CHAPTER X.

ABIOGENESIS.

HAVING endeavored to show that neither the moneron nor a few primordial germs could have evolved the animal kingdom as it now exists, we desire to direct the reader's attention to some of the difficulties connected with the assumption that life originated in spontaneous generation. We make no attempt to prove that it did not so originate, since that would be to undertake the impossible task of proving a negative; but we hope to present evidence sufficient to make it apparent to any unbiased investigator that the theory is a simple assumption having nothing for its support except the necessity-keenly felt by atheistic evolutionists-of possessing a living organism spontaneously generated. Professor Huxley frankly admits that the exigencies of his theory furnish the only available testimony in favor of abiogenesis, or the origination of the living from the not-living. He says:

"The course of modern investigation has distinctly tended to disprove the occurrence of equivocal generation, or abiogenesis, in the present course of nature. . . . The evidence is yet to be adduced which will satisfy any cautious reasoner that 'omne vivum ex vivo' is not as well established a law of the existing course of nature as 'omne ovum ex ovo.'"-Encyc. Brit., art., "Evolution." "The fact is that at the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which the existence of life on the globe is recorded. But it need hardly be pointed out, that the fact does not in the

slightest degree interfere with any conclusion that may be arrived at deductively from other considerations, that at some time or other, abiogenesis must have taken place. . . . If the hypothesis of evolution is true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter; for by the hypothesis, the condition of the globe was at one time such that living matter could not have existed in it, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state. But living matter once originated, there is no necessity for another origination, since the hypothesis postulates the unlimited, though perhaps not indefinite, modifibility of such matter. .. Of the causes which have led to the origination of living matter, then, it may be said that we know absolutely nothing. . . . The present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the not-living." -Encyc. Brit., art., "Biology."

It thus appears that a torturing necessity, begotten in the determination to eliminate God from the universe, is the main, if not the only, proof which evolution can furnish that life is a result of spontaneous generation. The entire argument may be compressed into this brief assertion, consistency seems to demand it, for a startingpoint is indispensable, "If the hypothesis of evolution is true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter. But alas, for the theory, "there is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which the existence of life on the globe is recorded." Then there is very little evidence that "the hypothesis of evolution is true." Why cling so tenaciously to a theory which can only be true, provided a miracle has occurred of which there is confessedly nc evidence whatever; and against which, moreover, the unvarying uniformity of nature's laws," within the period during which the existence of life on the globe is recorded," enters its determined protest? Why do advanced evolutionists, while spitefully insisting that the uniformity of nature's laws renders it impossible to believe in the miracles of Scripture, still persist in asserting that "abiogenesis," the greatest of miracles, "must

have taken place," though of testimony there is absolutely none?

"But living matter once originated, there is no necessity for another origination." Why? Because, "the hypothesis postulates the unlimited, though perhaps not indefinite, modifibility of such matter." If all that is necessary is to have some hypothesis that will “postulate unlimited modifibility" why not at once fairly meet the demands of the case and squarely assert the "unlimited, though perhaps not indefinite, modifibility of such matter" as is denominated inorganic? By asserting that it could modify itself to an "unlimited" extent provision would be made for man's advent upon the stage; and by saying, very guardedly, perhaps inorganic matter cannot modify itself to an "indefinite" extent, we would be given to understand that its myriad attempts at " modification" could never result in producing monstrosities, but of course could easily originate a moneron, an amœba, a cytod, a homogeneous atom of plasson. This would render "the hypothesis of evolution" quite consistent throughout; for as the subsequent transmutations, which are accounted for by saying the hypothesis "postulates" them, are regarded as spontaneous-there being no intelligent designer and no secondary causes to which they can be attributed-it will of course be quite easy and entirely consistent to affirm that it requires no more faith to believe that animal organisms originated in spontaneous generation than to believe that man evolved himself from anthropoid apes. If apes possessing "unlimited modifibility" generated man through numberless transitional forms, all of which have perished, then manifestly an atom of earth possessing "unlimited modif bility" may have spontaneously generated a moneron, especially as it enjoyed an

eternity in which to try, and may have been kept from blundering because its "modifibility was perhaps not indefinite." As there could be no transitional forms between the living and the not-living, one difficulty connected with subsequent transmutations would not cause embarrassment. Of course no intermediate forms would be expected to exist.

"If the hypothesis of evolution is true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter." "There is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which life on the globe is recorded."

"At some time or other abiogenesis must have taken place."

"Evolution postulates the unlimited, though perhaps not indefinite, modifibility of living matter."

The argument here outlined, when presented in syllogistic form, is as follows:

I. If evolution is true, abiogenesis must have occurred at some time;

2. Evolution may be true;

Therefore, Abiogenesis may have occurred.

The premises will warrant no stronger conclusion. The inference may be no broader than the narrowest statement contained in either premise.

To appearances, the argument comes so near affirming, abiogenesis is true because evolution is true, and evolution is true because abiogenesis is true, that it might legitimately assume the following form:

1. Unless abiogenesis has occurred, evolution cannot be true;

2. "There is no shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which life on the globe is recorded"; Therefore, There is no trustworthy direct evidence. that evolution does take place, or has taken place, etc.

If evolution is at liberty to draw conclusions suited to its demands, why may not its opponents do so also? Logic, with its rules in reference to negative premises, undistributed middle, illicit process, an affirmative conclusion when one of the premises is negative, a universal conclusion when one premise is particular, etc., is no more binding upon opposers of evolution than upon evolutionists.

The argument may be made to assume form as follows:

1. If evolution is true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter;

2. Evolution is true, for it postulates "the unlimited modifibility of living matter ";

Therefore, Living matter has arisen by spontaneous generation from inorganic matter. Has the "unlimited modifibility of such matter" been proved?

The reasoning might assume this syllogistic form:— 1. Whatever postulates "the unlimited modifibility of matter" is true;

2. Evolution postulates "the unlimited modifibility of matter";

Therefore, Evolution is true.

I. If evolution is true, abiogenesis must be true; 2. Evolution is true;

Therefore, Abiogenesis is true.

Presented in this dress, effort might have been concentrated upon the establishment of the first premise in each syllogism.

To complete the reasoning this might be added:

1. Whatever the theory of evolution needs for its establishment must have occurred, either since the origin of life on the globe or antecedent thereto;

2. Abiogenesis, of which "there is not a shadow of