by the "law" of Evolution, though (strange to say) the individuals which compose the species are exempt from it. There is, however, a serious and obvious flaw in the logic which would distinguish thus between the individual, and the species to which it belongs; for the species cannot exist apart from the individuals composing it, any more than a river can exist apart from its water. The species is merely an abstraction; and there is obviously no way a species can evolve, except by the evolving of all the individuals composing it. Strictly speaking, and for the purposes of a discussion like this, "species" do not exist. What exist in nature are simply innumerable individuals each having its own life. Individuals which have life of the same sort are said to constitute a "species.' Therefore, evolutionary changes, if they take place at all, must needs begin and continue in individuals. It follows that, if there be no inherent tendency in individual organisms to depart from their ancestral types, there could not be any development of new species. If, on the other hand, the immense number of existing species did come into their present state of being through evolutionary changes, effected by resident forces (as distinguished from the act of a Creator from without) then we should find no distinct species of plants and animals, but a very different state of things; for, instead of definite and persistent types, we should have a confusion of nondescript individuals, each in process of becoming something different from what its ancestors were. Evolution assumes that all things in the organic world are endowed with two opposite and mutually antagonistic tendencies, first a tendency to depart |