Page images
PDF
EPUB

from its ancestral type under the influence of changes in "environment, "" and second, a tendency to hold tightly all its peculiarities, and to transmit them to its offspring. These two tendencies could not exist in the same creatures. The former is purely imaginary. It is contrary to all the observed facts of nature. For, so far from there being any tendency on the part of individuals to depart from the ancestral type, and so far from there being any evidence of "resident forces' in them, impelling them to do so, the fact isalways and everywhere—that individual organisms evince a most stubborn tendency to cling to the ancestral type, despite all influences to the contrary.

This important fact can be stated very strongly ; for scientific men, like Luther Burbank, have sought by every conceivable means to develop new species. But, notwithstanding some remarkable results in the way of "varieties," it has been found (1) that the barrier of species cannot be crossed, (2) that every "variety" produced artificially, if left to itself for a few generations, reverts to the original type. In a word, what we find in each and all the thousands of species of living creatures is, perfect obedience to the primal law of their being, given to them by their Creator when He said, "Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind *** and the living creature, after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after his kind; and it was so" (Gen. 1:11, 24). It was "so" then; and beyond all question it is "so" now.

Here we see that Evolution comes into direct collision both with the facts of nature and with the statements of the Word of God.

Development

A "species" may embrace many disof "Varieties" tinct "varieties," and man has indeed been able to produce artificially many varieties of existing species. But it is always nec

essary to maintain by artificial means the modifications thus produced, else the individuals speedily revert to the original ancestral condition. Thus, upon consideration of these modifications of type, it is found that, so far from lending any support to the theory of Evolution, they furnish a strong argument against it. For it is essential to that theory that modifications, when of advantage to the possessor, should become fixed in the family, and be carried forward to all succeeding generations. But what we find in actual experience is just the reverse.

Moreover, while varieties without number can be easily produced, it has been found impossible, even in a single instance, to cross the line of species. Thus, we see many varieties of dog. The canine species includes the great shaggy St. Bernard, and the diminutive smooth skinned terrier. But in every case it is a dog, and is recognized by his fellow dogs as such. No amount of breeding, or cross-breeding, could ever make him anything but a dog.

Indeed it is demonstrable that the species are absolutely fixed; and that so far from there being a general tendency on the part of all animate creatures to depart from the ancestral type, there is, on the contrary, found to be an invariable and inexorable law, which absolutely forbids such departure. Since we regard this fact as fatal to the Darwinian theory of the origin of species, we will give the explanation of it in the words of a famous evolutionist, Mr. Huxley, who says:

"If you breed from the male and female of the same race, you of course have offspring of the like kind; and if you make the offspring breed together, you obtain the same result; and if you breed from these again, you will still have the same kind of offspring. There is no check. But if you take members

of two distinct species, however similar they
may be to each other, and make them breed
together, you will find a check. If you cross
two such species, then, although you may get
offspring in the case of the first cross, yet if
you attempt to breed from the products of
that crossing (which are what are called
hybrids) that is, if you mate a male and a
female hybrid, then the result is that in
ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will
get no offspring at all."

We need not inquire the explanation of this, though Mr. Huxley says, "the reason is quite obvious in some cases"; for the fact is admitted on all hands.

Now what, we would ask, is the inference to be drawn from this fact? Certainly it follows that the evolution of one species from another is an impossibility; so that, at this point again, the theory breaks down completely. Indeed we can read as much between the lines of the admission which Mr. Huxley himself is constrained, though with manifest reluctance, to make. He says:

[ocr errors]

'After much consideration, and assuredly with no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence 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." And again; "Our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile only with one another, that link will be wanting.

[ocr errors]

Later on Mr. Huxley definitely rejected the Darwinian theory, as we will point out hereafter. Repro- We have referred in the foregoing pages to duction the power, inherent in all living creatures, to reproduce their kind. This universal fact, which obviously is essential to the continuance of every species, raises the important question, how did the power of reproduction originate? It is evident that the very first (as well as all subsequent) organisms must have possessed this marvellous power. Whence then did it come? Manifestly it could not have arisen by a gradual process of Evolution; for the very first organisms must have had it in the same perfection as their offspring. Here again the doctrine of Creation appears to great advantage in comparison with the defective theory of Evolution; for, as a prominent part of the inspired description of Creation, are the words: "Grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind" etc. Those words fully account for the power of reproduction possessed by all living creatures.

In concluding under this heading we want to say that it would suffice to put the case for Evolution entirely out of court that there should be found no evidence sufficient in character and amount to establish it. But the case against it is far stronger than that. For even those who give no weight to the testimony of the Bible on this point, have to admit that there are no observable tendencies on the part of any one of the billions of living creatures to depart from the ancestral type, but that, per contra, where variations have been produced artificially, they are but slight in character, and the tendency is invariably to go backward and not forward. This is a strong disproof of Evolution.

CHAPTER III

Science not In this chapter we propose to examine an Authority the reasons usually advanced in support of the theory of Evolution. Those reasons relate entirely to Organic Evolution, or the Origin of Species and the "Descent of Man"; for there is (so far as we are aware), no pretence that any facts are known from which the theory of Cosmic Evolution could be inferred.

It should be pointed out, before entering upon this examination, that it is easy to impose upon the majority of people by an appeal to "Science" as an authority. Thus, we often hear it said, "Science has discovered this," or "Science tells us that," as if the matter were thereby conclusively settled. But it would be well to ask, who is "Science"? and where does he live? And how comes he to know these things? The fact is there is no "Science" in this sense. It is true that a few capable men have attempted to explore the field of Nature in various directions, and have ascertained a fact or two, to which they have added a thousand guesses. But they have left a million questions unanswered, without which no safe conclusions can be drawn. It is the commonest thing for "Science" to contradict one day what it most positively asserted the day previous; so that, in view of the existing state of complete scientific ignorance on the subject of origins, it would be absurd to accept as true any statement on that subject in the name of "Science."

A few years ago Mr. Thomas A. Edison, commenting upon the boasted progress of Science, said that if the same rate of progress were maintained for the next two thousand years, mankind might then be in a position to begin to draw conclusions.

« EelmineJätka »