a

A
HARDY-WILLIAMS LIBRARY

OF THE GEOLOGICAL

HISTORY OF ORGANISMS

FOUNDED BY

CHARLES ELIAS HARDY

(sony 27, 170s—sULx 7, 1668)

eel

janic evolution

il

02

considered.

Cornell University

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924024755534

ORGANIC EVOLUTION
CONSIDERED

BY
ALFRED FAIRHURST, A. M.,

4
Professor of Natural Science in Kentucky University.

St. Lovis:
CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY.
1897,

Copyrighted, 1897, by
CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY.

TO
Allen iR. Benton,
MY FAITHFUL FRIEND AND MY FORMER TEACHER,
This Volume
Is Lovingly Dedicated.

PREFACE,

Havine been for many years a teacher of various
branches of natural science, it has been my duty to
discuss the subject of organic evolution. This vol-
ume contains some of the objections which I have
from time to time presented against the acceptance
of that theory, together with several chapters on

other subjects.
A. FarRHURST.

LexineTon, Kentucky, December 11, 1897.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I. INTRODUCTION ‘i i Z ‘ . . i

II. MATTER.

Definition of—Elements, Number of—Physical condition dependent
on pressure and temperature—So-called elements may be com-
pounds—Divisibility of matter—Size of atoms and molecules—
Porosity of matter—Compounds, nature of—Chemical laws gov-
erning atoms—Law of definite proportions—Law of multiple
proportions — Chemical formulas—Carbon compounds, great
number and importance of—Organic and Inorganic Chemistry —
Isomerism—Organized matter not formed by thejchemist. 14-29

III, FORCE.

Definition—Kinds of—Correlation of different kinds of energy—The-
ory as to what the different kinds of energy are—Sound the
vibration of a material medium—Radiant energy the vibration
of an ethereal medium—Difficulties as to explaining gravity—
Infinite complexity of ethereal vibrations—Velocity of radiant
energy—Lord Kelvin’s views of the luminiferous ether—Lodge’s
views as to the nature of ether—Conclusions as to the nature of
ether—Cohesion, capillarity, chemism, magnetism—Dissipation
of energy into infinite space. . ‘ : ‘ . 80-48

IV. METHOD OF CREATION.

Spontaneous Generation—Theistic methods of creation that are
possible—Primary and secondary causes—Special fiats seem to
have been necessary—Biblical view of the relation of the Creator
to nature—The dispute as to method of creation is between
Theism and Atheism—Necessary to assume Theism in crea-
tion. . . 7 ‘ : < , . 49-56

V. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.

Length of the authentic geological record—Special act required to
create the first living being—Elements that are necessary for
living things—Attempts to prove the truth of spontaneous gen-
eration failures—Nature ought to have produced spontaneous
generation many times, if once—Science has failed to reveal the
origin of life ‘ : . , : . 57-64

6)

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

VI. NATURAL SELECTION.

Facts on which the theory is founded—Rate of increase of organ-
isms— Variations —Differences— Use of the phrase ‘‘ Natural
Selection ’?—Darwin’s views stated—Evolution of man not due
to chance—Evolution represented by the tree as a figure—Varia-
tion under domestication—Darwin claims that well-marked
variations are incipient species—Difficulty of accounting for
cross-sterility of closely-related species—Difficulty of preserving
a variation in a state of nature—Assumption of cross-sterility
by birth as an explanation—Isolation regarded as of importance
in forming new species—Barriers fail to account for new
species—Impossible for Natural Selection to do what is done by
artificial selection—Inheritance of acquired characters. . 65-86

VII. PALEONTOLOGY.

Length of geological time—Eozoon—Lost record claimed, preceding
the Primordial—Animals of the Primordial highly organized—
Sub-kingdoms and classes from the first widely separated—Ab-
sence of transitional forms—Species appear as if by ‘‘substitu-
tion’? and ‘not by ‘‘transformation’’—Fragmentariness of the
record exaggerated—Evolutionist assumes that the ‘missing
links’ favor his theory—Romanes regards the known geological
record as ‘‘a chapter of accidents ’’—Le Conte’s theory that spe-
cies are evolved suddenly—Evolutionists have largely abandoned.
Paleontology. ‘ ‘ ¥ ‘ ¥ ‘ - 87-103

VIII. PALEONTOLOGY.

The evolution of man inconsistent with the known stability of spe-
cies—Species of long life—Doubt by Darwin as to advance of
organization, on the whole—Long history of Trilobites without
progress—Lack of progress among mollusks—Little progress
among insects, scorpions and spiders—Huxley’s address as to
lack of [progress in structure—Suddenness of the appearance of
Fishes—The oldest fossils do not represent the lowest members
of the classes—Great differences in structure of Eocene mam-
mals—The classes of vertebrates began earlier than their known
fossils. ‘i : ‘ F . + 104-124

IX. PALEONTOLOGY.

Heckel’s primitive vertebrate, Amphioxus—Balanoglossus as a con-
necting link—Long existence of these forms without change—
Various long-lived forms that have made no progress—Remains
of placental mammals ought to be found in Cretaceous—Great
diversity of Eocene mammals—Sudden appearance of Eocene
mammals—Whales of the Miocene—The horses of the Tertiary—
Conclusions to be drawn. ‘ ‘ ¥ . + 125-140

TABLE OF CONTENTS 7

xX. EMBRYOLOGY.

Protozoa and Metazoa—Methods of reproduction—Radical differ-
ences in the embryos of animals—Embryology applied to man’s
ancestors—Resemblances in embryos largely superficial—Embry-
ology cannot confirm the theory of evolution—Gill-arches of the
lizard. 5 5 : : : ‘i : . 141-152

XI. SPECIAL OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF EVOLU-
TION.

Evolution must account for the existence of all organs—Difficulty of
accounting for the various electric organs of fishes—Difficulty as
to wings—Feathers and legs—Great difference between fins and
legs—As to the evolution of Pterodactyls—The evolution of
Birds presents special difficulties—Improbability of the evolu-
tion, independently, of homologous structures—Correlation of
growth as a factor in evolution—Inheritance of acquired char-
acters as a factor—Evolution of eyes—Numerous kinds and posi-
tions of eyes and eye-spots—If eyes were evolved, then numerous
independent evolutions of them—Romane’s theory as to evolu-
tion of eyes—Various locations of eyes and eye-spots—The evolu-
tion of ears presents difficulties—The breathing apparatus of
various kinds—The different kinds required separate evolutions
—Webs of spiders and stings of insects—Poison glands of snakes
and fangs. . . 7 . . 7 . 153-181

XII. RUDIMENTARY ORGANS.

Questions concerning them—Darwin’s views as to their origin—Seem
ing impossibility of evolving milk glands—Assumption that
many mammz have entirely disappeared—Darwin’s views—
Origin of the sexual organs—Spurs of birds useless as rudiments
—Rudimentary teeth—Rudimentary legs of some snakes. 182-194

XIII. SECONDARY SEXUAL DIFFERENCES.

Some of the differences between the sexes—Sexual selection and the
law of battle—The horns of deer—Horns of Chameleon Owenii—
Sexual selection could not take notice of rudiments—Sexual selec-
tion and evolution of colors of birds—Colors of fishes. . 195-203

XIV. INSTINCT.

Instincts of the honey bees—Cells and eggs—Queens —their instincts—
Instincts of the workers—Workers cannot improve their instincts
by inheritance—Instincts which could not have been acquired by
inheritance—Darwin’s explanation of such instincts—Instinct of
pirds to incubate their eggs, and structure of egg—Iustinct of the
Surinam Toad and adaptive structure—Instincts of certain fishes

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS

and adaptive structures—Instincts and number of eggs—In-
stincts and peculiarities of structure of the water spider—In-
stincts of spiders and adaptive structures—Evolution fails to
account for the simultaneous production of instincts and the
structures that render them useful—Instincts of a scavenger
beetle—Instincts of the beaver. ‘ . + 204-229

XV. THE ORIGIN OF MAN.

Length of time he has been here—Some of the oldest known skulls—
Difficulties as to evolving man’s body—The sizes of the brains of
men and apes—Mental powers of savages greater than would be
expected—No low race of man serving as a connecting link—The
greatest differences between man and animals are psychic—
Enumeration of mental powers of animals as given by Darwin—
Darwin’s admissions as to deficiency of certain powers in ani-
mals—Low moral standing of savages does not favor evolution—
Darwin’s theory as to the origin of the moral sense—The general
good of the community the test—‘‘Ought’’ employs ‘the con-
sciousness of a persistent instinct’’—Habits probably not in-
herited—Spencer’s theory as to the origin of instincts—Darwin’s
definition of a moral being—Evolution assumes that all psychic
phenomena are essentially alike—‘‘ Experiences of utility’ cannot
create, but only improve faculties—The faculties of the mind are
essentially different—Spencer’s theory that all the faculties are
composed of units of feeling that are fundamentally alike—One
feeling cannot be derived from another—Spencer’s theory that
‘mind is resolvable into nervous shocks ’’—The authority of con-
science—Animals are destitute of conscience—Instincts do not
speak with the authority of conscience—Mind as a controlling
power in nature—Mind not resolvable into matter plus motion—
Our knowledge of mind is immediate—Relations of mind to other
things—Mind is ever conscious of its supremacy—How explain
the act of remembering? It is not sensation—Reason, will, and
other faculties are not sensations—Dana’s belief in a Divine
Being. r ‘ é ‘ ‘ - 280-265

XVI. A FUTURE LIFE.

Ether a universal medium and God a Universal Spirit—The general
hope of the human race as to the future—Means in nature for
satisfying every natural desire—Indestructibility of matter and
energy and mind—The mystery of inheritance—A future life
necessary to fulfill the possibilities of mind—Faith, hope, love.
reason, conscience and imagination look to the future—Life and
death both parts of the universal plan—The upward progress
through the ages points to the future. 3 ‘ + 266-271

TABLE OF CONTENTS 9

1

XVII. DESIGN IN NATURE.

Creation has proceeded upward—Temperature of the Sun during
millions of years—Comparative uniformity of climate during
geological time—Chemical laws to which matter is subject—
Many material conditions that must precede life—Elements that
are necessary for living beings—Certain relative quantities of the
elements are required—Poisonous elements locked up in harmless
compounds—Chance cannot account for the elements and their
quantities—Length of time in creating does not affect design—
Design shown in the structure and powers of man—Time in-
volved does not affect design—Design shown in man’s relations
to things—Beauty, evidence of design—Moral nature of man,
evidence of design—Prevalence of law indicates design—Design
shown in plants, animals and minerals—Every organism adapted
to its environment—Objections: Rudimentary organs—Things
that at one time seem useless become useful. | . « 272-300

XVIII. EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE.

Evil is suffering—Capacity to suffer necessary for protection—
Suffering arises from violating the laws of nature—The laws of
nature are necessary and beneficent—That the ignorant suffer,
and the innocent, justifiable—Man responsible for much suffer-
ing—Appetites and passions good if properly governed—Capacity
for pleasure and pain increase together—Much more pleasure
than pain in life—Altruism in nature. : . . 301-310

XIX. AGNOSTICISM.

Belief that space is all alike and infinite—Spencer’s claim that
‘‘Space and Time are wholly incomprehensible’’—‘‘ Mental im-
ages’? not the ultimate basis of our knowledge—Spencer’s recon-
ciliation of religion and science—Agnosticism—Religion and
science occupy different fields—Concerning miracles—not viola-
tions of law—Creed of the Agnostic—Agnosticism not ad-
apted to man—Spencer’s views of existing religions—Incon-
sistency of Spencer’s views—Christianity and Agnosticism con-
trasted. F ; : 3 ‘ 7 : . 311-329

XX. RECAPITULATION.

Chemical laws—Energy of the universe and its dissipation—Dynam-
ical theory of things insufficient—Spontaneous generation not
proved—Natural selection and objections to—Little progress in
structure among animals generally—Long survival of many
forms—Embryology and special objections—Rudimentary organs
and secondary: sexual differences—Instincts of bees and birds—
Psychic differences between men and animals—Mind the control-
ing power. é . . . 4 5 » 830-343

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS

XXI. GENESIS AND GEOLOGY.

Great incompleteness of the known geological record—Probable
chronological order of the introduction of certain forms—The
known geological record not to be used for the whole—Impossi-
bility of showing a conflict between the record in Genesis and
the Geological account—Purpose of the cosmogony in Genesis—
Uselessness of Geology to that early people—Moral and religious
purpose in Genesis—Monotheism a revelation, of necessity—
Monotheism a confirmation of the record in Genesis—The first
days of creation. 5 ‘ ‘ - . . 844-353

APPENDIX.
Tuer Primary Factors oF OrGanic EvotuTion. By E. D. Corps.

Definition of evolution—Energies of evolution and spontaneous gen-
eration—Mind and evolution—Definition of life—Variations in
organisms the result of mechanical causes—Variations in color
of Beetles, Snakes and Lizards—Effect of locality—Teeth—Skele-
tons of frogs—Phylogeny founded on Embryology and Paleon-
tology—Amphioxus is probably the ancestral vertebrate—Mam-
mals derived from Permian reptiles—Great difference in the.
structure of teeth of different marsupials—Oldest known mam-
mals are highly specialized—Lemurs and not monkeys probably
the ancestors of man—Difference in stracture between man and
ape—Huxley’s view as to differences in structure of man and
ape—Oldest known remains of man—Genealogy of man based on
that given by Cope—Cope’s mechanical theory as to variations.
applied to man—Causes of variations, Physiogenesis and Kine-
togenesis—Physical theory of the origin of lungs—Physical the-
ory as to the jointed structure of limbs—Origin of vertebre
and teeth—Independent origins of like structures in skele-
tons. . . . . . ‘ ri . 854-381

ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED.

I.
INTRODUCTION.

In THE following pages I have endeavored to give a
general statement of the claims of Evolution as
applied to the origin of organic forms, and then to
offer those objections which, it seems to me, go far
toward invalidating these claims.

I have not given in detail all of the arguments
which have been presented in support of the theory
of organic evolution, for this would be a superfluous
work in view of the fact that this has been most fully
and ably done by Darwin and other writers.

My endeavor has been to urge more in detail some
of the objections to the theory than has been done by
others.

The evolutionist may be a Theist, an Atheist, an
Agnostic, a Pantheist, or a Materialist. To my mind
it is not a matter of indifference as to which of these
he is.

I look upon the theory of evolution as being of no
importance except as it involves the well-being of
man.

My object in what I have written is to promote the
belief in Theism and in the existence of a spiritual
nature in man which Theism alone can explain.

It is a fact, I believe, that the propagation of the
theory of Evolution has decreased the belief in The-
ism. While this may be Snes the fact should not be

12 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

lost sight of that a belief in the former is consisten‘
with a belief in the latter.

If it can be shown that the theory of Evolution i:
not true, then Theism will, to most minds, be the nec
essary alternative. To my own mind, Theism is noi
an alternative to Evolution at all, for I believe that
whether the latter has taken place or not, Theism i:
the only explanation of the present order of things.

Starting with the present distribution of matte!
and energy in the universe, and accepting the theorn
of the indestructibility of matter and the conserva
tion and correlation of energy, the belief in the con
tinuity of natural processes necessarily follows, so fai
as these processes can be explained in terms of Mat
ter and Force, but I do not believe that all phenomen:g
can be explained in the above terms.

I believe that Matter, Force and Mind are mani:
festations of the Creator, but I do not think thai
either of these can be explained in terms of the othe
two. It is the prerogative of Mind to interfere witk
the course of events in Nature.

The presence of Mind in Nature is the primary fact
of human knowledge. To construct a Teleology
which excludes Mind as a permanent factor fro
Nature is to annihilate the one thing of the existence
of which we are most certain.

If Matter and Force are a part of Nature, so is
Mind, and we have no reason to believe that the latte:
is less enduring than the former.

To assume the continuity of natural causes througt
the infinite past, at the same time eliminating Minc
as a factor of Evolution, and regarding it simply as ¢
transient phase of a small part of Nature, is not justi-
fied by the facts. I believe that if the truth of the
theory of Evolution can ever be established, it can be
done only on the basis of Theism.

INTRODUCTION 13

The amount of evidence necessary to convince one
of the theory depends on the data with which we
begin. If Matter and Force are the only data, then
the acceptance of the theory of Evolution in its
widest scope necessarily follows.

If we add to the above a belief in the existence of a
Supreme Intelligence, then the strength of the evi-
dence must be greatly increased, and it must har-
monize with our conceptions of God.

It is true, I believe, that the theory of Evolution
has contributed to Atheism, and especially to Agnos-
ticism. It has been common with evolutionists to
deny that Nature furnishes evidence of the existence
of an Intelligent Creator.

Some of them seem to delight in affirming the lack
of design in Nature, as if there could be some special
merit in a universe in which there is no manifestation
of intelligence.

As for myself, I prefer to believe in and to seek the
highest possible form of existence of which my mind
can conceive.

Unless the existence of the human mind can be
explained in terms of matter and force—a thing that
it is impossible to do—then its existence points with
certainty to a Divine Mind in the universe.

The logic that blots God out of existence blots out
also the human mind.

Mind exists, and God exists as its necessary Author.

Ii.
MATTER.

MattTER occupies space, resists being put in
motion, and is unable to part with its motion except
by communicating it to other matter.

About seventy simple substances are known to the
chemist. A simple substance, or element, is one
that cannot be separated into two or more different
kinds of matter; for example, gold, silver, mercury,
iron and sulphur are elements. Elements are divided
into metals and non-metallic substances, most of them
being classed among the former.

At ordinary temperatures elements exist as gases,
liquids or solids. Four, namely, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, and chlorine, are gases, while bromme and
mercury are the only liquid elements, all the others
being solids under ordinary conditions. It is proba-
ble that fluorine also is a gas.

Any substance may be a solid, a liquid, or a gas,
depending on the temperature and pressure to which
it is subjected.

All ordinary gases, both simple and compound,
have been liquefied, and some of them solidified, by
abstracting their heat and applying pressure.

Air has been reduced to solid lumps by the reduc-
tion of the temperature alone. Oxygen has been
liquefied, but it has not yet been solidified.

The lowest temperature yet obtained is minus 225°
C. Olzewski obtained this extremely low tempera-
ture by evaporating solid nitrogen in a vacuum.

The absolute zero, or the point at which no heat is
14

MATTER 15

supposed to exist in matter, is minus 273 °C, so that a
temperature has been reached only 48 °C above the
absolute zero.

It has been found that gases can not be liquefied
and solidified by the application of any amount of
pressure, however great, unless at the same time
their temperature be reduced below the critical point.
Pressure is, therefore, only a secondary factor in
liquefying gases.

I have stated that there are about seventy elements
known to the chemist, and that an element cannot be
separated into two or more kinds of matter.

There is some evidence to indicate that the ele-
ments are compounds. The fact that the so-called
elements generally give many lines in the spectrum,
instead of giving a single line, would seem to indicate
that an element is not composed of homogeneous
material, and the fact that the chemical action of an
element varies under different circumstances in re-
markable ways, as, for example, carbon in the hydro-
carbon compounds has been regarded as evidence
that elements are really compounds.

On the other hand, it has been claimed that all
elements have probably been derived from one orig-
inal form of matter, which Professor Crookes calls
protyle. From this original stuff, ‘ fire-mist,’’ the
elements, as we know them, have been evolved in
succession, by cooling; the smallest atoms, such as
those of hydrogen, having been first formed.

The numerical relations between the atomic weights
as arranged by Mendeléeff, may be regarded as evi-
dence of the common origin of elements.

For all practical purposes, however, the chemist
recognizes the seventy elements as such, and this
from the fact that he is unable to separate them
into simpler forms.

16 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

If we grind a piece of sulphur in a mortar, we
break it into smaller and smaller pieces, each of
which is sulphur. If we could put it into the mor-
tars of the gods, which, it is said, ‘‘ grind slow but
exceeding small,’? would there be any practical
limit to the smallness of the pieces? Is there a limit
in the division of matter beyond which nature cannot
go? The chemist images that there is a limit, and he
calls the ultimate piece of matter which nature does
not divide an atom. No eye has ever seen an atom,
no microscope can ever render it visible. The mote
that dances in the sunbeam is composed of millions
of atoms. The spectroscope enables us to detect the
1/189,000,000 Of a grain of sodium, and this small speck
of sodium must contain millions of atoms in order to
color the flame sufficiently to render the sodium
visible.

A grain of musk, it is said, will scent a room for
years without losing an appreciable amount of its
weight, and yet during this time the air in the room
has changed many times, and the molecules of musk
have been disseminated through the vast volume so
that the sense of smell could detect their presence.
What an enormous volume of air a little of the
musk from the skunk will vitiate, and yet this is only
possible by the almost infinite smallness of the
molecules.

Nobert has drawn 4,000 lines on the breadth of one
millimetre, which is more than 200,000 lines to the
inch. A film of silver has been obtained 1/167,000 of
an inch in thickness, and films of platinum and gold
have been obtained 1/125,000 of an inch in thickness,
and yet it is probable that this thickness contains
many atoms.

The thickness of the soap-bubble at the dark part
just before it breaks, is 1/5 of the length of the

MATTER 17

sodium wave of light, which would be something
more than 4/100,00 of a centimetre in thickness. But
the molecules of this thin film are very complex, so
that in the thickness of the film quite a number of
atoms must exist.

Sir William Thomson says ‘‘that in any ordinary
liquid, transparent solid, or seemingly opaque solid,
the mean distance between the centres of contiguous
molecules ‘is less than the 1/5,000,000 and greater than
the 1/1,000,000,000 Of a centimetre.’’*

““To form some conception of the degree of coarse-
grainedness indicated by this conclusion, imagine a
globe of water or glass, as large as a football, to be
magnified up to the size of the earth, each constituent
molecule being magnified in the same proportion.
The magnified structure would be more coarse-grained
than a heap of small shot, but probably less coarse-
grained than a heap of footballs.”

It is said that the smallest object visible under
the microscope is 1/4,000 of a millimetre, which is about
1/190,000 Of an inch, and yet such an object contains
millions of molecules. It has been claimed that an
organic being of that size would contain perhaps one
million molecules of organic matter in addition to the
water which constitutes most of its bulk.

Crookes, taking the estimate that 1 c. c. of air con-
tains 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules, says that
to fill a globe 13.5 centimetres in diameter, which has
been exhausted to the one-millionth of an atmosphere,
would require, if the molecules entered at the rate of
100,000,000 in a second, 408,501,731 years. At the
above rate it would require about 2,500,000 years to
filla globe one inch in diameter. If we estimate the
number of molecules at 19,000,000,000,000,000,000 in
a cubic centimetre, as has been done by some, then

*Popular Lectures and Addresses, Sir W. Thomson, p. 217.
2

18 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the above times would be reduced to about 7,700,000
and 47,500 years respectively.

Assuming a specific number of molecules per cubic
centimetre of any gas, and accepting the hypothesis
of Avogadro that equal volumes of all gases under
like conditions of temperature and pressure contain
equal numbers of molecules, it becomes easy to calcu-
late the number of molecules of simple substances
that constitute any solid or liquid that can be readily
converted into the form of gases.

For example, a cubic centimetre of nitric acid, the
formula of which is H NOs, specific gravity 1.517,
is composed of about 272 cubic centimetres of nitro-
gen, 273 of hydrogen, and 809 c. c. of oxygen, the vol-
ume of the three gases together is 13854 c. c. When
these three gases unite to form nitric acid the 1354
c. c., shrink tolc.c. Assuming 19,000,000,000,000,-
000,000 molecules in 1 c. c. of the gas, there would be
in 1354 c. ec. 25,726,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules,
which enter into the 1c. c. of nitric acid. The cube
root of the above number is about 29,500,000, so that
according to this estimate if the molecules of nitric
acid fill the entire space in the 1c. ¢., so that there
are no vacant spaces between the molecules, then a
molecule of the above gases is, on the average, about
1/59,500,000 Of a centimetre in diameter, which is about
1/73,750,000, Of an inch.

One cubic centimetre of water is composed of 1258
ce. c. of hydrogen and 629 c. c. of oxygen—in all, 1887
cubic centimetres. Estimating, as in the case of nitric
acid, 19 quintillions of molecules in each cubic centi-
metre of gas at O° C and the pressure of one atmos-
phere, there would be 35,853,000,000,000,000,000,000
molecules of the two gases inl c.c. of water, which
would allow an average diameter of about 1/33,000,000

MATTER 19

of a centimetre, or about 1/s2,500,000 of an inch, if water
is not porous.

In a similar way for solids—taking ammonium
nitrate, N Hi N Os, for example, one cubic centi-
metre of which contains 2,083 cubic centimetres of its
three constituent gases, the number of molecules in
1c. c. of the solid would be 39,577,000,000,000,000,-
000,000, and the average diameter of the molecule, if
the solid is not porous, would be 1/ss,000,000 of a cen-
timetre in diameter, or about '/s5,000,000 of an inch.

Taking another solid, ammonium bicarbonate, N H4
H C Os, we estimate the size of the molecules of its
elements to be about 1/s4,500,000 of a centimetre, or
about 1/s¢,250,00 of an inch. In this estimate the
substances were taken in the simple form and the
carbon was assumed to occupy the same space that it
would occupy if it had the specific gravity of the
diamond.

Instead of the above method, we may regard the
N Hs HC Os as being composed of the two gases
N Hs; and C O2 and of water, H:O. The average
size of the molecules of these three compounds is
about 1/23,500,000 centimetre, or +/72,500,000 of an inch.

The above estimates of the sizes of molecules, as
already stated, are made upon the assumption that
solids and liquids are not porous, or that there are no
vacant spaces between the molecules.

That there are such spaces, however, is evident
from the fact that both solids and liquids can be com-
pressed into smaller volumes than they occupy at
O°C, and from the fact that they contain heat, which
forces the molecules apart.

I think, however, that the vacant spaces between
the molecules of a solid are small compared to the
space occupied by the molecules themselves.

It seems probable that at the absolute zero, namely,

20 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

—273.7 CO, if this represents the temperature at
which all heat is absent, there is no molecular motion
in matter, and that the molecules, if they are cubes of
equal size, would fill the whole space so that there
would be no pores. The small amount of expansion
which solids and liquids undergo, due to a change of
temperature, shows that if they could be reduced to
the absolute zero, they would occupy nearly as much
space as they occupy at O°C. For example, a cubic
centimetre of steel on being cooled from O° C to
—273° C would lose about 1/1 of its volume if
it followed the law of expansion and contraction
which has been established for higher temperatures,
Glass would lose 1/125 and zinc 1/» of its volume.

From this it would seem that the molecules of
solids at ordinary temperatures are probably very
close together, and, for the most part, in contact with
each other.

Lord Kelvin estimates from the kinetic theory of
gases that in glass or water ‘‘there are probably some-
thing like 600 molecules to the wave-length ”’ of violet
light, ‘‘ and almost certainly not fewer than 200, or 300,
or 400.’’*

Taking 600 as the number of molecules of water in
a wave-length of, violet light, which is about 1/2,500
of a millimetre in length, the size of the molecule of
water would be about 1/45,000,00 of a centimetre, or
1/37,500,000 Of an inch in diameter,—or, more accurately,
this would be the average distance between the
centers of adjacent molecules.

The thickness of the film of the soap bubble at the

‘dark part, just before it breaks, is said to be 1/s
the length of the sodium wave of light, which is equal
to 1/s17,00 of acentimetre, or about 1/2,118,000 of an inch.
This represents the thinnest portion of matter that has

*Popular Lectures and Addresses, by Sir W. Thomson, p. 193.

MATTER 21

been measured. It is evident that the diameter of the
molecules of water and soap cannot exceed the thick-
ness of the film. Regarding the molecule of soap as
made up of fifty atoms,—for example, sodium pal-
mitate, the formula of which is Cis Hs: C Oz Na, exact-
ly fifty atoms; then, if the black film of soap bub-
ble contains only one layer of molecules of soap
together with sufficient water to make the thickness
fifty atoms, the size of the atoms, or, rather, the
average distance from center to center of atoms, would
be */12,350,00 of acentimetre. Of course, it is impossible
to tell the number of atoms or molecules contained in
the thinnest part of a soap bubble. The only definite
conclusion is that the diameter of the molecules in the
particular case cannot exceed the thickness of the
film, and that the diameter of the atoms must be con-
siderably less than the thinnest part of the film.

Thus far I have spoken of simple substances and of
the size of atoms and molecules. It is evident that,
if there are but seventy simple substances known,
most things with which we are acquainted must be
compounds.

A.compound is produced by the union of two or
more simple substances. For example, thoroughly
mix 32 parts by weight of sulphur with 56 of iron
filings, and ignite the mixture with a burning match.
The whole mass, even in the absence of air, will soon
glow with heat and light. The weight of the result-
ing mass is equal to that of the sulphur plus that of
the iron.

The heat and light were produced by the chemical
action of the sulphur and iron on each other. The
atoms of the two substances rushed together with
such enormous velocity that intense heat and light
were generated by the concussion, as is done when the
motion of a cannon ball is arrested by a steel-clad

22 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

vessel. An atom of sulphur and an atom of iron
throughout the mass—atom for atom—crash together
and hold each other in their grasp.

The result of the chemical action is a new substance
that looks like neither sulphur nor iron. Before the
burning match was placed in the mixture the sulphur
and iron could be readily separated by mechanical
means—the iron could be removed with a magnet, or
the sulphur could be dissolved out with bisulphide of
carbon. The compound formed looks like neither
sulphur nor iron, and its mechanical and chemical
properties are different from those of the two
elements that compose it.

The whole of the two elements used is present in
the compound, known by the name, sulphide of iron,
and by various chemical means they may be separated
from each other and obtained again in the simple
form.

The smallest amount of this compound that can
exist is represented by one atom of sulphur com-
bined with one atom of iron, which is expressed by the
formula Fe 8. This smallest conceivable amount of a
compound is called by the chemist a molecule. A
single molecule may contain from two up to hundreds
of atoms. The molecule is the unit of the compound
on which its qualities as a distinct substance depend.

We are unable to tell in advance from the proper-
ties of the elements what will be the properties of the
compounds produced by their union. How totally we
would be unable to predict that by putting a spark
to a mixture of two volumes of hydrogen and one
volume of oxygen they would unite with a tremendous
explosion to form a volume of water more than
eighteen hundred times less than that of the two
gases; or that by decomposing common salt we would
find it composed of a soft metal and a very poisonous

MATTER 23

gas; or that by uniting sulphur and carbon, two
solids, we would obtain a very volatile liquid of an
extremely unpleasant odor; or, again, that by the
union of one volume each of nitrogen and chlorine
together with four volumes of hydrogen—all three of
them gases—we would obtain a white solid, known as
chloride of ammonium.

Examples might be multiplied indefinitely, but
these few are sufficient to show how widely different
are the properties of compounds from the proper-
ties of their constituent elements.

All material things with which we are acquainted,
the thousands of different objects upon the earth, are
built of a few primary building materials.

As infinite varieties of houses may be built of stone,
and brick, and mortar, so countless varieties of com-
pounds may be built of atoms of a few different
kinds. The same atom may be made to do many
different kinds of service. It is indeed an amazing
fact that the primary building materials of the
earth and of the other worlds which have revealed
thier composition, at least partly, through the spec-
troscope, are but a few kinds of atoms, and that
these atoms are inconceivably small.

And yet each atom is subject to definite and invari-
able laws. The laws of the material universe are the
laws of atoms. Atoms are the law-abiding citizens
of the universe; they do their work with absolute
precision. The fundamental laws of chemistry are
mathematically exact.

For example, take the law of ‘definite propor-
tions,’’ that in every chemical compound the. kinds
and relative quantities of the constituent elements
are fixed and invariable. One correct analysis of
pure water determines the composition of all water
in existence. The chemist cannot believe that the

24 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

composition of water can vary by a single atom of
either of its elements. He feels certain that the
rule is infallible that each molecule of water must
contain two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of
oxygen, and that it can have no other composition.
The same principle holds good of every other com-
pound.

Again, it often occurs that the same elements
unite in different proportions to form different com-
pounds, and, in these cases, they unite according to
the law of ‘‘multiple proportions,’’ namely, that
when two elements, A and B, unite in more than one
proportion, if we take quantities of the compounds
which contain the same amount of A, the quantities
of B will bear avery simple relation to each other.
For example, take the compounds of nitrogen and
oxygen represented by the following five formulas,
No O, Ne On, Ne Os, Ne Oz and Ne Os. It will be
noticed that while each compound has two atoms of
nitrogen in its molecule, the amounts of oxygen are
simple multiples of the qtiantity in the first com-
pound.

The formula for water is Hz O, but there is another
compound of oxygen and hydrogen, Hz Os, known as
hydrogen dioxide, which is a very active oxydizing
agent.

Chemists have determined with great exactness
the relative weights of atoms. I shall not describe
the methods by which this has been done. Hydro-
gen being the lightest known substance, its atomic
weight is taken as unity. The atomic weights of the
seventy elements range from 1 to 239, the latter being
the atomic weight of uranium.

It is a remarkable fact that when elements combine
with each other, their amounts are represented by
their atomic weights or by some multiple of these

MATTER 25

weights. Oxygen, for example, unites with every
element except fluorine, and with most elements in
more than one proportion, and yet the amount of
oxygen in any compound is always its atomic weight,
16, or some multiple of this weight. This renders it
possible for the chemist to represent every compound
by means of a formula which contains a definite num-
ber of atoms. A formula, such as that of water, He
O, shows the kinds of elements, hydrogen and
oxygen; the number of atoms of each element in the
molecule, two of hydrogen and one of oxygen; and
the relative weights of the two elements. The two
atoms of hydrogen weigh 2 and the one atom of
oxygen weighs 16. The weight of the molecule, He
O, is equal to the sum of the weights of its atoms—
2 plus 16 equal 18. We know therefore, by examin-
ing the formula that 7/13 of the weight of water is H
and 16/1 O.

When we consider the countless number of com-
pounds that may be formed by the union of the sey-
enty elements, ranging from the molecule of only two
atoms up to the most complex molecules, which con-
tain a half dozen or a dozen elements and hundreds
of atoms, and find that in every compound the law
of combination according to atomic weights is ob-
served, the fact is marvelous. Who numbers the
atoms that they may combine? Who wheels them
into line by twos, by tens:or by hundreds and binds
them together? The power of the Infinite is upon
them, for they are infinitely perfect in their workings.
The hand that upholds and guides the earth and
planets and the countless worlds that revolve through
infinite space, guides the atoms of which all these
worlds are made.

What a wide and marvelous range of functions has
been bestowed upon certain elements! Carbon isa

26 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

remarkable example which shows the almost unlim-
ited possibilities of an element in helping to build
structures of the most wonderful and diverse kinds.
In its uncombined crystalline condition, it constitutes
the diamond, the hardest of all known substances.
In a second form it is known as graphite, or black
lead, and in other forms as charcoal and lampblack.
This hardest of all elements helps to form a countless
number of compounds, some of which are gases,
other liquids, and still others are solids. It is a neces-
sary constituent of every plant and animal. It is
found in the gas, carbon dioxide, which is a necessary
food of plants. The same gas unites with many
bases to form the many mineral carbonates that exist
in nature. It isa part of a vast number of organic
compounds which are of the highest importance to
man and in the economy of life. Among these com-
pounds are starch, cellulose, the various sugars, the
many organic acids, the alkaloids, such as those in
quinine, morphine and strychnine, the alcohols, the
different fats and oils, and the numerous essential
oils, and the long lists of hydrocarbons. These are
but a few of the great number of compounds which
carbon helps to form. So important is this element
that the great branch of organic chemistry is often
called the chemistry of the compounds of carbon.

In many compounds carbon is combined with
hydrogen alone, in many’ more with hydrogen and
oxygen, and in a large number it is united with hydro-
gen, oxygen and nitrogen.

It is indeed marvelous [that these four elements,
which constitute the great bulk of the organic world,
can, by uniting in different ways, produce the vast
number of compounds that constitute the great
science of organic chemistry.

Carbon and hydrogen alone unite to form several

MATTER 27

long series of homologous compounds, and it is a most
remarkable fact, that in the compounds of one series
the elements exist in the same relative amounts. For
example, the following six formulas of this series
show that there are twice as many atoms of hydrogen
as of oxygen in each compound. C2 Ha, C3 He, Cz Hs, Cs.
Hy, Cs He, C7 Hu. The analysis of any one of these
compounds shows that there is by weight six parts of
carbon and one of hydrogen, and from this it might.
seem that.one formula would serve for each of the six
compounds, and yet the chemist is certain from the
specific gravities of the vapors of these compounds
that the above are the correct formulas.

But more remarkable than the above is the fact.
that sometimes different compounds must be repre-
sented by the same formulas. For example, several
different compounds have the formula Cs Hi, and
others the formula C, Hz Cle. In these cases of
isomerism the molecular weights of the substances are
the same, and we can only account for [the difference
in the properties of the compounds by assuming that
the atoms are combined in them in different ways.
We can easily imagine that the fifteen atoms in the
formula Cs; Hio might be differently grouped with
each other so as to form compounds of different
qualities, on the same principle that fifteen blocks of
two different kinds might be arranged in different
ways.

I may here state that there is no distinction be-
tween Organic and Inorganic Chemistry. It was
formerly thought that organic compounds could not
be produced artificially from the elements or from
inorganic substances, but that they could be built up
by living organisms only, or produced from matter
organized by plants and animals. Chemists have,

28 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

however, especially in recent years, succeeded in
manufacturing from the elementary substances them-
selves, or from inorganic compounds, a good many
carbon compounds which are obtained from organic
matter, or which are produced by plants and animals.
And yet it is true that the processes of manufacture,
as carried on artificially on the one hand, or by the
living being on the other, are probably widely differ-
ent from each other. It is probable that the life
force of the living being is something more than the
properties of the inorganic elements, and that it
proceeds according to methods that cannot be fol-
lowed in the laboratory. This seems the more
probable when we remember that but few carbon
compounds that exist in living beings have been
artificially produced, and that we know almost noth-
ing of the methods by which organic beings produce
the great multitude of very complex organic com-
pounds. It is beyond the truth for the chemist to
_ claim that, in manufacturing a few carbon com-
pounds in the laboratory, he is imitating the pro-
cesses carried on in the living world. It is evident
that the living organism uses methods which are un-
known to the chemist, and which it is not probable
can ever be imitated.

I need not say that no organized form of matter
has ever been produced artificially. The chemist, I
presume, does not even dream that he will ever be
able to manufacture from the elements albumen like
the white of an egg, nor a nerve fibre, nor cell, nor a
grain of corn.

While the power of the chemist in manufacturing
carbon compounds must certainly be regarded as one
of the great triumphs of science, yet it must be
admitted that it amounts to but little when compared
to the work of living plants and animals.

MATTER 29

I make the above remarks because there are those
who seem to imagine that the chemist in the labora-
tory may imitate the great multitude of wonderful
and unknown processes which are carried on in the
living world, and that the laboratory, by the use of
inorganic materials, may supersede the organic world
in the manufacture of carbon compounds.

A fundamental doctrine in chemistry is that matter
cannot be destroyed. The chemist relies on this as a
well-established fact. We know of no method by which
to destroy a single atom of matter. The chemist
may separate substances from each other, or he may
cause them to unite by bringing them together under
certain conditions; he may change substances from
the solid to the liquid and from the liquid to the
gaseous condition; he may render matter invisible, or
the reverse, but he cannot destroy it.

The indestructibility of matter is shown not only by
experiment, but also by the fact that the mind of man
is totally unable to conceive that something may be-
come nothing.

Ii.
FORCE.

In this chapter I will consider briefly some of the
forces of nature. Force may be defined as that which
can put matter in motion.

Among the forces of nature may be mentioned
light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity,
cohesion, adhesion, and gravitation.

Forces act upon bodies in two ways—they cause
bodies to approach or to recede from each other; to
attract or to repel.

As examples of the former, chemical affinity binds
atoms together to form molecules; cohesion causes
like atoms or molecules to cling together to form
masses of matter; gravitation causes each atom in the
universe to attract every other atom in the universe;
and magnetism causes the magnet to attract iron or
steel.

Heat, which causes bodies to expand, thereby sepa-
rating more widely their molecules, generally acts as a
repellant force. The like poles of magnets, bodies
electrified alike, and currents of electricity in unlike
directions repel each other.

Some forces act only at imnsensible distances.
Chemical affinity, adhesion, and cohesion are exam-
ples. Gravitation acts at all distances. No limit can
imagined at which two bodies cease to attract each
other.

Our knowledge of force is derived from its effects

on matter. Matter in motion shows force at work.
30

FORCE 31

The lifted weight and the bent spring represent forces
ready to do work.

It is assumed that energy is indestructible. The
quantity of energy in the universe is constant.
When one form of energy disappears it has become
one or more other forms of energy.

Coal is burnt under a boiler. Chemical affinity
causes the atoms of oxygen of the air and the atoms
of the fuel to rush together with such enormous
velocity as to generate a large quantity of heat. This
heat increases the motion of the molecules of water
until they are forced wide apart in the form of steam,
and the expanding steam gives mechanical motion to
the engine. The engine runs a dynamo, thereby con-
verting some of its energy into electricity and mag-
netism, and the electricity is conveyed to a distant
motor and is converted into magnetism and mechan-
ical energy to run a car. Some of the electricity is
converted back into heat, and some into light; or,
again, it may be made to separate the atoms which
united to generate the original heat.

Thus chemical’ force, mechanical force, electricity,
magnetism, light, and heat are seen to be in succes-
sion manifestations of the same energy. I need
hardly say that the correlation of the different forms
of energy is one of the greatest discoveries of modern
science. All forms of energy seem to be essentially
one. Each may. be converted into any of the others.
And so the problem of energy is simplified; and yet
it should be remembered that the highest powers of
the human mind have been and are being taxed in
endeavoring to explain the methods by which the
forces of nature produce their results. Some of the
problems involved are so subtle that it seems hardly
possible that they can ever be solved.

How shall we explain magnetism, clectricity, light,

32 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

heat, and gravity? This question involves many diffi-
culties, some of which are probably unanswerable.

Sound is known to be the vibration of air or other
material media, and the pitch depends on the fre-
quency of the vibrations. The lowest audible note is
produced by 20 to 30 vibrations per second, and it is
said that some ears can appreciate sounds made by
50,000 vibrations per second. The length of waves
produced by 16 vibrations per second is about 70 feet,
and the wave length due to 50,000 vibrations is about
3/, of an inch. The production of waves of sound
requires an elastic medium. The medium, air for
example, propagates sound by a series of longitudinal
vibrations of the molecules of air, resulting in a
series of condensations followed by rarefactions.
Sound is one form of mechanical energy which is
transmitted by means of waves through elastic mate-
rial media,—at the rate of about 1,100 feet per second
through air, at the ordinary temperature, but more
rapidly than this through liquids and solids.

How can we explain the transmission of other
forms of energy? of heat and light and gravitation
through interstellar space? the motion of heat and
electricity through material media? the attraction of
magnets, and the drawing of atom to atom in chemical
action?

It should be remembered that all matter is por-
ous—that between the molecules of all gases, liquids
and solids are spaces which are not occupied by any
known form of matter. If these intermolecular spaces
are an absolute vacuum, then we are left to account
for the transmission of energy through a vacuum.

If we heat one end of an iron rod, the heat slowly
creeps along until the whole rod becomes hot. In
this case we may assume that the molecules of the
end first heated are thrown into more rapid vibration,

FORCE 33

and that by concussion they communicate their
energy to the neighboring atoms. The rate of trans-
mission of heat in this way would be, at most, a few
feet per hour. But radiant energy, such as the light
and heat of the sun, flash through space at the rate
of 186,000 miles per second. Electricity travels
through a conducting wire thousands of miles in a
second, and it is even claimed that it sometimes
travels with the velocity of light. As to the velocity
of gravitation and other forms of attractive energy,
we are entirely ignorant.

We now inquire, Can energy manifest itself through
an absolute vacuum?

Our knowledge of energy is that it is connected
with matter, and manifests itself in and through mat-
ter, and not independently of it.

Shall we, therefore, assume that all space is full of
matter, and that the energy of sun and stars is con-
veyed through infinite space by means of some kind of
universal medium?

The theory now accepted by all physicists is that
there is a medium, ether, not composed of ordinary
matter, which fills all space except that occupied by
the atoms of ordinary kinds of matter. It permeates
all gases and liquids and solids, occupying the spaces
between their molecules.

The belief in the existence of such a medium has
been forced upon physicists for reasons so weighty
that all have been led to accept it.

First, it is impossible to conceive the action of
energy through an absolute vacuum. Newton felt the
difficulty of trying to explain the action of gravity
through a vacuum, and wrote as follows on the sub-
ject:

‘“*That gravity should be innate, inherent, and

essential to matter, so that one body may act on
3

34 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

another at a distance through a vacuum, without
the mediation of anything else, by and through which
their action and force may be conveyed from one to
another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe
no man who has in philosophical matters a compe-
tent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Grav-
ity must be caused by an agent acting constantly
according to certain laws; but whether this agent
be material or immaterial, I have left to the consid-
eration of my readers.’’*

Again he writes in his queries: ‘‘Qu. 21. Is not this
medium much rarer in the denser Bodies of the Sun,
Stars, Planets, and Comets, than in the empty celes-
tial Spaces between them? And in passing from them
to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser
perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those
great Bodies towards one another, and of their parts
towards the bodies; every body endeavoring to go
from the denser parts of the Medium towards the
rarer? For if the Medium be rarer within the Sun’s
Body than at its surface, and rarer there than at the
hundredth parth of an Inch from its Body, and rarer
there than at the Orb of Saturn, I see no reason
why the increase of density should stop anywhere,
and not rather be continued through all distances
from the Sunto Saturn and beyond. And though
the increase of density may at great distances be
exceeding slow, yet if the elastic force of the medium
be exceeding great, it may suffice to impel Bodies
from the denser parts of the Medium towards the
rarer, with all that power which we call Gravity.
And that the elastic force of the Medium is exceed-
ing great, may be gathered from the swiftness of its
vibrations,’’ etc.f

*On Light, by Stokes, p. 16.
+Modern Views of Electricity, by Lodge, p. 406.

FORCE 35

*©Qu. 22. May not Planets and Comets, and all
gross Bodies, perform their motions more freely, and
with less resistance in this Aetherial Medium than in
Fluid, which fills all Space adequately without leaving
any Pores, and by consequence is much denser than
quicksilver and gold? And may not its resistance be
so small as to be inconsiderable? For instance, if
this Aether (for so I call it,) should be supposed
700,000 times more elastic than our Air, and about
700,000 times more rare, its resistance would be above
600,000,000 times less than that of Water. And so
small a resistance would scarce make a sensible alter-
ation in the Motions of the Planets in ten thousand
years,’’ etc.*

I quote the above to show that Newton regarded a
medium as necessary in order to explain the action of
gravity.

I may here remark that of all the forces of nature,
gravity is least understood as to its method of action.
No theory has been offered that meets the difficulties
involved. :

The belief in the existence of ether, a universal
medium, has grown out of facts connected with light.
It is now admitted by the scientific world, that light
consists of the vibrations of ether that can be recog-
nized by the eye. While the vibrations of matter
which produce audible sounds are limited to about
50,000 per second, the vibrations of ether which pro-
duce red light are 370 trillions, and violet light 739
trillions per second; and beyond the violet are invis-
ible rays that vibrate at astill higher rate, while below
the red are rays of heat which have a slower rate of
vibration than the rays of light.

In the solar spectrum, produced by the passage of
the sun’s rays through a prism, we find heat, light

*Modern Views of Electricity, by Lodge, p. 406.

36 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

consisting of all the colors of the rainbow, and invis-
ible rays beyond the violet, all arranged in definite
order according to their rates of vibration.

As in music the different notes depend on different
rates of vibration of air, so the different colors are
due to the different rates of the vibrations of ether.

‘We know from experience that many notes may be
sounded at once and all be audible to the ear. The
air as a medium responds readily at the same time
to many different rates of vibration, so that the ear
can distinguish them as separate notes.

So ether responds to the many rates of vibration
which are necessary to produce the heat and light and
actinic rays that reach us from the sun. We some-
times speak of the seven colors of the rainbow, but
this is simply a convenience, for the number is indef-
initely great. They shade so gradually one into
another in the rainbow that it is impossible for the
eye to draw definite lines between them. This vast
number of colors, together with the multitude of
rates of vibrations that represent the different de-
grees of heat and of actinic rays, show that the
motions of the ether, as represented in the rays of the
sun, are inconceivably complex.

And when in addition to this we remember the fact
that hundreds of thousands of stars have been seen,
and that in order to see them the ether must respond
at one and the same time to separate vibrations from
all of these bodies scattered through infinite space,
the methods of vibration become infinitely complex.

Instead of waves like those of sound, varying from
half an inch to 70 feet in length, we find from forty
thousand to sixty thousand waves in the length of one
inch. How infinitely delicate must be the organ of
sight that it may appreciate such extremely small
disturbances of a medium so subtle and attenuated

FORCE 37

that all the science and ingenuity of man have failed
to reveal its existence as matter! And yet scientists
feel sure that ether reaches from the earth to the
most distant star from which light has ever reached
us. Marvelous indeed is the fact that there are visi.
ble stars so distant from us that it requires thousands
of years for their light, traveling at the rate of 186,000
miles per second, to reach the earth! And yet the
waves of light are flashed across infinite space, and
travel on and on for ages without being lost, through
anether that is being perpetually agitated in every
conceivable direction and manner by the ceaseless
vibrations of countless worlds.

We look upon the telegraph and telephone as being
wonderful means of communication—which they truly
are—but light and heat flow with ceaseless activity
from world to world with no visible means of transit
through infinite space. The existence of life on the
earth is rendered possible by the fact that the sun’s
light and heat are poured through ninety-two millions
of miles of space that must be, so far as ordinary
matter is concerned, an almost absolute vacuum.

It may be asked, why assume the existence of a uni-
versal medium? In answer to this it may be said that,
from the transmission of sound through air and other
media, and the transmission of heat and electricity
through conductors, it might seem that a medium is
necessary in order to convey energy through space.
And yet it may be said that the qualities which are
assigned to ether are so different from those of ordi-
nary matter that analogy fails. But still the human
mind is left helpless in the presence of the question
as to how energy can pass through an absolute
vacuum. It therefore assumes the existence of a
medium.

In addition to this, the various facts connected with

38 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

light,—refraction, diffraction, polarization, colors
shown by films,—can only be fully explained by the
undulatory theory which necessarily involves a medi-
um. Besides, this theory easily explains the differ-
ent colors of light, the differences in the qualities of
heat, and the ultra violet invisible rays.

In order to explain the polarization of light, it is
necessary to assume that the ether vibrates trans-
versely to the line of radiation, instead of longitudi-
nally, as in the case of sound.

What, then, must be the properties of a medium
which can transmit radiant energy at the rate of
186,000 miles per second by means of transverse
vibrations?

Among the various authors who have expressed
their views as to the nature of ether, no one stands
higher than Lord Kelvin. He expresses his views
in the following language:

‘¢ What we know of the luminiferous ether is that
it has the rigidity of a solid and gradually yields,
Whether or not it is brittle and cracks, we cannot
yet tell, but I believe the discoveries in electricity
and the motions of comets and the marvelous
spurts of light from them, tend to show cracks in
the luminiferous ether—show a correspondence be-
tween the electric flash and the aurora borealis and
cracks in the luminiferous ether. Do not take this
as an assertion, it is hardly more than a vague scien-
tific dream; but you may regard the existence of
the luminiferous ether asa reality of science; that
is, we have an all-pervading medium, an elastic solid,
with a great degree of rigidity—a rigidity so prodig-
ious in proportion to its density that the vibrations
of light in it have the frequencies I have mentioned,
with the wave-lengths 1 have mentioned. The fun-
dameutal question as to whether or not luminifer-

FORCE 39

ous ether has gravity has not been answered. We
have no knowledge that the luminiferous ether is
attracted by gravity; it is sometimes called impon-
derable because some people vainly-imagine that it
has no weight. I call it matter with the same kind
of rigidity that this elastic jelly has.’’*

“The luminiferous ether is an elastic solid for
which the nearest analogy I can give you is this jelly
which you see.’’t

‘“¢Now what is the luminiferous ether? It is mat-
ter prodigiously less dense than air—millions and
millions and millions of times less dense than air.
We can form some sort of idea of its limitations.
We believe it is a real thing, with great rigidity in
comparison with its density; it may be made to
vibrate 400 million, million times per second; and yet
be of such density as not to produce the slightest
resistance to any body going through it.’’f

He has also assigned to it a density which makes
one cubic centimeter weigh .000,000,000,000,000,-
000,936 grain. ‘This density, although about the
same as that of the atmosphere at the height of 340
kilometers, is yet enormously great as compared
with that which air would assume in interstellar
space. The rigidity of the ether, according to the
same authority, is approximately one thousand-mill-
ionth of that of steel; so that masses of ordinary mat-
ter can pass through it readily.’’§

Lodge speaks of it as ‘‘a perfectly continuous, sub-
tle, incompressible substance pervading all space and
penetrating between the molecules of all ordinary
matter which are imbedded in it and connected with
one another by its means. And we must regard it as
the one universal medium by which all actions be-

* Popular Lectures and Addresses, by Sir W. Thomson, pp, 328, 329.
t Ibid, p. 327. } Ibid, 347. § Barker’s Physics, p. 366.

40 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

tween bodies are carried on. This, then, is its func-
tion—to act as the transmitter of motion and energy.’”*

‘As far as we know, it appears to be a perfectly
homogeneous, incompressible, continuous body, in-
capable of being resolved into simpler elements o1

_atoms; it is, in fact, continuous, not molecular.

‘* Gravitation is explainable by differences of pres-
sure in the medium, caused by some action between it
and matter not yet understood. Cohesion is explain-
able also, probably in the same way.

‘Light consists of undulations or waves in the
medium; while electricity is turning out, quite possi-
bly, to be an aspect of a part of the very medium
itself.’’ +

‘¢One continuous substance filling all space; which
can vibrate as light; which can be sheared into posi-
tive and negative electricity; which in whirls consti-
tutes matter, and which transmits by continuity, and
not by impact, every action and reaction of which
matter is capable. This is the modern view of the
Ether and its functions.’’{

‘*The vibrations of light are not such as can be
transmitted by a set of disconnected molecules; if by
molecules at all, it must be by molecules connected
into a solid; ¢.e., by a body with rigidity. Rigidity
means active resistance to shearing stress, 7. e., to
alteration in shape; it is also called elasticity of figure ;
it is by the possession of rigidity that a solid differs
from a fluid. For a body to transmit vibrations at
all, it must possess inertia; transverse vibrations can
only be transmitted by a body with rigidity. All
matter possesses inertia, but fluids only possess
volume elasticity, and accordingly can only transmit
longitudinal vibrations. Light consists of transverse

* Modern Views of Electricity, by Oliver J. Lodge, p. 339.
+ Ibid, 338. t Ibid, p. 358.

FORCE 41

vibrations; air and water have no rigidity, yet they
are transparent, 7. e., transmit transverse vibrations;
hence it must be the ether inside them which really
conveys the motion, and the ether must have proper-
ties which, if it were ordinary matter, we would style
inertia or rigidity. No highly rarefied air will serve
the purpose; the ether must be a distinct body. Air
may exist, indeed, in planetary space, even to infinity,
but if so, it is of almost infinitesimal density com-
pared with the ether there.’’*

‘*So at a height of only 4,000 miles above the sur-
face, the atmospheric density is a number with 127
ciphers after the decimal point before the significant
figures begin.’’ The density of ether, as calculated by
Sir William Thomson, is represented by a decimal
‘with only 17 ciphers before the significant figures.
In interplanetary space, therefore, all the air that
exists is utterly negligible; the density of the ether
there, though small, is enormous by comparison.”’

It is known that ordinary forms of matter are not
necessary for the transmission of light, for it passes
readily through the most perfect vacuum.

It also passes through the diamond—the hardest
known solid, but with less velocity than through the
vacuum. If ether serves as a medium for light in a
vacuum, it is probable that it also serves as a medium
in the diamond. There is nothing to justify the con-
clusion that the molecules of a transparent solid
serve as a medium for radiant energy. The high rate
of speed at which light traverses such bodies excludes
the belief that solids act as conductors of light as
they do of heat.

The following are some of the conclusions with
regard to ether:

* Modern Views of Electricity, by Oliver J. Lodge, p. 340.

42 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

It occupies all space except that occupied by
atoms of matter.

It must be capable of transmitting light at the rate
of about 186,000 miles per second.

It must offer almost no resistance to the motions
of the heavenly bodies, for we know that the earth
has been moving through it for millions of years
without having its motion destroyed—it is now mov-
ing at the rate of about 19 miles per second.

It must be non-condensible by gravity, for if it
could be thus condensed, as can our atmosphere and
all other gases, it would be too rare in interstellar
space to transmit radiant energy by transverse vibra-
tions. This makes it necessary to assume that it isa
continuous substance, 7. e., that there are no vacant
spaces between the atoms of ether, unless it should
be assumed that it is a substance which is free from
gravity. With freedom from the effects of gravity
we might imagine ether to be uniformly distributed
through all space, and composed of molecules that
are not in contact, 7. e., that ether is porous.

However this may be, ether must possess great
rigidity compared with its density in order that it may
transmit transverse vibrations.

It must be capable of receiving and transmitting
the vibrations of the atoms and molecules of ordin-
ary matter. The different kinds of heat and light
represent different rates of vibration of atoms and
molecules. Radiant energy displays the activity of
atoms and molecules,—in dealing with it we have to
do with the properties of elements.

The spectroscope reveals the fact that in studying
light we gain a knowledge of the qualities of the
atoms of matter. Light might be called the music
of vibrating atoms. White light is the perfect har-
mony of all the vibrations of light.

FORCE 43

Ether must not only receive vibrations from atoms,
but it must impart them to other matter. The earth
is dependent on the mechanical work done by the
radiant energy of the sun.

The fact that it requires force to move ether and
that ether in motion can impart motion to matter,
indicates that ether possesses inertia.

It is evident that if ether is composed of atoms
they must be vastly smaller than the atoms of ordin-
ary kinds of matter, since it permeates the hardest
solids.

Thus we have in ether a hypothetical substance
which has never been detected as matter,—which, in
fact, must be extremely different in its properties
from any known form of matter. All modern
physicists have assumed the existence of ether as a
necessary medium for the transmission of radiant
energy, and also of other forms of energy.

Science is driven to assume the existence of a uni-
versal medium, and, without the aid of analogy, in
order to perfect her theories. She regards the exist-
ence of ether as certain—as a matter no longer to be
called in question.

And so we may rest in the conclusion that nearly
all space is filled with an infinitely subtle substance
which possesses marvelous properties, which are, for
the most part, extremely different from those of
ordinary matter. If ether is a continuous substance,
then no part of space is an absolute vacuum—the
atoms of matter and of ether completely fill all
space.

With space thus filled we are relieved of the neces-
sity of assuming that force is transmitted through a
vacuum.

With ether as a universal medium can we explain
the action of the various forces? Can gravity, mag-

44 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

netism, electricity and chemical affinity be thus ex-
plained? Do motions of ether account for the action
of each of these forces? ,

When we speak of ether as a medium for the trans-
mission of force, we exclude the idea that ether itself
is energy. Force is, by definition, that which can put
matter in motion, and in defining matter we would be
obliged to include ether. The existence of ether
gives us no conception of force itself, but it simply
serves to explain the transmission of certain-forms of
energy.

As to gravity, we can yet form no adequate concep-
tion. What sort of motions and distributions of an
almost infinitely thin, non-resistant material like
ether, will explain gravitation? The mind can form
no adequate conception as to how the motion of ether
will account for this force. It would seem that ether,
which offers no perceptible resistance to the motions
of the planets, is entirely inadequate as a medium to
explain the action of gravity. That one body may put
another in motion implies inertia and resistance in
both. We know that a body falling towards the earth
soon acquires a great velocity. What adequate reason
have we for believing that moving ether is’ pushing
the falling body? or that the pressure of ether is
greater on one side of the falling body than on the
other?

It is true that Newton and others have felt it neces-
sary to assume the existence of ether in order to
explain gravity, and yet, with ether as a medium, the
human mind has made no progress in formulating an
adequate theory of gravity.

If we consider chemical affinity which binds atom
to atom to form molecules, the method of action is
as uncertain as that of gravity. Indeed, Sir W.
Thomson seeks to explain capillary attraction by the

FORCE 45

law of gravitation. He says, ‘* Until we see how
gravity itself is to be explained as Newton and Fara-
day thought it must be explained, by some continuous
‘action of intervening or surrounding matter, may we
not be temporarily satisfied to explain capillary at-
traction merely as Newtonian attraction intensified in
virtue of intensely dense molecules movable among
one another, of which the aggregate constitutes a
mass of liquid or solid.’’*

Again he says, ‘* Hence, unless we find heterogen-
eousness and the Newtonian law of attraction incapa-
ble of explaining cohesion and capillary attraction,
we are not forced to seek the explanation in a devia-
tion from Newton’s law of gravitational force.’’t

May we regard the attractions of molecules and
atoms as due to the force of gravity acting at insensi-
ble distances? When a mixture of one volume of
oxygen with two volumes of hydrogen explodes to
form water, is it due to the fall of these atoms against
each other, produced by gravitation?

If we answer in the affirmative, the answer is
simply an unknown quantity.

If we seek to explain how ether acts as a medium
in chemical affinity, we fail to do so.

It may be that electric currents are ether in motion
through certain media, and that magnetism is due to
ether moving in vortices.

Magnetism acts readily through a vacuum and
through solids, liquids, and gases. Neither the total
absence of matter nor the presence of the densest
solids interferes with its action. It may be that the
motions of ether will explain the facts of magnetism.
In fact, we are compelled to choose between ether and
an absolute vacuum in explaining the action of all
attractive forces. Shall we accept the theory that a

* Popular Lectures and Addresses, pp. 9,10. + Ibid, p. 4.

46 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

substance can exist all around and in us which we
cannot detect with any of our senses, or shall we
believe that energy can pass through a vacuum? We
know that matter may exist in such conditions that it
does not appeal to our senses. When the atmosphere
in which we live is perfectly quiet it excites no one of
our senses, and we are unconscious of its existence.
If this is true of matter so dense as our air, it can
easily be imagined that a substance might exist so
attenuated as to escape our senses. We cannot weigh
ether, because we cannot exhaust it from a vessel,
owing to the fact that it passes readily through the
densest solids; nor can we, for the same reason, con-
dense it.

It may be said, however, that ether in motion as
light, heat and electricity, appeals to the senses.

We must, in fact, believe in the existence of ether
unless we choose to fall back upon the corpuscular
theory of radiant energy—a theory which totally fails
to explain many of the phenomena of light.

We conclude, therefore, that all space in the uni-
verse is filled with matter and ether, every atom of
which is in constant agitation; that each can receive
motion from, and impart motion to, the other, and
that by means of ether as a medium, the radiant
energy of the universe may be distributed through
space with the velocity of light. According to this
view all physical energy is held by matter and ether.

Matter is continually imparting its radiant energy
to ether. Must not the time finally come when all
the energy of matter which can be radiated will be
imparted to ether and dissipated through infinite
space? The quantity of matter in the universe is
finite, and consequently the quantity of energy in this
matter is finite. It cannot, therefore, require infinite
time in which to part with its radiant energy. Owing

FORCE 47

to the radiation of energy it would seem that sun and
stars and all material things must finally become dark
and cold.

Even if we claim that the concussion of falling
bodies generates the light and heat of the universe,
yet it is evident that with infinite time a finite number
of finite quantities of matter must do their work and
part with their energy.

Looking backward we might ask, If sun and stars
have existed through an infinite past, how is it possible
for them to be in their present highly heated condition?
We know that they are material bodies, and that, like
other bodies of matter, they must part with their
heat and light. It is evident, therefore, that they
cannot have had their present high temperatures
through an infinite past. The present high tempera-
ture of the sun has, according to any physical theory,
been maintained but a few millions of years at most.
_ The vast sums of energy in matter have in some way
been stored up there within finite time, and the finite
future will serve to dissipate this energy through
infinite space.

It may be claimed that past time is infinite, that
matter has existed during the infinite past, and that,
consequently, the fact that much of it is so highly
heated is evidence that worlds may be kept glowing
with light and heat through an infinite future. In
answer to this we may say that we know of no phys-
ical means by which a finite quantity of matter, sur-
rounded by an infinite quantity of ether, could be
kept hot through infinite time—and this for the rea-
son thut the light and heat of this matter would be
radiated into infinite space, with no known method
by which they could again be concentrated in matter.

The present concentration of energy in matter, as
we see it in the sun and stars, has taken place within

48 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the finite past,for the evident reason that they cannot
have radiated light and heat through infinite time and
still be highly heated. The present energy of the
heavenly bodies has been stored in them within a
finite past, and must be dissipated within a finite
future. The present condition of the universe is
temporal. There must, therefore, be a power unseen
and eternal, unconditioned, that has established the
visible universe in its present condition. The uni-
verse as it now is cannot be explained according to
known physical laws. We must assume something
more than matter and ether in motion—we must at
least predicate a cause of motion.

IV.
METHOD OF CREATION.

THERE exist on the earth at present from a million
to a million and a half species of animals and vege-

tables,* and it is commonly believed that the number
of extinct forms is many times greater than the liv-
ing. These organic beings are divided into kingdoms,
sub-kingdoms, classes, orders, genera, species and
varieties.

It is taught by evolution, that beginning with proto-
plasm, derived by spontaneous generation from in-
organic matter, the process of evolution, acting
through secondary agencies alone, has, from this
primordial protoplasm by ordinary generation and by
processes strictly natural, but in no case supernatural,
derived the countless multitude of animal and vege-
table species that have appeared upon the earth.
The primordial protoplasm was the parent from
which all organic beings have descended.

Spontaneous generation being strictly a natural
process, a process so rare, according to some authors,
that we need not expect it to be repeated, the exist-
ence of all organic species, including man, was sus-
pended on the production of life by strictly natural
processes which are still in operation, but which are
persistently refusing to produce a similar result.

If there is an intelligent Creator, it would seem that
he carried rashness to the verge of destruction when

*The Interpretation of Nature, by N. S. Shaler, p 149.
4 49

SET IR,

50 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

he suspended the possible existence of life upon sec-
ondary agencies which have acted for at least a hun-
dred million years* upon the earth, but which in all
that time have been able to produce and propagate
the primordial protoplasm only once. It was indeed
fortunate that the one and only possible card of for-
tune in the lottery of infinite impossibilities was
drawn so early in the geological history of the earth,
so that there would be an abundance of time while
the sun retained its light and heat to evolve the count-
less species of living beings, the highest of which
culminated in man. It is a significant fact in the
existence of living beings that they appeared so early
in the history of the earth.

From the dead, unconscious matter that we tread
beneath our feet, we may, according to the theory of
evolution, ascend by secondary agencies alone, by vir-
tue of ‘‘the laws impressed on matter by the Cre-
ator,’’ as Darwin has expressed it, through spontan-
eous generation, on and on, through an infinite num-
ber of organic forms till we reach the mind of man,
which is the pinnacle of evolution.

I need not say that Darwin in ‘The Origin of
Species,’’ has given to the world most of the facts’
and arguments that have been urged for and against
the theory of organic evolution. Perhaps no other
scientific book has ever done so much in so shorta
time to turn human thought aside into a new channel.

Before proceeding to consider the facts which bear
upon the theory of the evolution of organic forms, I
will present the possible Theistic theories according
to which new organic forms may have been brought
into existence.

First, the Creator may have created each species by

* The Interpretation of Nature, by N. S. Shaler, p, 122.

METHOD OF CREATION 51

means of secondary agencies alone, by the process of
evolution.

Second, he may have created each species from in-
organic matter by means of a special fiat.

Third, he may have created certain types of living
beings from inorganic matter by special fiats, and
from these types he may-have evolved, by secondary
agencies, all other forms.

The existence of secondary causes implies a pri-
mary cause. The unity in nature shows that the
primary cause is one and not many.

The method of creation is nothing except as it
bears on our interpretation of the nature of the
creative power. Theism stands in no danger from
creation by secondary causes, for they are consistent
with the existence of an intelligent Creator. Evolu-
tion may be atheistic, but it is not necessarily so.
Either of the above methods of creation may be
Theistic.

Evolution, if true, is only the immediate explana-
tion, but the vital question is, What is the nature of
the final Cause as indicated by the secondary causes?

Evolution, in the belief of the Theistic evolution-
ist, is due to secondary agencies working according to
established law through all ages, under the guidance
of the Divine Mind. The action of natural causes
has been continuous, and it is believed by evolution-
ists generally that they are sufficient to account for
the present condition of things in the universe.

On the other hand, it is evident that a failure in the
sufficiency of secondary causes to produce a known
result, renders it necessary that the Primary Cause
should come to their aid.

Each new form that is created involves to a certain
extent a change in the method of creation. It may
not demand new agencies, but it requires at least a

52 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

change in the method by which the agencies work.

When we speak of secondary causes, we imply the
existence of a Primary Cause from which they have
sprung. If matter and the forces of nature are sec-
ondary causes, then their existence is due to the
Primary Cause, and their creation required special
acts of that cause. Darwin speaks of ‘‘the laws im-
pressed on matter by the Creator.”? The impression
of these laws on matter must have required special
fiats of the Creator. Spencer attributes all known
phenomena to the Unknown and Unknowable Power.

It seems to me that at least several fiats were neces-
sary in creation, namely, the creation of matter, the
creation of the forces of nature, the creation of the
first living being, the creation of the senses, the crea-
tion of instincts, and the creation of the mind of
man. These are exceptional kinds of work, which
demanded, I think, the exercise of exceptional kinds
of power, or they demanded exceptional methods of
the action of secondary agencies, which could be
brought about only by the acts of the Primary Cause.

‘Itis conceivable that the Creator’s method may be
similar to that of man in dealing with nature. Man
accomplishes an endless number of purposes by mak-
ing use of existing matter and forces.

A special act of the Creator does not involve the
abandonment of the use of secondary agencies, but
it may be a special use of these agencies, so that they
accomplish work which they would not otherwise per-
form. The mind of man isa controlling agency in
the affairs of the earth. Mind perpetually interferes
with the workings of nature, directing her forces intc
new channels, and thus producing results which are
as wonderful as miracles. It is the prerogative of
mind to rule over all else—to subdue, combine, direct
and fulfill the endless purposes of intelligence.

METHOD OF CREATION 53

The Creator has made the universe. Its laws are
his laws. Its present condition is due to him. We
may say that he created nature and left it to its own
workings, or, on the other hand, that the workings of
nature are due to his immediate presence and the per-
petual exercise of his power.

That the Creator would make the universe and then
separate himself from it, as if he had no interest in it,
seems to my mind wholly improbable. ‘In him we
live and move and have our being,’ expresses, I be-
lieve, a scientific truth. He is a universal presence
and power in and through nature at all times. All
power is his power, and all the workings of nature
are due to him.

“For of him, and through him, and unto him are
all things.’? ‘‘For your Father knoweth what things
ye have need of, before ye ask him.”’

‘‘Are not two sparrows sold fora farthing? and
not one of them shall fall on the ground without
your Father; but the very hairs of your head are all
numbered.”’

‘¢ The glory of the Lord shall endure forever: the
Lord shall rejoice in his works. He looketh on the
earth and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills and
they smoke.’’

‘“‘The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice.’’ ‘‘ His
lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and
trembled. The hills melted like wax at the presence
of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the
whole earth.’’

The Bible represents the Creator as a present, liv-
ing, intelligent God, who is interested in his works,
and who is ever working in and through nature. The
forces of nature are the power of God, and the results
produced by these forces are due to his will.

We are not to look on the Universe as a complex

54 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

machine which the Creator has made and set to work,
and from which he has withdrawn himself and which
he views as a spectator, but we are to regard its oper-
ations as being due to his omnipresence and to the
perpetual exercise of his power, and believe that all
things are done with absolute wisdom.

Whatever may be our theory as to the nature of
the first Cause, we must believe that the Universe, as
it exists, is the best possible.

If the Creator is destitute of intelligence, then it is
evident that the Universe, as it is, was the only thing
possible. If, on the other hand, the Creator is a God
of intelligence, wisdom, mercy and love, it is evident
that in creating the Universe he manifested to the
fullest possible extent the nature of his attributes.

We have no reason to believe that nature might
have been better, that it is imperfect, and that things
are out of joint. It is impossible, from our limited
view of things, that we should be able to show a lack
of wisdom in the works of the Creator of an infinite
Universe.

Our capacities, and time, and opportunities for
knowing are all extremely limited, and these things
would suggest that we are not prepared to pronounce
adverse judgments against the attributes of an infinite
Intelligence working through eternity.

The fact that the work of creation has advanced
from inorganic matter to the mind of man, would of
itself, in a general way, seem to indicate the wisdom
and beneficence of the Creator.

The vital question at issue with regard to the crea-
tion of living beings is as to the nature of the Cre-
ator. At bottom the question as to the method of
creation is only a dispute between Theism and
Atheism. If the existence of all things can be
explained in terms of matter and force, then Atheism

METHOD OF CREATION 55

triumphs. If the existence of a Supreme Spirit must
be assumed in order to account for the present condi-
tion of things, then Theism is established.

Whether the Creator created living beings suddenly
or slowly, whether he made them directly from inor-
ganic matter or created some from others by the
process of evolution, whether he created by fiat or
by the use of secondary agencies, is of importance
only as it helps us to understand the nature of the
Creator himself.

It is certain that the bodies of all animals and °
plants consist of a few simple kinds of ordinary mat-
ter. It is certain that the plant gets its food from
soil, water and air, and that its tissues are converted
into the tissues of animals. The plant is not the less
noble that its cells are made of inorganic matter, nor
the animal the less elevated because its body is con-
structed of the materials furnished by plants, nor is
man less spiritual because he subsists on animals and
plants and minerals.

If the plant can grow into an animal, if the worm

can be developed into a fish, the fish into a reptile,
the reptile into a mammal, and the mammal into a
man, then the fact of such origins does not degrade
the higher forms into the lower, but it shows the
greatness of the Power that has created them.
_ But we would be blind, if, having concluded that
the above was the method of creation, we should also
affirm that soil, plant, worm, fish, reptile, mammal
and man are essentially alike. The attempt to prove
this is a mistake which has been made by some
evolutionists.

It is this effort especially that the Theist resists, for
he regards it as Atheism. He denies that man is only
matter and force. He denies that all the members of
the series, although constructed of the same material

56 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

elements, are essentially alike. He denies that man
can be explained in terms of the mammal, and so on
back till all are explained in terms of a common soil
and sunshine.

He believes that as we ascend the scale, whether by
evolution or otherwise, something more than dyna-
mics must be appealed to in order to account for the
marvelous progress.

If we knew that man was made directly from inor-
ganic matter, then there could be no question as to
the existence of an intelligent Creator. The miracle
is evidence of supernatural power.

A miracle producing a small change is as strong
proof as one producing a great change, but in the
former case there is more room to question the fact
as to its being a miracle. For example, the creation
of a single living cell—an amoeba—directly from in-
organic matter might possibly be regarded as a case
of spontaneous generation, while the creation of a
man in a similar way would be an undoubted miracle.
On account of the doubts thus arising as to the cause
of small changes, which constitute the method of
evolution, the Theist is slow to accept this as a sub-
stitute for the older belief. My own conviction is
that, whatever the method, it is Divine. Equal
results require equal causes, whether produced sud-
denly or prolonged through the ages.

V.
SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.

Tuat living beings have had a beginning on the
earth all scientists admit. As to when they began it
would be useless to inquire, but it was, without doubt,
at a time vastly remote.

The authentic geological record of plants and
animals extends backward, perhaps, fifty million
years, and it cannot be claimed that the oldest known.
fossils represent the first organisms that were created.

We do not know from the geological record
whether the plant and the animal appeared simultan-
eously, or whether the plant preceded the animal.

It is believed by some geologists that the oldest
known fossil is the Eozoon canadense, and that this
is the skeleton of a very low, but not of the lowest,
form of animal life. The weight of opinion of the
latest authorities is, I think, that Eozoon is not a
fossil. If it represents an animal it is evident that
plants must have existed, as food, at the same time,
for it is well known that no animal can live exclusive-
ly on inorganic food. The presence of graphite in
the rocks in which Eozoon is found can be explained
by supposing that it was obtained from organic
matter.

I make these remarks to show that we cannot look
to the geological record to reveal the beginning of
life.

The only known method of producing a plant or

animal is by means of one or more parent organisms.
57

58 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

As long as there is no necessary break in this method
it must be exclusively accepted.

But the break in the chain of ordinary method
when we come to the first: living organism is abrupt—
it isa great gulf reaching from the dead to the liv-
ing. There is no greater chasm in nature than that
between dead matter and a living being, unless it is
that between mind on the one hand and matter and
force on the other.

It is a gulf which science cannot bridge. We have
not even the aid of analogy when we try to explain the
origin of the first living being. The parents, accord-
ing to the theory of abiogenesis, are inorganic matter
and the forces of nature, and these are not analogous
to a living parent.

Some evolutionists speak lightly of the ‘ special-
act’? theory of creation. The beginning of life on
the earth involved a special act of some kind.
Whether the Creator worked directly or indirectly,
the act of creation was no less special. If the first
living being was brought into existence by the Crea-
tor through the exercise of secondary agencies, it re-
quired a special directing of these agencies to produce
the result, and this is all that the Theist needs to
mean by the word miracle. We are driven to assume
a special act of the Creator by the break in the
method of producing new organic beings by ordinary
generation, and by the failure of the theory of spon-
taneous generation. I will now proceed to briefly
examine this theory.

Let us get clearly before us the nature of the prob-
lem to be solved. Every living being, whether plant
or animal, must have as constituent parts of its body
at least four elements, namely, carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen and nitrogen. These four elements, either
free or in combination, or both, exist abundantly in

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION 59

all parts of the earth. The forms of plant food
which the plant commonly uses, are carbon dioxide,
represented by the formula C O2; water, the formula
of which is He O, and ammonia, with the formula.
N Hs, and a nitrate, with the formula K N Qs.

The plant obtains its carbon from carbon dioxide,
which it takes from the air; its hydrogen and oxygen
mostly from water, which it obtains from the soil, and
its nitrogen from some compound of ammonia or
some nitrate, both of which it gets in solution in
water from the soil.

It will be noticed that the formulas of these plant
foods are simple; that is, the molecule of each kind
has but few atoms, as shown by the formula. The
plant alone, and not the animal, has the power to take
these comparatively simple inorganic compounds and,
by the aid of heat, light and the other usual physical
conditions, convert them into the exceedingly com-
plex tissues that compose its body. The most essen-
tial of these tissues, the one that is necessarily pres-
ent inevery organic being, is protoplasm. This is the
substance in which life manifests itself especially. It
is composed of the four elements named above, and
it is exceedingly complex in its structure, each mole-
cule of protoplasm containing hundreds of atoms.
One of the formulas given for protoplasm is Cr Hin
Nis S Ow.

In order to prove that spontaneous generation has
taken place, it would be necessary to show that a
living being, composed of the exceedingly complex
substance, protoplasm, capable of propagating its
kind by the ordinary method of generation, can be
produced from the above four elements and their
compounds, by the action of the forces of nature. It
will be noticed that this is not simply a question of
chemical composition, but also of life and of ability

60 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

to propagate its kind. Dead protoplasm may have
the same chemical composition that living protoplasm
has, andeven living protoplasm may be wholly unable
to produce other protoplasm.

Did nature in her laboratory, through the second-
ary agencies of matter and force alone, create the
first living organism, with the wonderful power of
propagating its kind?

If she has done this we are absolutely ignorant of
the fact. There is no case of analogy from which we
can conclude that she thus creates living beings from
dead matter. Besides this, the facts, so far as
known, point in the other direction. It should be
remembered that spontaneous generation is a neces-
sary part of the theory of evolution as held by most
evolutionists.

If natural forces acting on matter in the usual way
ever created living beings, I know of no reason why
this process should not have continued through all
time since the first living being appeared. It is not
commonly claimed that spontaneous generation is
taking place at present. A few years ago the scien-
tific world was much agitated over the subject. Dr.
Bastion thought that, beyond doubt, he had shown
that spontaneous generation takes place from organic
infusions. Then followed Tyndall with almost a
thousand experiments, in which he proved to the
satisfaction of the scientific world that spontaneous
generation does not take place from organic in-
fusions; that, so far as experiments show anything, it
is that a living organism must have had a parent
organism.

It will be noticed that in these experiments he and
others used water which already contained organic
matter. The protoplasm necessary to form the body
of the new living organism was ready made and at

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION 61

hand. If living beings could not come into existence
from this highly organized matter, which can serve as
animal food and of which their bodies are made, what
hope can there be that they can originate from very
simple forms of inorganic matter? If spontaneous
generation has taken place, it is still a legitimate
problem for the laboratory to solve. If it has taken
place in nature, then I can see no reason why it may
not be repeated time after time.

It is admitted by some scientists that it is not now
taking place, and it is assumed by them that it is an
occurrence so extraordinary that we ought not to ex-
pect it to be repeated. But why extraordinary?
Spontaneous generation, as believed in by most evolu-
tionists, is simply a matter of chemistry, and certain-
ly no chemical action can be regarded as being so
extraordinary that it may not be repeated.

We have good reason to believe that life began
millions of years ago under physical conditions that
substantially exist in many parts of the world to-day,
and that have existed from the first dawn of life.

The earth is one vast laboratory in which every
moment are taking place countless millions of experi-
ments. The materials for the construction of organic
beings are everywhere present, and the same forces
are ceaselessly doing their work, as they have been
from the first. To conclude that under the numerous
and widespread conditions favorable to the existence
of life, which have so Jong existed and which still
exist in the earth, spontaneous generation, a chemical
problem, could have been produced but once, or only
a few times, is beyond belief.

In view of the presence of such conditions, extend-
ing through the many millions of years since life
began, nature ought to have successfully repeated the
experiment resulting in spontaneous generation a

62 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

great many times. And yet all the known evidence is
against the belief that nature can create a living
organism from dead matter.

If, therefore, we cannot look to spontaneous gen-
eration, which represents only secondary causes, we
must look beyond to the First Cause as the Creator of
life.

Iam aware that there are those who question the
legitimacy of this conclusion. There are those who
claim that matter and the forces of nature are the
only cause, and they, of course, must believe that
spontaneous generation has taken place.

The functions performed by the living organism,
however simple it may be, are so different from any
thing in the inorganic world that @ priort we would
not expect the former to spring from the latter by
spontaneous generation. The functions of the organ-
ism, including the prehension, digestion, circulation,
and assimilation of food, the reproduction of other
organisms like itself, and then decay and death,
followed by the return of the body to comparatively
simple inorganic forms of matter, constitute a cycle
of changes for which we find no analogy in the inor-
ganic world.

It is true that the chemist has manufactured cer-
tain organic compounds from their inorganic ele-
ments, but in no case has he been able to produce
from inorganic matter an organic compound that is
an essential part of the tissues of a living being, and,
least of all, has he been able to manufacture pro-
toplasm, which is the absolutely essential substance in
every living thing. And even if he could build up
protoplasm by starting with the elements, a thing
which is beyond all hope, still the manufactured
protoplasm would be destitute of life, and the ques-
tion as to the origin of life would remain unanswered.

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION 63

Dead protoplasm can neither grow nor propagate.
Every living organism has an individuality and struc-
ture, and it performs functions which are beyond the
power of the chemist to produce.

Nor is there any physical science which can throw
light upon this subject. Chemistry, Anatomy, Phys-
iology, Biology and all the microscopes serve only
mechanical purposes—they cannot reveal the origin
of life. We will wait in vain for science to speak
with authority in this matter. The known facts of
science are, I believe, opposed to the theory of spon-
taneous generation.

It is evident that with this state of facts there can
be no conflict between science and religion with re-
gard to the origin of life. Science admits that she
knows nothing on the subject, but at the same time
many evolutionists deem it necessary to defend the
theory of abiogenesis as being necessary to complete
that of evolution.

Mr. Darwin says, ‘‘ There is grandeur in this view
of life, with its several powers, having been original-
ly breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into
one.”’

The creation of the first living being was an ex-
ceptional kind of work which required the exercise of
an exceptional kind of power. If, as Mr. Darwin
says, life was breathed by the Creator into the first
forms, this constitutes a break in the sufficiency of
natural causes alone to produce life. If a special
fiat was necessary at this point, why may it not have
been at others?

The insufficiency of natural causes makes it neces-
sary to assume the exercise of some power that can
control nature, and thus produce results that would
not otherwise have been produced. The creation of a

64 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

living being from inorganic matter by the Creator
was, so far as I can see, no more an interference with
the processes of nature than is my voluntary act in
writing these words. In each case the result is due to
a power that does not exist in the inanimate world.

VI.
NATURAL SELECTION.

Tue theory of ‘‘ Natural Selection ’’ has been most
elaborately argued pro and con, by Mr. Darwin, in
‘* The Origin of Species,’’ and on this theory he, for
the most part, relies to explain the evolution of
organic forms.

The general facts concerning it are the following:
The earth can produce but a limited supply of food
for living beings. Every species of plants and of
animals multiplies its kind in a geometrical ratio, so
that if all the young of any species of organism could
live to the average age of those of its kind that arrive
at the age of maturity, the earth would in a few gen-
erations be filled by the individuals of that species.
As a matter of fact this is not the case, for the earth
is occupied by hundreds of thousands of organic
forms. ;

The whole possible number of organisms that can
live on the earth at one time, is limited by the pos-
sible quantity of food at their disposal. Taking the
birth-rate of organisms and the quantity of food at
their disposal, it is evident that most of them must
perish before arriving at the age of maturity, for lack
of food, if for no other reason.

In many cases the number of animals living is much
less than the food will support, there being frequent-
ly a superabundance of food that goes to waste.

It is, therefore, evident that nature has some means
~ 65

66 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

of destroying most organic beings that are produced
before they arrive at the age of maturity.

The supply of food being insufficient to support all
of the organic beings that are produced, a struggle ta
obtain that food is perpetually going on, in which the
great majority, being necessarily unsuccessful, perish.
Everywhere in the organic world is perpetual compe-
tition, warfare, a ‘‘ struggle for existence,”’ in which,
other things being equal, the weaker perish.

A second fact in the theory of natural selection is
that the offspring closely resemble the parents.

A third fact is that the offspring are never exactly
like the parents. The variation from the parent
form may be in shape, size, color, and, in fact, in an
endless number of respects.

It is claimed by Darwin that the variation at any
one time is, as a rule, extremely small; so small, in
fact, that it would not be noticeable.

Again, it is claimed that if any variation is useful
to the individual possessing it, if it enables it the bet-
ter to compete with its kind and with other organisms
for food, or if it gives it an advantage in escaping
from its enemies, or an advantage in any other
respect over others of its species, then it will survive,
while those less favored will perish.

It is further claimed that the useful variation will
be propagated, so that the offspring of the individual
which possesses the favorable variation will stand a
better chance of surviving than those that have not
favorably varied. In this way, therefore, Nature is
continually selecting the forms that are best able to
compete with other organisms for existence. To ex-
press this process Mr. Darwin has used the expression
** Natural Selection,’’ and Herbert Spencer the ex-
pression ‘‘ Survival of the Fittest.’

It is further claimed by Darwin, and by evolution-

NATURAL SELECTION 67

ists generally, that, given a sufficient length of time
and slowly varying conditions, such as exist upon the
earth, there is no practical limit to the amount of
variation of organic forms that may slowly take place,
and that natural selection is, for the most part, suffi-
cient to account for the preservation of favorable
variations, thus accumulating them in certain direc-
tions. It is not, however, commonly held that
natural selection alone will account for the evolution
of all organic forms.

Darwin says that ‘Natural selection acts solely
through the preservation of variations in some way
advantageous, which consequently endure.” Again
he says, ‘‘ It may metaphorically be said that natural
selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout
the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those
that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are
good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and
wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of
each organic being in relation to its organic and in-
organic conditions of life. We see nothing of these
slow changes in process, until the hand of time has
marked the lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is
our view into long-past geological ages, that we see
only that the forms of life are now different from
what they formerly were.’’

Again he says, “I believe that animals are de-
scended from at most only four or five progenitors,
and plants from an equal or lesser number.

«‘ Analogy would lead me one step further, namely,
to the belief that all animals and plants are descended
from some one prototype. But analogy may be a
deceitful guide.”

In these quotations are clearly set forth the general
claims of the theory of natural selection.

It is true that in the organic world there exist the

68 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

two tendencies above named, the tendency of the off-
spring to closely resemble the parent, and the tend-
ency to vary somewhat from the parent. The
essence of the theory of organic evolution is involved
in the relative strength of these tendencies. They
may be compared to the centripetal and the centrif-
agul forces.

Is there an orbit of variation for each species be-
yond which the tendency to variation cannot carry the
form? Is the tendency to resemble the parent a
centripetal force that can forever hold the amount of
variation within a definite orbit? or, on the other
hand, does the centrifugal force carry the new forms
off in tangents so that there is no return to the
ancestral form?

It is evident that if the theory of natural selection
is true, it is not a complete theory of organic evolu-
tion. It accounts only for preserving certain forms
instead of others. Darwin says, ‘‘ Natural selection
acts solely through the preservation of variations in
some way advantageous, which consequently endure.”’

Again, he says, ‘‘I have called this principle by
which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by
the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its rela-
tion to man’s power of selection.”

Natural Selection attempts, therefore, to account
for the preservation of certain variations, and not for
their production. As to the causes and the amount
of variation, no satisfactory theory has been given.
Darwin, after assigning various reasons why he thinks
variations may take place, says, ‘‘ Our ignorance of
the laws of variation is profound. Not in one case
out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason
why this or that part has varied.’”’ And so it happens
that we are left in almost total darkness as to the
cause of the most important factor in organic evolu-

NATURAL SELECTION 69

tion. A complete theory of evolution by secondary
agencies alone demands an explanation of the causes
of variation.

It may be that the causes of variation are purely
secondary, or it may be that variations are produced
by secondary agencies under the direct control of the
Creator, or they may be produced by special fiats.
It is evident that with these alternatives the evolu-
tionist has no right to urge the theory of secondary
causes alone, and this is especially true if, by second-
ary causes, is meant causes that may work independ-
ently of the direct control of the Creator, for the use
of the expression, secondary causes, implies the ex-
istence of a Primary Cause, and known facts do not
justify us in assuming that any part of the Universe
can run itself if severed from the Primary Cause.
That every event must have an efficient cause there
can be no doubt, but there may be grave doubts as to
whether a cause is to be regarded as secondary or
primary.

‘The following closing paragraph of ‘‘ The Origin of
Species’ contains a general summary of Darwin’s
theory. ‘*It is interesting to comtemplate a tangled
bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with
birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flit-
ting about, and with worms crawling through the
damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately con-
structed forms, so different from each, and depend-
ent on each other in so complex a manner, have
all been produced by laws acting around us. These
laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with
Reproduction; Inheritance, which is almost implied
by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and
direct action of the conditions of life, and from use
and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a
struggle for life, and as a consequence to Natural

70 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the
Extinction of less improved forms. Thus from the
war of Nature, from famine and death, the most
exalted object which we are capable of conceiving,
namely, the production of the higher animals, directly
follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with
its several powers, having been originally breathed by
the Creator into a few forms, or into one; and that,
while this planet has gone cycling on according to the
fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, end-
less forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have
been, and are being, evolved.”’

From this passage it is seen that Darwin did not
accept the theory of spontaneous generation. He
speaks of ‘life with its several powers, having been
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms,
or into one.”’ This first form was the egg from which
all subsequent organic beings have been hatched by
incubation through the long ages. This primordial
protoplasm, which, according to most evolutionists,
was produced by spontaneous generation, was, it
seems to me, endowed with miraculous power, as
shown by its ability to vary without limitation in
countless directions, to produce the most complex
physical results and all the varied and wonderful
phenomena. of life, together with the human mind
with all of its marvelous powers.

If the Creator could breathe life into ‘‘ a few forms
or into one,’’ as Darwin thinks he did, without vio-
lating the law of his own being, and in accordance
with the laws which he has established, it seems
evident that he might at other times breathe life into
other forms in accordance with his laws. I see no
necessity for a logic that would compel the Creator to
confine the number of his creative fiats to a few, or to
one, nor which would limit the fiats to one time.

NATURAL SELECTION 71

With most evolutionists the backbone of their
theory is the assumption that secondary agencies
alone have produced all organic forms.

Darwin says, ‘“‘To my mind it accords better with
what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the
Creator, that the production and extinction of the
past and present inhabitants of the world should have
been due to secondary causes, like those determining
the birth and the death of the individual.’? The
‘*secondary causes,’’ as I understand him, are ‘the
laws impressed on matter.’’ If this is true, then it
would seem that the Creator might have retired after
creating matter, or, at most, after creating the first
organism, and have let the work go on without his
further special care.

Again, Darwin says that the facts, so far as he can
judge, do not ‘‘ afford any evidence of the existence
of an innate tendency toward perfectibility or pro-
gressive development.” * Again, he says, ‘‘I believe
in no law of necessary development.”’

As for myself, I believe that mind was the goal of
creation which the Creator had in view. No other
theory gives a sufficient explanation of creation.
Without mind as the crowning work I would say that
creation would have been a failure.

Does Mr. Darwin accept the theory that mind was
the intended goal of creation? And, if so, would he
say that the ‘‘secondary causes,’”’ ‘‘the laws im-
pressed on matter by the Creator,’’ had the necessary
tendency, beyond the possibility of failure, to evolve
man endowed with mind? Ithink that he does not
accept this view.

If the theory of evolution is true, the unbroken
chain of organic beings reaching from man back to
the first living being, extends, I presume, over at least

* Origin of Species, p. 102, 5th Ed.

72 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

a hundred million years. If we imagine the primor-
dial protoplasm to have been turned over to the man-
agement of purely secondary causes, to the ‘laws
impressed on matter,’ to run the amuck of adverse
circumstances during all that time, without the direct
supervision of the Creator, it seems to me that there
were millions of chances to one that this direct chain
would have been broken, and thus have destroyed the
possibility of the evolution of man.

It was possible, according to the theory, for man to
be evolved in one line only, and that line was com-
posed of an infinite number of forms in succession,
the extinction of any one of which, without leaving
progeny, would have prevented the evolution of man.

That blind chance, without the intervention of an
Intelligent Creator, could have preserved the infinite
ancestral line, does not seem probable.

This evolution, according to Mr. Darwin, by virtue
of ‘‘the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,”’
proceeded upward from protoplasm to man, in spite
of the fact that there does not seem to be ‘any evi-
dence of the existence of an innate tendency toward
perfectibility or progressive development.’’

The evolution of man assumes the preservation in
every instance of the most highly developed forms in
each of the countless generations that compose the
chain of evolution, unless it may be assumed that
ultimate forms higher than man might have been
evolved from beings that have perished.

Natural selection does not, however, necessarily
preserve the most highly developed forms. It only
preserves those forms that are best adapted to com-
pete in the struggle for existence under the given cir-
cumstances. The fact of a more highly organized
body, or even of greater intelligence, does not neces-
sarily insure preservation.

NATURAL SELECTION 73

The forms that have been most successful in the
struggle for existence through the long geological
ages, such as the lingula and certain protozoa, are
simple in their structure, while the most complex
beings, and those in which the brain is most highly
developed, suchas the highest species of vertebrates,
have had but a brief existence. There is nothing in
the laws of nature to insure beyond doubt, at all
times, the preservation of the higher forms instead
of the lower, for the latter may be better adapted to
compete for existence under the particular circum-
stances.

‘* Survival of the fittest’’ does not necessarily
mean survival of the highest. This is shown to be
true by the very recent disappearance of man’s im-
mediate ancestors, if he was produced by evolution.

Between man and the anthropomorphous apes,
which are regarded as being substantially like the re-
mote ancestors of man, there existed the immediate
progenitors of man, all of which have perished; yet
they must have been vastly more intelligent than the
apes which have survived.

Without dwelling further upon this, I will say that
the fact that man was created, either by a fiat or by
evolution, can only be explained by assuming the ex-
istence of an Intelligent Creator.

The theory of evolution would imply a no less
wonderful Intelligence than that of fiat, involving as
it does long ages and au infinite number of vicissi-
tudes and varying circumstances.

Mr. Darwin seems to imply an Intelligent Creator
when he says: ‘* The birth of the species and of the
individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of
events which our minds refuse to accept as the result
of blind chance.’’*

* Descent of Man, Vol. 2, p. 378.

74 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

The figure of a tree has been a favorite one by
which to represent the evolution of organic forms.
Beginning with primordial protoplasm as a seed, we
follow its growth. The main trunk of the tree, repre-
senting the direct line of man’s ascent, is made up of
the countless forms that have intervened between
man and the first organism, the different races of
men being represented by an equal number of small
twigs at the top. As the primordial form multiplied,
it branched by favorable variations, the new forms
thus produced constituting branches of the tree of
evolution. Long before the authentic geological
record began, the tree of life divided into two great
divisions,—that of animals and that of plants, and
when the authentic record began we find animals,
widely different in structure, representing all the sub-
kingdoms and most of the classes of invertebrates.
And so the tree continued to grow and branch through
the ages, the individual twigs representing species and
varieties.

If this tree were planted in the earth so that the
part under the earth would represent extinct forms,
and the part above the ground represent living forms,
it is evident that most of the tree would be buried,
for the reason that the living species are few com-
pared to the extinct. It is also evident that the
branches and twigs above ground, that represent liv-
ing forms, would, for the most part, stand isolated,
and that, to find their points of union, we must look
beneath the surface among extinct forms. If we
knew the entire record of life we could begin with
any species and trace it back, without a break, to the
primordial form.

Having stated the general outline of the theory of
natural selection, I will present some of the argu-

NATURAL SELECTION 15

ments which have been offered for and against the
theory.

Darwin gives special attention to the subject of
variation under domestication. It is well known that
new varieties of plants and animals are produced
under domestication, and that they are separated and
preserved as distinct varieties by the agency of man.

He dwells at length on the many varieties of domes-
tic pigeons, and attempts to show that their common
ancestor was the rock pigeon. These varieties, he
claims, are as different in structure from each other
as are all well-marked species.

The varieties of pigeons all cross readily with each
other, producing fertile offspring, and there is a fre-
quent tendency in these crosses to revert to the form
of the original stock. This is the clearest case that
he presents among the domestic animals of the recent
origin of well-marked varieties.

He claims that these varieties are incipient species,
and that species are only well marked varieties. If
we grant that varieties can be produced, where can we
set the limits of variability?

He concludes that we cannot set a limit, and that,
consequently, by the law of natural selection princi-
pally, all organic forms have been evolved from a sim-
ple form.

With regard to the fertility of hybrids he says,
“Now it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to bring for-
ward one case of the hybrid offspring of two animals
clearly distinct being themselves perfectly fertile.”

It is well known that as a rule distinct species will
not cross, and that if they do cross the offspring are
not fertile.

On the other hand, it is true that all varieties of a
species readily cross, producing fertile offspring.

76 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

This has commonly been regarded as a well-defined
distinction between varieties and species.

If the varieties of pigeons which are so different
from each other did not freely cross, and if the mon-
srel offspring were not fertile, his argument as to the
production of new species under domestication would
be complete.

The fact is, we do not know of the origin of any two
species of animals that do not cross and whose off-
spring are not fertile; in other words, we do not
know of the origin of species, but only of varieties.
The origin of species that will not cross and produce
fertile offspring is assumed from the origin of varie-
ties that do cross and produce fertile offspring.

This leaves the evolutionist to account for one of
the most difficult things in connection with his theory,
namely, how did varieties of animals of the same
species become cross-sterile? Let us consider this
difficulty.

It is claimed by evolutionists that varieties are
incipient species; that closely related existing species
were once only varieties of the same species. These
closely related species which, it is claimed, have had
a common origin, now often live side by side, occupy-
ing the same or contiguous territories.

It is a well known fact that by crossing varieties the
offspring are rendered more vigorous and fertile,
while by crossing species the offspring are either
sterile or become so in a few generations and die out.
How can varieties that are perfectly cross-fertile
become species that are cross-sterile?

Suppose that a species A, in a state of nature, pro-
duces a variety B, the known facts lead us to believe
that A and B would cross with each other, and that B
would be lost as a variety. It is admitted by evolu-
tionists that if the closely related varieties of domes-

NATURAL SELECTION 17

tic animals were permitted to freely mingle, in a state
of nature, they would, in a few generations, produce
acommon form. There is nothing like the agency of
man, in nature, to prevent varieties from mingling.

The only method by which A and B could remain
separated while located side by side, would be for
them to be rendered cross-sterile in some way. If B
were born cross-fertile with A, there is no conceivable
method probable, by which, if the reproductive organs
of both are perfect, which is necessarily implied in
this case, they could ever become cross-sterile. This
leads to the most important question, whether B may,
by birth, be cross-sterile with its parent A, while the
individuals composing B are fertile with each other
and also those of A with each other.

It is admitted by evolutionists that cross-sterility
between A and B cannot be accounted for by the the-
ory of natural selection, for it could be of no conceiv-
able advantage.

Dr. Romanes cuts the Gordian knot by assuming
that B is, by birth, cross-sterile with A, and at the
same time he assumes, and must assume, that the
sexual organs of both A and B are perfect, so that
each can propagate its kind.

According to this assumption there must be pro-
duced in the same locality, and at the same time,
enough individuals of B, cross-sterile with A but fer-
tile with each other, to propagate B, and, besides,
there must be some favorable variation of these indi-
viduals that will enable them to survive.

Besides this, cross-sterility of A with B must be
repeated every time a new species B originates, in
order to isolate it from the parent form, which, con.
sidering the hundreds of thousands of known species
of living organisms, together with the common as-
sumption that all known forms, both living and fossil,

78 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

as Darwin claims, are as nothing compared to the
number of unknown extinct species, would make it
necessary to repeat cross-sterility by birth between
parent A and offspring B an infinite number of times.

When we remember that the universal rule seems
to be that parent and offspring are cross-fertile, and
not cross-sterile, as the theory of evolution absolutely
demands, there is no sufficient reason for making the
extreme assumption of cross-sterility by birth. All
known facts are against this extreme assumption.
When we consider that no case of cross-sterility is
known between A and B, when the sexual organs
of both are perfect, and that the theory of evolution
demands an infinite number of such cases, so that they
could hardly be regarded as exceptions to the fact of
cross-fertility, and when we remember that the infi-
nite number of species of animals which have sur-
vived to propagate their kind represent only a small
fraction of those that were born cross-sterile with the
parent form, because only those survived that were
born not only cross-sterile, but also with some favor-
able variation that would the better enable them to
compete for existence—remembering these things, it
would seem that the theory of evolution is pushed to
the verge of despair in adopting the theory of cross-
sterility by birth between parent and offspring. And
yct this assumption, which has of late been urged by
Dr. Romanes especially, and adopted by others, is
regarded as the most plausible way out of the diffi-
culty.

The formation of permanent varieties in a state of
nature is infinitely more difficult than under domesti-
cation, because in the latter case man separates the
forms that he wants to propagate, and keeps them
apart from the parent stock, whereas, in the former

NATURAL SELECTION 79

ease the variation is lost by mingling with the com-
mon stock.

Mr. Darwin says that very ‘rarely single varia-
tions, whether slight or strongly marked, could be
perpetuated.”’

He says: ‘If, for instance, a bird of some kind
could procure its food more easily by having its beak
curved, and if one were born with its beak strongly
curved, and which consequently flourished, neverthe-
less, there would be a very poor chance of this one
individual perpetuating its kind to the exclusion of
the common form; but there can hardly be a doubt,
judging by what we see taking place under domestica-
tion, that this result would follow from the preserva-
tion during many generations of a large number of
individuals with more or less curved beaks, and from
the destruction of a still larger number with the
straightest beaks.’’*

Here he admits that even a favorable variation in
a single individual is not at all likely to be propa-
gated, but he attempts to bridge the difficulty by
assuming that the same favorable variation may take
place at the same time in a large number of individ-
uals, so that the favorable variation, in spite of ming-
ling with all other variations, can be propagated.

I think that this assumption is destitute of the sup-
port of facts. The fact is that variations take place
in all conceivable directions, and, as Darwin repeat-
edly urges, they are generally very slight. Varia-
tions in one direction are, on an average, probably
equal to those in another, and, consequently, when
all the variations are mingled, as they are in a state
of nature, the form of the species remains substan-
tially constant.

Besides, this theory, if true, would account for

* Origin of Species, 5th Edition, p. 94.

80 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

only one species at a time in the same locality, for it
assumes that the individuals with the favorable vari-
ation survive at the expense of the parent form; nor
does it account for cross-sterility between closely-
related species.

The later evolutionists, feeling the insufficiency of
Darwin’s assumption, have bridged the difficulty by
introducing a still greater one—that of cross-ster-
ility by birth.

Darwin says that he cannot agree ‘“‘that migration
and isolation are necessary for the formation of new
species.’’*

Again: ‘‘Although isolation is of great importance
in the production of new species, on the whole I am
inclined to believe that largeness of area is still more
important, especially for the production of species
which shall prove capable of enduring for a long
period and spreading widely.’’f

Suppose, according to this, that we find two species
that have been evolved from a common stock occupy-
ing contiguous territories and mingling with each
other on the common border. How can we account
for the evolution of these two species in these locali-
ties? It is evident that the difficulties that arise from
the merging of new forms and of producing cross-
sterility remain in full force. These difficulties are
always present in a state of nature, whether the terri-
tory is large or small, for the new species and its
parent must occupy the same territory. The great
difficulty in all cases is to isolate new forms from the
parent form so that they will not be lost by mingling.
Nature has no method, so far as facts show, of doing
this.

ain arwin says, isolation is of grea
A , Darwin says, that ‘ isolat f t

* Origin of Species, 5th Edition, p. 105. + Ibid, p. 106.

NATURAL SELECTION 81

importance in the production of new species.’’* It
is evident, however, that if a species be divided
into two parts by barriers, this cannot decrease the
difficulties already mentioned—this cannot prevent
the merging of variations, nor produce cross-sterility
between parent and offspring. The same difficulties
that arise in forming a new species from a whole
species, apply with equal force to the formation of a
new species from a part of a species. The dividing
of a species by barriers cannot therefore account for
the formation of a new species.

When we consider that many hundreds of thous-
ands of species have existed, we cannot for a moment
suppose that sufficient barriers could have isolated
them, or even any considerable per cent of them,
while being formed.

Besides, closely related species occupy the same ter-
ritory, which could not generally be the case if they
had been isolated from each other by barriers while
being formed, for if such barriers had existed they
would have kept the species permanently isolated.

Besides, if the supposed barriers were suflicient to
isolate the parts of a species, they would be sufficient
to prevent the species from separating into parts—
for the barriers are, by supposition, impassable.

Mr. Darwin, however, as already stated, denies that
‘* migration and isolation are necessary for the forma-
tion of new species.”? When we consider the large
numbers and relative positions of species, it seems
necessary to assume that closely related species have
generally been formed without being insolated by
barriers.

With regard to the difficulty of preserving varia-
tions in nature, Le Conte says: ‘* But how can the
process of progressive divergence begin, when slight

6 * Origin of Species, p. 106.

82 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

varieties are even more fertile by cross-breeding than
by close breeding? Is it not evident that, with every
generation, the slight varieties would cross-breed with
one another and with the parent stock, and thus all
varietal differences be funded into a common stock,
and the type would be preserved unchanged? This,
as already pointed out, has always been the chief dif-
ficulty in the way of imagining how varieties can grow
into species; andthe difficulty is only increased by
our discussion of the law of cross-breeding. Now
just here Dr. Romanes’s most important and prolific
idea comes to our help, and, as it seems to us, com-
pletely solves the difficulty.”’ *

Thus, in the face of the fact that slight variations
render animals more fertile by cross-breeding, it is
assumed that new varieties are born cross-sterile with
the parent form and cross-fertile with their own kind.

I know of no assumption among scientific men that
seems more extreme and unwarranted than this—none
more in opposition to the facts at present known.

Le Conte says further: ‘But suppose among
these divergent variations there arise, from time
to time, some which affect the reproductive or-
gans in such wise that the variety, though perfectly
fertile with its own kind, is infertile, or imperfectly
fertile, with other varieties, and especially with the
parent stock.’’}

Here we find several things that must happen in a
single generation.

First, a number of individuals must be born and
exist at the same time, which possess the same varia-
tion.

Second, this variation must, if it can be preserved,
be of such a kind that it will give the individuals pos-

* Evolution and Creation, p. 226. t Ibid, p. 227.

NATURAL SELECTION 83

sessing it an advantage over the parent stock in the
struggle for existence.

Third, the individuals possessing the favorable vari-
ation must be cross-sterile with the parent stock,
otherwise the variation will be ‘‘ funded into a com-
mon stock, and the type preserved unchanged.’

Fourth, the individuals with the favorable variation
must be fertile with each other.

Fifth, these individuals with the same favorable
variation must find each other so that they can pro-
pagate their kind, a thing that would hardly take
place if they were few, as they probably would be,
and were scattered over a wide territory.

All of these things are assumed in face of the fact
that variation increases instead of decreasing fertility.
Besides, as already shown, it becomes necessary to
assume that the remarkable fact of cross-sterility of
parent and offspring has occurred an infinite number
of times in order to produce all species.

This idea must therefore be regarded as most ‘‘pro-
lific’’ in order to meet the demands of the theory of
evolution.

It is assumed by Darwin and by evolutionists gener-
ally, that the formation of a species takes places very
slowly, by innumerable slight variations. If this view
is accepted, together with that of Romanes, then
cross-sterility between parent and offspring must be
the overwhelming rule instead of the exception, in
order to keep the very slight variations from being
lost by mingling with the parent form. We know,

~however, that it is not the rule, nor is it even known,
so far as 1 am informed, that there are exceptional
cases among animals where a variety in nature is
cross-sterile with the parent, but fertile with those of
its own kind.

84 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

With regard to cross-sterility, Darwin says: ‘“‘After
mature reflection it seems to me that this could not.
have been effected through ‘natural selection, for it
could have been of no direct advantage to an in-
dividual animal to breed badly with another individ-
ual of a different variety, and thus to leave few off-
spring; consequently such individuals could not have
been preserved or selected.’’*

Again, he says: ‘‘That the sterility of first crosses,
and indirectly of hybrids, is simply incidental on un-
. known differences in the reproductive systems of the
parent species.’’+

Mr. Spencer has written a series of articles entitled
‘©The Inadequacy of Natural Selection.’’ As to arti-
ficial and natural selection he says: ‘* They are anal-
ogous only within certain narrow limits, and in the
great majority of cases, natural selection is utterly
incapable of doing that which artificial selection
does.’’t

He quotes from Mr. Darwin: ‘ Any particular
variation would soon be lost by crossing, reversion
and the accidental destruction of the varying individ-
uals, unless carefully preserved by man,’’§

Mr. Spencer claims that ‘‘the inheritance of ac-
quired characters ’’ is a necessary supplement to nat-
ural selection. Referring to his ‘‘ Principles of Biol-
ogy,” he says: ‘‘It was contended that the relative
powers of co-operative parts cannot be adjusted solely
by survival of the fittest, and especially where the
parts are numerous and the co-operation complex.”’

After arguing this proposition at length, he says:
Close contemplation of the facts impresses me
more strongly than ever with the two alternatives—

* Origin of Species, p. 247. t Ibid, pp. 248-9.
t¢ Popular Science Monthly for April, May and June, 1893.
§ Animals and Plants under Domestication, Vol. II., p. 292.

NATURAL SELECTION 85

either there has been inheritance of acquired charac-
ters, or there has been no evolution.’’

Also, ‘‘ For the inheritance of acquired characters,
which it is now the fashion of the biological world to
deny, was by Mr. Darwin fully recognized and often
insisted on.’’ . . . ‘The neo-Darwinists, how-
ever, do not admit this cause at all.’’

In concluding he says: ‘‘ See then how the cause
stands. Natural selection, or survival of the fittest,
is almost exclusively operative throughout the
vegetable world, and throughout the lower animal
world, characterized by relative passivity. But with
the ascent to higher types of animals, its effects are
in increasing degrees involved with those produced
by inheritance of acquired characters, until, in ani-
mals of complex structures, inheritance of acquired
characters becomes an important, if not the chief,
cause of evolution.’’

He admits that known facts which show that ac-
quired characters are inherited are few, but he thinks
that they are ‘‘as large a number as can be expected,
considering the difficulty of observing them and the
absence of search.”’

From the above, we see that the biological world is
against Mr. Spencer’s view; that he would abandon
the theory of evolution unless acquired characters had
. been inherited, but that facts in support of this
theory are meager.

I think that his argument shows the insufficiency of
the theory of natural selection, but the truth of his
own theory remains to be established. We shall see
further on that natural selection has been supple-
mented by the theories of sexual selection and of the
correlation of growth

If Mr. Spencer’s theory as to the inheritance of
acquired characters is true, still I do not see how

86 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

this can result in the formation of new species in a
state of nature. Whatever might be the acquired
characters of individuals, they would be lost by min-
gling, and the difficulties which I have presented of
evolving new species remain in full force.

Biologists in the above instance, as well as in oth-
ers, differ in theory as to fundamental principles of
evolution.

He who imagines that the theory of organic evolu-
tion has been proved to the point of demonstration,
has but to read the contentions of evolutionists them-
selves with regard to the most important things in-
volved in the theory, in order to satisfy his mind that
there is great diversity of opinion.

GEOLOGICAL AGES AND PERIODS.

To be read upward by beginning at Archean on this page and

ending at Recent

on next page. Classes and Orders of Animals

survive by the dying out of old and the introduction of new

Species,
is * | First known Reptiles.
5S lug Trilobites disappear.
§# |° 2 PERMIAN. Orthocerous Cephalopods nearly extinct.
BR |o3s Fishes with vertebrated tails almost extinct.
3 ia Cephalopods of many kinds,
co. laa First Amphibians:—Labyrinthodonts.
»4 |S O/CARBONIF- |Fishes were all Sharks and Ganoids.
& {OO} ERousor |Lepidodendrids, Sigillarids, Calamites, Ferns and
8 ley Coal - MEAS- onifers abound.
ge lao URES. Spiders, Myriapods, Scorpions.
D 19 oy Numerous Insects: —May-flies, Locusts, Cockroaches,
joa Saad (Some of the insects were gigantic in
3 size.
= O |Supcarzon- |First land Snails.
3 IFEROUS. j|Crinoids culminated. Sea-urchins.
M8 Ferns, Lycopods, Sigillarids, Calamites and Conifers.
2-| a |CATSEILL. |Eurypterids of large size.
gg os Limnoids; Shrimps.
2 Blea CHEMUNG. |Orthopterous and Neuropterous Insects.
28) (e Myriapods.
a Sou Large number of Corals.
2\3°\HAMILTON. |Fishes:—Placoderms, Dipnoans, Ganoids, Chimeroids,
Sais 2 | CORNIFER- Sharks.
s |5</ ous. Goniatites.
a (©) Brachiopods probably culminated in the Devonian.
a ORISKANY. | are chee an ‘
po nsects:—Orthopters an emipters.
3 g ge ag Scorpions;
& = genie ‘ \Brachiopods and Cephalopods abundant through
| oD |SALINA. Silurian.
s a NIAGARA. Trilobites abounded through the Silurian.
$5
a E TRENTON. Fishes:—Ganoids, Placoderms, and probably Sharks.
ae Insects; Eurypterids.
3 jm ..|CANADIAN. |Trilobites culminated in the Lower Silurian.
2 S 5 Sea-weed, the only plants found.
3 B/PRIMORDIAL. \Cephaloposds; ‘Trilobites; Crinoids; Star-fishes ;
— a Worms; Brachiopods; Lamellibranchs; Gastropods;
a Sponges; Corals; Hydrozoans; Pteropods.
ARCHZAN. /Eozoon. (Probably not a fossil.)

Cenozoic, 35,000 feet, (Maximum Thickness.)

69,000 feet, Maximum Thickness.

i=]
& ;|RECENT. Man made his first appearance at some time during the
ba Quareraerys It may have been in the Glacial
3 period.
ae CHAMPLAIN. |Brute mammals culminated in the Champlain.
s 2 Herbivores prevailed in North America; Carnivores
2% and monkeys in Europe; Edentates, in South Amer-
$<]GLacrIAL. ica; and Marsupials, in Australia.
leZ
Elephants, Mastodons, Various Monkeys. Species of
ox, cat, bear, hyena, fox, Porcupine; beaver, hare,
. |PLIOCENE. mouse, and machairodus. orses with one toe in
a front and one behind.
z
g ig oa and Rhinoceros-like and Camel-liks mam-
mals.
cn The first true Carnivores. Bats, Squirrels, Opossums,
: Mastodons, Rhinoceroses.
& |Miocene. Whales of various kinds. Horses of different genera.
<
3
5 Mammals of many kinds: Quadrumana (monkeys or
Pp lemurs, some with only 32 teeth).
S |EOCENE. Herbivorous, Carnivorous and Rodent Species.
2 hales:—Zeuglodon.
o First horses (four toes in front and three behind).
& Many Tapir-like animals.
Bats, Insectivores, Creodonts.
Dinocerata of Elephantine dimensions.
Small marsupial and, probably, monotreme mammals.
Birds with teeth and also toothless birds.
CRETACEOUS |.Reptiles stiil numerous. First snakes also.
a Teleosts (bony fishes). — ‘
2 Angiosperms of many kinds appear. (Highest plants.)
a .
fa Mammals:—numerous small marsupials.
uw First Birds:—they had long vertebrated tails.
S JURASSIC. Reptiles and Amphibians culminated in the Mesozoic.
op Fishes were Ganoids and Selachians.
< Cephalopods culminated in Mesozoic.
8
g First Mammals:—marsupials, very small.
g Reptiles:—Dinosaurs, Crocodilians, Stegosaurs, Tes-
3 tudinates, Pterosaurs, Ichthyosaurs, Plesiosaurs,
a and Lacertians in the mesozoic. |
& |TRIASSIC. Labyrinthodonts still abound in Triassic.

Great increase of Lamellibranchs during Mesozoic.
‘But few Brachiopods

Cycads the prevailing plants in Triassic and Jurassic.

VII.
PALEONTOLOGY.

Tux length of time which has elapsed since the

first known life began upon the earth is to be counted
by millions of years, but whether we are to regard it
as fifty or a hundred million there is no general
agreement. As to when life began, or what were its
first forms, no one claims to know.
’ The Archean rocks of Canada, which extend from
the region of the great lakes to the northeast and the
northwest, and which constitute the backbone of the
continent, are regarded as the oldest known sediment-
ary rocks. Their maximum thickness is estimated at
from forty to fifty thousand feet.

In this metamorphic Archean rock is found
Hozoon canadense, which, if it is a fossil, represents
by far the oldest known living being.

It is thought by some to bea low form of com-
pound protozoan, but the latest authorities have de-
cided against its organic origin.*

Lyell, quoting from Sir Wm. Logan, says: ‘Its
antiquity is such that the distance of time which sep-
arated it from the upper Cambrian period, or that of
the Potsdam sandstone, may be equal to the time
which elapsed between the Postdam sandstone
and the nummulitic limestones of the Tertiary period.
The Laurentian and Huronian rocks united are about
50,000 feet in thickness.”’

Hozoon is found in the lower Laurentian.

* Text Book of er Geikie, p. 695.

88 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

When it is remembered that the Potsdam, or
Primordial, is the first period in which undoubted
fossil remains are found, it will be seen that the time
which elapsed from the appearance of Hozoon to that
of the fossils in the Potsdam is nearly equal to the
time from the Potsdam to the present.

Dana gives the time ratios for the Paleozoic,
Mesozoic and Cenozoic as 12: 8: 1.

According to Logan’s estimate, which Lyell seems
to accept, the length of time between Hozoon and
Potsdam was equal to the Paleozoic and Mesozoic
combined, which, according to Dana, include fifteen
of the sixteen parts of time between the beginning of
the Potsdam and the present.

Here, then, we find an enormous stretch of time
which may perhaps amount to 50,000,000 years be-
tween the dawn of the Hozoon and the Potsdam, in
which no fossil has been found.

If Hozoon was a protozoan, as is claimed by some,
and if the various fossils that are found in the
Potsdam were evolved. from SHozoon and other
Archean forms, then it seems strange beyond belief
that not one of the vast number of intermediate
forms that must have existed has been found.

We are told that the Hozoon had a calcareous skel-
eton, which is the kind of material most common in
the hard parts of marine forms.

It may, of course, be claimed that the fossils of the
Archean have all been obliterated except Hozoon.
Le Conte says: ‘‘ It is impossible to say that animals
of low form did not exist; yet the absence of any
reliable trace in rocks not more metamorphic than
some of the next era, which are crowded with fossils
of many kinds, seems to indicate a paucity, if not an
entire absence, at this time, of such animals.’’*

* Elements of Geology, p 287.

PALEONTOLOGY 89

Metamorphism cannot, therefore, satisfactorily
account for the absence of fossils between Hozoon
and the various fossils of the Potsdam period.

In order to bridge this vast interval of time between
Eozoon and the fossils of the Potsdam, a lost inter-
val is assumed, in which organic beings were numer-
ous on the earth, but of which we have no fossil
remains.

This assumed lost interval, as already stated, was
probably equal to the whole of geological time from
the Primordial to the present.

Here, then, at the threshold, as a necessary part of
the theory of evolution, we are asked to believe that
the first half of the history of life is lost, and that
during this almost infinite period evolution was
steadily going on until it resulted in the various
organic forms that are found in the Primordial.

I know of no facts to justify this boundless assump-
tion. Besides, we shall find that this is only one of
an endless number of similar assumptions that must
be made in order to render possible a complete theory
of evolution.

With regard to the animals of the Primordial, Le
Conte says: ‘‘If we could have walked along that
beach when it was washed by the primordial seas,
what would we have found cast ashore? We would
have found the representatives of all the great types of
animals, except the vertebrata. The Protozoa were
then represented by sponges and Rhizopods; the
Radiates by Hydrozoa (graptolites) and Cystidean
Crinoids; the mollusks by Brachiopods, Gasteropods
(Pleurotomaria), Pteropods, and even Cephalopods
(orthoceras); and the Articulates by Crustaceans
(trilobites, etc.,) and Worms. Plants are repre-
sented by Mucotds. These widely-distinct classes are
already clearly differentiated and somewhat highly

90 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

organized. Nor is the fauna a meagre one in number
of species. In the United States and Canada alone
about 200 species are already known, of which nearly
100 are érilobites.’’*

Again he says: ‘‘At the end of the Archean times
—when the Archean volume closed—we find only the
lowest protozoan life. But with the opening of the
next era, apparently with the first pages of the next
volume, we find already the great types of structure
except the vertebrata. And these not the lowest of
each type, as might have been expected, but already
trilobites among Articulata, and Cephalopods among
Mollusca—animals which can hardly be regarded as
lower than the middle of the animal scale.’’

As an explanation of this remarkable condition of
things, of this sudden appearance in the geological
record of so many and such highly organized forms of
animals, we are told that ‘*‘ We must remember that
between the Archean and Paleozoic there is a lost
interval of enormous duration,’’ and that during this
interval the above named numerous forms were
evolved from simple Archean forms; that this lost.
interval was long enough to evolve trilobites and
cephalopods ‘‘ which can hardly be regarded as lower
than the middle of the animal scale,”’ from the proto-.
zoa of the Archean.

Here are two great classes of animals, complex in
structure,—the trilobite possessing well-developed
compound eyes, and the cephalopod having simple
eyes, that closely approach in complexity the eyes of
man. The cephalopods are probably the most highly
organized of the invertebrates. They possess two.
eyes, a beak much like that of a parrot reversed in
position, two or four gills—the ancient ones had
four gills,—a distinct alimentary canal, with a well

* Elements of Geology, p. 297. * Thid, p. 298,

PALEONTOLOGY 91

defined stomach, and with both oval and anal open-
ings, one systemic heart to drive the blood through
the body, and two branchial hearts to force the blood
to the gills, a system of closed blood vessels which
allow part of the blood to make a complete circuit in
closed blood vessels—the only invertebrate of which
this is true,—a highly developed nervous system with
the cerebral ganglion partly enclosed in a cartilagi-
nous skeleton, a liver, an ovary, and tentacles on
the head for the prehension of food. The sexes of
cephalopods are in different individuals.

The rocks of the world are absolutely silent as to
the origin of these highly organized animals, for their
fossil remains have not been found earlier than the
Primordial. It is certain that if the Primordial ani-
mals were evolved, they had numerous ancestors of
many forms—varying from Hozoon on the one hand
to Orthoceras, Trilobite, worm, crinoids, and all the
classes of mollusks on the other.

That the record of this enormous period, during
which the animal kingdom made at least one-half of
its total progress, could have been entirely lost, while
its ancient progenitor, the Hozoon, composed of sim-
ilar materials, was preserved, seems impossible.
Evolution says, however, that all of these highly
organized and widely different forms were evolved,
and so she interpolates a record to supply the neces-
sary unknown, equal in length of time to the whole
geological record since the Primordial. By this whole-
sale method of manufacturing evidence, geology is
made to support.a theory.

We do not know that Hozoon is a fossil. Whitney
and Wadsworth, Roemer and Zittel and Gregory
decide against its organic origin.* Romanes, an
extreme evolutionist, says ‘“‘ that it is probably not a

* Geikie’s Text Book of Geology, p. 695.

92 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

fossil.””** We have no positive knowledge, therefore,
that life existed prior to the Primordial. The sedi-
mentary rocks older than the Primordial were for-
merly, and are still called, by some naturalists, Azoic,
meaning that there was no life when they were
formed, and, for aught we know, this may have been
the fact. The oldest animals of the Primordial
must, if at all, have been evolved from forms that
are lost. The Lingula seems to be the oldest known
fossil, and it appeared in the early part of the period.

Dana says: ‘“‘Among Mollusks there were only
Brachiopods for the greater part of the Primordial
period; but in the later division appear some species
of Lamellibranchs, Pteropods, Gasteropods, and
Cephalopods.’’t

If this is true, are we to assume that in this period
these highest classes of mollusks were evolved from
the Brachiopods? I presume that no evolutionist
would claim that this was possible. The only possi-
ble explanation of their existence in the Primordial is
to assume their existence previous to the period.

It is a most remarkable fact that in the first geolog-
ical period in which undoubted fossils occur all the
sub-kingdoms except that of the vertebrates are well
represented, and that there is no evidence from fos-
sils that one sub-kingdom, or even that different
classes of the same sub-kingdom were evolved from
each other. The great gulfs that separate the animal
kingdom into sub-kingdoms and classes existed then,
and have continued till the present time.

As to species, also, it is well known that when a new
species appears among fossils it comes as a well-
defined species, and that it cannot be connected by-
transitional forms with any previously existing spe-
cies. As we pass through the geological record from

* D. and after D., p. 163. t Text Book of Geology, p. 207.

PALEONTOLOGY 93

period to period or from stratum to stratum, species
suddenly appear and disappear, apparently without
ancestors and without descendants.

According to the theory of evolution, and espec-
ially of natural selection, if we start with any organ-
ism and trace its history backward, we would find
that through an endless number of generations it had
been very slightly changing, so that any individual is
always a transitional form between its immediate
ancestors and its own offspring.

If, according to this, we had all of man’s ancestors
in line, they would extend by almost imperceptible
differences of form from Protozoan to Man. About
5,500 species of mollusks have been found in the
Silurian age, in which all the classes of mollusks are
largely represented. The shells of mollusks being
composed of carbonate of lime are extremely durable,
and, as fossils, they compose a large part of most
limestones. This being true, one would expect, if the
theory of evolution is true, to find vast numbers of
transitional forms connecting earlier and later species
in the various periods where fossils are well pre-
served. This, however, is not true. Species, when
they first appear, stand sharply defined.

Darwin expresses his disappointment at the absence
of transitional forms as follows: ‘* But [ do not pre-
tend 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
between the species which lived at the commencement
and close of each formation pressed so hardly on my
theory.”’ *

Taking the mollusks of the Silurian, it is evident
that the transitional forms representing slight succes-
sive changes must have almost infinitely outnumbered

* Origin of Species, p. 286.

94 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the 5,500 species that are known, and that, being
composed of the same kind of materials, their remains
ought not only to exist, but to be found. The condi-
tions favorable to the preservation of a species are
equally favorable to the preservation of transitional
forms. That the absence of these forms should be,
not simply exceptional, but quite universal, is a mat-
ter of great surprise and of much moment.

LeConte says: ‘In fact, if we only had all the
extinct forms, the organic kingdom, taken as a whole
and throughout all time, ought to consist not of spe-
cies at all, but simply of individual forms, shading
insensibly into each cther, like the colors of the spec-
trum, and our classification ought to be a mere matter
of convenience, having no counterpart in nature.
But this is not the fact. On the contrary, the law of
distribution in time is apparently similar in this
respect to the law of distribution in space already
given. As in the case of contiguous geographical
faunas, the change is apparently by substitution of one
species for another, and not by transmutation of one
species info another. So also in successive geological
faunas, the change seems rather by substitution than
by transmutation.’’* Notwithstanding the fact that
the record seems to show ‘‘substitution’’ and not
‘*transformation,”’ evolutionists assume that the lat-
ter has taken place. In order to meet this difficulty
they claim that nearly all of the geographical record
has been lost. Darwin says that ‘‘the number both
of specimens and of species, preserved in our muse-
ums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the num-
ber of generations which must have passed away even
during a single formation.”’ f

It is assumed that the almost infinite number of
intermediate forms which connected the great number

* Evolution, p. 233. t Origin of Species, p. 318.

PALEONTOLOGY 95

of known species, and which were inhabiting the same
regions, were lost, while, for the most part, only well-
defined species were preserved.

. LeConte says: ‘‘ We think the fragmentariness of
the geological record has been overstated. While it
is true that there are many and wide gaps in the
record; while it is true, also, that even where the
record is continuous many forms may not have been
preserved, yet there are some cases, especially in the
Tertiary fresh-water deposits, where the record is not
only continuous for hundreds of feet in thickness,
but the abundance of life was very great, and the
conditions necessary for preservation exceptionally
good. In such cases the number of fossil species
found on each horizon seems to be as great as in exist-
ing faunas over equal space. The record in these
cases seems to be continuous and without break, and
crowded with fossil forms; and yet, although the
Species change greatly, and perhaps many times, in
passing from the lowest to the highest strata, we do
not usually, it must be acknowledged, find the gradual
transitions we would naturally expect, if the change
were effected by gradual transitions. The incom-
pleteness of the record, therefore, although a true
and important cause, is not the whole cause.’’* He
further speaks of the absence of connecting links as
*¢ the greatest of all objections ’’ against the theory of
evolution.

If the above case of the Fresh-water Tertiary exists
with rocks hundreds of feet in thickness, with abun-
dance of life, and exceptionally good circumstances
for preserving fossils, with abundance of well-defined
species, but with the_usual absence of intermediate
forms, then may it not be that a large part of the
geological record is destitute of the numerous breaks

* Evolution, p. 234,

96 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

that have been assumed in order to explain the
absence of intermediate forms?

If the theory of evolution is true, then in these
Tertiary rocks where the record is ‘‘ continuous for
hundreds of feet,’’ the slow transition of the many
species was taking place, and the countless multitudes
of connecting links must have left their remains in
these rocks, so that we might well expect that their
remains would be found mingled with those of the
species that they connect. It is not surprising that
Mr. Darwin should acknowledge that the absence of
these connecting links presses hardly on his theory.

The natural conclusion drawn from their absence,
under the circumstances, is that the connecting links
did not exist. It should be borne in mind that con-
necting forms assumed to be lost are probably thou-
sands of times as numerous as the known species, so
that the theory of evolution not only assumes that
the first half of the whole record—namely, that prior
to the Primordial—is wholly lost, but at every step in
every age and in every class of animals we must grant
that probably 999 out of every 1,000 forms are hope-
lessly lost.

The evolutionist not only assumes that the 999 are
lost, but that if they could be found they would go to
prove the truth of his theory.

As to whether forms constitute species or varieties
is, in this connection, not a matter of importance—
this is simply a question of names.

The real question is, Do the transitional forms
exist? If they do, then evolution is true; if not, then
the theory fails.

That they have not been found all admit. The only
question that remains is, Can their absence be satis-
factorily explained if they once existed? I think not.

I admit that there are many animals whose remains

PALEONTOLOGY 97

are not likely to be preserved, so that there might be
a great deficiency of fossils of such animals.

But when we consider animals which have hard and
durable parts, such as the mollusks, there is no reason
for assuming that in a given stratum, all intermediate
forms between species should have been so uniformly
destroyed.

Some evolutionists, it would seem, would abandon
paleontology in considering their theory. Romanes
says: ‘* With so fragmentary a record as this to
study, I do not think it too much to say that no con-
clusions can be fairly based upon it, merely from the
absence of testimony. If we speak of it as a history
of the succession of life upon the planet, we must
allow, on the one hand, that it is a history which
merits the name of a ‘ chapter of accidents;’ and, on
the other hand, that during the whole course of its
compilation pages were being destroyed as fast as
others were being formed, while even of those that
remain itis only a word, a line, or at most a short
paragraph here and there, that we are permitted to
see.’’ *

In answer to this I may say that we do not know it
to be a fact that the destruction of the record has
been so great as is here affirmed. As already stated,
Le Conte, who is an evolutionist, claims it to be other-
wise. This extreme fragmentariness of the record is
assumed asa matter of necessity in order to make it
harmonize with the theory.

Suppose that there were 100 species of mollusks
within a given area at the same time. It is evident
that we must account for their origin either inside or
outside of the area where they are found. If there
are some hundreds of feet of continuous rocks full of
the remains of mollusks under the 100 species, then

¢ * D. and after D., p 159.

.

98 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the transitional forms in large numbers ought, as ev
lutionists admit, to have been expected there.

_ The overwhelming testimony of the fossils is th
transitional forms are absent,—and this, where t!
fossils are abundant and well-preserved.

It must, therefore, be assumed that the 100 speci
originated elsewhere, and that they migrated into t.
region where they are found.

This theory of origin elsewhere than where speci
are actually found, if applied as strictly as evolutio
ists are accustomed to apply it, will transfer the orig
of species to some other world.

We are told repeatedly, when we look at the gre
number of species imbedded in a formation, that th
have not originated there, but elsewhere, and th
they are immigrants. So much is this explanati:
repeated that it is made to account for the presen
of every species in every stratum known in the eart.
until there is no place left for species to originate.

It should be remembered that, according to evol
tion, every individual of every species is a transition
form, and that, consequently, the origin of species
taking place continually wherever organisms a
found, and that, therefore, we ought to expect abun
ant evidence of these transitions, especially in su
formations as the fresh-water Tertiary to which ]
Conte refers.

Iam not urging simply, ina general way, the a
sence of intermediate fossil forms against the theo
of evolution, but urging it in special cases where fo
sils are abundant and well-preserved and the reco:
seemingly continuous.

Le Conte attempts to account for the absence |
transitional forms by supposing ‘“‘ that the steps
evolution are not always uniform.’ *

* Evolution, etc., p. 289.

PALEONTOLOGY 99

He refers to change of climate, migrations and loss
of geological record as accounting for ‘‘ those sweep-
ing changes, not only of species, but even of genera,
families, and orders which characterize the passage
from one great era to another.’’

‘‘ But this does not explain the apparent discontin-
uity between consecutive species in the same locality
in continuous, comformable strata, or the rarity of
transitional forms when one species takes the place of
another in an apparently continuous record. In such
continuous deposits the successive faunas do indeed
graduate insensibly into one another, but apparently
as in contiguous geographical regions, by substitution,
not by transmutation.”’

From this it is evident that in some cases he regards
the record as being comparatively complete, and not
extremely fragmentary, and it is admitted that in this
record the transitional forms between species are
absent. The reason why they are not found is, ac-
cording to him, that, for the most part, they never
existed, owing to the fact that the formation of
species takes place very rapidly, in which case few
connecting links are required.

His idea is that heredity resists change of form
until circumstances either compel it to give way, re--
sulting in the evolution of new species better adapted
to the environment than the old, or, on the other
hand, in the destruction of the species if they do not
change sufficiently.

This paroxysmal theory of the origin of species
is opposed to Darwin’s idea of slow and imperceptible
changes.

The absence of intermediate forms between species
has led Le Conte to advance this theory. Instead of
“requiring many generations to form a new species, as
is taught by most evolutionists, perhaps one or two,

100 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

or, at most, a very few generations will produce a
distinct species. This is supplemented by the theory
that the new species is born cross-sterile with the
parent species. These things being true, the absence
of connecting links is accounted for.

The only difficulty about this is that it is founded
on two assumptions, both of which are destitute of
the support of facts. If sexually isolated species
have been thus generally produced, it is opposed to
the commonly accepted theory of evolutionists, who
hold Darwin’s view of very slight changes.

It seems, however, that Le Conte does not accept
his own theory that species have been suddenly
formed with but few connecting links, except in cases
like the hundreds of feet of continuous rock in the
fresh-water Tertiary, where he stands in pressing need
of such a theory to account for species which seem to
come as if ‘“‘by substitution of one species for an-
other, and not by transmutation of one species into
another,”? for he also tells us* that Planorbis has
been evolved by slight changes which have been
traced out to the *‘ subtilest gradations,’’ but that the
changes in its evolution seem to have sometimes been
‘*somewhat paroxysmal.”’

Without dwelling longer on this, it is evident that
evolutionists must, with Le Conte, deny the existence
of many intermediate forms between species, or,
admitting that many transitional forms have existed,
they must give some plausible theory explaining their
quite universal absence among fossils. Unless this is
done the theory fails. Their absence is a matter of
vital importance.

It should be remembered that the geological record
contains nearly the whole of the tree of life, so that
if it ‘merits the name of a chapter of accidents,’’

* Evolution, p. 238.

PALEONTOLOGY 101

and if ‘no conclusions can be fairly based upon it,
merely from the absence of testimony,’’ why should
the evolutionist attempt to use this fragmentary
record in support of his theory?

If, as Darwin claims, the known forms are abso-
lutely as nothing in number compared to the un-
known, if we know but one species in a thousand
that has existed, how can we with safety determine
from the one known species what the thousand un-
known species were? Evolution presumes to do this,
for it asserts that the unknown were intermediate
forms between known species. It demands, in the
first place, that the absence of these forms shall not
go to negative its claims, and then it proceeds to sup-
ply the nearly entire and enormous absent record and
make it conform to its own necessities.

Darwin says that in our present condition of knowl-
edge ‘‘it seems to me to be about as rash to dogma-
tize on the succession of organic forms throughout
the world, as it would be for a naturalist to land for
five minutes on some one barren point in Australia,
and then to discuss the number and range of its
productions.’’*

This means that from our extremely fragmentary
knowledge of extinct species it is impossible for us to
determine the order of their geological succession,—
the great majority of the species being, it is claimed,
entirely unknown to us.

Evolution, however, does take very definite
grounds with regard to the kinds of species and to
their order of succession. It asserts that nearly all
species of animals that have existed are unknown to
us, that all the infinite number of lost species were
either connecting links between known species, or
that they were genetically related to them.

* Origin of Species, p. 285.

102 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

Of course it does not attempt to do this from tl
geological evidence alone, but if Darwin’s stateme:
with regard to extinct forms is true, then if we ac
to our knowledge of extinct species our knowledge |
those that are living, still the total amount of o
knowledge of species must be almost nothing cor
pared with our ignorance of the facts in relation -
them.

If this is true, is it not beyond our province-’
attempt to frame a theory to account for the orig
and relations of known species, and also of an infini
number of assumed unknown forms? Evolution h
abandoned paleontology largely as an unfruitful fiel
and yet paleontology contains nearly the whole recor
both as to time and as to the number of species.

Is not the effort of evolution much like attemptil
to construct a definite history of all ancient natio
from our knowledge of modern history combined wi
a few fragments that have come to us from ancie
times?

This must be so if the record is so extremely fra
mentary as Darwin and Romanes would have us bh
lieve. The latter says: ‘* Probably not one per ce
of the species of animals which have inhabited t/
earth has left a single individual as a fossil, where
to record its past existence.’’*

Of the total number of species that have been p1
served as fossils, I presume that, according to |
method of estimating, it would be safe to say th
not more than one in a hundred has yet been d
covered, so that we have a knowledge of one on
hundredth of one per cent—or, we are acquaint:
with only one species in ten thousand of the tot
number that have existed.

If anything like this is true, it would seem to be

* Darwin and After Darwin, p. 423

PALEONTOLOGY 103

waste of time to try to tell what the nine thousand
nine hundred and ninety-nine were from the form of
one which is like neither of them. And even when
we add to this our knowledge of living species it will
constitute a very fragmentary history of the animal
kingdom from its beginning to the present time.

With a record so extremely fragmentary it seems
marvelous that the evolutionist persists in writing a
definite history of the whole animal kingdom by sand-
wiching between the few known species an infinite
number of assumed unknown forms, that he may com-
plete his imaginary tree of life.

VIII.
PALEONTOLOGY.

In THE present chapter I shall attempt to shc
that the great progress in structure which evolutir
assumes to have taken place in deriving man fro
primordial protoplasm is not consistent with the tot
lack of progress in many of the forms in the anim
kingdom.

The great instability of organic forms implied ©
the evolution of man is, I think, entirely inconsiste
with the known stability or comparative stability of
large part of the animal kingdom.

First, as to species, which are supposed to be ve
unstable, it is well known that many of them a
long-lived. Dawson says* that he has examin
more than two hundred species of Post-pliocene mc
lusks, and that they are identical with living species
that even the varieties are the same now that th
were then.

Again he says that ‘‘Pictet catalogues ninet
eight species of mammals which inhabited Europe
the Post-glacial period. Of these, fifty-seven st
exist unchanged, and the remainder have disappeare
Not one of them can be shown to have been modifi
into a new form, though some of them have be
obliged, by changes of temperature and other con
tions, to remove into distant and now widely ser
rated regions. Further, it would seem that all t
existing European mammals extended back in ge

* Story of the Earth and Man, p. 359.
104

PALEONTOLOGY 105

logical time at least so far as man, so that since the
Post-glacial period no new species have been intro-
duced in any way.”’ *

Gray, in speaking of DeCandolle’s conclusion as to
the length of time that the living species of oaks
have existed, says: ‘‘He accepts and, by various
considerations drawn from the geographical distribu-
tion of European Cupulifera, fortifies the conclu-
siou—long ago arrived at by Edward Forbes—that the
present species, and even some of their varieties, date
back to about the close of the Tertiary epoch, since
which time they have been subject to frequent and
great changes of habitation, but without appreciable
change of specific form or character; that is, without
profounder changes than those within which a species
at the present time is known to vary.”’ f

In Huxley’s address before the Geological Society
for 1870, he says, speaking of the dredgings: ‘‘ These
investigations have demonstrated the existence, at
great depths in the ocean, of living animals in some
cases identical with, in other cases very similar
to, those which are found fossilized in the white
chalk: The Globigerinae, Cyatholiths, Coccospheres,
Discoliths- in the one are absolutely identical with
those in the other; there are identical or closely
analogous species of Sponges, Echinoderms and
Brachiopods. Off the coast of Portugal there now
lives a species of Beryx, which, doubtless, leaves its
bones and scales here and there in the Atlantic ooze,
as its predecessor left its spoils in the mud of the sea
of the Cretaceous epoch.’

Darwin says: ‘It is not an insuperable difficulty
that Foraminifera have not, as insisted on by Dr.
Carpenter, progressed in organization since even the
Laurentian epoch.’’ {

* Story of the Earth and Man, p. 357.
+ Darwiniana, p. 185. { Origin of Species, p. 313.

106 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

Again he says: ‘It is no great difficulty that
fresh-water shells, as Prof. Phillips has urged, have
remained almost unaltered from the time when they
first appeared to the present day, for these shells will
have been subjected to less severe competition than
the mollusks inhabiting the more extensive area of
the sea with its innumerable inhabitants.’’* From
this explanation it would seem that we ought to ex-
pect great advance in organization in marine mol-
lusks, but he says ‘that certain Brachiopods have
been but slightly modified from an extremely remote
geological epoch.’’ + These salt-water Brachiopods
have existed a vastly greater length of time than the
fresh-water mollusks, and yet, with all the competi-
tion and change of conditions that the ocean can
furnish, they have made hardly any perceptible
change in structure.

Again Darwin says: ‘*The problem whether or-
ganization on the whole has advanced is in many
ways excessively intricate. The geological record, at
all times imperfect, does not extend far enough back,
as I believe, to show with unmistakable clearness that
within the known history of the world organization
has largely advanced.”’ ¢

This indeed sounds strange from one who teaches
that all organic beings, including man, were derived
from, at most, only three or four forms, and, judging
from analogy, probably from one original form of
organism. If be cannot, from the known geological
record, which probably extends over 50,000,000 years,
assert that ‘‘ organization has largely advanced,’’ what
infinite time beyond the Primordial period would be
necessary in order to make a large advance?

In accordance with Darwin’s idea, let us notice the

* Origin of Species, p. 314. + Ibid, p. 313. ft Ibid, p. 314.

PALEONTOLOGY 107

history of some of the animals that are found in the
geological record. |

From the fact that the Trilobites, so highly organ-
ized, appeared in the Primordial, it would seem that
they were specially adapted to make progress. They
lived through Paleozoic Time, which, according to
Dana, represents twelve of the sixteen parts of all
geological time, beginning with the Primordial; or,
calling the whole geological time 48 millions of years,
the Trilobites lived 36 millions of years, or three-
fourths of all geological time. From their great per-
sistence in time it would seem that they had a remark-
ably good opportunity to make wonderful progress in
structure. During that time there were thousands of
species, yet they made no progress. We do not know
that in all those millions of years a single higher form
was evolved from any one of the great multitude of
species of Trilobites. As Darwin says of the goose,
so I say of the Trilobite; it ‘had a singularly inflexi-
ble organization.”’

The remarkable thing about this, however, is that
previous to the Primordial, while it- was becoming a
Trilobite it must have had a singularly flexible organi-
zation, otherwise it could not have obtained its com-
plex structure; but when it reached the Primordial it
became very conservative.

It is strange beyond belief that an animal which
was making such wonderful strides on the road of
evolution, outstripping every competitor except the
Orthoceras, should suddenly lose all power to progress
in structure and still live on with little change through
most of geological time.

The lingula, a brachiopod, has existed through all
geological time—from the Primordial to the pres-
ent—and has made no progress in organization. Liv-
ing lingula are nearly identical in form with those cf

108 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the Primordial. As in the case of the Trilobite, if the
Lingula was evolved from some lower form,why did it
become fixed when it reached the Primordial and re-
main forever incapable of either change or progress?
It certainly cannot be due to uniformity of external
conditions—climate and competitors—for they have
changed many times. The existence of such long-
lived forms as Trilobites, Lingula and the species
enumerated, shows inherent incapacity in inorganic
beings for undergoing great changes in a state of
nature.

According to the theory of evolution, the summons
must have come to Lingula many times to either
change its structure or perish—for changing environ-
ment is a demand for change of structure; but in
spite of all this it still lives and bears witness to the
permanence of organic forms.

If we look at the great class of Brachiopods which
have, perhaps, done more to form the limestones than
all other animals together, which have existed in all
geological ages, we find that while there were many
genera and a vast number of species, the representa-
tives of the class which are now living are no higher
in structure nor do they differ much from those
that lived in the earliest geological times.

Evolution, however, means infinitely more than the
derivation of one species of brachiopod from another
—it means the derivation of man by descent from
some animal that lived in the Primordial. If man is
to be thus derived, we must find there some form of
life that is extremely and persistently progressive.

If we examine the Lamellibranchs, the other great
class of bivalve mollusks, we find that from the
Primordial down to the present time they have under-
gone very little change, nor can we say that they have
advanced materially in organization. If there has

PALEONTOLOGY 109

been any upward tendency in their evolution through
all the ages, it is hardly possible to measure it.

And so the living Gasteropods can claim but little
superiority in structure over those of the Primordial.

The same is true of Cephalopods, which are, per-
haps, the highest of the invertebrates. The Ortho-
cerata existed throughout the Palaeozoic—three-
fourths of all geological time—and made no material
change in structure. The Pearly Nautilus of to-day
is closely like the Nautilus of the Mesozoic, and even
the Dibranchs now living are not much higher in
structure than the earliest known orthoceras.

It is indeed most remarkable that if the Primordial
animals of these various classes were evolved from
lower forms, thus showing great capacity for im-
provement in divergent lines, they shduld uniformly,
from their earliest known appearance through all
subsequent ages, have made little change in structure,
and little or no marked progress in organization.
The progress of all these animals prior to the Primor-
dial is, I think, inconsistent with the almost total
lack of progress since that period, and this lack of
progress is inconsistent with the claim that man has
been evolved from some Primordial animal.

I am not here concerned with the origin of species,
but with those great changes in structure which the
theory of evolution demands in order to derive the
highest from the lowest forms.

Already, in the Primordial, animals had made
one-half their total progress in structure, according
to Le Conte, but they had widely diverged in struc-
ture, so that they represented all the sub-kingdoms
except the Vertebrata, and, if the theory of evolution
is true, vertebrates must have been there.

The divergence which has taken place between the
sub-kingdoms of invertebrates since the Primordial

110 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

is, I think, small compared to that which had pre-
viously taken place.

Taking the earliest representatives of the animal
kingdom and following them in their history, we find
a persistent tendency towards stability of form, and
little tendency to progress in organization.

This incapacity to change, so marked among the
invertebrates of the Primordial, would lead us to
believe that an animal so different in structure and so
highly organized as a vertebrate could not have been
evolved from any invertebrate line. The more we
look at this class of facts the greater the difficulty
becomes.

Insects and scorpions have been found in the
Silurian. They stand among the highest of even liv-
ing articulates, and they are the oldest known air-
breathing animals.

We seek in vain for the progenitors of these highly
organized articulates or for some conceivable method
by which their wings and special breathing apparatus
could have been evolved.

We do not know that these first insects and scor-
pions have made any material progress through all
the ages. As inthe case of the Primordial animals,
go it is in this instance a remarkable fact that while
they must have progressed rapidly in order to become
insects and scorpions as early as the Silurian, yet
from that age to this they have made no advance in
structure.

In the Devonian, May-flies have been found. In
the Carboniferous, several orders of insects are rep-
resented; the Neuroptera by Dragon-flies; the
Orthoptera by Locusts, Cockroaches, etc., and the
Coleoptera by Beetles. Spiders, Centipedes, and
Scorpions also existed. These various groups of ar-

PALEONTOLOGY 111

ticulates seem to have been as highly-organized and
as well-defined then as at present.

The sub-kingdom of Radiata shows also a great
lack of progress. The Crinoids and Star-fishes of
the Silurian were as highly-organized as are the living
species of these classes, while the Sea-urchins of
to-day are not superior to the oldest known fossil
forms.

The coral-forming Polyps which have persisted
through nearly all geological time still exist in large
numbers, but with little change and no progress
towards a more complex structure.

That which is most noticeable in all the classes of
all the sub-kingdoms of invertebrates through the
long ages isthe small amount of change in structure
and the lack of progress. Professor Huxley in de-
livering the anniversary address to the Geological
Society for 1870, quotes the following from an address
before the same society in 1862:

“If we confine ourselves to positively ascertained
facts, the total amount of change in the forms of ani-
mal and vegetable life since the existence of such forms
is recorded is small. When compared with the lapse of
time since the first appearance of these forms, the
amount of change is wonderfully small. Moreover,
in each great group of the animal and vegetable
kingdoms, there are certain forms which I termed
Persistent Types, which have remained, with but very
little apparent change, from their first appearance to
the present time.

‘*In answer to the question, ‘ What then does an
impartial survey of the positively ascertained truths
of paleontology testify in relation to the common
doctrines of progressive modification, which suppose
that modification to have taken place by necessary
progress from more to less embryonic forms, from

112 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

more to less generalized types, within the limits of
the period represented by the fossiliferous rocks?’ I
reply, ‘It negatives these doctrines; for it either
shows us no evidence of such modifications, or demon-
strates such modification as has occurred to have
been very slight; and as to the nature of that modi-
fication, it yields no evidence whatsoever that the
earlier members of any long-coutinued group were
more generalized in structure than the latter ones.

‘“‘The significance of persistent types and of the
small amount of change which has taken place even
in those forms which can be shown to have been mod-
ified, becomes greater and greater in my cyes, the
longer I occupy myself with the biology of the past.

‘“*Consider how long a time has elapsed since the
Miocene epoch. Yet, at that time there is reason to
believe that every important group in every important.
order of the Mammalia was represented. Even the
comparatively scanty Eocene fauna yields examples
of the orders Cheiroptera, Insectivora, Rodentia and
Perissodactyla; of Artiodactyla under both the
Ruminant and the Porcine modifications; of Car-
nivora, Cetacea and Marsupialia.

‘‘Or, if we go back to the older half of the Meso-
zoic epoch, how truly surprising it is to find every
order of the Reptilia, except the Ophidia, repre-
sented; while some groups, such asthe Ornithoscelida
and the Pterosauria, more specialized than any which
now exist, abounded.”’

He then speaks of the Labyrinthodonts which
extend ‘‘ from the bottom of the Carboniferous series
to the top of the Trias, if not into the Lias.”’” And
continues, ‘‘Since that time eight or ten distinct
genera of Labyrinthodonts have been discovered in
the Carboniferous rocks of England, Scotland and
Ireland, not to mention the American forms described

PALEONTOLOGY 113

by Principal Dawson and Professor Cope. So that
at the present time, the Labyrinthodont Fauna of
the Carboniferous rocks is more extensive and diver-
sified than that of the Trias, while its chief types, so
far as osteology enables us to judge, are quite as
highly organized. Thus it is certain that a compara-
tively highly-organized vertebrate type, such as that
of the Labyrinthodonts, is capable of persisting, with
no considerable change, through the period repre-
sented by the vast deposits which constitute the Car-
boniferous, the Permian and the Triassic formations.

‘*The very remarkable results which have been
brought to light by the sounding and dredging opera-
tions, which have been carried on with such remark-
able success by the expeditions sent out by our own,
the American, and the Swedish Governments, under
the supervision of able naturalists, have a bearing in
the same direction. These investigations have demon-
strated the existence, at great depths in the ocean, of
living animals, in some cases identical with, in others
very similar to, those which are found fossilized in
the white chalk.

“The Globigerina, Cyatholiths, Coccospheres,
Discoliths in the one are absolutely identical with
those in the other; there are identical or closely an-
alogous species of Sponges, Echinoderms and Brach-
iopods. Off the coast of Portugal there now lives a
species of Beryx, which, doubtless, leaves its bones
and scales here and there in the Atlantic ooze, as its
predecessor left its spoils inthe mud of the sea of
the Cretaceous epoch.

‘* Many years ago, I ventured to speak of the At-
lantic mud as ‘ modern chalk,’ and I know of no fact
inconsistent with the view which Professor Wyville
Thompson has advocated, that the modern chalk is

not only the lineal descendant of the ancient chalk,
8

114. ORGANIC E VOL UTION CONSIDERED

but that it remains in the possession of the ancestral
estate; and that from the Cretaceous period (if not
much earlier) to the present day, the deep sea has
covered a large part of what is now the area of the
Atlantic. But if Glodigerina and Terebratula caput-
serpentis, and Beryx, not to mention other forms of
animals and plants, thus bridge over the interval
between the present and the Mesozoic periods, is it
possible that the majority of other living things
underwent a ‘sea-change into something new and
strange ’ all at once?

“Thus far I have endeavored to expand and to
enforce by fresh arguments, but not to modify in any
important respect, the ideas submitted to you on a
former occasion. But when I come to the proposi-
tions touching progressive modification, it appears to
me, with the help of the new light which has broken
from various quarters, that there is much ground for
softening the somewhat Brutus-like severity with
which, in 1862, I dealt with a doctrine for the truth of
which I should have been glad enough to be able to
find a good foundation. So far indeed as the Jnver-
tebrata and the lower Vertebrata are concerned, the
facts and conclusions which are to be drawn from
them appear to remain what they were. For anything
that, as yet, appears to the contrary, the earliest
known Marsupials may have been as highly organ-
ized as their living congeners; the Permian lizards
show no signs of inferiority to those of the present
day; the Labyrinthodonts cannot be placed below
the living Salamander and Triton; the Devonian
Ganoids are closely related to Polypterus and to
Lepidosiren.’’*

I have quoted at length Professor Huxley’s revised
and reaffirmed opinion as to the known geological

* Cyclopedia of Science, p. 172.

PALEONTOLOGY 115

facts and their bearing upon the question of evolu-
tion. His language is very emphatic in asserting
that the known facts of paleontology ‘negative
the common doctrines of progressive modification,
which suppose that modification to have taken place
by necessary progress from more to less embryonic
forms, from more to less generalized types, within
the limits of the period represented by the fossil-
iferous rocks.”? ‘‘It either shows us no evidence of
such modifications, or demonstrates such modification
as has occurred to have been very slight.’’ ‘‘And it
yields no evidence whatsoever that the earlier mem-
bers of any long-continued group were more general-
ized in structure than the latter ones.”’

The above opinion is reaffirmed with regard to -the
Invertebrata and the lower Vertebrata, but is some-
what modified‘as to the higher Vertebrata.

The long endurance of species, the persistence of
types, the absence of generalized structures from
which groups could have branched, are all opposed
to the theory of evolution. If, throughout all time
since the Primordial, invertebrates have made little
or no progress, how was it possible for the Primor-
dial types to be evolved from some extremely simple
form of life? Why should the various classes of the
sub-kingdoms of invertebrates which had marched
steadily upward by evolution till they reached the
various complex structures of the Primordial, at that
point suddenly become incapable of making further
progress, so that they have remained comparatively
unchanged?

If Labyrinthodonts, ‘‘a comparatively highly organ-
ized type,’’ could persist through the Carboniferous,
Permian and Triassic, with no considerable change;
if ‘‘Permian lizards show no signs of inferiority to
those of the present day;’’ if Devonian Ganoids were

116 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

as highly developed as, and ‘“‘are closely related to
Polypterus and Lepidosisen;”’ if ‘the earliest known
Marsupials may have been as highly organized as
their living congeners;’’ if, in fact, these several kinds
of highly organized vertebrates—Fishes, Amphibians
and Reptiles—could exist through such long periods
of time without making much change or progress,
then, indeed, it would seem hopeless to look to any of
these as the ancestors of mammals, and, finally, of
man.

Here, then, to begin with, we have a large volume of
evidence from Paleontology with regard to the Inver-
tebrates and the lower Vertebrates up to and includ-
ing Marsupials which negatives the idea of evolution.
This leaves only the question as to the origin of the
higher Vertebrates to be considered from the known
facts derived from their fossil remains.

With regard to them Prof. Huxley says in the
same address: ‘**‘ But when we turn to the higher Ver-
tebrata, the results of recent investigations, however
we may sift and criticise them, seem to me to leave a
clear balance in favor of the doctrine of evolution of
living forms one from another. Nevertheless, in dis-
cussing this question, it is very necessary to discrimi-
nate carefully between the different kinds of evidence
from fossil remains which are brought forward in
favor of evolution.

‘‘ Every fossil which takes an intermediate place
between forms of life already known, may be said, so
far as it is intermediate, to be in favor of evolution,
inasmuch as it shows a possible road by which evolu-
tion may have taken place. But the mere discovery
of such a form does not, in itself, prove that evolu-
tion took place by and through it, nor does it con-
stitute more than presumptive evidence in favor of
evolution in general. Suppose A, B, C to be three

PALEONTOLOGY 117

forms, while B is intermediate in structure between
AandC. Then the doctrine of evolution offers four
possible alternatives. A may have become C by way
of B: or C may have become A by way of B: or A
and C may be independent modifications of B: or A,
B and C may be independent modifications of some
unknown D.’’

It is evident also that in order to favor the theory
of evolution fossils must show the proper chronolog-
ical arrangement, and that they must be located geo-
graphically in such a way that it would be possible to
evolve the one from the other.

I will briefly consider the geological evidence as to
the evolution of vertebrates.

The earliest known vertebrates were the fishes of
the Trenton period of the lower Silurian. Dana says
ofthem: ‘Remains of Fishes, the earliest known
Vertebrates, occur in the rocks of the Trenton
period. . . . The fossils are abundant near Cafion
City, Col. Most of them are plates and scales of
Ganoids, the largest about half an inch across. Of
these plates, . . . two are referred to Placoderms,
the group which comprises the oldest Fishes pre-
viously known, those of the Upper Silurian and early
Devonian. The scales have the markings of a typical
Ganoid, much like those of the genus Holoptychius, a
form not found hitherto in beds earlier than the Mid-
dle Devonian. Besides these, there are remains of
what are supposed to be the ossified sheaths of a
notochord of a species of the Shark tribe related to
the Chimaera. The beds affording these remains of
Fishes contain many other fossils that are referred to
the Lower Trenton, and are overlaid by others carry-
ing Upper Trenton fossils.”’ *

Geikie says: ‘The first traces of vertebrate life

* Dana’s Manual of Geology, Fourth Edition, 1895, pp. 509-10.

118 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

make their appearance in the Silurian system. They
consist of the remains of fishes, the most determinable
of which are the plates of placoderms (Pteruspis,
Cephalaspis, Auchenaspis, Scaphaspis). The bone-
bed of the Ludlow rocks has also yielded certain
curved spines which have been referred to a Cestra-
cious, and some shagreen-like plates which have been
supposed to be scales of placoid fishes (Sphagodus,
Thelodus), and bodies like jaws with teeth which
were called Plectrodus, but which are now known to
be lateral shield-spines of a cephalaspidean fish
(Eukeraspis).’’ *

Recent discoveries have, therefore, carried the geo-
logical history of fishes from the upper part of the
Upper Silurian into the Lower Silurian. The evi-
dence seems to justify the conclusion that in the lower
part of the Trenton each of the three orders of Paleo-
zoic Fishes was well represented. This oldest known
evidence shows that Fishes had become so widely
different in structure that they can be classed in the
three great orders which include most of the fishes of
all geological time.

This being true, if they were evolved, it is evident
that they must have had a long history which extends
back through the Primordial into the Archean. It
will be remembered that the oldest known fossils of
any kind are in the Primordial. Already the known
history of Fishes extends back almost to that period.
Instead of their becoming more alike as we trace them
back in time, their earliest known remains prove them
to have been widely different in structure. This fact
renders more difficult the belief that they could have
been evolved, while it renders quite certain the fact
that if they were evolved they must have begun as
fishes at some remote period in the Archen.

* Text-Book of Geology, Third Edition, p. 744.

PALHUNTULUG Y¥ ily

The general principle is self-evident that the higher
the forms, the greater their divergence in structure,
and the earlier the period at which they were intro-
duced, the more difficult it becomes to account for
their evolution.

So far as known fossils are concerned, they furnish
no evidence to show that Fishes were evolved from
invertebrates. The oldest remains are those of highly
organized fishes which differed from each other
widely in structure. These Fishes could not have
been evolved from any of the known invertebrates
which existed in the Primordial. The time was too
short for the production of the enormous advance in
structure involved in the evolution of these fishes.

If we rely on known fossils as evidence, we would
be obliged to conclude that highly organized fishes
were suddenly introduced. The break in the sup-
posed chain of evolution between the invertebrates
and the highly organized vertebrates of the Lower
Silurian is one of the greatest in the whole geological
record. As already stated, the discovery which car-
ries the history of Fishes back to the lower Trenton,
does not narrow the gap between the two great and
widely divergent divisions of the animal kingdom.
The vast gulf between these structures must, I think,
remain unbridged except by the imagination.

The following quotations from Le Conte and Hux-
ley, which were written when the oldest known fossil
remains of fishes were in the Upper Silurian, are still
applicable since the discovery of their remains in the
Trenton.

Le Conte says: ‘But it is impossible to overlook
the comparative suddenness of the appearance of a
new class—fishes—and a new department—verte-
brates—of the animal kingdom. Observe that at the
horizon of appearance in the uppermost Silurian

120 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

there is no apparent break in the strata, and there-
fore no evidence of lost record, and yet the advance
is immense. It is impossible to account for this un-
less we admit paroxysms of more rapid movement of
evolution—unless we admit that when conditions are
favorable and the time is ripe for a particular change,
it takes place with exceptional rapidity, perhaps in a
few generations.” *

Huxley says, in the address already quoted from:
“The Amphibia and Pisces tell the same _ story.
There is not a single class of vertebrated animals
which, when it first appears, is represented by ana-
logues 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. But if considerations of this kind compel us
to place the origin of vertebrated animals at a period
sufficiently distant from the Upper Silurian, in which
the first Elasmobranchs and Ganoids occur, to allow
of the evolution of such fishes from a vertebrate as
simple as the Amphioxus, I can only repeat that it is
appalling to speculate upon the extent to which that
origin must have preceded the epoch of the first
recorded appearance of vertebrated life.”

From the above it is evident that Le Conte believes
in paroxysmal evolution in which great advances in
structure take place in a short time, while Huxley be-
lieves in slow changes which carry the history of fishes
and other classes of vertebrates back to a period
immensely remote from the oldest known fossils of
those classes.

The former assumes that in the case of the early
fishes the record is comparatively complete, while the
latter claims that most of it is lost. I have no doubt

* Elements of Geology, p. 345.

PALEONTOLOGY 121

that, if fishes were evolved, their history as verte-
brates began far back in the Archean. The entire
record of fossils in the Archean, if they ever existed
there, has been obliterated, so that there can be no
hope that fossils will be discovered which will reveal
the earliest forms of vertebrates.

Evolution must assume either that the first verte-
brates were evolved from invertebrates of the Pri-
mordial period, of which there is no evidence given
by fossils, or that there is an immensely long but lost
record in the Archean.

If this were the only assumption of the kind neces-
sary in the history of the vertebrates it might be just-
ifiable, but a similar assumption becomes necessary
for every class and order of vertebrates, and for every
class and order of the entire animal kingdom.

I quote again from Huxley’s address with regard to
the geological record of vertebrates. It will be
noticed that his remarks apply to parts of the geolog-
ical record where fossils are abundant, and in which
the beginnings of new forms ought to have been pre-
served.

He says: ‘“*The same moral is inculcated by the
study of every other order of Tertiary monodelphons
Mammalia. Each of these orders is represented in
the Miocene Epoch; the Eocene formation, as I have
already said, contains Chetroptera, Insectivora, Rod-
entia, Ungulata, Carnivora and Cetacea. But the
Cheiroptera are extreme modifications of the [nsectiv-
ora, just as the Cetacea are extreme modifications of
the Carnivorous type; and therefore it is to my mind
incredible that monodelphons Insectivora and Car-
nivora should not have been abundantly developed
along with Ungulata in the Mesozoic epoch. But if
this be the case, how much further back must we go
to find the common stock of the monodelphous Mam-

122 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

malial As to the Didelphia, if we may trust the evi-
dence which seems to be afforded by their very scanty
remains, a Hypsiprymnoid form existed at the
epoch of the Trias, contemporaneously with a car-
nivorous form. At the epoch of the Trias, therefore,
the Marsupialia must have already existed long
enough to have become differentiated into carnivor-
ous and herbivorous forms. But the Monotremata
are lower forms than the Didelphia, which last are
intercalary between the Ornithodelphia and the
Monodelphia. To what point of the Paleozoic epoch,
then, must we, upon any rational estimate, relegate.
the origin of the Monotremata?”’

If the theory of evolution is true, then I have no
doubt that this argument is correct. Each order of
animals, when it first appears in the fossil form, is
highly developed, and therefore it must have been
preceded by a long ancestral line of animals leading
up to the fossil forms.

The Eocene contains six of the orders of mono-
delphous mammals. If these highly differentiated
orders were evolved from a common stock it is evi-
dent that when they reached the Eocene they had
already had a long history as monodelphous mam-
mals. Prior to their history as Monodelphia they
must have existed for a long period as Didelphia and
before that as Monotremata. But we know that
there were a good many species of mammals in the
Jurassic, most of which are thought to have been
insectivorous marsupials, with probably some rodents.
In the Triassic several species of mammals have been
found.

The existence, therefore, of so many kinds of mam-
mals in the Eocene, Jurassic, and especially Triassic,
shows beyond doubt that if mammals were evolved
they must have.begun as mammals at some point in

PALEONTOLOGY 123:

the Paleozoic, and, as Huxley suggests, at a remote
period in the same.

Again, the existence of Jurassic birds and their
probable existence in the Triassic, as shown by fossil
foot-prints, would necessitate their origin in the
Paleozoic, and this would push the origin of reptiles
much farther back in the Paleozoic than known fos-
sils indicate.

Professor Huxley says: ‘‘It is almost appalling to
reflect how far back in Paleozoic times we must go
before we can hope to arrive at that common stock
from which the Crocodilia, Lacertilia, Ornithoscelida.
and Plesiosauria, which had attained so great a devel-
opment in the Triassic epoch, must have been de-
rived.””

Thus it is assumed by evolutionists at all points
that the fossil forms which have been found are
always far more highly developed than the first forms
of the order or class to which they belong, and that
in each case there is a long lost record favorable to
their theory.

According to their theory all of the five classes of
vertebrates must have abounded in at least the latter
part of the Paleozoic—Mammals of various kinds;
Birds, of the reptilian type; numerous kinds of Rep-
tiles, some of which were transitional between birds
and reptiles; besides, many Amphibians and Fishes.

Instead, however, of finding all of these classes in
the Paleozoic, only Fishes and Amphibians were
abundant, while true Reptiles were few, and no fossil
Birds or Mammals have been discovered. Making all
due allowance for perishability of remains, it would
seem evident that if Fishes and Labyrinthodonts
could be preserved in abundance, we ought to find
some remains of Mammals and Birds, together with
numerous fossils of true Reptiles. This is not a case:

124 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

of lost record in the sense that no rocks were being
formed or that they were being made in places that
we have never discovered. The rocks that ought to
contain remains of these highest classes are present
and contain abundance of the fossils of the lower
vertebrates. I regard their absence, under the cir-
cumstances, as strong evidence that Mammals and
Birds did not exist in the Paleozoic and that Reptiles
were comparatively few.

The fact that evolution must assume that the his-
tory of the origin of every class and order has been
lost, that the same has occurred in the case of nearly
all species,—the fact that a record through practi-
cally infinite time must, if the theory is true, have
existed, but that nearly all of it has been lost, leaves,
so far as paleontology is concerned, but a narrow
foundation on which to build the theory. As Profes-
sor Huxley admits, the known facts of paleontology
with regard to Invertebrates and the lower Verte-
brates negative the idea of evolution by progressive
development, ‘‘ within the limits of the period rep-
resented by the fossiliferous rocks.”’

IX.
PALEONTOLOGY.

I witt now consider the theory of evolution with
regard to vertebrates.

Having written of the ‘ideal primitive vertebrate’
as imagined by Haeckel, Professor Romanes says:

** Now I should not have presented this ideal repre-
sentative of a primitive vertebrate, for I have very
little faith in the ‘ scientific use of the imagination’
where it aspires to discharge the functions of a creat-
or inthe manufacture of archetypal forms—I say I
should not have presented this ideal representative of
a primitive vertebrate, were it not that the ideal is
actually realized in a still existing animal. For there
still survives what must be an immensely archaic
form of vertebrate, whose anatomy is almost identical
with that of the imaginary type which has just been
described. I allude, of course, to Amphioxus, which
is by far the most primitive or generalized type of
vertebrated animal hitherto discovered. Indeed we
may say that this remarkable creature is almost as
nearly allied to a worm as it isto a fish. For it has.
no specialized head, and therefore no skull, brain or
jaws; itis destitute alike of limbs, of a centralized
heart, of a developed liver, kidneys, and in short of
most of the organs which belong to the other Verte-
brata. It presents, however, a rudimentary backbone,
in the form of what is called a notochord. Now a
primitive dorsal axis of this kind occurs at a very
early period of embryonic life in all vertebrated ani-

mals; but with the exception of Amphiowus, in all
125

126 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

other existing Vertebrata this structure is not its
destined to become the permanent or bony verteb:
column. On the contrary, it gives way to, or is ]
placed by this permanent bony structure ata la:
stage of development. Consequently, it is very st
gestive that so distinctly embryonic a structure
this temporary cartilaginous axis of all the otl
known Vertebrata should be found actually persisti
to the present day as the permanent axis of Amp,
oxus. In particular, we must notice that the wall
the neck is always perforated by what in Amphiox
are the gill-openings, and that the blood-vessels
they proceed from the heart are always distributed
the form of what are called gill-arches, adapted
convey the blood round or through the gills for t
purpose of aeration. In all existing fish and ott
gill-breathing Vertebrata this arrangement is pern
nent. Itis likewise met with in a peculiar kind
worm, called Balanoglossus—a creature so peculis
indeed, that it has been constituted by Gegenbaui
class by itself. We can see by the wood-cuts, that
presents a series of gill-slits, like the homologo
parts of the fishes with which it is compared, ¢.
fishes of a comparatively low type of organizati:
which dates from atime before the development
external gills. Now, as I have already said, these g
slits are supported internally by the gill-arches,
the blood-vessels which convey the blood to

oxygenated in the branchial apparatus; and 1
whole arrangement is developed from the anter
part of the intestine, as is likewise the respirat
mechanism of all the gill-breathing Vertebra
That so close a parallel to this peculiar mechani
should be met with in a worm, is a strong additio1
piece of evidence pointing to the derivation of 1
Vertebrata from the Vermes.”’ *

* Darwin and after Darwin, p. 144.

PALEONTOLOGY 127

I have thus quoted at length in order that we may
have a clear understanding of the claims of evolution
as to the origin of the first vertebrates.

It will be noticed that Amphioxus is destitute of
nearly every organ that belongs to the vertebrates.
The only claim that it has to a position among verte-
brates is that it has a spinal cord and a noto-chord.

Romanes says that it corresponds very closely to
Haeckel’s ideal primitive vertebrate and that it is
‘an immensely archaic’’ form of vertebrate.

According to this I infer that Amphioxus is either
an actual link in the chain of evolution of the higher
vertebrates and of man, or that it is a form which
does not differ materially from an ancestor of man.
Highly organized fishes are found in the Lower
Silurian. If Amphioxus or something closely like it
was their ancestor, then Amphioxus must have origin-
ated as early as the Primordial, if not earlier. Thus
we find that this ‘‘immensely archaic form of verte-
brate,’’ has existed without making any progress,
through all geological time, comprehending, as some
claim, from 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 years. It has
survived through all the varying circumstances to
which any organism living in the water could be sub-
jected in this infinite time, and still it has not
made any perceptible progress. Its long survival
without change is evidence of the inherent inability of
Amphioxus to undergo change, and of the inability of
environment to produce change, and also the lack
of necessity for becoming more highly organized or
for making any change in order to accommodate itself
to varying conditions of environment.

It would seem that this immutable form is an ex-
ceedingly poor stock from which to try to evolve man.

In like manner the worm, Balanoglossus, possessing
the gill-slits, if it was the progenitor, or if it is closely

128 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

related to the progenitor of the vertebrates, which
implied by the use which Romanes makes of it, th
it is a still older form than Amphioxus, and it h
survived without progress through all the geologic
ages, and its present existence gives rise to the abov
named difficulties.

In view of the existence of these ‘‘ immense
archaic’’ forms through practically infinite time, wi
little or no change, it would be difficult to imagine
worse attempt to find the primitive vertebrate frc
which man has been evolved.

Of course, we may be told that some of the mc
enterprising offspring of Amphioxus managed to pu
their way upward, producing finally the highest ver
brates and man, while the parent form endured u
changed. But the answer is that a parent form whi
has undergone no change through all geological tii
is not capable of producing offspring that can ma
unlimited progress, ending in man.

The same kind of difficulty is met with everywh:
in the amimal kingdom, and especially among t
vertebrates.

If we take Lampreys, which are probably the lc
est of living fishes, in order to find their first anc
tors, that closely resemble them as they now are,
would be compelled to go back to a period much |
yond the oldest known fossil fishes in the Siluri:
From that time to the present they have lived wi
out progress.

It will be remembered that the oldest known fo:
fishes were more highly organized than living La
preys, and consequently the latter must be referred
a stock of a more ancient date.

The Cecilians, the lowest form of living Amphi
ans, present a similar difficulty. In general appearai
they are much like worms, and if the theory of eva

PALEONTOLOGY 129

tion is true, they must have branched off from the
Amphibian stock early in its history and in all
of their long history they have made no progress.
And so I might continue through every class and
order of vertebrates.

Reptiles of any living order are as simple in struc-
ture as were the oldest known reptiles of that order,
and, consequently, if birds and mammals were off-
shoots of the reptilian stock, they are a most remark-
able exception to the rule that reptiles have kept
right on from the first without making progress in
structure.

The Ornithorhinchus, now living, is an older form
than the marsupials, and consequently we must seek
the first of its kind far back in the Paleozoic. It can
not differ much in structure from the monotremata
which preceded the marsupials. It might be called
an ‘‘imniensely archaic ’’ form of mammal, and yet it
survives, while some one of its kind, more fortunate
than the living species, shot upward in the line of
progressive organization and finally resulted in man.

One of the first great changes which the monotreme
made was to become a marsupial. The pouch of the
latter would have been useless until sufficiently devel-
oped to contain the young, and, as usual with rudi-
mentary organs, we are unable to account for its evo-
lution at all.

The oldest known mammals were in the Triassic.
They were small insectivorous marsupials. The lower
jaw-bone of one from the Triassic of North Carolina
is about one inch long. But few remains of mam-
mals have been found in the Triassac, and they are
teeth and fragments of jaw-bones.

In the Jurassic of both Europe and America the
teeth and jaws of a good many species of insectiv-
orous marsupials of the size of rats and mice have

130 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

been discovered. From these remains it is evident
that marsupials of many kinds must ,have abounded
in the Jurassic.

It is also evident that the progenitors of these Tri-
assic marsupials must have begun as mammals, per-
haps as monotremes, at some period in the Paleozoic.
As to how the transitions could have taken place from
reptile to monotreme, from monotreme to marsupial,
and from marsupial to placental mammal, we will not
at present inquire.

The oldest known mammals are not the lowest in
structure, and, from their long history antecedent to
their oldest remains thus far known, we may expect
to find their remains in Paleozoic rocks, if they have
been evolved from lower forms.

From the abundance of the remains of marsupial
mammals in the Jurassic and the numerous kinds of
placental mammals in the Eocene, we would expect
that, in the Cretaceous, which intervenes between the
Jurassic and the Eocene, would be found the remains
of many marsupial and placental mammals, together
with transitional forms between them. It is, how-
ever, a remarkable fact that nearly the whole of the
enormous deposits of the Cretaceous, amounting to
38,000 feet in thickness,* are, so far as had been dis-
covered up to 1894, destitute of the remains of mam-
mals. Nota single placental mammal has been found
in the Cretaceous. Up to 1894 only one specimen of
a mammal had been found in the foreign Cretaceous,
and that was in the Wealden, the lowest part of the
Cretaceous period. The other remains of mammals
in the Cretaceous have been found in the upper part,
while none have been discovered in the deposits of
great thickness intervening between the remains in
the lower and upper parts.

* Manual of Geology, Dana, pp. 818 and 828.

PALEONTOLOGY 131

Geikie says of these remains: ‘Though mam-
malian remains had long been known to occur in the
Triassic and Jurassic formations, none had been ob-
tained from Cretaceous rocks, and this absence was
all the more remarkable from the great abundance
and perfect preservation of the reptilian forms in
these rocks. But the blank has now been filled by
the remarkable discovery in the Upper Cretaceous
rocks of Dakota and Wyoming of a large series of
jaws, teeth, and different parts of the skeletons of
small mammals belonging to many individuals, and
including not a few genera and species. They are
found associated with remains of deinosaurs, croco-
diles, turtles, ganoid fishes, and invertebrate fossils,
indicating brackish or fresh water conditions. The
mammalian forms show close affinities to the Triassic
and Jurassic types. There are several distinct genera
of small marsupials, others seem to be allied to the
monotremes, but there are no carnivores, rodents, or
ungulates.’’* (He then enumerates the names of the
sixteen genera as proposed for them by Marsh.)
‘More recently the discovery of a single small tooth
in the Wealden series of Hastings is the first trace of
mammalian life yet found in the Cretaceous forma-
tions of Europe.’’

Dana says of the Cretaceous mammals: ‘‘ The
mammals of the Cretaceous thus far discovered are
probably all marsupial or monotreme, like those of
the Jurassic period. The remains are mainly teeth,
with a few broken jaws and limbs.”’ f

‘“‘The Monotremes and Marsupials from the Cre-
taceous formation show little progress in Mammals
beyond the condition in the Jurassic period—nothing,
up to the present time, that bears the decided charac-
ter of a placental mammal.’’ {

* Text-Book of Geology, p. 935.
t Manual of Geology, p. 852. ¢ Ibid, p. 871.

132 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

The above is a remarkable state of facts if the
numerous kinds of large and_highly-organized
placental mammals which are found in the Eocene,
immediately succeeding the Cretaceous, were evolved
from Cretaceous marsupials.

During the immense time of the Cretaceous, while
38,000 feet of rocks were being deposited, the mar-
supials and monotremes of the Jurassic did not be-
come placental mammals, and, we may add to this the
6,000 feet of Jurassic and 15,000 feet of Triassic,
—making the whole Mesozoic 59,000 feet thick—and
during this enormous time small marsupials remained
such, so that at the close of the Cretaceous, so far as
fossils show, both large marsupials and placental
mammals were absent.

If, as Geikie says, ‘‘the great abundance and per-
fect preservation of the reptilian forms in these
rocks’’ would cause us to expect the remains of
mammals in them, then we ought to expect the
remains of large and small placental mammals and
of the transitional forms between them and the mar-
supials. This, at least, is one of the very special
cases where, if evolution has taken place, we have
the right to believe that the record would have been
preserved, and its absence may be strongly urged
against the truth of that theory.

We have but to consider the Eocene mammals and
contrast them with the small marsupials of the upper-
most Cretaceous in order that we may see the force of
the above statement. As to the Tertiary marsupials,
Dana says:

“The Marsupials, as in earlier time, were small
species, related to the Opossums, and their remains
are known from the Early Eocene onward.”’ *

‘¢‘No immediate precursors of the Tertiary non-

*,Manual of Geology, p. 902.

PALEONTOLOGY 133

marsupial or placental Mammals, linking them to the
Marsupial, have yet been found in any part of the
world, notwithstanding the occurrence in many re-
gions over America, as wellas the other continents,
of a gradual passage from the Cretaceous formation
into the Tertiary. They are naturally supposed to
have existed in the later Cretaceous over the dry land
of eastern and western America; but still it is strange
that they did not find resorts somewhere on the bor-
der of the Cretaceous seas along with the Mar-
suplals.’’ *

‘It is evident that Dana is disappointed at the ab-
sence of the remains of placental mammals from the
later Cretaceous, where marsupials are abundant. I
know of no plausible theory by which the evolution-
ist can aecount for this important fact of imperfect
record.

‘* Another strange fact is that although the Marsu-
pials of earlier time had become variously special-
ized, their placental successors should have had un-
specialized or prototype characters.”’ +

This fact, of course, goes to negative the theory
that the Eocene mammals were evolved from Creta-
ceous marsupials. Continuing with regard to the
difficulties in the way of evolution, Dana says:

*¢ Diversity of Eocene Mammals. Another remark-
able fact is that so great a diversity of Mammals,
diversity in structure as well as size, should have
appeared before the Kocene period had passed. The
prototypic plant-eaters and flesh-eaters of the earliest
part, supposed to be plantigrade in feet, were fol-
lowed, even in the Wasatch division of the lower
Eocene, by species of large, short-footed Ungulates,
the Coryphodonts, and in the later Eocene huge
Dinocerata, the latter supplied with horns for attack

* Manual of Geology, p. 928. t Ibid, p. 928.

134 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

and defense. In the Eocene also, the Tapir-like
species advanced far toward the modern genera,
Tapirus and Rhinoceros. There also appeared vari-
ous species with paired toes, in the line of the Hogs,
Hippopotamus, Camel, so that the type of Artyo-
dactyls, and the types of several of its principal sub-
divisions, were established. There were also some
prominent Eocene types of Rodents and Insectivores.
Further, the Quadrumana of the Early Eocene, hav-
ing the typical number of teeth, 44, were followed in
the later Eocene by others, in which the number of
teeth was reduced to 32, the final limit in the Quad-
rumana, and that characterizing Man.

‘* Moreover, there were several successions of Mam-
malian faunas in this first period of the North Amer-
ican Tertiary, and the species in each of them prob-
ably outnumbered those of Recent North America.
The kinds found fossil may have been a fourth of all
then existing in the region, and probably not more.”’ *

‘Before the close of the Eocene there were
whales in the seas—the Zeuglodons,’’ some of which
were seventy feet long.

We are asked by evolutionists to believe that all
of these remarkable forms of mammals, highly de-
veloped and differentiated from each other—includ-
ing forms resembling Tapirs, Rhinoceroses, Hogs,
Camels, Hippopotamuses, Rodents, Insectivores,
Whales 70 feet long, and Quadrumana having only
32 teeth, were evolved from the small Cretaceous
Marsupials,either during the Cretaceous or the Eocene
period, and yet no remains of a single placental
mammal have been discovered among the numerous
small Marsupials, of the Upper Cretaceous. Starting
with those small Marsupials which were land animals,

* Manual of Geology, p. 928.

PALEONTOLOGY 135

how can we account for the Zeuglodon, a whale 70
feet long?

It is claimed by evolutionists that some carnivorous
land animal was forced to take to the water, and that
from this the Zeuglodon was evolved.

If it is claimed that the above placental Mammals
were evolved in the Cretaceous, then it becomes nec-
essary for the evolutionist to account for the absence
of their remains in a continuous record where other
vertebrate fossils abound. Dana, in the language
above quoted, shows his surprise at their absence
‘‘notwithstanding the occurrence in many regions
over America, as well as the other continents, of a
gradual passage from the Cretaceous formation into
the Tertiary.”

Le Conte, speaking of Eocene mammals, says ‘‘there
is at a certain horizon a rapid and most extraordi-
nary change inthe life-system. This it seems impossi-
ble to explain on the theory of evolution, unless we
admit periods of rapid evolution.’’* ‘*True placental
mammals not only appear suddenly and in great
numbers, but of nearly all orders. In the oldest
Eocene beds, (Wahsatch beds of the Green River and
San Juan basins) Cope finds eighty-seven species of
vertebrates, two-thirds of which are mammals. In
the Fort Bridger beds of the Green River basin (Mid-
dle Eocene), Marsh finds 150 species of vertebrates,
of which the larger number are mammals, some
Herbivora, some Carnivora, and some Lemurine
monkeys.’’f

In the Eocene of the Paris basin in France, fifty
species of mammals have been found, forty of which
are Tapir-like.

At the time Le Conte wrote the above, no marsu-
pials had been discovered in the Cretaceous. Their

* Elements of Geology, p, 497. t Ibid, p. 517.

136 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

subsequent discovery, together with the absence of the
remains of placental mammals, renders his language
more forcible. Relying on the continuity of the
record, he thinks it necessary to ‘‘ admit pertods of
rapid evolution.’’

Without dwelling on this longer, I will say that the
absence of the remains of placental mammals from
the upper Cretaceous, under the circumstances, I
regard as being a very strong, if not insuperable,
objection to the theory of evolution. Besides this,
there are the other great difficulties enumerated by
Dana.

The history of the marsupials does not warrant the
assumption that placental mammals can be evolved
from them. When Australia was discovered, two
monotremes, many marsupials, but no true mammals,
except bats, were found there. These marsupials,
according to the theory of evolution, were isolated
before true mammals were evolved. They have,
therefore, had in Australia an opportunity extending
over millions of years to show their capacity for
becoming placental mammals, but not one of them,
so far as we know, has ever advanced beyond the
marsupial condition. Beginning with the present, we
have an unbroken line of marsupials back into the
Triassic, and possibly into the Paleozoic, through
nearly a hundred thousand feet of stratified rock, and
they still remain marsupials, not having advanced
much in structure from the time of their oldest fossil
remains.

It is said to be a law of England that ‘ once an
Englishman, always an Englishman,’’ and so it seems
to be a law of Nature, hoary with age, that once a
marsupial, always a marsupial.

The remains of the Zeuglodon, a whale 70 feet
long, have been found only in the Jackson beds,

PALEONTOLOGY 137

which are the uppermost division of the Eocene.
This is a remarkable fact when we remember that
the older divisions of the Eocene are well represented
along the Gulf-border region, as is also the Creta-
ceous. Le Conte says: ‘‘ No intermediate links have
yet been found connecting this with other orders of
mammals, or with the great reptiles. And yet from
their large size and marine habits, they are more
likely than land mammals to have been found if they
existed in the earlier Eocene or Cretaceous times.’’*

That the remains of whales are likely to be pre-
served, is shown by the abundance of their remains in
the Miocene. Dana says: ‘‘The Miocene of the Atlan-
tic border has afforded remains of many Cetaceans.
Among them are various Dolphins, several species of
Whales of the genus Squalodon, related in teeth to
the Zeuglodon, the largest about 30 feet long. Others
having the teeth excessive in number, or multiplicate,
and provided with only one root; others having simi-
lar teeth, but only in the upper jaw, as in the genus
Physeter, or that including the Sperm Whale; others
with teeth in neither jaw, as the Baleen, or Whale-
bone Whales, but having several hundred plates of the
so-called whale-bone growing vertically downward
from above.’’f

It is no adequate answer to this to say that in the
Cretaceous and other periods there are rock deposits
that are quite destitute of fossils of any kind. The
force of the objection in this and similar cases is that
the remains of the Zeuglodon and other Eocene
mammals are absent from rocks abounding in verte-
brate fossils, in which, if they lived while these rocks
were being deposited, their remains would be pre-
served.

It is claimed that the fossil remains of certain

* Elements of Geology, p. 523. + Manual of Geology,p. 912.

138 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

mammals show that they were evolved. The geolog-
ical history of the horse is to the evolutionist a source
of perennial delight. It has indeed become a veri-
table hobby-horse, which he delights to ride and to
which he points with pride as an unanswerable argu-
ment.

The Eocene horse, which was about as large as a
fox, had four toes in front and three behind; the
Miocene horse had three toes and a splint in front,
and three behind; the Pliocene horse gradually lost
the two toes at the side, until they were represented
by splints, leaving only the middle toe, as in the
horse of to-day. Why did he lose these toes? If the
modern evolutionist had been geologically contem-
poraneous with the horse we would say that the latter
had lost his toes by being hardly ridden up and down
the slopes of the Rocky Mountains.

It may be a question as to whether the horse has
been evolved, as claimed. Le Conte says: ‘*About
thirty-five or forty species of this family, ranging
from the earliest Eocene to the Quaternary, are
known in the United States.”"** This number of
known species would, according to the assumptions of
evolutionists as to the proportion of lost forms, indi-
cate the existence of hundreds, if not thousands, of
species within the above period. If this is true, how
do we know that the Miocene horse of three toes did
not exist in the Eocene, and that the Pliocene horse
of only one toe did not exist in both Miocene and
Eocene? For the purposes of evolution the known
record is presumed to be quite sufficient, and this, in
spite of the fact that, according to the claims of that
theory, most of the record is unknown.

But, granting that the horse did gradually lose
three of his toes and that his teeth underwent a cer-

* Elements of Geology, p. 832.

PALEONTOLOGY 139

tain amount of change, what conclusions can be legit-
imately drawn from these facts? From the early
Eocene to the present from thirty-five to forty thou-
sand feet of sedimentary rocks have been deposited.
In this immense time the horse has lost two or three
toes, has increased in size, and his teeth and bones
have undergone no fundamental changes.

Are we to conclude from this that the great Zeug-
lodon, a whale 70 feet long, was evolved during the
Cretaceous, in which its remains are not found, from
the small marsupials of that period—or that the
Quadrumana, the highest order of mammals next to
man, and the numerous large and highly-developed
and differentiated mammals of the Eocene were
evolved from the same small marsupials, of which
there is no evidence from fossils whatever? or, going
backward in time, shall we from the case of the
horse conclude that the first mammals were evolved
from reptiles, and that the first fishes were evolved
from worms? It is possible that the horse might, in
his long history, have undergone the changes claimed,
which are not very great comparatively—not funda-
mental, and that from this we might not legitimately
conclude that an invertebrate has become a verte-
-brate, or that a reptile has become a mammal.

In my opinion it is not true that every change of
structure is to be regarded as a proof of the general
theory of evolution. It may be granted that certain
changes have taken place in organic forms by way of
evolution without thereby admitting that all the great
and fundamental differences between organic beings
have thus been produced.

J have in another chapter endeavored to show the
impossibility of satisfactorily accounting for the evo-
lution of various classes and orders of animals.

Looking at the known geological facts, there exist

140 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

through all geological time wide gulfs between groups
of organic beings which are not bridged by inter-
mediate forms. And very remarkable it is that the
gulfs between the great groups of animals are, in
most cases, quite as wide in the beginning as they are
inthe end. It is a quite universal rule that species,
orders, and classes appear suddenly, as if by substitu-
tion, and not by evolution.

X.
EMBRYOLOGY.

Evowvutionists rely much of late upon embryology
in trying to establish the truth of their theory.
Embryology treats of the structure and the develop-
ment of the animal in the egg.

All animals are divided into two divisions with
regard to their method of reproduction; namely, the
Protozoa and the Metazoa. The Protozoa do not
produce true eggs, while the Metazoa produce eggs.

The Protozoa are the simplest of all animals, con-
sisting generally of a minute speck of protoplasm,
ranging in size from less than 1/1000 of an inch to more
than an inch in diameter. They reproduce by the
division of an individual into two organisms. The
nucleus, which is the center of physiological action,
first divides, forming two nuclei, and each of these
serves as a center for the new individual. A proto-
zoan is commonly regarded as being a nucleated cell.

The Metazoa reproduce by means of eggs which
must be fertilized by spermatazoa. A metazoan is
always composed of more than one, and generally of
many cells. The cells that compose the body are of
more than one kind, each tissue of the body being
composed of cells peculiar to itself, and adapted to
perform a special kind of work.

The Metazoa may also propagate by budding. Dr.
Romanes claims that the asexual reproduction by
budding among the Metazoa ‘‘is ultimately due to

their propagation by sexual methods,”’ so that with-
141

142 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

out the sexual method propagation would, in a short
time, cease.

He states the differences between the methods of
reproduction among the Protozoa and Metazoa as
follows: ‘‘In nearly all cases where a Protozoan mul-
tiplies itself by fission, the process begins by a simple
division of the nucleus. But when a Metazoan is de-
veloped from a germ-cell, although the process like-
wise begins by a division of the nucleus, this division
is not a simple or direct one; on the contrary, it is
inaugurated by a series of processes going on within
the nucleus, which are so enormously complex, and
withal so beautifully ordered, that to my mind they
constitute the most wonderful—if not also the most
suggestive—which have ever been revealed by micro-
scopical research. It is needless to say that I refer to
the phenomena of karyokinesis.’”’ *

Again he says: ‘Lastly, the only other distinction
of a physiologically significant kind between a single
cell when it occurs as a Protozoan and when it does
so as the unfertilized egg of a Metozoan is, that in
the latter case the nucleus discharges from its own
substance two minute protoplasmic masses (polar
bodies) which are then eliminated from the cell alto-
gether. This process . . . appears to be of in-
variable occurrence in the case of all egg cells, while
nothing resembling it has ever been observed in any
of the Protozoa.”’ f+

The Metazoan generally reproduces by means of
eggs which must be fertilized by spermatazoa, and
when they reproduce by budding this is ultimately
due, according to Romanes, to the sexual method.
The ovum and the spermatazoa may both be pro-
duced by the same or by different individuals. The

* Darwin and After Darwin, p. 129. t Ibid, p. 114.

EMBRYOLOGY 143

ova in all the higher animals are produced by the
female and the spermatazoa by the male.

Before fertilization the ovum discharges the polar
bodies, and it is claimed by some that the spermata-
zoan also discharges similar bodies.

In order to fertilize the ovum the spermatazoan
must find its way into the ovum, penetrating its cell-
substance, where it sets up the process of develop-
ment. Fertilization having taken place, next follows
the ‘‘ enormously complex’’ process of karyokinesis.

Thus I have ‘stated in outline the differences be-
tween the methods of reproduction by the Protozoa
and the Metazoa. I will enumerate them:

First. The Protozoa produce no eggs, while the
Metazoa produce eggs.

Second. The Protozoa produce no spermatazoa,
but the Metazoa produce them.

Third. The ovum of Metazoa discharges polar
bodies.

Fourth. The spermatazoa probably discharge polar
bodies.

Fifth. After fertilization, there takes place in the
nucleus of the ovum the ‘‘immensely complex ”’
process of karyokinesis, while the division of the
nucleus in the Protozoan is simple.

Sixth. All Metazoa pass through the gastrula
stage of development, which stage is represented by a
double-walled cavity composed of two layers of cells.

Seventh. A Protozoan is composed of only one
kind of cells, while a Metazoan is composed of more
than one kind, and generally of many kinds.

It is evident that the evolutionist must bridge the
chasm between the Protozoa and the Metazoa. Little
has been done in this direction.

Romanes says that there is ‘‘ a suggestive foreshad-
owing of sexual propagation among the unicellular

144 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

¥

organisms.’’ As an example of this he gives the case
of ‘‘conjugation,’’ in which two or more Protozoa
unite together, become encysted with each other,
forming one body, which finally breaks up, and thus
releases spores that produce organisms like those that
united. But he does not claim that this is at all sim-
ilar to the very complex method of reproduction
among the Metazoa. He says, ‘‘ Nevertheless that
there are great distinctions between true sexual pro-
pagation and this foreshadowing of it I do not deny.”’

Iam not able to understand in what the foreshad-
owing consists. The cells of Protozoa which unite
are essentially different from the ovum and the sper-
matazoa that unite; the method of union is different
in the two cases, and the processes and results of de-
velopment after union are totally different. It is
true that in both cases there is some sort of mechan-
ical union, but further than this I see no similarity.
The evidence necessary to show that Metazoa may be
evolved from Protozoa is, I think it will be admitted,
entirely insufficient.

As heretofore urged, the evolutionist must furnish~
sufficient evidence to show that spontaneous genera-
tion has taken place from inorganic matter. Here the
evidence totally fails. ‘‘As to the origin of life,’’ says
Romanes, ‘science is not ina position to furnish so
much as any suggestion on the subject.”’

Having shown that spontaneous generation can
take place from inorganic matter, resulting, as we
may presume, in non-nucleated, undifferentiated pro-
toplasm, he must show that such protoplasm can
become nucleated cells or organisms capable of pro-
pagating their kind. Of this there is no evidence.

Having shown how Protozoa may be evolved, he
must then prove that Metazoa may be evolved from
them. From the lowest Metazoa he must show how

EMBRYOLOGY 145

the highest Metazoa might have been evolved, includ-
ing the enormous ascent from sponge to man. In
this it would be necessary to show the evolution of
the vertebrate from the invertebrate animal.

At this point we would naturally look to embryol-
ogy to bridge the chasm. Dr. Romanes, however,
who more than almost any other writer has called to
his aid embryology in trying to establish the truth of
the theory of evolution, does not attempt to use it in
trying to show the evolution of the vertebrate from
the invertebrate. He claims that the lowest verte-
brate, the Amphioxus, is related in structure to
Balanoglossus, a living species of worms, and that
the two probably had a common ancestor.

It is well known, however, that there are radical
differences between the embryos of vertebrates and
invertebrates. Worms and other articulates in
embryo lie doubled backwards around the yolk, while
all vertebrates are doubled in the opposite direction.

According to the theory that the embryonic condi-
tion is a recapitulation of the stages of organic evo-
lution, this fundamental fact of invertebrate embry-
ology ought to have been preserved by the vertebrate,
and it ought, at least, to pass through a stage of de-
velopment bent backwards around the yolk. Evolu-
tion gives no account of this reversal of position by
the vertebrates.

Again, among the vertebrates are found three mod-
ifications of development. Fishes and Amphibians
have no amnion nor allantois; Reptiles and birds
have both, while the Mammals alone have a placenta.
Evolution gives no account of these fundamental dif-
ferences.

It is true that the embryology of the vertebrates
shows that at an early stage of development the em-

bryos of all vertebrates closely resemble each other in
10

146 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

form, and that as development proceeds they become
more and more unlike in form until birth. This
resemblance is the stronghold of the evolutionist.

It is claimed that the egg-cells, or germ-yolks, of all
eggs are alike in structure. The germ-yolk is that
part of the egg that is developed into the animal. Its
usual size is from 4/1 to 1/20 of an inch in diameter.
The greater part of the egg, in many cases, is food
for the growing embryo. ~

Inside of a few weeks, or, at most, of a few months,
beginning with vertebrate eggs that are said to be
essentially alike in structure, we see developed Fish,
Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal.

If all eggs are essentially alike in structure, how
can one become a fish and another a dog? No egg
ever makes a mistake and develops into an ani-
mal of another class. It is evident that while all
eggs, from that of the sponge to that of man, may
seem to be alike in structure, they are really as far
apart in their essential nature as are the fully devel-
oped sponge and the full-grown man. The essential
factor of possibility in the life of any organism is
bound up in the egg.

The resemblance of embryos, it is claimed by evolu-
tionists, denotes genetic affinity.

Taking the embryos of man and fish, his argument
is as follows. The embryos of man and fish at a cer-
tain stage of development are closely alike in appear-
ance; therefore, the adult man and the full-grown
fish had a common ancestral origin.

This conclusion is, I think, not warranted by the
premises. Suppose that we embody the same facts in
the following proposition:—the fully developed man
and fish differ enormously from each other in many
essential respects; therefore, the embryos of the man
and of the fish, although they look much alike, are

EMBRYOLOGY 147

essentially different; and, therefore, neither embryos
nor adults could have had a common ancestor. This,
I think, is the correct conclusion from these facts.

The conclusion which the evolutionist draws is
based upon a mere seeming and very transient resem-
blance, while the fact that the two embryos are essen-
tially unlike is shown by the vast distance apart at
which they arrive by development.

If, therefore, the theory of evolution is true. embry-
ology cannot serve to establish its truth.

Romanes regards it as ‘‘the most important of the
lines of evidence ”’ to establish the theory.

I have already given what evolutionists regard as
the chief law of embryology in relation to evolution,
namely, that the embryo of the individual is a reca-
pitulation of the process of evolution of the class
to which it belongs.

If we try to apply this rule to the evolution of man,
we will find it extremely defective. His ancestral line
might, according to the theory of evolution, have
been something like the following :—undifferentiated
protoplasm, differentiated protoplasm in the form of
plant cells, Protozoa, Mollusks, Worms, Amphioxus,
Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, Ornithorhinchus, Marsu-
pial, Placental Mammal, Lemur, Monkey, Anthropo-
morphous Ape, and Man.

Taking this ancestral line and comparing it to the
embryo of man, we would be obliged to strike out all
of the line up to Fish, also Amphibian, Ornithorhin-
chus, or Monotreme, and Marsupial.

Why should the whole first half of the history of
evolution be not even hinted at in the epitome? and
why should the Monotreme and the Marsupial be
totally forgotten? while the remembrance of all the
others is so jumbled together that we cannot tell
whether or not the historian would remember any one

148 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

of them in any definite way. I regard the so-called
epitome as being mostly imaginary.

It is true that the embryos of vertebrates look
much more alike than do the adults, and that the eggs
are still nearer alike in appearance than are the em-
bryos, but I insist again that in fact the embryos are
no nearer together in essential structure than the
adults. If we draw lines from adults to embryos,
and on to eggs, these lines will not be convergent, but
parallel. It seems evident that the egg which can be
developed into a man is just as different in nature
from the egg of a fish as the man is from the fish.
The eggs are essentially unlike. We cannot say that
their present resemblance points to a time when they
were not only alike in appearance, but also alike in
essence. This is the claim of evolution.

Taking fish and man, we find eggs, embryos, and
adults essentially unlike, and, consequently, from
embryology it cannot be asserted that they were ever
identical. To assert former similarity in essential
character in the face of the widest present essential
differences all along the line is not justifiable.

The evolutionist seeks to break down enormous
essential differences by appealing to certain transient
resemblances. He would have us believe that the
egg-cells of all animals are not only alike in appear-
ance, but that there was a time when they were iden-
tical.

The essential qualities of eggs are beyond the power
of the microscope to reveal. We know beyond doubt
that eggs and embryos which look closely alike are
almost infinitely different in their powers of develop-
ment. The thing to be accounted for by evolution is
the unseen difference between eggs. Present resem-
blances between eggs are much less significant than
the present invisible differences.

EMBRYOLOGY 149

The claim that the history of the embryo is an
epitome of the history of the ancestral line, is an
assumption, for the evident reason that we do not
know what the ancestral line was. We must know
what the history itself is before we can assert that
this or that is an epitome of that history.

If we assume evolution as a fact, then we may
assert the existence of the epitome, but if we deny
that evolution has taken place, then we deny the pos-
sibility of an epitome. To assert the existence of the
epitome is to assume the fact of evolution, and conse-
quently the supposed epitome cannot be proof of the
fact of evolution which it assumes.

Embryology, instead of confirming the truth of evo-
lution, stands waiting at the door of evolution for its
own confirmation.

We are told that the embryos of all vertebrates at
a certain stage have gill-arches. My answer to this is
that the embryo man with gill-arches is just as differ-
ent from the embryo fish with gill-arches as is the
full-grown man from the full-grown fish. Embryo
man with gill-arches is still man, and if we can read
the lesson within it, we will find that this embryo
man points upward to adult man with all of his mar-
velous powers of mind, and not downward to some-
thing infinitely below him. The human embryo is
produced by human beings only, and whatever may
be its microscopic appearance, it is at every stage of
its development strictly human. It does not at any
time point to the fish as its ancestor, but at every step
points to man, as is shown by the final results of
development.

Embryology, as applied to evolution, fails, in that it
deals only with the surface of things. It accepts
microscopic resemblances as an explanation of the

150 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

essence of things, while it takes no notice of the
essential, well-known, but unseen differences.

Le Conte, in speaking of the six aortic arches in
adult lizards, says: ‘‘ Now there is no conceivable use
in having so many aortic arches. We know this,
because there is but one in birds and mammals, and
the circulation is as effective, nay, much more effec-
tive in these than in reptiles. If the thing were done
out of hand, unconditioned by the previous structure
in fishes, to have made six was surely but a bungling
piece of work.’’*

From this it would seem that the lizard has not
made the progress that it should have made under ~
the circumstances, for one gill-arch would serve its
purpose better than the six which it possesses. Yet
the extra five gill-arches have been preserved mill-
ions of years, just as if they had been best for the
lizard. How did it happen, according to the theory
of natural selection, that the five have been pre-
served so long, not only in the embryo, but also in
the adult lizard? If they might have been disposed
of to the great advantage of the lizard, why has it
retained them? The fact that they have been re-
tained is evidence that they have been uscful. If
anything better could have been done for the lizard
to make its circulation more perfect for an animal of
its kind, then natural selection ought to have made
the improvement in the vast time it has been at
work. If the evolutionist claims that the lizard’s cir-
culation would be improved by dropping five of the
six aortic arches, then he cannot account for their
preservation.

Le Conte tells us that if the lizard was not evolved,
but created by fiat, then the six gill-arches were
surely ‘‘ but a bungling piece of work.’’ This seems

* Evolution, etc,, p. 134.

EMBRYOLOGY 151

to mean that he knows better how a lizard ought to
be constructed than the Power that made it. Since,
however, lizards have lived for millions of years with
their present structure, I think that I may doubt the
correctness of his assertion.

Evolutionists assume that the Creator would be
relieved of responsibility if he worked by the process
of evolution instead of by fiat. It seems to me, how-
ever, that a ‘‘ bungling piece of work”’ by fiat would
also be a ‘‘ bungling piece”? by evolution. The attri-
butes of the Creator are as much at stake by the one
method as by the other.

Darwin says: ‘‘The points of structure in which
the embryos of widely different animals within the
same class resemble each other, often have no direct
relation to their conditions of existence. We cannot,
for instance, suppose that in the embryos of the Ver-
tebrata the peculiar loophole courses of the arteries
near the branchial slits are related to similar condi-
tions in the young mammal which is nourished in
the womb of its mother, in the egg of a bird which is
hatched in a nest, and in the spawn of a frog under
water.’’*

This language seems to imply that the gill-arches
and slits in the embryos of vertebrates do not serve
a useful purpose. If this is true, it is impossible that
these parts should have survived for millions of years
by natural selection.

Embryos are subject to this law, and by it parts
that are not functional ought, after the lapse of a
long time at least, to disappear.

Gill-arches and slits have, however, survived in all
classes of vertebrates through the immense geolog-
ical periods since the classes were introduced. The
uniform survival of these parts in embryos for such

* Origin of Species, p. 395.

152 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

great lengths of time is, of itself, I think, sufficient
evidence to prove that they are functional. If they
are of use in the embryos of the higher vertebrates,
then their existence cannot be regarded as a vestige
of the process of evolution—they cannot be looked
on as rudimentary organs. If these parts are func-
tional in embryonic fishes, as we presume they are
from their inheritance by fishes through most of the
geological ages, then I see no reason why they may
not be functional in the other classes of vertebrates.
In all these classes the embryo exists in an egg and is
surrounded by a fluid or by soft material—the most
striking difference to which they are subjected being
that of temperature.

XI.

SPECIAL OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF
EVOLUTION.

I witt now consider some of: the special diffi-
culties that are opposed to the theory of evolution.

If the doctrine of evolution is correct, then every
part of every organism has been produced by the
process. If any part of an organic being exists, the
evolution of which is opposed to known facts, or
which is not supported by sufficient facts, then the
theory fails.

With regard to the difficulties that beset the theory,
Darwin says: ‘*Some of them are so serious that to
this day I can hardly reflect on them without being
staggered; but to the best of my judgment, the
greater number are only apparent, and those that are
real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.’’ *

Again he says: ‘‘If it could be demonstrated that
any complex organ existed which could not possibly
have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break
down. But I can find no such ecase.’’ f

Also: ‘*In many cases it is most difficult to conjec-
ture by what transitions many organs have arrived at
their present state.’’ {

It is easy to imagine that by the necessary additions
and subtractions any organism can be evolved from
any other organism. By the purely imaginative
method an elephant may be evolved from a cell of
yeast. If it is simply a matter of imagination as to

* Origin of Species, p. 167. +Ibid, p. 181. —t Ibid, p. 190.
153

154 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

evolving this or that organ, then it may be granted
that evolution is true.

If, on the other hand, we may demand some plausi-
ble method before accepting the theory, then the
matter assumes a different aspect.

When Darwin says that he can find no case of a
complex organ which could not possibly have been
formed by numerous slight changes, it would be pre-
sumed that he had atolerably clear mental picture,
based upon known facts, of the evolution of the
various complex organs.

When, however, he says that ‘“‘in many cases it is
most difficult to conjecture by what transitions many
organs have arrived at their present state,’’ the pov-
erty of the evidence is at once revealed. If we can-
not even ‘‘conjecture”’ ‘‘ what transitions’? have
taken place, may not the existence of the transitions
themselves be a matter of doubt? If imagination,
conforming to known facts, fails to reveal routes by
which evolution may probably have traveled, why
should we accept evolution as a fact?

I am aware that some evolutionists declare that the
theory has been fully established by induction, and
that, accepting the theory as a fact, they have little
trouble in disposing of what they rather lightly refer
to as special objections.

The so-called special objections, however, are just:
as legitimate as any other kind, and the truth of the
theory must not be assumed in order to dispose of
them.

The evolution of various complex organs in the
animal kingdom presents difficulties which I regard
as inexplicable by the theory of evolution, unless it be
granted that the imagination may legitimately supply
most of the facts. —

When we are told that all the complex organs of

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 155

animals have been evolved but that the evolutionist is
under no logical obligation to furnish plausible routes
of evolution, I think that we may rightly object.

One of the most difficult organs to account for is
the electric organ of the skates. In these fishes it
has been shown to be a true electric battery, but the
discharges from this battery, even in the adults, are
so feeble that they are of no practical use so far as
has been ascertained. It is well known that the elec-
tric eel and the torpedo use their batteries for stun-
ning other animals.

It is evident that, according to the theory of natural
selection, these batteries could not have been pre-
served through their long functionless and useless
stages, for that theory assumes that they were pre-
served because they were useful.

Darwin says: ‘*The electric organs of fishes offer
another case of special difficulty; for it is impossible
to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs
have been produced.’’ *

Romanes, having tried to account for the existence
of the electric organs in the rays, says: ‘‘ In view of
all these considerations taken together, I freely con-
fess that the difficulty presented by this case appears
to me of a magnitude and importance altogether un-
equaled by that of any other single case—cr any
series of cases—which has hitherto been encountered
by the theory of natural selection. So that if there
were many other cases of the like kind to be met with
in nature, I should myself at once allow that the
theory of natural selection would have to be dis-
carded.”’ ¢

Some of the electric organs of fishes are in the
heads and others in the tails, so that they could not
have had a common origin, and they must, therefore,

* Origin of Species, p. 184. + Darwin and After Darwin, p. 373.

156 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

have been produced independently of each other.
Even if it be granted that they are not homologous in
structure, this does not at all relieve the difficulty of
accounting for them.

If, as Darwin says, ‘it is impossible to conceive by
what steps these wondrous organs have been pro-
duced,”’ the difficulty is only multiplied by the fact
that they have had several, instead of one origin. It
is impossible to account for the existence of any one
of the electric organs of fishes by natural selection or
by any other plausible theory of evolution.

It is admitted that wings as organs of flight have
been independently evolved in at least four different
lines—namely, in insects, pterodactyls, birds and bats.

That an organ so highly specialized as any one of
these wings could be evolved seems improbable;
while the evolution of the four different kinds, inde-
pendently of each other, only increases the improb-
ability.

Romanes admits that if homologous organs were
independently evolved the theory of natural selection
would be destroyed.

The difficulty, to my mind, is to account for the
evolution of any known kind of wing. In each case
there exists the insuperable difficulty of preserving
the organ through the rudimentary stages. The wing
of an insect in the first generation of its evolution
would be almost imperceptible and entirely useless
for any purpose whatever, and so it would continue
to be for a great number of generations. It is evi-
dent, therefore, that they could not have been pre-
served through their long rudimentary stage on the
ground that they were useful, nor do we know of any
theory that will account for their evolution. To say
that they were evolved is easy, but to account for
their evolution seems impossible.

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 157

As to the evolution of the wings of birds, we are in
the dark. It is claimed that birds were evolved, not
from Pterodactyls, but from reptiles that had no
wings. The oldest known fossil birds were covered
with feathers, and the wings were sufficient for flight.
No birds with rudimentary wings have been found
connecting the bird with any older form.

Among living birds we find all grades of wings.
The apteryx has rudimentary wings that are of no
use; the ostrich has wings by far too small for flight;
the penguin has small wings that are used as fins;
the logger-headed duck has barely sufficient power of
flight to skim along the surface of the water.

It might seem that these are examples of the evolu-
tion of wings, but evolutionists themselves claim that
these various wings which are useless for flight have
been rendered so by disuse.

The opposite of this, however, which evolution
implies, is not true. If we take the wings of the
apteryx, which are the merest rudiments, and are of
no use whatever, we can conceive of no probable
method by which they could ever become useful wings
for swimming, for flight, or for any other purpose.

An organ may possibly become smaller and smaller,
and finally pass out of existence by disuse, but until
an organ is of sufficient size to be used it cannot be
developed by use. The inability of limbs of any kind
to survive the thousands of generations involved in
the rudimentary period, I regard as fatal to the
theory of evolution.

We are told, however, that an organ may at one
time serve one purpose and at another time another
purpose. The wings of the penguin are given as an
illustration.

So far as the wings of birds which cannot fly are
concerned, they, by admission, illustrate a retrograde

158 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

movement, and consequently do not show the method
of evolving wings that are useful for flight. The
penguin uses its wings as fins and, doubtless, has been
so using them for many generations, and yet we do
not know that this use is increasing their size and pre-
paring them to become birds of flight. Their wings
have been in constant use, and yet, according to the
theory of evolution, they have decreased in size till
they are useless as organs of flight and comparatively
useless for any purpose.

We have no evidence to show that the wing of the
bird has been evolved from the fore leg of the rep-
tile. The oldest known fossil bird’s wings were
widely different from the legs of reptiles. There is
no clew whatever to the evolution of feathers, which
all birds have possessed, and which no known reptiles
have possessed.

We cannot regard feathers, therefore, as something
transient and of little importance. To say that feath-
ers are homologous to the scales of reptiles is no ex-
planation of their origin. We have no reason to
believe that the scales of reptiles can, or ever have
become feathers. The structure of a feather is ex-
tremely unlike that of ascale. If we try to imagine
the steps by which the scales on a lizard’s fore legs
could be developed into the great complex feathers
necessary. for flight, we utterly fail to make the transi-
tions, and yet evolution assumes that feathers had
some such origin.

Evolutionists assume that by disuse the legs of
most snakes have entirely disappeared, while in the
Python, rudimentary bones, marking the position of
one pair of legs, remain. Some lizards have no legs,
others have a rudimentary pair, others four small and
comparatively functionless legs, while most have four

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 159

well developed legs. It is claimed that lizards have
lost their legs by disuse.

If well developed wings and legs can, after many
successive generations, become less and less useful,
and finally become rudimentary or entirely disappear,
it would not seem possible that an entirely function-
less and merely rudimentary limb could endure
through countless generations of uselessness and then
become useful.

It is no answer to this to say that an organ may
serve different purposes at different stages of its evo-
lution, for there is in every case a long rudimentary
period during which appendages and most organs can
be of no use whatever.

The first limbs, it is presumed, were fins; from
which were evolved paddles, and from these were
evolved the first amphibian legs, and then the legs of
reptiles, wings of pterodactyls, birds and bats. We
find here a marvelous series of transitions. As to the
origin of fins we have no evidence whatever. They
are said to be homologous to the limbs of the higher
vertebrates, but I regard the homology as far-fetched.
The word homology will, I believe, have to answer
for a multitude of sins. To call all the above named
appendages homologous, would be to some persons a
satisfactory method of accounting for their origin,—
so much so, that the use of the word puts an end to
all controversy.

Paleontology furnishes no evidence to show the
evolution of the first known legs from fins. The old-
est known vertebrates that possessed true legs with
separate toes were the Labyrinthodonts of the Sub-
carboniferous period, which had four toes on the
hind foot and five on the fore foot. There are no
fossils which show the evolution of the legs and feet
of these animals from the fins of fishes. The differ-

160 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

ence between the legs of these amphibians and the
fins of any older fishes, and, in fact, of any known
fishes, is enormous. To claim that they were evolved
from the fins of the fishes is much more than known
fossils justify. The fossil evidence indicates that the
Labyrinthodonts came suddenly and with highly de-
veloped legs and feet, extremely unlike, in structure,
the fins of fishes.

Huxley says: ‘‘The limbs of Fishes have an endo-
skeleton which only imperfectly corresponds with
that of the higher Vertebrates. For while homo-
logues of the cartilaginous, and even of the bony,
constituents of the pectoral and pelvic arches of the
latter are traceable in Fishes, the cartilaginous, or
ossified, basal and radial supports of the fins them-
selves cannot be identified, unless in the most general
way, with the limb-bones, or cartilages, of the other
Vertebrata.’’ *

Thus it is admitted by Huxley, who is a leading
authority in comparative anatomy, that there is a
great difference between the structure of the fins of
fishes and the limbs of the higher animals. Among
the oldest known amphibian tracks are those of the
Sauropus primevus, found in the Sub-carboniferous,
near Pottsville, Pennsylvania. That the feet of this
animal could have been evolved from fins is beyond
my belief. We are left to assume that these highly
differentiated feet, with perfect and separate toes,
were evolved from the fins of the fishes of the Devo-
nian age.

The Archegosaurus is regarded by evolutionists as
one of the most primitive known forms of the amphib-
ians. It was found in the Bavarian Coalmeasures.
It had paddles for swimming, each of which contained
the bones of four toes. Le Conte shows that the

* Anatomy of Vertebrates, by Huxley, p. 37, 38,

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 161

paddles of the Proteus, a living amphibian, are
closely like those of the Archegosaurus. From this it
is seen that this most ancient type of paddles known
among amphibians has endured unchanged from the
time of their introduction. If the type itself is so
enduring, how can we account for its sudden evolu-
tion? Why did limbs which showed such great capac-
ity for change suddenly cease to change and remain
unchangeable through the long geological ages?

The flying reptiles, Pterodactyls, appear suddenly
in the Jurassic. The bones of the little finger were
enormously elongated, and the wing was formed of
membrane stretched from these bones to the hind leg
and tail.

Le Conte says that ‘These flying reptiles were cer-
tainly among the most extraordinary animals that
have ever lived.’’* Several genera of them have been
found.

Huxley says: ‘‘The sternum is broad, and, unlike
that of other Reptilia, completely ossified, and bears
a strong median crest on the anterior part of its
ventral surface.’’t Also, ‘*The brain-case is more
rounded and more bird-like than in the other Rep-
tilia, and in many other respects the skull approaches
that of birds,’’ ete. ‘*The scapula and coracoid are
wholly unlike these structures in any other Sauro-
psida, but are extremely similar to the same parts in
birds, and indeed to the shoulder-girdle of the less
reptilian Carinite.”’

More than twenty species of these reptiles, belong-
ing to several genera, have been found in the Juras-
sic and Cretaceous. They appear suddenly, without
any known previous history.

When we consider the greatly differentiated struc-
ture of these reptiles,—especially the coracoid bone,

* Geology, p. 446. t Anatomy of Vertebrates, p. 230.
11

162 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the scapula and the wings—and remember that in
the Jurassic they were already separated into several
genera, it is evident that if they were evolved they
had existed long before the Jurassic, and yet no trace
of them has been found earlier than the Jurassic,
although the rocks contain abundant fossils of other
animals. We have no direct evidence showing the
evolution of their wings, and we are left, as usual, to
assume the fact.

It might be supposed that Pterodactyls were the
ancestors of birds, but evolutionists claim that this is
not the case.

It is admitted that the evolution of birds from rep-
tiles involves great difficulties. There are two divis-
ions of the class of birds: the struthious birds, includ-
ing the ostrich, emeu, cassowary, apteryx, which
have no keel on the breast bone; and the carinate
birds, which have a keel.

Some think that the carinate birds might have been
derived from the Pterodactyls, but that the struthious
birds could not have had this origin. It is thought,
however, that the latter might have been evolved
from Dinosauria, which had no wings.

This would give to birds two separate origins, a
thing which their general similarity of structure for-
bids. On the other hand, unless birds were derived
from Pterodactyls, how can we account for their vari-
ous peculiar points of resemblance; and if struthious
birds were not derived from Dinosauria, how can we
account for their special points of similarity? The
above difficulty has not been satisfactorily explained.
Mivart has dwelt on it at length.*

Mivart says that ‘‘Prof. Huxley seems inclined to
cut the Gordian knot by considering the shoulder

* See Genesis of Species by Mivart, p. 83, et. seq.

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 163

structure of the pterodactyl as independently educed,
and having relation to physiology only.”’

The cutting of a Gordian knot by the evolutionist
is nothing remarkable, since he is obliged to repeat
the operation a large number of times in order to
complete his theory. I presume that Prof. Romanes
intends to cut another Gordian knot when he tells us
that the wings of the bird and of the pterodactyl have
been independently evolved.

The wings of the bird are composed of feathers
instead of membrane; only three fingers are repre-
sented, one of which is rudimentary, while the other
two are united and imperfect. The oldest birds and
pterodactyls found were in the Jurassic, and paleon-
tology has furnished no evidence that the one was
evolved from the other.

Passing to the Eocene, we find a large number of
mammals, among which is the bat. It is claimed that
it was evolved from an insectivorous mammal. Its
wings are composed of membrane stretched between
the bones of four greatly elongated fingers, the side
of the body, hind leg and tail.

I quote from Romanes, page 347, with regard to
the evolution of homologous organs: ‘* The objec-
tion is the same as that which we have already consid-
ered in relation to the general theory of descent,
namely, that similar organs or structures are to be
met with in widely different branches of the tree of
life. Now this would be an objection fatal to the
theory of natural selection, supposing these organs or
structures in the cases compared are not merely anal-
ogous but also homologous. For it would be incredi-
ble that in two totally different lines of descent one
and the same structure should have been built up in-
dependently by two parallel series of variations, and
that in these two lines of descent it should always

164 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

and independently have ministered to the same func-
tion. On the other hand, there would be nothing
against the theory of natural selection in the fact
that two structures, not homologous, should come by
independent variation in two different lines of descent
to be adapted to perform the same function. For it
belongs to the very essence of the theory of natural
selection that a useful function should be secured by
favorable variations of whatever structural material
may happen to be presented by different organic
types.

‘‘ Flying, for instance, is a very useful function, and
it has been developed in at least four different lines
of descent, namely, the insects, reptiles, birds and
mammals. Now if in all, or indeed in any of these
four cases, the wings had been developed on the same
anatomical pattern, so as not only to present the an-
alytical resemblance which it is necessary they should
present in order to discharge their common function
of flying, but likewise an homologous or structural
resemblance, showing that they had been formed on
the same anatomical ‘plan ’—if such has been the
case, I say, the theory of natural selection would cer-
tainly be destroyed.”’

Here we have the admission that if any two of
these wings were homologous it would be fatal to the
theory of naturalselection. The wings of the ptero-
dactyl and bat have been independently evolved, if at
all, and yet they are so nearly homologous that they
bring the theory quite to the verge of destruction.
The only difference is that the pterodactyl has only
one finger lengthened for sustaining the membrane,
while the bat has four.

Romanes and others claim that the theory of nat-
ural selection will account for any number of anal-
ogous organs. This, however, is assuming the great

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 165

difficulty that lies in the way of evolving any complex
organ, namely, of preserving it through its incipient
and useless stages.

All the stages of the evolution of each kind of ver-
tebrate’s wings are left for the imagination to supply.
There is no evidence from fossils of the existence of
any of the necessary steps of evolution in the case of
any wing. We have already spoken of the rudiment-
ary and other wings of birds that are not used for
flight, and of the fact that if they show anything it
is the process of decrease in size by disuse. If it
could be shown that the wing of an Apteryx, or even
of a Penguin, could be developed into an organ of
flight by use, then the argument based upon different
uses at different stages of evolution would be admis-
sible, but this has not been done.

If the evolution of any kind of wing seems impos-
sible, much more so would be the independent evolu-
tion of three kinds of vertebrate wings. Indeed, ac-
cording to evolution, we would be obliged to assume
that the evolution of wings was no very difficult mat-
ter, for we find each of the winged vertebrates appear-
ing at a comparatively early period in the history of
the class to which it belongs, and, in the case of each,
the first known could fly.

On the other hand, we would have expected that
organs so highly developed and differentiated as
wings would not have appeared till late in the history
of each class. The same is true with regard to the
wings of insects.

With regard to the origin and preservation of
organs, Romanes says: ‘ Even if it be granted that
there are structures which in their first beginnings
are not of any use at all for any purpose, it is still
possible that they may owe their origin to natural se-
lection—not indeed directly, but indirectly. This pos-

166 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

sibility arises from the occurrence in nature of a
principle which has been called the Correlation of
Growth.”’

Thus correlation of growth is brought in as a sup-
plement to natural selection in attempting to account
for organs through their long functionless period.
It is evident that correlation of growth would cause
the propagation of any new parts that might arise,
and that a useless part would be preserved as readily
asa useful one. Since variations take place in all
sorts of directions, most of which could never be of
any use, we would, by this law, expect to find any
animal possessing a large number of parts that are
useless. Such, however, is not the case. The rule is
that useless parts are the rare exceptions.

To rely upon correlation of growth to explain the
preservation of eyes, ears, legs, wings and other es-
sential organs through their incipient stages is far
beyond what the known facts warrant.

It is admitted by most evolutionists that natural
selection alone is insufficient, and that it must be sup-
plemented in various ways. The supplement, how-
ever, sometimes becomes the principal thing, as in
the above case of correlation of growth to account for.
the origin and preservation of the most important
organs.

Herbert Spencer, after showing ‘the inadequacy
of natural selection,’’ explains such difficulties, al-
though he does not specify these organs, by referring
them to ‘‘a cause which it is now the fashion among
biologists to ignore or deny.’’ ‘‘This cause is the in-
heritance of acquired characters.’’* He shows that
the sense of touch, as we find it in different parts of
the body, has not been developed by natural selection,
and he claims that ‘‘inheritance of acquired charac-

* Popular Science Monthly, April, 1893.

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 167

9

ters’’ will explain the matter. I presume that he
would claim that what are now the most important
organs, were preserved simply by inheritance, through
their rudimentary and useless stages.

If the doctrine of ‘‘inheritance”’ is true, it will
explain the preservation of all kinds of organs, both
useful and useless, and the characters inherited are
quite as likely to be of the latter as of the former
kind. The number of useless parts in the organic
world ought, according to this theory, to be vastly
greater than we find it to be.

Spencer does not deny the efficiency of natural
selection, but offers the above as a supplement and as
a necessary part of the theory of evolution.

The difficulty of accounting for the eyes of animals
has been repeatedly and rightly urged against the
theory of evolution. In considering this subject, Dar-
win says: ‘‘It is indeed indispensable, in order to
arrive at a just conclusion regarding the formation of
the eye, with all its marvelously perfect chapters,
that the reason should conquer the imagination; but
I have felt this difficulty far too keenly to be surprised
at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle
of natural selection to so startling a length.’’ Again
he says: ‘‘The simplest organ which can be called
an eye consists of an optic nerve, surrounded by pig-
ment-cells covered by translucent skin, but without
any lens or refractory body. We may, however,
according to M. Jourdain, descend even a step lower
and find aggregates of pigment cells, apparently serv-
ing as an organ of vision, but without any nerve, and
resting merely on sarcodic tissue. Eyes of the above
simple nature are not capable of distinct vision, and
serve only to distinguish light from darkness.”’ *

Binet says: ‘‘ Of all the organs of sense the eye is

* Origin of Species, p. 180.

168 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the one which is first differentiated. It is found in
the organisms belonging to the vegetable kingdom as
well as in those belonging to the animal kingdom.’’*
These so-called eyes of microscopic plants and of
animals are pigment spots.

It is also claimed that around the rim of the jelly-
fish are ** pigment spots,”’ ‘‘ eye-specks,”’ or ‘* ocelli,”’
consisting of pigment enclosed in little cavities.

The pigment spots on the ends of the rays of star-
fishes are spoken of as rudimentary ‘ eyes.”’

It is said that each of the five ‘‘ ocular plates’ of
the Echinus bears an ‘ ocellus,’’ or rudimentary eye.

The Pecten, a bivalve mollusk, has eyes that are
organs of vision, located in the edge of its mantle,
and they are similar to those of the snail in structure.

The snail has two simple eyes located on the tips of
its long tentacles. Each eye consists of ‘‘a globular
lens, with a transparent skin (cornea) in front, and a
colored membrane (choroid) and a nervous net-work
(retina) behind.”’

The Nauplii, larve of Barnacles, and other forms,
have a median eye; but after several moults they be-
come pup with two compound eyes. Cyclops, one
of the Water-fleas, has a single large eye.

Horse-shoe crabs have compound eyes and also
ocelli. The Eurypteride, which became extinct in the
Paleozoic, had a pair of ocelli and two large marginal
compound eyes.

The Isopoda generally have two eyes that are col-
lections of simple eyes, but sometimes they are
compound.

Spiders have from two to eight simple eyes, which
differ much in their methods of arrangement. The
genus Nops has only two eyes, which are described as
** large, black, glittering,’’ and they are unique among

* The Psychic Life of Organisms, by Binet, p. 23.

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 169

the eyes of spiders. Most spiders have six or eight
eyes.

Some of the Tunicata have ocelli ‘‘ placed between
the oral tentacles.”’

Scorpions have six, eight, or twelve simple eyes.
Among the Myriapoda, Lithobius Melanops “ has
twelve large black eyes on either side of the head,”’
while Lithobius rubriceps has fourteen small black
eyes on each side.

Among the Planarida, ‘‘ Pigment spots, or rudimen-
tary eyes, from two to sixteen in number, are often
present, and are always placed in the pre-oral region
of the body,”’

Many insects have two compound eyes, containing
from a few facets up to many thousands of facets in
each, and they also have three simple eyes on top
of the head. The facets in the eyes of insects are
six-sided, while those of crustaceons are four-sided.

Darwin says of compound eyes: ‘But these
organs in the Articulata are so much diversified that
Miller formerly made three main classes of compound
eyes with seven subdivisions, besides a fourth main
class of aggregated simple eyes.’’

The cuttle-fish has the most highly organized and
perfect eye found among the invertebrates. It
approaches the eyes of vertebrates in structure.

Finally, in the eyes of vertebrates we find organs of
the most wonderful structure and powers.

The above are some of the many kinds of eyes and
eye-spots found in living beings. To enumerate
them: There are the eye-spots of microscopic plants,
of certain protozoa, of the jelly-fish, of the star-fish,
of the sea-urchin, of the Tunicata and the eyes of the
pecten in the edge of the mantle, of the snail on
stalks, the median eye of Nauplii, which disappears
and is followed by two compound eyes, the single eye

170 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

of Cyclops, the various kinds and numbers of simple
eyes of insects, spiders, scorpions, and myriapods,
the various kinds of compound eyes, the fact that
both simple and compound eyes are usually found in
insects, the eyes of cuttle-fishes and the eyes of
vertebrates.

From the above it is evident that if eyes have been
evolved they have been evolved many times independ-
ently of each other. This follows both from their
differences in structure, in number, and from the
various positions that they occupy in different animals.

It is evident that the eyes of the Pecten in the edge
of the mantle, and of the snail on tentacles, could
not have had a common origin; that the compound
eyes with hexagonal facets could not have been
evolved from those with four sides; that the ocelli of
insects could not have originated from compound
eyes; that the eye of the Cuttle-fish could not have
been evolved from any known eye, and that the eyes
of vertebrates have not originated from any known
eyes of invertebrates.

How are we to account for the independent evolu-
tion of so many different eyes and eye-spots? The
frequency of its occurrence would seem to indicate
that it is a matter of no great difficulty. Romanes
attempts to explain the evolution of the eye in the
following language: ‘‘ Take, for example, what is
perhaps the most wonderful instance of refined
mechanism in nature—the eye of a vertebrated ani-
mal. Comparative anatony and embryology combine
to testify that this organ had its origin in modifica-
tions of the endings of the ordinary nerves of the
skin. Now it is evident that from the very first any
modification of a cutaneous nerve, whereby it was
rendered able, in however small a degree, to be dif-
ferently affected by light and by darkness, would be of

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 171

benefit to the creature presenting it; for the creature
would thus be able to seek the one and shun the
other, according to the requirements of its life. And
being thus useful from the very moment of its incep-
tion, it would afterwards be gradually improved as
variations of more and more utility presented them-
selves, until not only would finer and finer degrees of
difference between light and shade become percept-
ible, but even the outlines of solid bodies would begin
to be appreciated. And so on, stage by stage, till
from an ordinary nerve, ending in the skin, is evolved
the eye of an eagle.

‘* Moreover, in this particular instance there is very
good reason to suppose that the modification of the
cutaneous nerves in question began by a progressive
increase in their sensitiveness to temperature.
Wherever dark pigment happened to be deposited in
the skin—and we know that in all animals it is apt to
be deposited in points and patches, as it were by
accident, or without any prophecy as to future uses—
the cutaneous nerves in its vicinity would be better
able to appreciate the difference between sun and
shade in respect of temperature, even though as yet
there were no change at all in these cutaneous nerves
tending to make them responsive to light.’’*

Here we learn that the eye of the vertebrate, ‘‘ per-
haps the most wonderful instance of refined mechan-
ism in nature,’’ ‘‘had its origin in modifications of
the endings of the ordinary nerves of the skin.”’

From this we would suppose that the eyes of verte-
brates would frequently be. evolved, and in all sorts of
positions on the- body, since the pigment is ‘‘apt to
be deposited in points and patches, as it were by
accident.’’ These accidental deposits of pigment
would necessarily determine the positions of eyes.

* Darwin and After Darwin, p. 352.

172 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

If a deposit of pigment is the beginning of the evolu-
tion of eyes, it would seem that the entire surface of
the skin of the Negro is making a desperate effort to
evolve eyes, especially, since everywhere in this pig-
ment nerve fibres have their terminations.

As to location of eyes, we find that all animals
which possess a fore-and-aft structure have the eyes
on the front part of the body. If the eyes of snails,
cuttle-fishes, the simple and compound eyes of in-
sects, the compound eyes of crustaceans, the single
eye of Nauplii, the eyes of spiders, centipedes and
myriapods, and the eyes of vertebrates have all had
separate origins, it is very strange that according to
the above theory they should all be located in the
head. The origin of eyes from pigment ‘deposited
in points and patches, as it were by accident,”’ will do
very well to locate eye-spots which are found in
various positions on animals, but it totally fails to
locate the kinds of eyes found in the head, which
had separate origins. It is said that lightning never
strikes twice in the same place, but the accidental
pigment spots giving origin to eyes occurred many
times on the heads of different animals. That they
should occur in this place and nowhere else in these
various animals, is indeed marvelous. If it is claimed
that these various eyes located in the head were all
evolved from the eyes of some one original form, we
auswer that, as already shown, it is manifestly impos-
sible. According to this pigment-spot theory, eyes
are not necessarily located in the best places on the
body, as we find them to be, but they would be
evolved in any place where they would be of use. It
is evident that eyes located in almost any part of the
body would be better than no eyes. Nor would their
evolution be confined to any particular time in the
history of a species. If Spencer’s theory of ‘‘the

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 173

inheritance of acquired characters’’ is true, then
there is no reason why a species may not evolve eyes
in various parts of the body and at different times.

If pigment spots are rudimentary eyes, then the
star-fishes, which have these spots, have been extreme-
ly slow in evolving eyes, for they have lived through
nearly the whole authentic geological time, and would,
no doubt, have been benefited by better eyes, and
during all this time pigment spots have, it is pre-
sumed, existed, on which spots heredity and natural
selection have been at work, and yet after these fifty
millions of years, they have nothing but pigment
spots, which are supposed to represent eyes.

It may be claimed, however, that the eye-spots of
star-fishes are of comparatively recent origin. The
burden of proof is on him who claims this. But if
we were to grant this to be true, it would not improve
the matter, for it would only show the extreme diffi-
culty of forming even a rudimentary eye from
patches of pigment deposited ‘‘as it were by acci-
dent.”’

The most that is claimed for the ‘‘ eye-specks’”’ of
star-fishes functionally, is that they are more sensitive
to heat and light than other parts of the body, and
that they can convert light into heat. It is claimed
that this entitles them to be called ‘rudimentary
eyes.”’ I see no sufficient reason why this should be
so. There is no evidence that such an organ can be
or has ever been developed into an organ of sight.
Calling them ‘‘eye-specks’’ and rudimentary eyes
does not make them homologous to eyes. It is im-
possible to show that they are homologous to eyes.
They are heat-specks instead of eye-specks. If they
are sensitive to light at all, itis by converting it into
heat. That they could ever become sensitive to light,

174 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

as is the retina of the higher animals, is purely imag-
inary.

Pressing them into service as eyes, shows the dis-
tressing extremity to which the theory of evolution is
pushed in trying to account for the most wonderful of
all organs.

As to the eyes of vertebrates, they must have been
independently evolved, for there are no eyes of inver-
tebrates from which they could have been evolved,
and there are no rudimentary eyes among vertebrates
which show any possible stages of evolution. The
rudimentary eyes which are found among the verte-
brates have, it is claimed, been rendered such by
disuse.

Darwin tells us that in considering this subject, ‘‘the
reason should conquer the imagination.’?’ When,
however, we are told that we “find aggregates of
pigment-cells, apparently serving as an organ of vis-
ion, but without any nerve, and resting merely on
sarcodic tissue,’’ or that at the end of any nerve ter-
minating on the surface pigment is liable to be depos-
ited, and that this pigment spot is liable to finally be
developed into the eye of the eagle, it occurs to me,
after a careful consideration of the few facts that he
and other evolutionists have presented upon this sub-
ject, that they have made a most liberal use of the
imagination. So far as I can see there is little except
imagination involved in this whole matter.

As before remarked, it is easy in imagination to
begin at some point and by adding little by little
build up any object whatever. It is equally easy to
say that nature follows this method in all cases. But
if we rest upon facts, then we must draw such con-
clusions as the facts warrant.

As to pigment-spots, they are not eyes; neither are

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 175

they homologous or even analogous to eyes—neither
like them in structure nor in function.

There is no chain of intermediate forms connecting
them with eyes. They have existed through nearly
all geological time without being developed into eyes,
in the star-fishes, and we do not know that eyes have
ever been evolved from them.

In all cases ‘‘ eye-specks’’ occupy positions on the
bodies of animals different from that of any true eyes,
consequently, no known eyes could have been evolved
from known “ eye-specks.”’

I regard eye-specks, therefore, as of no value as
evidence in trying to account for the evolution of
true eyes. The whole tribe of eye-specks ought to
be ‘ruled out of court.’’

If we consider the eyes of any class of animals,
we know of no stages in their evolution. It is not
claimed that the eyes of the highest members of any
class are essentially different in structure from those
of the lowest members of that class.

If it is difficult, to account for the evolution of any
known eye, vastly more difficult does it become to
account for the independent evolution of the many
eyes referred to above, some of which, although inde-
pendently produced, seem to be quite homologous in
structure.

It is not to be wondered that in considering this
subject, Darwin, as he says, ‘‘ felt this difficulty far too
keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in
extending the principle of natural selection to so
startling a length.”’

The evolution of ears presents similar difficulties.
The simplest form of ear is a sac filled with a watery
liquid in which the auditory nerves are spread out,
and in which are minute hard granules called otoliths.

176 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

This is the structure of the ears of invertebrates
when they have organs of hearing, but most inverte-
brates are destitute of ears.

As to the location of ears, it is said that ‘‘ In the
Clam, it is found at the base of the foot; some grass-
hoppers have it in the fore-legs, and others in the sides
of the abdomen, and in many insects it is in the wing.
Lobsters and Crabs have the auditory-sacs at the base
of the antenne.’?* The ears of vertebrates vary
much in the complexity of their structure, and are
located in the sides of the head.

The above various positions of ears show that they
must have been independently produced. Even
among insects they are found in at least three differ-
ent positions, namely, in the wings and legs and side
of the abdomen.

Are the ears of invertebrates to be regarded as
homologous or as simply analogous? Whether one.or
both, it matters little as to the difficulty involved in
their evolution. It is claimed that organs at different
stages of their evolution may serve different pur-
poses. If this is true in the case of the ear, what
purpose could the ear serve during the first generation
of its growth? What would be the structure of this
organ at that time or at the end of the thousandth
generation? How could a rudimentary ear be pre-
served until it could perform the function of hear-
ing?

We know of no answer to these questions. As
already stated, Darwin admits that ‘‘in many cases it
is most difficult even to conjecture by what transitions
many organs have arrived at their present state.”’

The breathing apparatus of animals presents other
difficulties. All animals must absorb free oxygen.
Those that obtain oxygen from solution in water are

* Orton’s Zoology, p. 178.

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 177

called water-breathers, and those that breathe atmos-
pheric air are called air-breathers.

Many of the simple aquatic forms absorb oxygen
through the general surface of the body; others have
tubes that carry aerated water, through the walls of
, which tubes oxygen is absorbed.

Some marine worms have tufts of gills distributed
externally along the sides of the body. Bivalve
mollusks have two flat gills on each side of the body.
Aquatic gasteropods sometimes have tufts of gills
similar to those of worms, or comb-like ciliated gills
in a cavity behind the head to which the water is ad-
mitted by a siphon.

‘*The cuttle-fish has flat gills covered by the man-
tle; but the water is drawn in by muscular contrac-
tions instead of by cilia.”’ ‘‘The gills of lobsters and
crabs are placed in cavities covered by the sides of
the shell (carapace); and the water is brought in
from behind by the action of a scoop-shaped process
attached to one of the jaws, which constantly bales
the water out at the front.’’ *

Most fishes have several gills with comb-like fringes
lying close together under a covering at each side of
the head; others have pouch-like gills scattered along
the side of the neck. Tbe Amphioxus absorbs air
through the mucous membrane of the-pharynx.

The breathing apparatus of air-breathers is either
tubes, sacs or lungs.

Insects have a system of air-tubes extending through
the body, which have several external openings along
the sides of the body.

In spiders the tubes are connected with air-sacs
which aid in breathing. Scorpions breathe by means
of four pulmonary sacs.

Snails have a cavity on the right side of the neck

12 * Orton’s Zoology.

178 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

which serves asalung. Amphibians have gills when
young, but afterwards acquire lungs. They generally,
but not always, lose the gills on arriving at maturity.

All the higher vertebrates breathe by means of
lungs alone.

From this brief statement we see some of the
various forms of breathing apparatus.

It-is evident that these gills, air-tubes, sacs and
lungs, so various in position and different in struc-
ture, represent quite a number of separate evolutions,
if they were evolved at all. They cannot all have
been derived from any one primary form of breathing
apparatus.

Gills, trachee and lungs are widely apart in struc-
ture. Gills themselves, so different from each other
in structure and location must have had quite a num-
ber of independent origins.

As to the origin of trachee we know nothing.
It is evident, however, that they could not have been
evolved from gills. Insects, which breathe by means
of trachee, we know appeared as early as the Lower
Silurian. We have no hint as to any possible method
of evolving their breathing apparatus. The appear-
ance of these highly organized air-breathing animals
at so early a period in the geological record is not in
harmony with the theory of evolution.

With regard to the evolution of lungs, it is claimed
that the air-bladder of fishes is homologous to the
lungs of vertebrates.

The Dipnoi, which are the highest order of fishes, in
addition to gills, have a cellular air-bladder which
performs the office of a lung, and it is claimed that
they show the transition from fish to amphibian. If
this is true, when did the Dipnoi originate? If their
lungs are of recent origin, then they show the evolu-
tion of lungs independently of each other at periods

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 179

vastly remote, for we know that the amphibians of
the Carboniferous age had lungs, and that these must
have been evolved from the lungs or air-bladders of
the fishes of the preceding age.

Are we to assume that organs so highly developed
as lungs have been independently evolved several
times? If, on the other hand, the living Dipnoi are
the descendants of the fishes of the Devonian, whose
air-bladders performed the office of lungs, how can we
account for the fact that the lungs of the Dipnoi are
still rudimentary? Why have they not made progress
in evolution in the many million years? We are told
that the theory of progress in organization is consis-
tent with the theory of lack of progress in some
members of a group.

This doctrine which I have already discussed, seems
to me to be wholly inadequate to explain the great
and frequent discrepancies that exist in all classes of
the animal kingdom.

We might continue the inquiry as to the evolution
of special organs until we had exhausted the list, and
in each case find that evolution of an organ through
its incipient stages is inexplicable.

The organs which spiders possess for secreting
material and for making a web could not have been
gradually evolved. The whole apparatus involved in
making the web would be useless until sufficiently
developed to make a web.

The same is true of the sting of the scorpion, the
stings of bees, the mandibles of spiders with the
gland of poisonous fluid at the base, and the poison
apparatus of serpents. All of these glands for secret-
ing poison would be useless until they could secret a
harmful fluid. Are we to assume that the perforated
sting of the scorpion, including the gland of poison

180 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

at its base, was evolved in a single generation? If it
was evolved gradually, what was its condition at the
end of the first, the tenth, or the hundredth genera-
tion? How long would it take for it to perform the
office of a sting? What purpose could it serve, and
how could it survive through its long rudimentary
period?

If the mandibles of spiders through which the
poison is forced existed before the formation of the
gland that produces the poison, how could the mand-
ibles become perforated for the passage of the poison?
Were there not millions of chances to one that the
poison would find an exit through some neighboring
part instead of through the mandible. In all the
cases of a gland of poison with a sting and mandible,
how did it happen that the gland and the instrument
for introducing the poison came together? Without
the sting the poison is useless. The production of
teeth does not insure the existence of a sac of poison
at their base, as is shown by the harmless snakes.

It is evident, in the case of snakes, that the poison-
ous have been evolved from the harmless snakes if
the doctrine of evolution is true. This being true,
what were the probabilities that a gland of poison
would be developed, and this in animals that do not
seem to need it, as is shown by the great number of
harmless snakes? What were the probabilities that
the gland would be developed at the root of the fang,
where alone it could be made effective, and that it
would be developed at no other place in the whole
body? What were the probabilities that the fangs
would become so modified as to form a tube for the
passage of the poison? Did the formation of a poison
gland at the base of a tooth insure an exit through
the tooth for the poison? It seems evident that the
poison fang of snakes, if evolution is true, was pro-

OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 181

duced by modifying an existing tooth of harmless
snakes. I regard such a change as totally improba-
ble. The perforated spurs of the Ornithorhinchus,
with a poison gland at the base, present similar
difficulties.

I have considered some of the difficulties that arise
in attempting to account for the evolution of various
organs—the many kinds of eyes, the ears, the various
wings, legs, electric organs of fishes, stings, fangs
with poison,—and I think that the theory of evolution
gives no satisfactory account of their origin.

If it be said that these and the like objections are
only special difficulties, I answer that animals are
composed of organs, and that any theory which pro-
poses to explain the origin of the animal kingdom
must duly consider the origin of every important
organ.

J am aware that there is a disposition with some to
say that the theory of evolution has been shown to be
true, and that they are, therefore, under no obligation
to speak of the evolution of special organs, but I
regard this as simply begging the question at issue.

XII.
RUDIMENTARY ORGANS.

THE subject of rudimentary organs furnishes diffi-
culties against the theory of evolution. Have func-
tional organs become rudimentary? Have all rudi-
mentary organs been functional? Have organs not
only become rudimentary, but have they, in some in-
stances, disappeared entirely?

Evolution must answer the first and third of these
questions in the affirmative, but to the second may
possibly give a qualified answer.

As an example of rudimentary organs—all male
mammals except monotremes have rudimentary teats.
How did they acquire these organs? Were they orig-
inally functional in the males, and have they become
rudimentary by disuse? Shall we assume that the
males of the first mammals, which probably existed
in the Paleozoic, had functional mamme, and that
from these all living mammals have inherited them as
rudiments?

The fact that all males possess them indicates that,
if they were ever functional, they became rudiment-
ary in the original mammalian stock, for this is more
reasonable than to assume that they separately became
rudimentary after the mammals had become differen-
tiated into groups. Whether we assume that they
were rudimentary from the first and that they never
were fuuctional, or that, being at first functional,
they afterwards became rudimentary, it is evident
that as the merest rudiments they have survived

through an immense period of time.
182

RUDIMENTARY ORGANS 183

It must be claimed, however, by evolution that
organs can not only become rudimentary but entirely
disappear, as is claimed to have taken place in the case
of the legs of most snakes.

If a mere rudiment can survive so long in the case
of the mammal, why shall we assume that functional
legs may totally disappear by disuse?

Evolutionists commonly assume that rudimentary
organs were at one time functional, and that they have
become rudimentary by disuse.

With regard to mammez, Mr. Darwin says: ‘In
the mammalia, for instance, the males always possess
rudimentary mamme.”’ Again, ‘“‘Rudimentary organs
declare their origin and plain meaning in various
ways.’ *

Again, ‘‘Rudimentary organs, on the other hand,
are essentially useless, as teeth which never cut
through the gums. As they would be of even less
use, when in a still less developed condition, they
cannot have been formed through variation and nat-
ural selection, which latter acts solely by the preser-
vation of useful modifications. They relate to a for-
mer state of things, and have been partially retained
by the power of inheritance.’’t Again, ‘On the
view of descent with modification, the origin of rudi-
mentary organs is simple. . . . I believe that
disuse has been the main agency; that it has led in
successive generations to the gradual reduction of
various organs until they have become rudimentary.’’{

From the above quotations I think that Mr. Dar-
win claims that the mamme of male mammals were
originally functional, and have become rudimentary by
disuse.

How could these organs have been evolved in the
males, and if they were once functional how could

* Origin of Species, p. 405. + Ibid, p. 406. t Ibid, p. 408.

184 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

they have become rudimentary? In all mammals the
mother is the natural provider for the young, which,
asa rule, are born in avery helpless condition, and
require to be carefully and promptly supplied with
milk in order that they may survive.

In what conceivable way could the milk glands
have been evolved and such radical changes have
taken place in the life and instincts as those involved
in changing from the reptilian to the mammalian
type?

It is presumed that the mamme were gradually
evolved after many generations of fruitless efforts on
the part of the young. What could have induced the
young to persist in nursing, in the absence of organs
to furnish nourishment? Are we to presume, with
Prof. Huxley, that the mamme have been evolved
from sebaceous glands? There are no facts connected
with the reptiles, from which it is claimed mammals
were evolved, to justify this extraordinary conclu-
sion.

The evolution of milk-glands I regard as an impos-
sibility, even in the females. But what shall we say
of the probability of their appearing in the males?
We are to assume that the young carried on the same
process with regard to both sexes at the same time,
and that the result was the development of functional
milk-glands in both—and, what is more strange, they
were in identical positions. According to this theory,
these glands in the two sexes were separately evolved.
If this were possible, the great difficulty of the pro-
cess would show the extreme importance of the result
to the species, and, this being true, it is not probable
that these organs could have become universally rudi-
mentary in males while they remained functional in
females.

I regard it as quite certain that these rudimentary

RUDIMENTARY ORGANS 185

organs in males have not been separately evolved as
functional organs, and that they did not afterwards
become rudimentary by disuse.

There could have been no necessity for their being
functional in both sexes, and, consequently they could
not have been developed by natural selection. The
female alone is, as a rule, present at the birth of the
young, and it is absolutely necessary that she should
have the instinct and the power to furnish food and
look after their interests in their extremely helpless
condition. Among all the mammals and most birds,
the female alone has the instinct to care for the
young.

From the above I think it evident that the mamme
of males have always been rudimentary, and that, as
rudiments, they could not have been evolved by natu-
ral selection; also, that they have existed from the
earliest history of mammals.

Here, then, we find rudiments that do not ‘‘relate
to a former state of things,’’ and yet which have been
preserved among all mammals for millions of years.
Evolutionists offer no plausible theory by which to
explain the existence and preservation of these
organs. If they fail to account for these organs, is it
not possible that their theory may be deficient when
applied to other rudimentary organs?

There are other difficulties with regard to the evo-
lution of milk glands. The number of these glands
differs greatly in different animals,—varying from
two up to at least a dozen. They differ also in posi-
tion. In some cases they are towards the front of the
ventral part of the body; in others at the posterior
part; and in others still, they are scattered along the
most of the ventral surface ;—the latter being true in
the great majority of cases, including the low forms.
From this it is safe to assume that the first mammals

186 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

possessed many mamme and brought forth many
young, as is common with low forms at present.

This being true, how can we account for the total
disappearance of mamme in various places in many
existing mammals, and from both sexes, so that not
even a rudiment remains to tell of their former exist-
ence? If rudimentary mamme could survive through
the entire history of mammals, in the males, how was
it possible for numerous mammary glands to totally
disappear from both males and females—glands that
were formerly functional in the females?

These two claims, I think, are entirely inconsistent.
with each other. If the rudiments have survived in
males, as they certainly have, then the others could
not have entirely disappeared—which means that they
never existed. Animals, for example, such as man,
which have but two mamme, could never have had
more, otherwise there would be rudimentary mamma
as evidence of the fact, since these rudimentary organs
are extremely persistent.

If this is true, man could not have been evolved
from a lower form of mammal, for, going down the
scale, we soon reach mammals with more than two
mamme.

I think, then, that we are justified in concluding
that in males the mamme have always been rudimen-
tary, that they have existed during the entire history
of the mammals, and that mammals have not had
mamme, as evolution must assume, that have entirely
disappeared.

Since writing the above I find that I have over-
looked certain views of this subject which Mr. Dar-
win has stated in the Descent of Man. He says: ‘In
the mammalian class the males possess in their vesi-
cule prostratice rudiments of a uterus with the adja-
cent passage; they bear also rudiments of mamme,

RUDIMENTARY ORGANS 187

and some male marsupials have rudiments of a marsu-
pial sack.’’* These facts, according to the supposed
laws of embryology, would indicate hermaphrodite or
androgynous ancestors among the mammals. He says,
however, that such an ancestry ‘‘seems improbable in
the highest degree,’’ for the reason that if true, then,
hermaphrodite vertebrates ought still to be found,
especially among fishes and amphibians. He says,
“*To account, however, for male mammals possessing
rudiments of the accessory female organs, and for
female mammals possessing rudiments of the mascu-
culine organs, we need not suppose that their early
progenitors were still androgynous after they had as-
sumed their chief mammalian characters. It is quite
possible that as the one sex gradually acquired the
accessory organs proper to it, some of the successive
steps or modifications were transmitted to the oppo-
site sex.”’

Here, then, we find rudimentary organs of various
kinds, which Mr. Darwin admits were never func-
tional, but were transmitted as rudiments from one
sex to the other. There are many such differences
between the sexes.

These facts are opposed to the general claim that
rudimentary organs are the remains of functional
organs. If this large class of rudimentary organs
cannot be accounted for on the theory that they
were formerly functional organs, then it is quite pos-
sible that the theory of evolutionists as to rudimen-
tary parts may not be correct.

They rely much on rudimentary organs as an argu-
ment, but unless they can show that they have all
been produced by variation and natural selection,
which Mr. Darwin admits cannot be done in the case
of many sexual differences, then their argument is

greatly weakened.
* Vol. 1, p. 199.

188 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

I think that they have given undue weight to their
theory as to the origin of rudiments in order that
they might have an argument in favor of evolution.

They have claimed in a very emphatic way that
their theory gives meaning to the existence of all
rudimentary organs, but, from the above facts as to
mamme, etc., I think that it fails.

Such rudiments have been preserved through long
ages by the unknown laws of heredity, and we know
of no physical law by which to account for their
origin.

The fact that the Monotremata, the lowest living
mammals, have no nipples, indicates, as Mr. Darwin
claims, that these appendages must have originated
in a later mammalian stock. Since all other mam-
mals have nipples, it would be necessary to assume
that they originated in animals as low in structure as
the marsupials. Mr. Darwin thinks that ‘‘the nip-
ples were first developed in the females of some very
early marsupial form, and were then, in accordance
with a common law of inheritance, transferred in a
functionally imperfect condition to the males.’’

He is not, however, entirely satisfied with this view,
for he says: ‘Nevertheless, a suspicion has some-
times crossed my mind that long after the progenitors
of the whole mammalian class had ceased to be andro-
gynous, both sexes might have yielded milk, and thus
nourished their young, and, in the case of the marsu-
pials, that both sexes might have carried their young
in marsupial sacks.’’ *

It is evident that unless this last view is correct,
then the nipples of males have been rudiments from
their origin; and further, that if nipples can exist
through long ages without ever having been func-
tional, then other rudimentary organs may have

always been such.
* Ibid, p. 20.

RUDIMENTARY ORGANS 189

Attempting to find a male marsupial which nour-
ished the young with milk does not, however, greatly
relieve the subject of difficulty. How did the nipples
originate in male marsupials? They did not exist in
the Monotremes, the progenitors of the marsupials,
and consequently they must have been evolved in the
latter. They must have been evolved either inde-
pendently in the two sexes, or else in one and then
transmitted to the other. They must, in either case,
have been the merest rudiments, so that to account
for rudimentary nipples in male mammals now living,
nothing is gained by assuming that they were func-
tional in the early marsupials. If they were rudi-
ments at first in males they iight, and I have no
doubt did, always remain such.

Mr. Darwin’s ‘‘suspicion”’ that both sexes of the
ancient marsupials might have yielded milk is also
negatived by the fact that the male Monotremes do
not at present thus nourish the young.

His assumption in this matter is, I think, made in
the interests of the theory which he and other evolu.
tionists have advanced in their effort to account for
the origin of rudimentary organs.

The endeavor to explain the rudimentary sexual
organs which it is claimed exist in vertebrates by re-
ferring them to some extremely ancient hermaphro-
dite progenitor is not supported by facts. If it was
ever true, then hermaphrodite forms ought still to be
found among some of the lowest vertebrates. Mr.
Darwin suggests this objection himself, and yet he
claims that the ancient stock of vertebrates was her-
mapbrodite.

That functional organs, such as the womb, could
have existed in the male vertebrates and have become
rudiments before these animals were differentiated
into classes, and have survived as rudiments through

190 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

most of geological time, is to my mind, totally incredi-
ble; and for the reason already stated, namely, that
if disuse can cause an organ that is useful to decrease
and become entirely useless, then it ought for the
same reason to totally disappear.

We would be obliged to look for Mr. Darwin’s her-
maphrodite progenitor of the vertebrates somewhere
in the Silurian age, and that such a progenitor, with-
out a womb, should be the cause of existing feetal
male mammals having a rudimentary womb is not at
all credible. Lhave no respect for such exorbitant
claims made by evolution and embryology.

Mr. Darwin says that he had formerly * “ attributed
the not very rare cases of supernumerary mamme in
women to reversion,’’ but owing to the fact that
Mamme erratice occur in various situations, even on
the back, he thinks that the force of his argument in
favor of reversion is quite destroyed. He also admits
that ‘“‘it is extremely doubtful whether supernumer-
ary digits can thus be accounted for.’”’

~The spurs of birds present further difficulties to
the theory of evolution. Most birds have no spurs.
When they possess them, as a rule the males alone
have them well-developed, while they are rudimentary
in the females. In some cases, however, both sexes
possess them in a well-developed form.

The general absence of even rudimentary spurs
among birds shows, either that most birds have lost
them entirely, or that, not having been common to
birds, they have been evolved in the few that possess
them. The latter seems more probable, if they were
evolved; but how could a spur be evolved in either
sex? As arudiment, it would for many generations
be entirely useless for any purpose, and consequently

* Descent, Vol. 1, p. 120.

RUDIMENTARY ORGANS 191

it would not be preserved by natural selection, nor
in any other possible way, so faras I can see. The
spurs are in the best possible position on the legs for
combat. Why did they appear in the best place and
nowhere else? As useless rudiments they would be
quite as likely to survive in one place as in another?
In a few instances they are found on the wing, in a
position that renders them most effective.

That nature should locate them and preserve them
as rudiments in these two places alone is not credible.
As rudiments, or, even as useful appendages for com-
bat, they ought to be found in other positions. There
is no reason why spurs might not be evolved by natur-
al selection, if they can be evolved at all, in any posi-
tion where they would be of use, though not neces-
sarily of the greatest possible use. For example, they
might be of use on the front of the leg or on the ex-
ternal side, though of less use than where they are
now located.

If spurs could not have been preserved by natural
selection through their rudimentary stage, why assume
that they have been evolved according to this law?
If they could survive through the critical rudimentary
period till they became of use, why not assume that
their evolution was continued according to the same
law? The fact is, however, that we know of no law
according to which they could have been evolved.

Mr. Durwin says: ‘* When the male is furnished
with leg-spurs, the female almost always exhibits
rudiments of them—the rudiments sometimes consist-
ing of a mere scale, as with the species of Gallus.
Hence it might be argued that the females had aborig-
inally been furnished with well-developed spurs, but
that these had subsequently been lost either through
disuse or natural selection. But if this view be ad-
mitted, it would have to be extended to innumerable

192 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

other cases; and it implies that the female progen-
itors of the existing spur-bearing species were once
encumbered with an injurious appendage.”’ *

In this he admits that the rudimentary spurs of
female birds have never been functional, and, conse-
quently, they cannot come under that law which it is.
claimed gives meaning to their existence.

The greatest difficulty in this matter is to account
for the evolution of functional spurs in either sex—and
their being in the best positions only increases the
difficulty.

Other rudimentary organs furnish difficulties which,
I think, the theory of evolution fails to meet. For
example, foetal calves have rudimentary incisor teeth
in the upper jaw which never cut the gums, and these,
it is claimed, indicate the presence, in their stead, of ©
functional teeth in distant ancestors.

If the ruminants at one time had upper incisors
that were functional, I do not see how they could
have ceased to perform their work and have disap-
peared. It could, so far as I can see, be no conceiv-
able advantage to a ruminant to lose its upper incis-
ors. With these teeth present, they could nip the
grass more closely, and thus the better obtain a supply
of food in time of scarcity. Besides, they might
serve, as in the case of the horse, as a means of de-
fense. The upper incisors could not have disap-
peared because they were useless nor because they
were not used, for they were of constant service.
Natural selection cannot, therefore, account for their
disappearance.

These teeth must have passed into the rudimentary
condition in the primitive ruminant stock before it
had subdivided, for this is indicated by their general
absence among living ruminants. If this is true, they

* Descent, Vol. 2, p. 1565. -

RUDIMENTARY ORGANS 193

have survived in the most rudimentary form through
along period of time. If functional upper incisors
could become useless and pass into the rudimentary
condition, how has it been possible for them to sur-
vive as useless rudiments for a length of time prob-
ably equal to that occupied in passing into the rudi-
mentary condition? If they could so greatly decrease
‘while in constant use, why have they not, after a
great lapse of time, totally disappeared by disuse?
If the former is true, then the latter, I think, ought to
have followed; but since it has not, it discredits a be-
lief in the former.

The same objection holds good in many other cases.
The absence of Jegs from snakes is another example.

It has commonly been claimed that the oldest
known fossil snakes occur in the Eocene, but Dr.
Romanes says that they are found in the Cretaceous.
Professor Huxley says: ‘‘No ophidian possesses any
trace of anterior extremities, but the Typhlopide, the
Pythons, Boas and Tortrices, have rudiments of a
pelvis, and the latter snakes even possess very short
representatives of hind-limbs terminated by claws.’’ *

It is claimed by evolutionists that the reptilian
stock, from which snakes have descended, had four
functional legs, all of which have entirely disap-
peared except the rudiments named above. True
snakes are found, according to Dr. Romanes, in the
Cretaceous. At that time they had lost their legs so
that they had no rudiments, and yet we find rudi-
ments surviving in some through the immense period
of time that has since elapsed.

The loss of functional parts, as a rule, implies a
feebleness in the force of heredity, while the persist-
ence of useless rudiments through long periods shows

13 * Anat. Vert., p. 207.

194 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

a great strength in this force inconsistent with the
implied weakness.

In conclusion, I may say that I know of no physical
theory that accounts for the existence of all rudi-
mentary organs. It is evident, I think, that many
rudiments have never been functional.

If some of them were formerly useful, still, this
fact would be useless as an argument to prove that
rudiments can be developed into useful organs.
There is no method by which rudimentary organs can
be preserved and developed into functional organs.
This objection presents itself in the case of the evo-
lution of most organs, and I regard it as quite con-
clusive against the theory.

XIII.
SECONDARY SEXUAL DIFFERENCES.

Ir is admitted by Mr. Darwin and other evolution-
ists, that there are many peculiarities of structure and
instinct among animals which cannot be explained on
the theory of natural selection.

Among these are secondary sexual differences—that
is, differences which exist aside from the sexual
organs themselves.

These differences between the sexes may be in size,
the males being generally, but not always, the larger;
in color, the males in many cases being the more
highly colored, the reverse, however, being sometimes
true; in the presence of wings in one sex and their
absence in the other; in the possession of peculiarly
modified legs or of various peculiar appendages; in
the presence or absence of voice, or of the power of
song, or of other means of making sound; in the
presence of certain appendages in the males alone,
such as spurs, horns, or other peculiar parts; in in-
stincts, and in many other respects.

Mr. Darwin claims that many of the differences
between the sexes can be accounted for by sexual
selection, that is, by the choice of the female through
many generations.

The theory of sexual selection involves the assump-
tion that the females are in some way called on to
make a choice between rival males,and that they have
an instinct which impels them to do so. Certain con-
ditions would be necessary in order that this choice

might be exercised.
195

196 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

If the males and females were equally numerous,
as Mr. Darwin thinks they probably are—at least he
does not think that there is any great inequality—and
if they were all sexually mature at the same time,
there would be no occasion for exercising choice,
unless, as is sometimes the case, they are polygamous.
If they are polygamous, the possession of the females
is decided by the law of battle—they follow the old
Jacksonian doctrine, ‘‘to the victors belong the
spoils.”’

He thinks, however, that the males are frequently
sexually mature in advance of the females, or that
the males migrate first, as in the case of some birds,
so that the males are’ thus brought into competition
for the females when they arrive. The strongest
females would arrive first, and the strongest males, or
those that were most favorably colored, or that pos-
sessed the greatest power of song, would obtain pos-
session of these females and would breed first, and
this would give them advantage over the weaker
birds that arrived at a later period.

Mr. Darwin, in ‘‘The Descent of Man,”’ has pre-
sented many facts as to secondary sexual differences,
and has with great ingenuity endeavored to account
for these differences mostly by sexual selection and
the law of battle.

It would be entirely beyond the scope of this work
to attempt to follow him in detail. I cannot believe,
however, that his theories are sufficient to account for
the vast number of secondary sexual differences
among animals.

I think that in most cases he presents little, if any,
evidence that a choice of males is made by the
females, or that the law of battle is so general as to
supplement sufficiently the theory of sexual selection.

I will present a few differences between the sexes

SECONDARY SEXUAL DIFFERENCES 197

which I think no theory of evolution is sufficient to
explain.

The horns of deer offer special difficulties. The
males alone possess horns. If they have been evolved
by natural selection alone, and have been preserved
because they are useful then they ought to have been
developed by the females also which live under like
conditions. The fact, however, that the females have
survived along with the males shows that the horns
are probably of no use in preserving the species,
which is the great purpose served by natural selection.

The survival of females without horns shows that
males might have survived equally well without them.
We cannot therefore assume that they have been pre-
served because of their utility.

If it is claimed that they have been preserved and
evolved on account of combat -between the stags
themselves, I think it evident that in their rudimen-
tary condition for many generations they would have
been useless for combat. Besides, if evolved, they
must for a long time have been simple horns without
prongs. The fact that the horns of young deer have
no prongs shows, according to the claims of embry-
ology, that the first stags’ horns were simple. If this
were so, why did they not remain simple?

Mr. Darwin says: ‘‘Although the horns of stags
are efficient weapons, there can, I think, be no doubt
that a single point would have been much more dan-
gerous than a branched antler; and Judge Caton,
who has had large experience with deer, fully concurs
in this conclusion. Nor do the branching horns,
though highly important as a means of defense against
rival stags, appear perfectly well adapted for this pur-
pose, as they are liable to become interlocked. The
suspicion has therefore crossed my mind that they

198 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

may serve partly as ornaments, . . . . but I
have no evidence in favor of this belief.’’ *

In the evolution of these horns, then, there was first
a long rudimentary period, during which they were
useless, and during which they could not have been
preserved by natural selection; and after they became
useful they were for a long time without prongs and
were preserved because they were useful; after this
they branched and became less efficient in battle than
they were as simple horns. If ‘‘a single point would
have been much more dangerous than a branched
antler,’’ why did they branch? Certainly not by
natural selection, and Mr. Darwin admits that he
knows of no evidence in favor of sexual selection.
He claims that the spike-horn buck, a variety of Cer-
vus Virginianus, is displacing the prong-horned buck
of the same species. The former has a horn which
** consists of a single spike, more slender than the ant-
ler, and scarcely so long, projecting forward from the
brow, and terminating in a very sharp point. This
horn is more efficient in battle and less impediment in
traveling through the woods than the prong-horns.
It is known that the great branching horns of the
bucks are a serious impediment in thick woods.

Besides, they are shed every year and renewed in
from two to three months. The production of such
large appendages is a great demand on the energy of
the animal, for which there seems to be no adequate
compensation in the way of utility.

The horns of many antelopes are of such shape and
point so much backwards that they are useless in bat-
tle, and they cannot therefore have been produced by
natural selection. I am inclined to think that this is
perhaps true with regard to the horns of most rumi-
nants.

* Descent of Man, Vol. 2, p. 248.

SECONDARY SEXUAL DIFFERENCES 199

It is evident that useless horns, such as those of
the Oryx leucoryx and other antelopes, cannot be
accounted for by natural selection. It is also evident,
I think, that sexual selection cannot account for their
evolution. Among some antelopes the males alone
have horns, and among others both sexes have them.

We find the same difficulties here as in the evolu-
tion of deers’ horns—namely, the long period during
which they were rudimentary and during which no
kind of selection will account for their preservation,
followed by a second period during which they were
useful, and then a third period during which they are
useless. The first and third periods cannot be ac-
counted for. If we assume that the third period—the
period of uselessness—has been produced by sexual
selection, we have a theory without facts to support
it. Sexual selection, in this case, was opposed to and
prevailed over natural selection to the disadvantage
of the species, by converting useful into useless horns.
Considering the dangers to which these animals are
exposed, such an assumption is not justified

I think that the protection of most deer and ante-
lopes is, and has always been, their fleetness, and not,
to any great extent, their horns—that by the latter
they have sometimes been rendered more helpless. I
regard their horns as, for the most part, ornaments,
and I see no theory by which their evolution can be
satisfactorily explained.

Mr. Darwin refers to various chameleons, the males
of which have appendages on the head, of which the
females are nearly or entirely destitute. The male of
the Chameleon Owenii ‘‘ bears on his snout and fore-
head three curious horns, of which the female has not
a trace. These horns consist of an excrescence of
bone covered with a smooth sheath, forming part of
the general integument of the body, so that they are

200 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

identical. in structure with those of a bull, goat, or
other sheath-horned ruminant.’’ He thinks that
‘these almost monstrous deviations of structure
serve as masculine ornaments,’’ and that they have
been developed by sexual selection.

In this instance we meet with the usual difficulties:
First, the absence of evidence to show that female
reptiles of this species or of any other species exer-
cise any such choice, and second, that the exercise of
choice implies the development to a considerable
extent of the organ concerning which the choice is
exercised.

It cannot be presumed that in the great multitude
of instances in which Mr. Darwin claims that sexual
selection has been efficient it has acted on the
merest rudiments, and yet this assumption lies at the
foundation of his theory. I regard this as a fatal
objection to the theory of sexual selection.

Among birds sometimes both sexes are colored
alike, but in many cases the males are more highly
and in exceptional cases less highly ornamented than
the females. Mr. Darwin admits that, as a rule, it
cannot be useful to birds to be highly ornamented.
The greatly developed and gaudy feathers, such as
those of many male pheasants, render them more con-
spicuous to their enemies, and, consequently, their
long tails and beautiful colors could not have been pro-
duced by natural selection. Herefers their evolution to
sexual selection. He claims, however, that the highly
colored males are, as a rule, given to combat with
each other for the females, so that combat instead of
beauty would be the principal factor in these cases.
There are no facts going to show that the most beau-
tiful birds would, on the average, be most successful
in combat, and unless this were true I do not see how
sexual selection could increase the beauty of the

SECONDARY SEXUAL DIFFERENCES 201

males. It would be useless for a more highly colored
male to attempt to obtain possession of a mate if a
less highly colored but more vigorous male were pres-
ent to dispute the possession.

Mr. Darwin says: ‘“‘It is evident that the brilliant
colors, top-knots, fine plumes, etc., of many male
birds cannot have been acquired as a protection;
indeed, they sometimes lead to danger. That they
are not due to the direct and definite action of the
conditions of life, we may feel assured, because the
females have been exposed to the same conditions,
and yet often differ from the males to an extreme
degree.’’*

He thinks that ‘“‘it is possible that at first there
existed a tendency to transmit the successive varia-
tions equally to both sexes; and that the females were
prevented from acquiring the bright colors of the
males, on account of the danger to which they would
have been exposed during incubation.”’

But, as already stated, the bright colors would also
subject the males to greater danger, and this being
true, it would have prevented the males from becom-
ing ornamented. The arguments that apply to the
one sex in this respect apply to the other. The nat-
ural tendency of a variation would be to change both
sexes alike. The many differences between the sexes
of the higher invertebrates and of the majority of
vertebrates must be accounted for on certain general
principles if the doctrine of evolution is true.

If it were granted that sexual selection might be
more or less efficient in producing changes among
animals so highly organized as birds, yet this could
not be a sufficient reason for extending the principle
to the lower vertebrates and to the invertebrates
where sexual differences prevail.

* Descent of Man, Vol. 2, p. 224.

202 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

Male spiders are smaller than the females, a fact
which natural selection cannot explain, for I know
of no advantage that would be gained by the decrease,
sometimes very great, in the size of the males, and
it is simply an assumption to claim that sexual selec-
tion has produced the difference in size.

With regard to fishes, both sexes of which. are
highly colored, Mr. Darwin says: ‘*On the whole,
the most probable view in regard to the fishes, of
which both sexes are brilliantly colored, is that their
colors have been acquired by the males as a sexual
ornament, and have been transferred in an equal or
nearly equal degree to the other sex.’’*

He admits that brilliantly colored fishes would be
more exposed to danger from enemies, and that, con-
sequently, their colors could not have been developed
by natural selection. He therefore adopts the theory
of sexual selection which he supplements with the
theory that the ornament has been transmitted from
the male to the female. This theory he applies also
to birds ¢ and to reptiles.

Again he says: ‘‘ With the species in which the
sexes differ in color, it is possible that at first there
existed a tendency to transmit the successive varia-
tions equally to both sexes; and that the females were
prevented from acquiring the bright colors of the
males, on account of the danger to which they would
have been exposed during incubation.’’ §

Yet there are many instances in which the females
are brilliantly colored, and others in which the highly
ornamented males incubate the eggs.

To try to account for the many differences of color,
etc., between the sexes is quite bewildering. To each
theory offered there are so many exceptions that they

* Descent of Man, Vol. 2, p. 17. t Ibid, Vol. 2, p. 163.
t Ibid, p. 35. § Ibid, p. 225.

SECONDARY SEXUAL DIFFERENCES 203

seem to me to render the theory worthless. One con-
clusion, however, seems to be justified, and that is
that most of them could not have been evolved by
natural selection.

As to sexual selection and the law of combat, I
think that they are entirely inadequate to account for
the wide range of differences between the sexes.

Back of all secondary sexual differences are the
primary sexual differences, in explanation of which
evolution has offered no sufficient theory, and until
this is done her work will be incomplete.

With this very brief and inadequate reference to a
few of the difficulties involved in sexual selection, I
leave the subject.

XIV.
INSTINCT.

In the Honey Bee we find so many and such re-
markable instincts that it seems to me impossible
that they could have been acquired by the process of
evolution.

I will enumerate some of the most important facts
concerning bees, and then draw such conclusions as
these facts seem to justify.

Three kinds of individuals exist in a colony of
bees; namely, the queen, whose sole work it is to lay
eggs; the drones, or males, whose only function it is
to fertilize the queen; and the workers, which are
females, undeveloped sexually.

When acolony of bees first enters a hive which is
to become its future home, the workers proceed to
rid it of all dirt. Other workers gather propolis, a
kind of gum, which they bring to the hive entangled
on their legs, which they are unable to remove them-
selves, but which is removed by their fellow-workers
and placed in the cracks and on internal projections
of the hive. Having prepared the hive sufficiently
with propolis, the workers gorge themselves with
food and suspend themselves in a mass from the top
of the hive, in which position they remain for a con-
siderable length of time in order to secrete wax. The
wax is secreted in sacs inthe abdomen, and it exudes
in thin plates from between the joints.

When sufficient wax has been secreted, the bees

manufacture cells. Each cell is a very perfect hexa-
204

INSTINCT 205

gon, composed of the smallest amount of wax that
can furnish the required strength. The free ends of
the cell walls are kept thickened so that they will not
be broken, and the angles of the cells are strength-
ened by the addition of propolis. When the cells
have been filled they are sealed up, each with three
rhombic plates which, it has been proved by math-
ematicians, are placed in the best possible position.

Most of the cells are intended for the reception of
honey; larger than these are the cells for the bee-
bread. Three kinds of cells are constructed for rear-
ing the young. The smallest and most numerous are
for workers; some are for drones; while from one to
a dozen or more large vertical cells are for the rear-
ing of queens. All cells except the last are placed
with their axes in a nearly horizontal position.

The queen lays one egg in the bottom of each cell
which has been prepared for the purpose of rearing
the young. The eggs which are to produce queens
and workers are precisely alike, both being fertilized,
while those which are to produce drones are not fer-
tilized. The drones are, therefore, produced by the
process of parthenogenesis.

The receptacle for the sperm communicates by a
tube with the oviduct, and the queen has the power
to fertilize the eggs or to refrain from doing so, and
she makes no mistakes.

Atthe proper temperature the eggs are hatched in
three days, and in five or six days more the larve
have acquired their full size. The larve which are to
become workers and drones are fed on bee-bread, and
those which are to become queens are fed on royal
jelly.

Only one queen is permitted to live in the colony at
the same time, there being a mortal antipathy be-
tween the queens. The queen is continually guarded

206 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

by a number of workers, and her wants are carefully
supplied. If two queens are in the same colony they
enter into combat, being urged by the workers, and
fight till one stings the other to death.

When a young queen is ready to leave the cell in
which she has been reared, she is not permitted to do
so, but she is guarded by the workers until the old
queen has abandoned the hive with a swarm, and then
she is permitted to leave her cell. When the queen
has fully matured in her cell, the workers cut away
the wax from the end of the cell till it is an exceed-
ingly thin film.

If the colony is deprived of its queen, the workers,
after searching in vain for her, set to work to rear a
new queen. For this purpose they select a larva that
would develop into a worker, remove some of the
neighboring cells and construct for it a large vertical
cell. By feeding this larva on'royal jelly it becomes a
queen.

If two queens during combat acquire a position in
which they might destroy each other, thus leaving
the hive without a queen, they refrain from giving
each other the mortal stroke.

When the swarming season is over, the old queen
is permitted by the workers to sting to death all the
queens that are in the cells.

If the queen loses both of her antenne she is un-
able to properly deposit her eggs, and the workers per-
mit her to perish.

At the close of the swarming season all of the
drones are killed by the workers. They are no longer
needed, for the old queen has already been fertilized,
and new drones can be reared in the following spring;
thus food is saved for the use of those bees alone that
will be of future use to the colony.

If they lose the queen when swarming, they return

INSTINCT 207

to the hive which they have left—seeming to realize
that their efforts would be fruitless without a queen.
If the hive has no queen, the drones are permitted to
live through the winter. :

When the drones are destroyed the larve and pupa
which would produce drones are also destroyed. If
pressed for food, a colony will attack a weaker col-
ony or a hive without a queen, and, if the attack is
successful, the vanquished colony joins the conquer-
ors, thus strengthening the hive.

If bees have been fed on stimulating food and the
supply is discontinued, they destroy the eggs and
young larvee.

The workers ventilate the hive by holding to the
floor with their feet and vibrating their wings rapidly.
When they leave the old hive to form a new colony,
they follow guides which have already selected a place.

In building cells the axis of a cell on one side of
the partition at the base is placed opposite the junc-
tion of three planes of cells on the other side, thus
giving greater strength to the structure.

If circumstances will not lead to swarming, only
eggs that will produce workers are laid. The queen
in laying frequently passes from drone-cells to worker-
cells, and yet she makes no mistakes in depositing the
eggs. :

If drones are needed and no drone-cells are in the
hive, the queen will lay drone-eggs in worker-cells,
and she will also lay worker-eggs in drone-cells in
case it is necessary.

In case the queen becomes unable to lay impreg-
nated eggs the workers rear a new queen and destroy
the old one.

“*If the bees are abundant and honey needed, or if
there is no queen to lay eggs, drone-comb is invariably
built; while if there are few bees, and, of course, little

208 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

honey needed, the worker-comb is almost as invari-
ably formed.”’

A queenless colony gathers less pollen than a col-
ony with a queen. The pollen which has been stored
up in cells is not used until emergency requires.

Workers do not generally live more than six weeks
during their period of greatest activity. They can,
at will, convert nectar into either honey or wax.

The queen seldom uses her sting except to destroy
other queens. This fact is of great importance in
her preservation, for the loss of her sting would re-
sult in her death. While the worker has seven prom-
inent barbs on its sting, the queen has but three very
short ones, and she is thus enabled to withdraw her
sting the more readily, thereby insuring her preserva-
tion. A.J. Cook says, ‘‘I have often tried to pro-
voke a queen’s anger, but never with any evidence of
success.”’

The queen after her impregnation never leaves the
hive except to lead forth a swarm. The large num-
ber of drones insures her speedy impregnation with
as little exposure to danger as possible.

The legs of the queen have neither brushes nor bas-
kets for carrying pollen. She differs also in many
points of structure—especially in the relative size of
organs—from the workers. °

The drones have no stings and ‘‘ no suitable pro-
boscis for gathering honey from flowers, no baskets
on their thighs for holding bee-bread,’’ and no
pouches for secreting wax.

A check in the yield of honey may cause the de-
struction of inchoate drones and queens. ‘If the
signs of the times presage a famine, they stay all pro-
ceedings looking to an increase of colonies.”? A. J.
Cook says: ‘*‘ The conditions which lead to the build-
ing of queen-cells and the peopling of the same are:

INSTINCT 209

Loss of queen, when a worker larva from one to four
days old will be surrounded by a cell; inability of a
queen to lay impregnated eggs, her spermatheca hay-
ing become emptied; great number of worker-bees
in the hive; restricted quarters; the queen not hav-
ing place to deposit eggs, or the workers little or no
room to store honey; or lack of ventilation, so that
the hive becomes too close. These last three condi-
tions are most likely to occur at times of great honey
secretion.’’ *

The workers gather and prepare or secrete several
different substances—wax, propolis, pollen, honey
and royal jelly.

In the above facts we see a combination of many
most remarkable instincts and peculiarities of struc-
ture which look to the good of the community. How
could they have been produced by evolution? The
workers are sterile and leave no offspring, conse-
quently their instincts cannot be inherited from bees
of their own class. Each generation of workers is
isolated from all succeeding generations.

The queens and drones do not possess the instincts
of the workers. Shall we assume that they formerly
possessed them, but that they have lost them by disuse
or otherwise?

The theory of evolution necessarily assumes that at
some former time only the sexually perfect females
and males existed in'a community of bees, and that
the neuters were evolved from the fertile females.

It is evident that the neuters and queens now pos-
sess certain instincts which could never have belonged
to either the males or perfect females.

The following are, I think, examples of instincts
which could not have originated until after the work-
ers were evolved as a distinct class.

14 * Bee-Keeper’s Guide, p. 69.

210 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

First, all those instincts which the workers have
towards the queen, inducing them to guard and feed
her, to go in search of her when she has been absent
a certain length of time, to prevent her from destroying
the inchoate queens, and the instinct which leads
them to permit her to destroy such queens after the
swarming season is over.

Also, the mortal antipathy which exists between
the queens could not have existed before the workers
were evolved, for its existence would have resulted in
the destruction of the colony.

Nor could the instinct to rear a new queen have
existed when the colony was composed of fertile
females and drones alone, for the reason that the
emergency requiring a new queen could not have
existed in a hive where there was no queen and where
a large part of the colony must have consisted of fer-
tile females.

As stated above, A. J. Cook says that any one of
five different conditions in the hive will lead to the
rearing of new queens. Each of these conditions indi-
cates an acquired instinct in the workers which looks
to the good of the colony and the preservation of the
species.

Again, the workers build drone cells, or worker
cells, regulating their work according to the neces-
sities of the case—taking notice of the numbers of
different kinds of bees in the colony, the supply of
food, and of probable future requirements. If the
hive is destitute of a queen they gather less pollen
than when a queen is present, thus regulating the
supply to meet the probable demand. If the supply
of food becomes insufficient, they destroy the inchoate
young, which would otherwise perish ‘by famine.

The instinct of the workers to destroy the drones
after the swarming season is over, or, in case the hive

INSTINCT 211

is queenless, to permit them to live through the win-
ter, could not have existed before the workers were
produced.

Without dwelling on this further it is evident that
many of the instincts of workers must have been
evolved, if at all, after the workers were evolved as a
distinct class. In assuming this, however, we are
met by the insurmountable difficulty of accounting
for numerous instincts of the highest order without
the advantage of heredity. The workers possess
many remarkable powers entirely different in kind
from those which any of their ancestors ever pos-
sessed. They cannot have improved these instincts
and thus have built them up by inheritance from the
queens and drones, for the latter never possessed
them. And since the workers leave no offspring the
possibility of heredity is excluded.

We see, therefore, the impossibility of applying the
principle of heredity in order to account for the
accumulation of these many high instincts. It is
evident also that their existence cannot be explained
by the principle of reversion, for no ancestors could
have ever possessed these instincts.

I see no possible theory, therefore, by which to
account for the evolution of this class of instincts in
the workers among bees.

That which produces the differences now between
queens and workers is, so far as we can discover, the
difference in the size and position of the cells, and
the fact that the queens are reared on royal jelly,
while the larve of the workers are fed on bee-bread.
The feeding of the larve lasts less than a week, and
their residence in the cells, when the temperature is
favorable, is something more than two weeks. In

_this short time, and by these physical differences in
the kind of food and cells, are developed, from eggs

212 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

that are exactly alike, the queens and the workers
with their various widely-different instincts. That
the instincts of the workers could have been pro-
duced suddenly bya change of food and cell is beyond
anything that has ever been claimed for natural selec-
tion; and, in fact, there is no possibility for this law
to act since the principle of heredity is excluded.
Whatever might be the instincts of any generation of
workers they could not be transmitted, nor is there
any conceivable means by which these instincts could
so affect the queens and drones that they could, in
cousequence thereof, produce other workers possess-
ing still more highly developed instincts. The theory
of evolution, it seems to me, must make this latter
claim, and yet I know of nothing to support it.

The instincts of the working bees could not have
all been evolved at once, for they are too numerous;
nor could they have been evolved one by one, for each
is essential to the existence of the community.

A colony of bees is not like a community of civil-
ized human beings in whom many of the wants are
artificial, and which may remain unsupplied, with
simply a certain amount of discomfort, but the wants
which the instincts of bees supply are imperative,
and, therefore, the instincts themselves, as a whole,
are necessary to the existence of the bees.

Their instincts are all linked together as a necessary
chain, so that if one should fail the community would
perish. Each kind of work is perfectly done, and
yet the workers are totally unconscious as to what
will be the results of their labors. For the most part
they work for future generations of their colony, and
not for themselves, and yet they are as careful and
diligent as if they were guided by the highest intelli-
gence and the most selfish motives.

There is nothing more wonderful and mysterious in

INSTINCT 213

nature than the instincts of bees. What can be more
remarkable than that instinct of the workers which
causes them to prevent the queen from stinging to
death the young queens in their cells? Here we see
the instinct of the workers opposing that of the
queen, and thus saving the colony and insuring the
propagation of the species. And yet at other but
proper times the workers permit the old queen to kill
the young ones in their cells. How could these in-
stincts in the workers, which act in exactly opposite
ways at just the right times for the welfare of the
community, have ever been evolved? Or how could
that instinct have arisen which causes two queens
when engaged in combat to refrain from inflicting the
mortal sting if they would mutually destroy each
other, and thus leave the hive without a queen ?—act-
ing as if they knew that the life of one of them was
necessary for the welfare of the community.

Mr. Darwin attempts to account for modifications
of structure and instincts by natural selection as fol-
lows: ‘* Thus I believe it has been with social in-
sects; a slight modification of structure, or of in-
stinct, correlated with the sterile condition of certain
members of the community, has been advantageous
to the community; consequently the fertile males and
females of the same community flourished, and trans-
mitted to their fertile offspring a tendency to produce
sterile members having the same modification. And I
believe that this process has been repeated, until that
prodigious amount of difference between the fertile
and sterile females of the same species has been pro-
duced, which we see in so many social insects.’’ *

The fact that ‘the fertile males and females’”’
flourished, if it were true, could not induce them to
transmit to their offspring a stronger tendency to pro-

* Origin of Species, p. 228.

214 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

duce sterile offspring that would have more highly
developed instincts. Ihave already dwelt upon this
subject at sufficient length.

At the close of his chapter on Instinct, Mr. Darwin
says: ‘‘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, annihilate it.’’ *

I will next consider briefly certain instincts of birds
which, it seems to me, could not have been evolved.
First, the instinct which causes the bird to incubate
its eggs. While the eggs of cold-blooded vertebrates
are hatched by the heat of the elements in which
they are deposited, the eggs of birds are generally de-
veloped by the heat of the mother’s body.

In passing from reptile to bird by evolution, it is
necessary to account for the changes in the instincts
of the bird as well as for its changes in structure.

The act of incubation is one of self-denial, during
which the bird gives up its liberty for from two to
four weeks. How could the instinct that such an act
was necessary have been evolved? That the instinct
is necessary in order to develop the eggs of most birds
there can be no doubt, for if left simply to the ele-
ments they would perish. Did the instinct arise be-
fore the necessity for incubation was evolved, or vice
versa? If the instinct arose first, then it existed ata
time when there was no use for it, and: the bird imposed
upon itself a useless task—a thing which we do not
find occurring among animals, for every existing
instinct serves some good purpose.

Besides, we could not account for the preservation
of the instinct by natural selection unless it served a
good purpose. If the necessity for the instinct arose
before the instinct itself was evolved, then the species
would have perished for lack of the instinct.

*Origin of Species, p. 231.

INSTINCT 215

If the two were evolved part passu, then there
must have been some necessary relation between their
growth. That the necessity in the egg for the in-
stinct in the bird could not have produced the instinct
is evident. That the instinct in the bird could have
so modified the egg as to render incubation necessary,
I see no reason to believe. It may, of course, be
claimed that a bird was hatched with a slight dispo-
sition to incubate, and that it laid an egg with a small
necessity for being incubated—both at the same time
by chance—and that these two things increased
through many generations. This is mere assumption.

The instinct to incubate is of extreme antiquity, as
is shown by the fact that it is almost universal among
birds. The original avian stock must have incubated,
otherwise the existence of the instinct among birds
now living could not be universal. This shows that
the instinct is not transient, and it implies that it
could not have been suddenly acquired by evolution.
While the birds themselves have changed greatly in
their structure, yet the instinct to incubate has sur-
vived.

In this case, then, we have an extremely long
record, extending from the ancestors of Archeopteryx,
which began somewhere in the Paleozoic, during
which the instinct to incubate has persisted in the
birds. An instinct so enduring could not have sprung
up suddenly from habit or by natural selection. If it
was evolved it must of necessity have originated at
the time when the cold-blooded reptile with a three-
chambered heart and a sluggish circulation of blood
had been changed by natural selection into a warm-
blooded, feathered bird, with a four-chambered heart
and with a much more active circulation of the blood.
The change in the temperature of the evolved bird, as

216 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

compared with the temperature of its reptilian ances-
tors, would have rendered incubation necessary.

What assurance was there, however, that a change
from a cold-blooded to a warm-blooded animal would
be accompanied by the evolution of an instinct so
persistent and necessary? The same question arises
in case of the great number of instincts of animals
which are accompanied by peculiarities of structure
which render the instincts useful. Ido not think it
possible that they could all have originated by chance
—the instinct and the structure being perfectly
adapted to each other, yet neither being the cause of
the other.

A colony of bees, with their peculiarities of struc-
ture, and their numerous instincts adapted to their
organization, is like a complex machine, from which,
if asingle wheel were omitted, the whole would be
rendered useless. It is just as inconceivable, to my
mind, that a colony of bees could be evolved, with all
of their highly-developed and perfectly adapted in-
stincts and structures, as that a watch could be thus
produced.

The hen during the time of incubation turns her
eggs over every day. This is said to be necessary in
order to keep the yolk of the egg in the proper posi-
tion. The instinct to turn the egg is necessary on
account of the structure of the egg itself. But it is
evident that the instinct and the structure of the
egg do not bear to each other the relation of cause
and effect. To claim that this and the vast number of
other similar instances are due to correlation of
growth is to make a claim without a shadow of proof.

The yolk of the egg is held in position by tougher
portions of albumen extending from the ends of the
egg tothe yolk. The latter turns on its axis, so that
the germ-yolk is kept on top near the warm body of

INSTINCT 217

the bird. Enclosed in the larger end of the egg is a
supply of air for the chick. On the end of the upper
mandible of the chick is developed a hard point,
with which it bores through the shell. These several
points of structure co-operate with the instincts of
the mother in the development of the chick and its
escape from the shell.

I have already dwelt sufficiently on the difficulties
involved in trying to account by evolution for the
existence of instincts and the adaptations to them
which are necessary in the structure of the organism.

Instinct is blind and knows not the end for which
it works. It cannot be improved by the experience
of the individual, and consequently there is no gain
by which heredity may profit. Mr. Darwin admits
that ‘‘it can be clearly shown that the most wonder-
ful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely,
those of the hive-bee and of many ants, could not
possibly have been acquired by habit.”’ *

He refers their origin to ‘‘ the natural selection of
what may be called spontaneous variations of in-
stincts;’’ but he also thinks that ‘* use or habit ’’ has
been a factor in the origin of instincts.

If, however, ‘*the most wonderful instincts ’’
**could not possibly have been acquired by habit,”’
we must look for their origin to ‘“‘ spontaneous varia-
tions.”’

Thus, not only the origination but the perfecting
of the most highly-developed’ instincts is left to
chance, and, in the case of neuter insects, without the
aid of heredity. Jthink it impossible that the great
number of instincts, together with the multitude of
peculiarities of structures in animals, which render
it possible for the instincts to be of use, could have
thus been produced.

* Origin of Species, p. 202.

218 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

Many instances besides those already referred to,
of instincts and of peculiarities of structure adapted
to the instincts—cases in which the one would be use-
less without the other—exist. The Surinam Toad is
a strange example. With regard to it I quote from
J. G. Wood’s Natural History. ‘‘ When the eggs are
laid, the male takes them in his broad paws, and con-
trives to place them on the back of his mate, where
they adhere by means of a certain glutinous secretion,
and by degrees become embedded in a series of curi-
ous cells formed for them in the skin. When the
process is completed, the cells are closed by a kind of
membrane, and the back of the female Toad bears a
strong resemblance to a piece of dark honey-comb,
when the cells are filled and closed. Here the eggs.
are hatched, and in these strange receptacles the
young pass through their first stages of life, not °
emerging until they have attained their limbs and can
move about on the ground.

“After the whole brood have left their mother’s
back the cells begin to fill up again, closing from be-
low as well as from above, and becoming irregularly
puckered on the floors. The cells in the middle of
the back are the first to be developed; the whole
process occupies rather more than eighty days.”

In this instance the instinct of the male causing
him to place the eggs on the back of the female, the
instinct of the female which causes her to keep the
eggs on her back, as if she knows that their presence
there is necessary for their development, the forma-
tion of the cells in the skin of her back, and the
changes in the mode of life of the young frogs with-
out destroying them must be accounted for. All of
these changes must have occurred simultaneously,
otherwise this method of developing the young could
not have originated. To my mind it is impossible to

INSTINCT 219

believe that these several changes could thus have
been brought about by chance.

Among some fishes it is said that the males, Arius
for example, carry the eggs in their mouth till they
are hatched. How could this instinct have originated
by natural selection? Why does not the male swal-
low the eggs as food instead of carrying them till they
hatch?

In another fish, Aspredo, the eggs are attached to
various parts of the body by slender stalks. The eggs
of sharks have two tendrils at each end by means of
which they can attach themselves to objects and thus
be better protected.

The male sea-horse carries the eggs in a pouch on
the under surface of the body till they are hatched.
The pouch in this case is pectoral, while the pouch of
the pipe-fish, which serves a similar purpose, is
under its tail. As to how these pouches could have
been evolved, together with the combined instincts of
the males and females which cause them to use the
pouches, is beyond my comprehension. It is indeed
easy to say that they were evolved gradually by natu-
ral selection, but the evidence to support this asser-
tion seems to me extremely insufficient.

The instincts of animals with regard to depositing
their eggs in the most suitable places, the methods of
protecting their eggs, and the care of the young are
numerous and wonderful.

It is a general law that the number of eggs pro-
duced by an animal is in proportion to the risks to
which they are subjected. Most fishes produce thou-
sands of eggs, but they are eaten in large quantities by
animals; also the young are destroyed in large num-
bers, so thal if there were but few eggs the chances
for producing mature fishes would be greatly de-

220 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

creased. The shark produces but few eggs, but on
account of their structure they are well protected.

So throughout the animal kingdom we see that by a
great multitude of eggs, or by peculiar structure, or
by special means of preservation it is made certain
that each species will propagate its kind. That these
many adaptations are necessary for the preservation
of species is evident, but we know nothing as to how
they have originated.

There is no assurance in nature that if an animal
lays fewer eggs, therefore they will be better pro-
tected; nor, on the other hand, that, if the eggs are
better protected, therefore fewer will be produced.

The number of eggs and the degree of protection
do not stand related to each other as cause and effect;
they must, therefore, if they were evolved, have orig-
inated in all cases by chance—the number of such
instances being equal to the number of species of ani-
mals. This leads me to emphasize my belief again
that the wholesale origin of adaptations in nature,
where there is no relation of cause and effect between
the things that are adapted to each other—which is
generally the case—could not have been brought
about by chance.

The Water Spider presents difficulties to the theory
of natural selection that I will notice. In this animal
changes of structure and instinct are implied which I
think cannot be explained by natural selection.
Spiders are air-breathing animals which live habitu-
ally in the air. The Water Spider is also an air-
breather, but it lives habitually under the water. A
short distance under the surface of the water it spins
an egg-shaped cell with an opening underneath
through which it can pass. This cell is securely
attached to some object so that it will remain sub-
merged. The body of this spider is covered with

INSTINCT 221

hairs which inclose air, and this prevents it from
becoming wet.

The cell having been constructed, the spider pro-
ceeds to fill it with air. The hind legs are covered
with hair, and they are of such shape that they can
secure a large bubble of air which it carries under the
cell and releases. The air rises to the top of the cell,
expelling the water. By repeating the process the
cell is filled with air. In the upper part of the cell
the eggs are placed and surrounded by a cocoon.
About one hundred young are hatched and reared ina '
single cell.

In this case we see several things which must have
been produced simultaneously if they were evolved.
First, the peculiar hind legs of the animal which ena-
ble it to carry a large bubble of air would have been
of no use to it for this purpose without its habit of
living under water, and consequently this structure
would not have been evolved in the absence of the
habit. But it could not live under the water without
a cell nor without the instinct to fill the cell with air.
Each of these two instincts, together with the peculiar
structure which enables it to carry air with its legs,
would have been useless without the other, and conse-
quently, if they were evolved, they were produced
simultaneously. They must all have been produced
before the spider could live habitually under water.

The instinct and the power to construct a perfect
cell through which water would not pass and the in-
stinct to fill it with air could not have been gradually
acquired by natural selection, for they must all be per-
fect before the spider can live under the water. An
imperfect cell, or an imperfect instinct failing to
properly fill it. with air, or inability to perform the
work owing to defective structure would be fatal in
attempting to make the change from a terrestrial to

222 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

an aquatic mode of living. If such a change took
place, therefore, we would be obliged to assume that it
occurred in a single generation, otherwise it would
have been a failure. That it could have thus sud-
denly occurred I presume that no one would claim.

The conclusion, therefore, is that the above changes
could not have been produced slowly, by natural
selection, nor suddenly, and that, consequently, they
were not produced by the process of evolution.

I see no probable method by which the modifica-
tions of structure and the instincts necessary to pro-
duce the web of the spider could have been evolved.
I copy the following from Orton’s Zoology.

‘‘Spiders are provided at the posterior end with
two or three pairs of appendages called spinnerets,
which are homologous with legs. The office of the
spinnerets is to reel out the silk from the silk-glands,
the tip being perforated by a myriad of little tubes
through which the silk escapes in excessively fine
threads. An ordinary thread, just visible to the
naked eye, is the union of a thousand or more of
these delicate streams of silk. These primary threads
are drawn out and united by the hind legs.”’

From this we see that two special glands, capable
of secreting a soft material that can be readily drawn
into the finest threads of the greatest strength, requir-
ing no perceptible time for drying, and two to four
spinnerets perforated by more than a thousand of the
smallest apertures, and hind legs modified so that
they can be used to draw out the web through the
spinonerets, and also the instincts which enable the
spider to use its web to advantage, must all have been
evolved.

To evolve the silk glands would have required, as
for most other organs, a long period of incipiency,
during which they would have been useless. We can

INSTINCT 223

not assume that a substance so exceptional in its
character as the web of the spider could have been
suddenly produced by evolution. But the glands
would be useless without the spinnerets. If the lat-
ter are homologous with legs, as has been claimed,
then we must assume that two or three pairs of legs
that were probably at one time useful for locomotion
became so modified that they could perform the func-
tion of spinnerets. In what conceivable way could
locomotive legs have become so modified and pierced
with more than a thousand apertures through which
the web is drawn?

True spiders are found in the Carboniferous Age,
and, if they were evolved, they must have appeared
in the Silurian. The fact that insects and scorpions
have been found in the latter renders it the more
probable that spiders existed at that time. The
spiders of the Carboniferous had, no doubt, the web-
making structure. J infer this from their appearance
and from the fact that all living spiders make web.
The existence of the structure necessary to manufac-
ture web, at a period so remote, renders it the more
difficult to believe that this structure could have been
evolved.

If we assume that living spiders have had a com-
mon origin by evolution, then the instinct to manufac-
ture a special form of web, such as that of the Garden
Spider, is very ancient, for we find other species, for
example, Acrosoma arcuta, which differ greatly in
structure from the garden spider, but which construct
a nearly similar web. According to the assumption
the instinct has existed during the long period neces-
sary to evolve the great physical differences between
the two species. In this instance, therefore, as in the
case of birds, already discussed, evolution necessarily
assumes the existence of instincts through immense

224 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

periods of time. On the other hand, the great differ-
ences in the habits of spiders might be taken to show
that instincts change.

Similarity of instincts, however, cannot be taken to
indicate, of necessity, a common origin.

Mr. Darwin says that there exist ‘‘ cases of instincts.
almost identically the same in animals so remote in
the scale of Nature, that we cannot account for their
similarity by inheritance from a common progenitor,
and consequently must believe that they were inde-
pendently acquired through natural selection.’ *

Again he says: ‘* Many instincts are so wonderful
that their development will probably appear to the
reader a difficulty sufficient to overcome my whole
theory.”’

Instances may be enumerated indefinitely which
show the difficulty of accounting for changes of
structure and at the same time the origin of instincts
that render the acquired structures useful. Among
fishes, take the Sting Ray, which has along prehensile
tail, and above the base of the tail a barbed spine
pointing backwards, on which it impales its enemies
by the use of its tailas a lasso. It seems to me en-
tirely improbably that the tail, the barb, and the
instinct to use them were evolved either simultaneous-
ly or in succession.

How was the singular instinct evolved which causes
the male hornbills of Africa and India to plaster up
the female in a hole in a tree, leaving only a small
aperature through which they feed the female and
her young? It is evident that this serves for protec-
tion, but I cannot see how it could have been grad-
ually evolved by natural selection. The work must
be quite complete before it can serve its purpose.

In what way could the strange instinct of the Aus-

* Origin of Species, p. 226.

INSTINCT 225

tralian Jungle Fowl have been evolved? This bird
does not incubate its eggs but deposits them in a great
heap of decomposing organic matter, sometimes fif-
teen feet high and sixty feet in circumference, which
it piles up by throwing backwards with one foot while
it stands on the other.

Each egg is deposited in a separate hole several
feet long in the mound, after which the hole is
filled with loose material and the egg left to incubate.
It is evident that this bird could not have abandoned
the usual method of incubation until its instinct
caused it to construct atumulus of organic matter
sufficient for the purpose of incubation. It would
not be claimed that it did this suddenly, but gradual-
ly. It must have at first brought together sufficient
material to relieve it of part of the work of incuba-
tion, and the habit of doing this must have grown,
because it was useful, until it finally ceased incu-
bating its eggs. It also lost the instinct, common to
birds, of placing all of its eggs in close proximity
with each other, for it deposits but one egg in each
hole.

The fact that these changes in its instincts and
habits are conceivable can only show the possibility
and not the probability that they have taken place.
It is conceivable that trees might become men, and
yet this does not even suggest the possibility of such
a change.

The various instincts which cause animals to pro-
vide in advance for the young that they never see
nor recognize as their offspring cannot, I think, be
satisfactorily accounted for by evolution.

Take, for example, the well-known beetle, which
prepares a ball of animal excretion in which it depos-
its an egg and then buries the ball in a deep hole
which i, MOBS in the earth, where it is hatched, and

226 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the larva feeds on the organic matter which has been
prepared in the ball.

Here we have a series of instincts serving a com-
mon purpose. The deposit of the egg in the organic
matter, the shaping of this into a ball, the prepara-
tion of a hole in the ground, and the moving of the
ball into this place of safety, are all done for the
benefit of offspring that can never be known to the
parent.

To account for these wonderful instincts, we are
told that ‘‘ necessity is the mother of invention,”’
that the struggle for existence is so severe that the
production and preservation of new instincts are a
matter of necessity. The fact that the first beetle
deposited an egg in such decomposing organic matter
by accident was no assurance that the egg would pro-
duce a beetle which would repeat the accident. But
we must assume that the first deposit of an egg thus
made was on account of a new-born instinct which
was strong enough to be inherited by the offspring.
Strangest of all, however, is the instinct which causes
this beetle to move this ball, considerable distances
frequently, by standing on its front legs and pushing
backwards with its hind legs. These balls are several
times as large as the beetles themselves. Sometimes
two beetles join in moving a single ball, one pushing,
while the other climbs on to the opposite side of the
ball, thus disturbing its equilibrium. But moving the
ball would be useless to the species unless it were de-
posited in the ground in a place of greater safety, so
that the instinct to move it and the instinct to de-
posit it in a more secure place by digging a hole in
the ground must have been evolved at the same time.
I see no reason to believe that this could have taken
place. It is no argument to say that such changes
take place by chance, and that they are preserved

INSTINCT 227

because they are useful. That they might be pre-
served if they took place need not be disputed, but
the evidence, in my estimation, is totally inadequate
to show that such changes occur.

As I have said elsewhere, it is easy to imagine that
any finite existence may originate by starting with
nothing and adding atom by atom. So it may be
imagined with instincts.

The Beaver furnishes one of the most remarkable
examples of instinct among vertebrates. It lives in
communities and constructs dams, sometimes as much
as three hundred yards long, across shallow streams
of water. These dams are built of sticks of wood,
generally about three feet long and six or seven
inches in diameter, which the animal cuts with its
teeth. They are put inthe water and held in posi-
tion by means of mud, stones and moss which are
placed upon them. The dams are ten or twelve feet
thick at the base, and when the streams are wide,
instead of extending straight across, they are made
to curve upstream against the current, thus enabling
the structure to better resist the force of the water.
The amount of labor necessary to construct a large
dam is enormous, and requires an incredible number
of logs of wood and great skill in engineering.

Near the dam the beavers build their houses. Each
house is about seven feet in diameter on the interior
and three feet high in the center and the walls are of
great thickness. Each lodge is large enough to ac-
commodate five or six beavers.

The outside is plastered with mud and carefully
smoothed, and the mud is renewed each year in order
to keep the houses in good repair. All the houses of
the colony are surrounded by a ditch which contains
water, and each lodge is connected by a passage-way
with the ditch.

228 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

As a supply of food for winter, they store up a
large number of logs under the water, the bark of
which they consume.

In this case we find an organized community work-
ing for the common good in constructing the dam
and the ditch and storing up food, and then making
special preparation for living in small groups by con-
structing their lodges and connecting them with the
ditch.

Here we see highly-developed instincts that look to
the future good of the organism. The building of the
dam, the digging of the ditch, the storing of the
food are all done to meet future emergencies.

It isevident that the construction of a dam could
not have been evolved gradually, for adam must be
of sufficient extent to be useful before natural selec-
tion could act.

Are we to presume that beavers experimented for
countless generations, thereby building up the instinct
which leads them to construct adam? If so, on what
ground can we explain the preservation of the incip-
ient instinct until it was sufficiently developed to be
of practical use? In what way could they have known
in advance, or had an instinct in advance, that a dam
would serve their good? Shall we assume that their
instinct in the first instance led them to construct a
dam, they not having had any experience to evolve an
instinct of this kind? If the instinct existed without
having been evolved by experience, then we cannot
account for its evolution. If evolved, then we must
assume that the first dam made was of sufficient use
to give its makers an advantage in the struggle for
existence, and that the instinct which caused its con-
struction was transmitted to their offspring.

In accounting for the evolution of this instinct, as
in other cases, we necessarily begin with an instinct

INSTINCT 229

that is already useful, and thus we assume the exist-
ence of that for which we are trying to account. We
are obliged to assume that ina single generation a
beaver or a colony of beavers was produced which
had a new instinct, and sufficiently developed to en-
able them to build a useful dam, and thatin conse-
quence of this they were the better preserved and the
instinct propagated. If all this could have happened
in a single generation, it is evident that no question
need be raised as to the possibility of future evolu-
tion,

Besides this, the construction of a ditch for water
around their lodges required a different instinct serv-
ing another purpose. Its evolution involves similar
difficulties.

I will not dwell longer on the difficulty of account-
ing for the evolution of special instincts and of the
changes of structure in organisms necessary to adapt
them to the use of new instincts. The animal king-
dom is full of difficulties of this kind. Volumes
might be written describing the strange instincts of
Insects alone.

In conclusion, I repeat that I regard the complex
instincts and peculiar structure of the honey-bee as
insuperable objections to the theory of evolution.

XV.
THE ORIGIN OF MAN.

CoNSIDERED geologically, man has but a brief his-
tory. As to the length of time he has been here,
judging from his remains and works of art, Le Conte
says: ‘‘It may be 100,000 years or it may be only
10,000 years, but more probably the former than the
latter.’’ He further says that ‘‘ The earliest men yet
found are in no sense connecting links between man
and ape.’’ *

The Engis skull, one of the most ancient that has
been discovered, is said to be ‘‘ a well-shaped, average
human skull.’’

The Mentone skull is of ‘‘ average or more than
average ’’ size, having a facial angle of 85°, while the
Neanderthal skull, which is also very ancient, is of
lower type, but ‘‘is in no respect intermediate’’ be-
tween man and ape, being “truly human.”’

In the Aurignac cave in France were found the
bones of several human skeletons mingled with those
of various extinct mammals, such as the Cave-bear,
Cave-lion, Cave-hyena, Mammoth, Irish Elk and oth-
ers. The presence of the bones of these extinct
mammals shows that the human remains are prob-
ably quite ancient.

Le Conte says: ‘*The conclusion reached by M.
Lartet is, that this was a family or tribal burial place;
that in the cave along with the bodies were placed
funeral gifts in the form of trinkets and food; and

* Elements of Geology, p. 601.
230

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 231

that the funeral feast was cooked and eaten on the
level space in front of the cave; and, finally, that
carnivorous beasts gnawed the bones left on the spot.
It is evident that the Aurignac men practiced relig-
ious rites which indicated a belief in immortality.’’ *

If such were among the oldest known men, how
long must it have taken to evolve them, with their
belief in immortality, from the highest known apes?
And yet we have no evidence whatever from fossils
that connect him with a lower form, that he has been
evolved at all.

The ancient Egyptian paintings show that the Cau-
casian and Negro races have undergone little, if any,
change in the last 4000 years. If this length of time
has produced no appreciable change in these races
what would be the period required to evolve man
from an ape-like ancestor?

Mr. Wallace tries to account for the absence of
physical change in man within the historic period by
claiming that the mind of man enables him to adapt
himself to a changing environment, thus relieving
him from the necessity of undergoing physical
change.

He believes that the lower animals have been
evolved by natural selection, but that mind is the
creation of a superior intelligence.

He says: ‘‘ The inference I would draw from this
class of phenomena is that a superior intelligence
has guided the development of man in a definite
direction and for a special purpose, just as man
guides the development of many animal and vegetable
forms.” f

The following are some of the objections which he
offers against the theory of the evolution of man by
natural selection:

* Hlements of Geology, p. 596. + On Natural Selection, p. 359.

232 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

First, anthropologists have been divided on the
question as to whether the different races of men
have had a common or separate origins.

If the latter, then nothing so remarkable could be
assumed to have taken place. No evolutionist would
assume that it would be possible.

Again, the absence of a covering of hair from most
of man’s body cannot be accounted for by the theory
of natural selection. If he was evolved, it was from
animals that had a hairy covering. The loss of this
covering could be of no use to man in the savage
condition when he had no clothing. The hair is thick-
est on the backs of the lower animals, while it is
almost entirely absent from the back of man. Most
savages are comparatively naked. They need the coy-
ering of hair for protection, and in the absence of it
they provide at least some slight protection for the
back from rain.

It is evident, therefore, that the loss of the hairy
covering in man cannot be accounted for by natural
selection. The loss of a part while useful is opposed
to that theory.

Again, all the quadrumana use the big toe as a
thumb, while man cannot use it inthis way. The loss
of it as an organ of prehension could not have been
useful to savage man, and it could not therefore have
been brought about by natural selection.

The quadrumana are accustomed to go ‘on all
fours’’ horizontally, or in a more or less stooping
posture, while man walks upright.

Acquiring an upright position could not have been
useful to man in his assumed low condition as he
emerged from the animal, and consequently such a
change cannot be explained by natural selection.

Again, the human hand is far more highly organized
than is necessary to meet the demands of rude say-

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 233

ages, and, therefore, natural selection fails to account
for the existence of this highly perfect organ.

He also claims that the powers of the human voice
have not been produced by natural selection, for sav-
ages are not accustomed to sing, but to howl and
make unpleasant sounds.

One of the strongest points which he makes against
the evolution of man by natural selection is that ‘the
brain of the savage is shown to be larger than he
needs it to be.”’

He claims that the size of the brain is probably the
most important factor in determining mental capacity.
The following are given as the average sizes of brains
in cubic inches: Teutonic family, 94; Esquimaux,
91; Negroes, 85; Australians and Tasmanians, 82;
Bushmen, 77.

Some of the largest brains have been found among
savages. The largest Teutonic skull in a certain col-
lection had a capacity of 112.4 cubic inches; an Auri-
canian, 115.5; an Esquimau, 113.1; a Marquesan,
110.6; a Negro, 105.8; and an Australian 104.5.

The European with a brain less than 65 cubic inches
is invariably an idiot.

The brain of the Orang-utan is 28 cubic inches;
that of the Gorilla, 30, while 8341/2 cubic inches is the
capacity of the largest Gorilla brain that has been
measured.

Calling the average of the anthropoid apes 10, the
size of the brain of savages is 26, and of civilized
man 382.

‘The Engis skull, perhaps the oldest known’’ is,
according to Prof. Huxley, ‘‘a fair average skull,
which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might
have contained the thoughtless brains of a savage.”’

Speaking of the oldest known skulls, Wallace says:
**But what is still more extraordinary, the few re-

234 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

mains yet known of pre-historic man do not indicate
any material diminution in the size of the brain-case.’”

Natural selection assumes that progress does not
take place beyond what is demanded by environment.
This being true, how is it possible to account for the
large size of the brains of savages?

When man began to emerge he had to contend with
nothing higher than brutes, and a small increase in
brain would enable him to do this successfully.

Savages have capacities for education far greater
than is demanded by their mode of living. The same
is true of their moral and religious capacities. They
have latent powers of mind which anticipate a more
advanced state of existence than that of the savage
condition in which they have existed for ages. Pow-
ers which have, therefore, been dormant for thousands
of years, could not have been preserved because they
were useful, but, on the other hand, they should have
disappeared by disuse.

Max Miiller says that ‘‘between the language of
animals and the language of man there is no natural
’ bridge, and that to account for human language such
as we possess would require a faculty of which no
trace has ever been discovered in lower animals.

‘Rational language is to be traced back to roots, °
and every root is the sign of a general conception or
abstract idea of which the animal mind is incapable.
Mr. Darwin has said there are savage languages which
contain no abstract terms; but the names for com-
mon objects, such as father, mother, brother, etc.,
are abstract terms, and unless Mr. Darwin is prepared
to produce a language containing no such names, his
statement, said the lecturer, falls to the ground as the
result of a misconception of the real nature of a gen-
eral idea as distinguished from an emotion.”’ *

* Abstract of his Lecture on Nature, Dec. 1872, p. 145.

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 235

Professor Virchow is reported to have said in a
recent lecture: ‘* We seek in vain for the missing
link. There exists a definite barrier separating man
from the animal which has not yet been effaced—
heredity, which transmits to children the faculties of
their parents. We have never seen a monkey bring a
man into the world, nor a man produce a monkey.
All men having a simian appearance are simply patho-
logical variants. It was generally believed a few years
ago that there existed a few human races which still
remained in the primitive inferior condition of their
organization. But all these races have been objects
of minute investigation, and we know that they have
an organization like ours, often indeed superior to
that of supposed higher races. Thus the Eskimo head
and the head of the Terra del Fuegians belong to the
perfected types.’’.

In view of the evidence furnished by examining all
the races and varieties of men, he says: ‘‘ Thus we
are repulsed at every line of the assault upon the
human question. All the researches undertaken with
the aim of finding continuity in progressive develop-
ment have been without result. There exists no pro-
anthropes, no man-monkey, and the ‘ connecting link’
remains a phantom.”’

The fragments of a skeleton recently discovered, of
a supposed man-ape, in the Pleistocene deposits of
Java have not been proved to be such.

Dana says: ‘*Man’s origin has thus far no sufi-
cient explanation from science. His close relations.
in structure to the Man-Apes are unquestionable.
They have the same number of bones with two excep-
tions, and the bones are the same in kind and struc-
ture. The muscles are mostly the same. Both carry
their young in their arms. The affiliations strongly
suggest community of descent. But the divergencies

236 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

mentioned on page 1018, especially the cases of degen-
eracy in man’s structure, exhibited in his plantigrade
feet and the primitive character of his teeth, allying
him in these respects to the Lower Eocene forms, are
admitted proof that he has not descended from any
existing type of Ape. In addition, man’s erect pos-
ture makes the gap a very broad one. The brute, the
Ape included, has powerful muscles in the back of
the neck to carry the head in its horizontal position,
while man has no such muscles, as any one of the
species can prove by crawling for a while on ‘all
fours.’ Beyond this, the great size of the brain, his
eminent intellectual and moral qualities, his voice and
speech, give him his sole title to the position at the
head of the Kingdom of Life.’’* He believes with Wal-
lace ‘‘that the intervention of a Power above Nature
was at the basis of Man’s development.”

Huxley has pointed out the many physical differ-
ences between man and the gorilla, which is the most
man-like ape in size and structure.

Neither fossils nor living animals have been discov-
ered from which man could have been immediately
evolved.

All admit, however, that the greatest differences
between man and the highest ape are psychic, and
not physical. The evolution of the human mind with
all of its wonderful powers must be accounted for.

Darwin has tried to explain their evolution. He
says: ‘*My object in this chapter is solely to show
that there is no fundamental difference between man
and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.”’ +

Again he says: ‘‘Nevertheless the difference in
mind between man and the higher animals, great as it
is, is certainly one of degree and not of kind.’’ }

* Manual of Geology, p. 1036.
+ Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 34. } Ibid, p. 101.

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 237

He claims that the lower animals show fear, terror,
suspicion, courage, ill-temper, rage, revenge, love,
maternal affection, a desire to be loved, shame, mod-
esty, curiosity, the power to imitate, the power of
giving attention, memory, imagination, and reason.
Most of these powers he claims have been exhibited
especially by dogs and monkeys.

He thinks that the higher animals dream, as ‘is
shown by their movements and voice,’ and that this
is evidence that they have ‘*‘ some imagination.”’

It might be admitted that animals possess most of
the above named powers, and still the greatest difficul-
ties would remain.

Mr. Darwin refers to them as follows: ‘It has
been asserted that man alone is capable of progressive
improvement; that he alone makes use of tools or
fire, domesticates other animals, possesses property,
or employs language; that no other animal is self-
conscious, comprehends itself, has the power of
abstraction, or possesses general ideas; that man
alone has a sense of beauty, is liable to caprice, has
the feeling of gratitude, mystery, etc.; believes in
God, or is endowed with a conscience. I will hazard
a few remarks on the more important and interesting
of these points.”’

Having considered the evidence bearing on these
points he says: ‘*There can be no doubt that the
difference between the mind of the lowest man and
that of the highest animal is immense. An anthropo-
morphous ape, if he could take a dispassionate view of
his own case, would admit that though he could form
an artful plan to plunder a garden, though he could
use stones for fighting or for breaking open nuts, yet
that the thought of fashioning a stone into a tool was
quite beyond his scope. Still less, as he would admit,
could he follow out a train of metaphysical reasoning,

238 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

or solve a mathematical problem, or reflect on God,
or admire a grand natural scene. Some apes, how-
ever, would probably declare that they could and did
admire the beauty of the colored skin and fur of
their partners in marriage. They would admit that,
though they could make other apes understand by
cries some of their perceptions and simpler wants, the
notion of expressing definite ideas by definite sounds
had never crossed their minds. They might insist
that they were ready to aid their fellow-apes of the
same troop in many ways, to risk their lives for them,
and to take charge of their orphans; but they would
be forced to acknowledge that disinterested love for
all living things, the most noble attribute of man,
was quite beyond their comprehension.’’ *

But he adds: ‘‘ Nevertheless the difference in mind
between man and the higher animals, great as it is, is
certainly one of degree and not of kind.’’ Also,
*¢The moral sense perhaps affords the best and high-
est distinction between man and the lower animals.’’f

Again he says: ‘‘Self-consciousness, Individuality,
Abstraction, General Ideas, etc. ,

“Tt would be useless to attempt discussing these high
faculties, which, according to several recent writers,
make the sole and complete distinction between man
and the brutes, for hardly two authors agree in their
definitions. Such faculties could not have been fully
developed in man until his mental powers had ad-
vanced to a high standard, and this implies the use of
a perfect language. No one supposes that one of the
lower animals reflects whence he comes or whither he
goes—what is death or what is life, and so forth.”’ }

He attempts to explain the origin of these powers
as follows: ‘If it be maintained that certain pow-
ers, such as self-consciousness, abstraction, etc., are

* Descent of Man, Vol.1, p. 101. + Ibid, p. 100. { Ibid, p. 60.

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 239

peculiar to man, it may well be that these are the in-
cidental results of other highly advanced intellectual
faculties; and these again are mainly the result of the
continued use of a highly developed language.”’

He also thinks that man has been evolved from
*‘ape-like progenitors.”’ *

The admissions contained in the above quotations
are, it seems to me, quite fatal to the general conclu-
sions. If man has been evolved from ‘‘ape-like pro-
genitors,”’ it has been a long time since he branched
off from that stock. In the meantime these progeni-
tors have been called on by a perpetually changing
environment to improve themselves, with the result
that they still remain brutes, while man, during the
same time, and in the same countries, and with similar
environments, has developed God-like capacities of.
intellect. How can we account for the extreme dif-
ference of progress between the ‘‘ ape-like ancestor ”’
and man?

The fact that the ape still survives shows that there
has been no necessity for his making progress, and,
consequently, environment could not have rendered it
necessary for any of the offspring of the apes to have
changed into men.

The following is a summary of Mr. Darwin’s admis-
sions. The ‘‘anthropomorphous ape’’ taking ‘‘a dis-
passionate view’’ admits, that he has never thought
of fashioning even the simplest tool; that he cannot
follow out a train of metaphysical reasoning, or solve
a mathematical problem, or reflect on God, or admire
agrand natural scene; that ‘‘the notion of expressing
definite ideas by definite sounds had never crossed
their minds,’’ that ‘‘ disinterested love for all things,
the most noble attribute of man, was quite beyond
their comprehension; ’’ that he had no knowledge of

* Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 81.

240 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

right and wrong, that he was totally ignorant of the
meaning of that ‘‘imperious word ought,’’ that he
had no self-consciousness, nor idea of individuality,
nor general ideas, etc., for these latter faculties imply
mental powers ‘‘advanced to a high standard’’ and
‘‘the use of a perfect language.”’

Here, then, it is admitted that Self-consciousness,
Individuality, Abstraction, General Ideas, etc., are
not possessed by the higher animals, for the existence
of these faculties depends upon ‘other highly ad-
vanced intellectual faculties,’ and these again are the
result of the continued use of a highly developed
language.

According to this, the highest human faculties are
the offspring of other highly developed faculties, and
the latter are the offspring of language.

We do not know that the native strength of the
intellectual faculties is due to the language of ances-
tors. We cannot estimate natural ability of children
by the vocabularies of their parents. An extensive
education requires a large vocabulary, but the birth
of high intellectual faculties is more than the birth of
words. We do not know that the size of the brain is
in any way dependent on language. Ideas precede
words, and faculties precede ideas. Ideas invent
words. If the ape had ideas he would invent lan-
guage to express them—especially if he is the ances-
tor of man, who has invented a great multitude of
languages.

It may be claimed that language greatly contributes
to mental activity, that this improves the brain, and
that this improvement is hereditary. We do not
know to what extent this may be true, but if it is
true, it does not dispose of the difficulty. The ques-
tion is not how can faculties be cultivated and
strengthened, but how can they originate?

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 241

It is claimed that self-consciousness and other fac-
ulties not possessed by brutes may be evolved from
‘other highly advanced intellectual faculties.’’ As
to how self-consciousness could thus be evolved, we
are left wholly in the dark. No facts are given to
justify this extraordinary conclusion. It is a neces-
sary part of the theory of evolution, and consequent-
ly it must be assumed even in the absence of proof.
Mr. Darwin, in speaking of the many high powers of
the human mind which have been enumerated, says
cautiously, ‘‘I will hazard a few remarks on the
more important and interesting of these points.’’ He
does not claim to offer anything like conclusive evi-
dence that self-consciousness and other high powers
have been evolved from lower faculties, such as ani-
mals possess, but I think that he simply assumes it as
a necessary part of his theory. To tell us that self-
consciousness is evolved from certain high faculties
which themselves have been mostly produced by the
use of a perfect language may be a legitimate opin-
ion, but I think that it is very far from conclusive
evidence.

He refers to the low moral standing of savages in
support of his theory. According to natural selec-
.. tion, savages ought not to have any capacities except
those that have been constantly in use and that have
been preserved because they have been useful. The
moral standing of savages is low, and this fact would
seem to indicate a lack of capacity for morals. It is
found, however, that savages have natural powers
which enable them to make great progress in morals,
and in education in all directions. It is this native
capacity for improvement, which could not have been
evolved by their savage mode of life, that distin-
guishes them from animals.

The SHOES has been told of Mr. Darwin that when

242 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

he sailed past certain islands in the Pacific, he found
them inhabited by cannibals, but that twenty-five
years afterwards he found these cannibals converted
to Christianity and enjoying the blessings of civiliza-
tion. Itis further said that in consequence of this
. great change wrought by Christian missionaries, he
donated twenty-five pounds a year to the Missionary
Society.

How many millions of years would it take for even
Christian missionaries to convert a tribe of gorillas
into man-loving, God-fearing, self-conscious beings
capable of believing that they possessed immortal
souls?

The fact of such great and sudden changes pro-
duced in the lives of the most degraded savages
shows the infinite gulf between them and the highest
brutes. The more degraded man is shown to be in
his savage condition, the more wonderful becomes
the contrast between him and the highest animals
when he has the opportunities of civilization. Evo-
lution, instead of gaining, loses much by hunting up
degraded savages, for the lowest tribes have vastly
more capacity than the theory calls for or can explain.

Mr. Darwin attempts to account for the moral sense
as follows: ‘‘ Philosophers of the derivative school
of morals formerly assumed that the foundation of
morality lay ina form of Selfishness; but more re-
cently in the Greatest-Happiness principle. Accord-
ing to the view given above, the moral sense is funda-
mentally identical with the social instincts; and in the
case of the lower animals it would be absurd to speak
of these instincts as having been developed from
selfishness, or for the happiness of the community.
They have however, certainly been developed for the
general good of the community. The term ‘general
good,’’ may be defined as the means by which the

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 243

greatest possible number of individuals can be reared
in full vigor and health, with all their faculties per-
fect, under the conditions to which they are exposed.
As the social instincts both of man and the lower ani-
mals have no doubt been developed by the same steps,
it would be advisable, if found practicable, to use the
same definition in both cases, and to take as the test
of morality, the general good or welfare of the com-
munity, rather than the general happiness; but this
definition would perhaps require some limitation on
account of political ethics.’’ *

Again he says: ‘‘It is possible, or, as we shall
hereafter see, even probable, that the habit of self-
command, like other habits, may be inherited. Thus
at last man comes to feel, through acquired, and, per-
haps, inherited habit, that it is best for him to obey
his more persistent instincts. The imperious word
ought seems merely to employ the consciousness of
the persistent instinct, either innate or partly ac-
quired, serving him as a guide, though liable to be
disobeyed. We hardly use the word ought in a meta-
phorical sense when we say hounds ought to hunt,
pointers to point, and retrievers to retrieve their
game. If they failthus to act, they fail in their duty
and act wrongly.”’ f

He expresses the following doubt as to whether
-habit may be inherited or not. ‘‘ My chief source of
doubt with respect to any such inheritance, is that
senseless customs, superstitions and tastes, such as the
horror of a Hindoo for unclean food, ought on the
same principle to be inherited. Although this in it-
self is perhaps not less probable than that animals
should acquire inherited tastes for certain kinds of
food or fear of certain foes, I have not met with any

* Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 93. ¢ Ibid, p. 88.

244 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

evidence in support of the transmission of supersti-
tious customs or senseless habits.”’

If the doctrine of heredity, as insisted on by Dar-
win and Spencer, is true, it is evident that any course
of conduct long persisted in ought to become heredi-
tary. And yet after diligent search he tells us that
he has ‘‘ not met with any evidence in support’’ of
this necessary part of the theory of evolution. Why
insist on a theory which he admits does not explain
allthe facts? If acquired habits of morality can be
inherited, then special Hindoo habits which have been
formed in successive individuals for thousands of
years ought to be inherited, but they are not.

Spencer attempts to explain the origin of intuitions
as follows: ‘* These all have arisen from the organ-
ized and consolidated experiences of all antecedent
individuals, who bequeathed their slowly-developed
nervous organizations, till they practically became
forms of thought apparently independent of experi-
ence. |

“‘T believe that the experiences of utility organ-
ized and consolidated through all past generations of
the human race, have been producing corresponding
nervous modifications, which, by continued transmis-
sion and accumulation, have become in us certain
faculties of moral intuition—certain emotions re-
sponding to right and wrong conduct, which have no
apparent basis in the individual experiences of util-
ity.’”’

Thus, according to Spencer, the moral faculties are
due to the *‘ experiences of utility.’’

According to Darwin, ‘‘ man comes to feel through
acquired, and, perhaps, inherited habit, that it is
best for him to obey his more persistent instincts.
The imperious word ought seems merely to imply the
consciousness of the persistent instinct.”’

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 245

He says: ‘* We have now seen that actions are re-
garded by savages, and were probably so regarded by
primeval man, as good or bad, solely as they affect in
an obvious manner the welfare of the tribe.’”’ *

From this I presume he means that the most useful
experiences have formed the most persistent instincts,
so that there is no substantial difference between his
and Spencer’s theory. Both seek to trace the origin
of the moral faculty to useful experiences.

Darwin says: ‘The moral sense perhaps affords
the best and highest distinction between man and the
lower animals.”’ f

He thus defines a moral being: ‘‘A moral being is
one who is capable of comparing his past and future
actions or motives, and of approving or disapproving
of them. We have no reason to suppose that any of
the lower animals have this capacity; therefore when
a monkey faces danger to rescue its comrade, or takes
charge of an orphan monkey, we do not call its con-
duct moral.’’ ft

Here we have the admission that no animal is a
moral being. Again he says that ‘‘man alone can
with certainty be ranked as a moral being.”’ §

From these quotations we see the method by which
Darwin and Spencer attempt to account for the origin
of the moral nature of man. The great gulf between
man and brute is admitted, but it is claimed that a
protracted education, supplemented by inheritance to
preserve what is gained, will convert animal into man.
It is easy to imagine that by infinitely small steps any
two points, however distant from each other, may be
traversed—that by infinitesimal changes any change,
however great, may be made, but the practical difficul-
ty of applying this theory is that the gulfs on the

* Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 101.
+ Ibid, p. 85. t Ibid § Ibid.

246 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

road of evolution are so many and so great that we
see no possibility of passing over them.

Take Darwin’s definition of a moral being and see
what an infinite distance it elevates man above the
brutes. ‘*A moral being is one who is capable of
comparing his past and future actions or motives, and
of approving or disapproving of them.’’ This defin-
ition involves the consciousness of one’s own exist-
ence, the knowledge that he existed in the past, that
he acted from motives, that he now has motives, that
he can compare these two sets of motives and apply
the ‘‘imperious word ought’’ or ought not, to his con-
duct, that conscience approves or disapproves, and
that he expects to exist in the future.

Are we to be told that these high powers, which
animals do not possess, are the fruit of animal in-
stincts? On what ground are we to believe it?

The evolution of the mind of man from the in-
stincts of animals involves ultimately the evolution of
all psychic phenomena from simple sensations of
low forms of life, and these again from matter desti-
tute of sensation.

Mr. Spencer’s ‘‘experiences of utility’’ began, I
presume, with the inorganic matter involved in spon-
taneous generation, and pushed on up to man.

Are we to regard all psychic phenomena as one in
quality, so that one faculty may be derived from an-
other? Are touch, taste, sight, hearing, memory,
imagination, the power of abstract reasoning, self-
consciousness, conscience, faith, hope and love, all
essentially alike, and can one be evolved from the
other? Evolution assumes that they are essentially
the same, and it is her task to prove it or fail. How
can memory, or conscience, or reason be evolved from
any or all the senses? If the power to reason is dif-

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 247

ferent in quality from other powers, then it could
not have been evolved from those powers.

Spencer seeks to account for the origin of the
moral faculty by ‘‘ experiences of utility,’’ but it is
evident that experience can only educate and improve
a faculty that exists, and not form a new one that is
different in kind. Educating the special senses can-
not create a mental power, nor can experiences of
memory create the power to reason, nor do we know
that any one faculty can create another, although the
various powers may be of mutual benefit to each
other.

The question is not, how can a faculty be improved?
but, how can it be created?

If evolutionists can prove the identity of all psychic
phenomena, then their theory may be true. If, on
the other hand, these are so distinct in kind that one
cannot be changed into another, then the theory fails.
Spencer’s ‘‘experiences of utility,’’ accumulated
and inherited for many generations, explains, if true,
at most, the improvement of existing faculties, and
not the creation of new ones.

Take, for example, the special senses. Would it be
possible by using the eye to evolve an ear? Or could
taste or smell or any other sense give birth to sight?
It is easy to talk about accumulating experiences
through many generations, in the nervous system, and
thus evolving all senses and all mental powers, but
experiences can be such only in relation to faculties
that exist.

Again, could the diligent use of memory—a faculty
necessary to all high mental operations—produce the
power of abstract reasoning, or conscience, or the
knowledge of right and wrong? However necessary
memory may be to the reasoning faculty, yet how
widely different they are in kind! The latter faculty

248 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

implies the existence of the former, but memory does
not imply the existence of reason. Many persons with
great memories have been very deficient in power to
reason.

I speak especially of memory here, because, if the
mental powers were evolved, it must have been one of
the first that appeared. This would seem to be true
both on account of its relations to the other mental
faculties, and, because, in some form, it is manifested
in a large part of the animal kingdom.

We would, therefore, naturally look to memory as
the faculty from which, or by the exercise of which,
other mental powers might be evolved.

Memory is the conscious record of the past. It is
entirely different in kind from reason, will, or con-
science, and, therefore, they cannot be the offspring
of memory.

Granting that there are definite relations between
the nervous system and psychic phenomena, still it
would seem that there would be no tendency of nerv-
ous matter with which memory is connected to organ-
ize nervous tissue that could perform other functions.
The effect of cultivating memory is to strengthen
memory in the individual, and not to create imagina-
tion or any other power.

The power to recall past experience is totally differ-
ent in kind from the powers which plan with regard
to the future. The memory of the fact that an apple
fell on his head is different in kind from the reason-
ing power which enabled Newton to discover the law
of gravitation.

Spencer says: ‘*The proximate components of
Mind are of two broadly-contrasted kinds—feelings
and the relations between feelings. Among the mem-
bers of each group there exist multitudinous unlike-
nesses, many of which are extremely strong; but such

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 249

unlikenesses are small compared with those which
distinguish members of the one group from members
of the other.’”’ *

~ “ He also claims, ‘‘that the multitudinous forms of
Mind known as different feelings, may be composed
of simpler units of feeling, and even of units funda-
mentally of one kind.”’ +

From the above it is seen that Spencer admits that
there are ‘‘ multitudinous’’ and ‘“‘ extremely strong ”’
* unlikenesses ’’ between mental phenomena, but he
attempts to explain away the differences by assuming
that each feeling is composed of simple units of feel-
ing fundamentally of one kind.

As a supposed analogy for this argument he refers
to the fact that most substances in nature are com-
pounds made up of a few simple substances, and that
different compounds may be used by grouping the
atoms differently and by taking different relevant
numbers of the same atoms.

It is evident, I think, that the supposed analogy
will not hold good unless we assume Matter and Mind
to be fundamentally alike, a proposition which Mr.
Spencer himself would not affirm.

We see in the above the usual method which the
evolutionist adopts in deriving the most diverse
things, one from the other—namely, the addition or
subtraction of atom by atom till the change is
wrought. This subtle way of proceeding always
leaves one in doubt as to just which atom he ought to
strike out from the imaginary chain of evolution.

To simplify the subject he makes use of the suppo-
sition which has been made by others, that there is
‘‘but one ultimate form of Matter,’’—so there may be
‘units of feeling ’’ ‘‘ fundamentally of one kind.’’

* Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1, p. 163. t Ibid, p. 156.

250 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

These are mere assumptions. Besides, if true of
matter, it might not be true of mind.

Judging from psychic phenomena, the indications
are that if faculties are compound, they are composed
of many unlike units instead of simply one kind.
The many powers of the mind stand out sharply and
distinctly from each other, and we are totally unable
to explain one in terms of another.

If, with Spencer, we say that all states of conscious-
ness are feelings, yet. this does not identify them.
The question is, whence these feelings? Can one
feeling originate another? Can the nerve center of
one feeling produce a nerve center that can perform
an entirely different function? Unless it can, the
theory of evolution fails. The assumption that
mind is made up of simple units of feeling that are
fundamentally alike has nothing to justify it except
the necessities of the theory which it is made to
support.

The fact that the mental powers work in harmony
and bear certain relations to each other is not proof
of their fundamental identity, nor that the one can
originate from the other,—no more than can the eye
from the ear, or the foot from the head.

I cannot emphasize too strongly the fact that Mr.
Spencer’s theory of the evolution of the various pow-
ers of the mind is built on the assumption that all
mental powers are made up of ‘‘units of feeling ”’
that are ** fundamentally of one kind.”’

By this mere assumption he sweeps away all essen-
tial differences between psychic phenomena. He in-
troduces us to his psychic laboratory, where by the.
use of the simple ‘units of feeling ’’ as agents and
reagents, he proceeds to form as compounds all the
wonderful and widely different faculties of the mind.

I may say just here that, so far as we know, the

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 251

chemist with ‘units’? of matter, or atoms, ‘‘ funda-
mentally of one kind,’? can make little progress in
building up material compounds. Allotropic condi-
tions are few and comparatively unimportant, so that
there is no certain foundation in material units for
the assumed units of feeling of one kind only.

Spencer assumes that all the atoms of different
kinds of matter are probably fundamentally alike.
The positive teaching of chemistry is that there are
many kinds of atoms fundamentally unlike. He then
assumes that all mental phenomena are made up of
‘“‘units of feeling,’’ and then further assumes that
these units of feeling are ‘‘fundamentally of one
kind.”’

By calling all psychic phenomena feelings, and then
resolving feelings into ‘‘ nervous shocks”’ the science
of Psychology is immensely simplified, if indeed it is
not rendered more luminous.

He tells us: ‘* Mind is, certainly in some cases and
probably in all, resolvable into ‘nervous shocks.’ ’’*
And yet he says, ‘* That a unit of feeling has nothing
in common with a unit of motion becomes more than
ever manifest when we bring the two into juxta-
position.”’

This admission, it seems to me, renders it impossi-
ble to account for the origin of even the simplest
feeling, from inorganic matter by the process of evo-
lution. And yet it is necessary that the chasm be-
tween the dead unconscious world and the living
conscious world should be bridged.

There is no mental process by which we can con-
ceive the origin of any feeling from matter or from
matter and motion.

Mind persistently refuses to be identified with mat-
ter. The Ego and the Non-ego—the subject and the

* Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1, p. 156.

252 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

object—the thinker and the object of thought stand
forever apart.

Mr. Spencer says: ‘‘Nevertheless, it may be as
well to say here, once for all, that were we compelled
to choose between the alternatives of translating men-
tal phenomena into physical phenomena, or of trans-
lating physical phenomena into mental phenomena,
the latter alternative would seem the more acceptable
of the two.’’*

Matter and mind cannot be identified with each
other. Mind cannot spring from matter nor be
explained in material terms.

Of course, I do not deny that there are intimate
and definite relations between mental phenomena and
the nervous system, but I do deny that matter alone
or matter plus motion constitutes mind.

Mr. Spencer admits that ‘a unit of feeling has
nothing in common with a unit of motion,” so that
all effort to identify mind as matter falls short of the
truth. They stand at the two poles of thought.

The theory of evolution fails to account for the
origin of even simple units of feeling; it fails to
prove its assumption that the various widely-different
mental powers are composed of simple units of feel-
ing that are ‘‘fundamentally of one kind;’’ it fails to
show how the higher mental powers could have been
evolved from the lower powers which must have pre-
ceded them, and, above all, it fails to explain the evo-
lution of the moral faculty in man.

Spencer claims that the ‘‘ faculties of moral intui-
tion ’’ have been produced by ‘‘ experiences of util-
ity.’ Ineed not say that right and useful are not
equivalent words. How widely different might be
conduct when determined by the word ought, on the
one hand, or by the word useful, on the other! It

* Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1, p. 159.

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 253

might be useful to put to death the aged, the insane,
the deformed and helpless, and thus to relieve socie-
ty of great burdens, but no one claims that we ought
to do this.

Duty may not be useful to the doer; it may demand
great sacrifices and even death, and yet it speaks with
no uncertain voice. Duty looks to no earthly power
to give it authority, nor does it seek the paths of
pleasantness.

Conscience sits enthroned in the soul, ever active,
ever seeking to guide the life in the way of righteous-
ness. No external threats nor internal decrees can
silence its voice. When we would have it silent, then
it speaks loudest; if we would deceive it by false
logic, it laughs us to shame; if we would flee from it,
it goes with us; when we awake, hoping that it may
have departed while we slumbered, we hear it whis-
pering in the soul. It isever present, ever clamoring
to be heard—the voice of the Infinite calling us to
duty. :
Spencer uses the expression, ‘‘ experiences of util-
ity,’’ in trying to account for the evolution of con-
science. This does not necessarily involve even the
existence of mind, much less any mental conception
of the useful.

Plants have for millions of years becn unconscious-
ly doing work useful to the individuals, doing the
work and serving to propagate their species. All ani-
mals have of necessity been having ‘‘ experiences of
utility ’’ throughout the long history of animal life on
the earth. Are we to conclude that ‘‘ experiences of
utility ’’ have organized the various nervous systems
of all the different kinds of animals?

How can the experience of an animal that has no
nervous system whatever enable it to give birth to
an animal that has a nervous system?

254 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

How can the useful experience of animals that are
destitute of all mental powers produce animals that
have these powers?

No animal acts with a clear mental conception that
what it is about to do will be useful to itself or oth-
ers, and, having acted, it can not understand that
what it has done is useful. The moral sentiment
could not, therefore, have been evolved in animals
from the idea of the useful, for this idea does not
exist in animals.

It is evident that not only experience of the useful,
but also that a clear mental conception of the useful,
must precede the moral sentiment if the latter has
been evolved, as claimed.

We do not know that animals do things from a
knowledge that what they do will be useful. They
are driven by instinct, not knowing why they act, nor
what will be the results of their conduct.

A wild fox hunts because he is hungry, and not be-
cause he feels or knows that it will be useful. He
does not say before starting that if he does not hunt
he and his offspring that are dependent on him will
perish. Nor is there evidence that he hunts because
he anticipates that it will give him pleasure to eat
what he may capture; but he does so because he is
driven by blind instinct.

Therefore, before talking about evolving conscience
from useful experience, it would be well to prove
that animals have well-defined ideas of the useful, and
that these ideas, aside from instinct, are motives to
action.

The instincts of animals are sufficient for them in
their narrow spheres. They enable them to compete
with other forms that are endowed with instincts,
and, consequently, there was no demand for animals

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 255

to rise above instinct, and to acquire the high mental
powers of man.

Even if animals had clear ideas of the useful, it is
not at all evident that they would ever be able to
apply them except to themselves as individuals.

But I do not think that it can be shown that they
have any abstract conception of the useful, and much
less can it be true that they have a conscience which
has been evolved out of their ideas of utility.

I quote again the following from Darwin: ‘It is
possible, or, as we shall hereafter see, even probable,
that the habit of self-command, like other habits, be
inherited. Thus at last man comes to feel, through
acquired, and, perhaps, inherited habit, that it is best
for him to obey his more persistent instincts. The
imperious word ought seems merely to imply the con-
sciousness of the existence of a persistent instinct,
either innate or partly acquired, serving him as a
guide, though liable to be disobeyed. We hardly use
the word oughé in a metaphorical sense when we say
hounds ought to hunt, pointers to point, and retriev-
ers to retrieve their game. If they fail thus to act,
they fail in their duty and act wrongly.”’ *

He thus uses the word ought, which expresses in the
fullest way our sense of moral obligation. In hunt-
ing, hounds follow a persistent instinct, and this in-
stinct constitutes the moral faculty, and yet Darwin
admits that no animal is a moral being. They hunt
without any intelligent purpose, and without freedom
of choice, for instinct is blind and can not reason. If
the instinct to hunt is similar to the moral quality in
man, then all instincts are moral, and ought to be
obeyed. If the hound ought to follow his instinct
and hunt, then man ought to follow his instinct and
slay his enemies.

* Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 88.

256 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

If instinct may use the word ought, then why
should one instinct have moreauthority than another?
for each is entitled to the use of the word. When
we have followed one instinct and committed a deed,
why should a ‘‘more persistent instinct ’’ afterwards
condemn us? Both are armed with the word ought.
Why do we not reason thus concerning murder? I
ought to follow my instinct. My instinct told me to
murder an enemy, and I obeyed. I did my duty and
my conscience is clear. Therefore, if another instinct
says that I ought not to have done so, I answer that
my instinct to murder oughé to fulfill its purpose.
Thus, according to conflicting instincts, Iought and I
ought not to have committed murder. Thus morality
annihilates herself—moral quality is gone—conscience
has no right to exist—the whole matter of moral
obligation is a delusion—a delusion, in fact, on the
belief of which, more than on all else, depends the
welfare of the human race.

With instinct as the basis of morality, there can be
no freedom of choice, no deliberation, no fore-
thought, and there ought to be no pangs of con-
science. The high mental powers, which Mr. Darwin
himself acknowledges are necessary to constitute a
moral being, are absent from instinct, and by making
the latter the foundation of the moral faculty, irre-
sponsibility and fatalism are substituted for responsi-
bility and freedom of the will.

If the instinct of morality is wholly inherited, then
its possessor cannot be responsible for possessing it,
nor for following where it leads, if it carries the word
ought as authority.

If, on the other hand, the instinct may be acquired .
by cultivation, and we say that a person ought thus to
gain it, then the word ought precedes instinct and
exists independently of it.

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 257

In either case there is no foundation in instinct for
morality. Intelligence and freedom of choice alone,
and not blind instinct, give moral quality to conduct.
It is evident that the word ought is used in a highly
‘figurative sense’’ when applied to the instinct of a
hound to hunt.

The failure of the hound to hunt awakens no
pangs of conscience. Conscience and instinct stand
widely apart. The exercise of the former demands
the use of the highest mental powers, while the
action of pure instinct is independent of such powers.

Instinct may exist forever, as it has existed in all
animals, without giving birth to conscience. I see
no probable method of transition from the former to
the latter. To call the moral faculty in man an in-
stinct is not to show how it can be evolved from the
instincts of animals.

The great gulf between the moral nature of man
and the instincts of animals remains unbridged. [I
quote again what Darwin has said: ‘* A moral being
is one who is capable of comparing his past and
future actions or motives, and of approving or disap-
proving of them. We have no reason to suppose
that any of the lower animals have this capacity.”

Nor do we have reason to suppose that the infinite
chasm between man’s moral and intellectual nature
and the capacity of the highest animals could ever
have been bridged by the process of evolution. Mr.
Darwin’s admissions, in speaking of the evolution of
man’s high powers, are sufficient to show the weakness
of the evidence on which he relies.

Reason, the power to compare ideas and draw con-
clusions, the power to think about our past and pres-
ent mental conditions, the power to form abstract
ideas, the use of language, conscience, faith, hope

and disinterested love—love for country, for human-
17

258 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

ity, for generations yet unborn—these high qualities
are so different from anything that we find in the
brutes, that it is impossible for me to believe that
they could have been evolved by natural processes.

If it could even be shown that the physical man
has been evolved from some lower form of animal,
still this fact could not remove the difficulty of evolv-
ing man’s mind from the few and feeble powers of
brutes.

We may speak, if we please, of the continuity in
the chain of natural processes, which is indeed well
so far as we can show it to be true, but when we come
to the creation of the mind of man, I believe that
there was a break in the chain, and that it required
the special act of the Supreme Intelligence. I can
the more readily believe this when I see that it is the
prerogative of mind to interfere with the works of
nature and produce results that could never have
taken: place if it had not been for mind. ‘‘ Will
counts for something.’? The mind of man moving
his body has modified the earth in infinite ways that
never could have been, if they had not been pro-
duced by intelligence. The building of a locomotive
is an interference in numerous ways with the course
of events and with the arrangement of things as they
would have been if it were not for the control of
mind. And yet we are well aware that in constructing
a locomotive no law of nature is interfered with. On
the other hand, we know that in order to build it the
laws of nature must be strictly complied with. Man
produces his results by the intelligent use of his own
body and by guiding the forces of nature so as to ac-
complish his purposes. He avails himself of chem-
ical and mechanical laws—he uses some forces as in-
struments with which to overcome others—he, by his
intelligence, produces conflicts between materials and

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 259

forces where otherwise they could not exist—thus ful-
filling his purposes. And so it is the prerogative of
mind to interfere with the course of events, and this
in conformity with nature’s laws.

We cannot say that the creation of the mind of
man by the Supreme Intelligence would be an
interference with the laws of nature. To crown
the earth with a ruling intelligence capable of high
attainments is the one thing which above all else
could give meaning to creation. The accomplish-
ment of this highest purpose, by which a new quality
of existence was introduced into the earth, could only
be done by a special act of the intelligent, creative
Power.

We are driven to this conclusion not only by our
inability to explain the evolution of man’s mind from
the powers of the lower animals, but also by the fact
that we cannot explain mind in terms of the physical
factors in the universe.

If we attempt to account for mind by physical
agencies alone, we are confined to matter, ether and
force. The only known effect of force upon matter
and ether is to impart motion to them. Given, atoms
and molecules in motion, can we derive the phenom-
ena of mind? Is mind simply matter in motion? Is
the conscious Ego equivalent to moving molecules?
Are reason, memory, will, love and all mental powers
simply molecules in motion? Evidently to ask these
questions is to answer them. We can see no resem-
blance between memory and heat, or between reason
and electricity, or between imagination and gravity.
When one physical force is converted into another, as
heat into electricity, light, or mechanical motion,
there is always a definite qualitative and quantitative
relation between them, but we cannot affirm that any

260 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

such relations exist between mental phenomena and
the forces of nature.

If a definite quantity of heat can be converted into
a definite quantity of will, then will may be converted
back into heat. We do not know that heat and elec-
tricity are generated by mental activity. The only
known effect of applying force to matter is to impart
motion to the latter. We cannot by warming the
brain artificially increase the power to think. The
phenomena of mind are entirely different from mole-
cular motion. Motion of little pieces of matter is not
thought. Force and matter are related to each other,
but they are not identical; and so mind is related to
matter and force, but it is not identical with them.

We have already stated that modern physicists look
upon the existence of ether as a fact, and yet ether is
so subtle that we cannot discover its existence as mat-
ter. If we must assume the existence of an all-per-
vading form of matter in order to explain natural
phenomena, is it more unreasonable to assume the ex-
istence of an all-pervading mind in order to explain
mental phenomena? If we cannot explain mind in
terms of matter, ether and force, 7. e., in terms of
molecular motion, we may logically assume the exist-
ence of a cause sufficient to explain it—the existence
of an intelligent cause.

The great forces of nature are ever at work silently
and unseen, and the universe without them would be
motionless. We judge that they exist by examining
the results produced. We have better reason to be-
lieve in the existence of mind than of heat or light,
for our knowledge of mind is direct and immediate.
For the thinker to dispute his own existence is to an-
nihilate the universe. The mind must judge of its
own qualities first, and its decision in respect to the
nature of its powers must be accepted. Looking at

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 261

itself alone it might be constrained to believe that al]
existence is conscious,—that the universe is mind
alone; but looking also at the extenal world, it invari-
ably contrasts itself with matter and force, and judges
itself to be essentially different. It is not dificult for
even the most untutored savage to believe that his
soul is different from his body and from all the exter-
nal world. The common sense of mankind in all ages
has given a uniform decision in the matter of the ex-
istence of the soul, and it has ever thought it neces-
sary to explain mind by referring to some power
beyond the physical forces of nature.

After all, if we were to affirm that matter is con-
scious it would be saying that mind is, so far as we
know, indestructible and eternal. If mind and mat-
ter are identical, then mind is secure through eternity.
If moving molecules are mind, then moving atoms are
also mind.

If molecules of brain composed of carbon, hydro-
gen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus are conscious
and think and will, then each of these five simple sub-
stances must embody in itself or be in itself a certain
portion of consciousness, for the sum cannot be
greater than all the parts that compose it.

To affirm that organized matter is conscious—that
mind is a property of organized matter—is at bottom
to affirm that simple forms of matter also are con-
scious. So far as it can be traced in the laboratory,
organized matter consists of molecules made by the
union of elementary substances.

Mind has a scope of conscious relations to time,
space, matter, force, and to mind, that are entirely
different, so far as we can ascertain, from the rela-
tions of matter and force to each other.

Mind alone looks backward and forward in time,
searches space, determines the qualities of matter,

262 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

studies the forces of nature, and understands the
great multitude of its own conscious conditions. To
attempt to resolve all mental phenomena into mole-
cular motion, or into the properties of molecules, is
entirely beyond all analogy. To say that a train of
reasoning or a pang of conscience is due to the mo-
tion of small pieces of matter which compose the
brain, is to affirm that which is beyond the power of
thought and beyond belief.

That mind is in some way related to matter und
force is beyond question, but it does not follow that
it is identical with them.

The physical organism, with its mechanical powers,
is but the servant of the mind. The dominion of
mind is one of the most apparent facts in nature.
That the ruling power is the offspring of that which it
rules would seem to be impossible. That the soul is
only ‘“‘dust and ashes’’ it persistently shrinks from
believing. There is a deep-set and ineffaceable repug-
nance—a rebellion of the soul against every attempt to
identify it with matter, or to bring it under the con-
trol of matter. Consciousness of its supremacy is
ever present and persistent. Our consciousness is
that mind is different from all else, and that mind
is supreme over all else, by reason of its ability to
plan and to execute. This conscious dominion of
mind over matter and the forces of nature and over
all organic beings places it in a class distinct from
the rest of the world. It realizes that it is the right-
ful and sole heir to the throne which it occupies.

Material phenomena are made known to the soul
through the avenue of the senses, but we are con-
scious of mental phenomena that are not due to sen-
sation. An apple fell on Newton’s head, producing a
sensation, and this was followed by a course of reason-
ing which resulted in the discovery of the universal

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 263

law of gravitation. The pain produced by the stroke
of the apple, together with all the other sensations
aroused by the external world which Newton ever ex-
perienced,werenot equivalent to the process of reason-
ing by which he deduced the law. The faculty with
which we reason is not sensation.

Ten years ago we saw an object: an image of the
object was formed on the retina of the eye, and the
mind perceived the image and recorded it. To-day
we remember that we saw the image ten years ago.
How can we explain the act of remembering? The
act of remembering is not simply the reproduction of
a former mental condition, but it is also a recognition
of the fact that the former mental condition existed.
If the original impression made by seeing the object
could be regarded as simply a sensation, still the sub-
sequent act of remembering involves more than
sensation.

If we claim that the sight of the object left a mate-
rial record on the brain, and that this material record
is memory, we are in total darkness. Granted that a
material record is kept, what reads the record? Does
the record read itself? Memory is the power which
reads and identifies the record.

If we try to explain memory by supposing it to be
the vibrations of molecules of nerve matter, we must
suppose that molecules which vibrate to-day recog-
nize the fact, by vibrating, that ten years ago entirely
different molecules vibrated in a similar way. This
theory of molecular motion is entirely inadequate to
explain any mental condition whatever.

If we explain memory by saying, in general terms,
that it is the recurrence of a former condition of the
nervous system, this is insufficient, for the evident rea-
son that memory is more than this.

To explain memory, therefore, it is necessary to

264 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

assume more than molecular motion and more than
sensation. It is a faculty which cannot be derived
from matter, nor even from the senses of man.

Reason makes use of materials furnished by the
senses—compares, corrects and often rejects the testi-
mony of the senses. Therefore, reason is not the off-
spring of sensation.

The will is frequently exercised in opposition to the
strongest desires of the senses, thus showing that it is
essentially different from sensation.

If these high mental powers are more than sensa-
tion, then they could not have originated from the
senses, and we must conclude that they have had a
different origin.

In conclusion I need hardly say that I see no possi-
ble method by which the mind of man could have been
evolved. Its highest powers, I think, are essentially
different from the faculties of animals. They could
not have been evolved from instinct nor from sensa-
tion, for they are vastly more than these; nor could
they have been evolved from experiences of utility,
for such experiences imply the existence of faculties,
and can therefore, at most, only account for the
improvement of existing faculties; nor can they be
explained in terms of molecular motion, for the rela-
tion between mechanical motion and.conditions of the
mind are totally inconceivable. I therefore refer the
origin of the mind to the Infinite Intelligence which
has created the universe.

Mind, which believes in the existence of the Infinite
and the Eternal—which believes the universe to be
under the control of a Supreme Intelligence, is more
than a handful of dust—more than a transient breath.
To put mind on a level with matter and the forces of
aature, or with instincts and sensations is to drive it

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 265

from its throne of conscious supremacy—it is to ignore
our most certain experiences.

I see no reason why the human mind—the conscious
king over matter and force, over instincts and sensa-
tions—should abdicate and descend from the throne.

Mind alone can give meaning to the universe.
Without its presence flowers would bloom, stars
would shine and worlds would revolve in vain. By
mind and in the interests of mind all things are to be
interpreted; it is the beginning and the end.

Mind, which declares the existence of an intelligent
Creator, who has made and who sustains all things,
must occupy as mind more than transient relations to
this Creator.

I cannot close this chapter in a more appropriate
way than by quoting the closing paragraph of the
great Geology finished by Dana shortly before his
death. It comes as the parting word of one of the
greatest scientists and one of the noblest characters
that the world has produced. It is as follows:
*«* Whatever the results of further search, we feel
assured, in accord with Wallace, who shares with
Darwin in the authorship of the theory of Natural
Selection, that the intervention of a Power above
Nature was at the basis of Man’s development. Be-
lieving that Nature exists through the will and ever-
acting power of the Divine Being, and that all its
great truths, its beauties, its harmonies, are manifes-
tations of His wisdom and power, or'in the words
nearly of Wallace, that the whole Universe is not
merely dependent on, but actually is, the Will of one
Supreme Intelligence, Nature, with Man as its cul-
minant species, is no longer a mystery.”’ *

* Manual of Geology, p. 1036.

XVI.
A FUTURE LIFE.

Iv has been claimed that it is beyond the province
of science to deal with the question of a future life.
It seems to me that science may deal with all facts of
nature within our reach and draw such conclusions as.
these facts may justify.

In the preceding pages I have endeavored to show
that the existence of the human mind can be ac-
counted for only by assuming the existence of an In-
telligent Cause; that it cannot be explained in
terms of matter, ether and force; and that being dif-
ferent from these, its existence cannot he determined
by them.

The physicist is driven to assume the existence of
ether as a universal physical medium, and I think
that it is no less imperative to assume the existence of
God as a Universal Spirit.

The present existence of mind is the most certain
fact in the Universe, and the present may give assur-
ance for the future.

The human race has looked with steady gaze into
the future, and has believed and hoped that death will
not end all. This universal belief and desire to live
in the future are an assurance that the soul may sur-
vive.

Why and ‘‘ whence this strange desire, this longing
after immortality’’ if it must remain forever unsatis-

fied? Does nature mock herself? Does she promise
266

A FUTURE LIFE 267

more than she can fulfill? That she has made the
promise of a future existence in which the soul shall
preserve its conscious identity is written in the uni-
versal desire and belief of the human race in all
ages.

Nature affords the means for gratifying, in the most.
ample way, all of man’s natural desires. If he is
thirsty, she gives him water to quench his thirst. If
hungry, she offers him nourishing and delicious food
of athousand kinds to satisfy his hunger.

If he would enjoy the beautiful, the world abounds
in objects that gratify his love of the beautiful. If
he seeks and longs for immortality, it would seem to
be in harmony with the general workings of nature’s
laws that this greatest and most cherished of all
desires should be gratified.

Matter and force do not perish; they may change
their relations to each other, but not their essential
nature. Why shall we assume that mind, the ruler of
all, is an exception to indestructibility? Why shall
we say that the highest product of creation—that.
without which creation would have been a failure, so.
far as we can judge—must perish, while thoughtless,
senseless matter and force remain through the eternal
ages?

“T hold it truth with him who sings
To one clear harp in divers tones,

That men may rise on stepping-stones
Of their dead selves to higher things,”’

Must we believe that mind which declares the ex-
istence of an Infinite, Intelligent Creator is the most:
transient of all things?

The mind feels that it was not born to die. It
turns with abhorrence from the thought of annihila-
tion and seeks refuge in the hope of a happy exist-
ence through endless ages to come.

{

268 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

How can we explain the inheritance of these senti-
ments which are a part of our nature? How have
they originated and how have they been transmitted
from age to age? How are mental characteristics
transmitted from parents to offspring? Have the
traits of father and mother combined been handed
down through long ages by means of the few mole-
cules of matter that constitute the beginning of each
material organism? And what theory can satisfactor-
ily explain the formation of the organic germs of
living beings?

I need not say that heredity is one of the profound-
est mysteries of nature. To explain it bafiles the
powers of the imagination. While we may look upon
it as a natural process, yet in the deepest and truest
sense I regard it as a constantly recurring exhibition
of the Divine power. No miracle can be more won-
derful nor incomprehensible than the results of
heredity.

Nature is crowded with mysteries. Life is a mys-
tery. We know that we live, but how or why we
know not. That we may live in the future may as
well be a part of the great plan as that we live now.
Unless it can be shown that mind is necessarily de-
pendent for its existence on organic matter, a thing
which it is impossible to prove, then it may be possi-
ble for mind to exist after the body perishes.

A future life seems necessary in order that the
soul may make the endless progress of which it is
capable. The beast eats and lies down perfectly sat-
isfied. It soon makes the limited progress of which
itis capable. But the inquisitive mind of man is
never satisfied. It searches the universe in quest of
truth, and is ever anxious to enlarge its store of
knowledge.

It would seem probable that future opportunity

A FUTURE LIFE 269

might be granted to enlarge the work begun here but
left so incomplete at the close of even the longest
life.

‘*Then we shall know,”’ expresses an infinite long-
ing of the mind of man. The mind seeks to exhaust
the treasures of the universe. Has it been ordained
that this insatiable desire which would search out
God and bring to light all mysteries shall be buried in
the dust at the end of the few brief years of our
earthly pilgrimage? Would this not indicate an in-
completeness that does not elsewhere exist in nature?

22

“Thou wilt not leave us in the dust,
Thou madest man, we know not why;
He thinks he was not made to die,
And thou hast madehim, thou art just.

“My own dim life should teach me this,
That life shall live forevermore,
Else earth is darkness at the core,
And dust and ashes all that is.”?

Faith, hope, love, reason, conscience, imagination,
all look to the future for the fulfillment of their
desires. The boundless desires of the mind demand
further time and opportunity for the accomplishment
of their purposes.

We labor to-day that we and others may have
future material blessings in this life. The present
is made to serve the future. Man’s superiority con-
sists largely in the faet that his faculties cause him to
store up knowledge and materials for future use.
The man who lives for to-day only we count of little
worth, and he is very liable to be a reckless and dan-
ous man to society. Human life is dignified and en-
nobled by making present conduct administer not
only to present, but also to future good.

If the human race held the belief that death would
end all, what a change would be wrought in human
conduct! The belief in an infinite future for the soul

270 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

has been most invigorating to mental and moral life.
And shall we hold that this belief is but a dream,
and that a dream, never to be fulfilled, has been nec-
essary asa means of lifting man higher in the scale
of being? Has the Creator of the Universe so
ordered things that we must believe a falsehood in
order that we may go forward on the road of prog-
ress?

I think it safer to hold that man’s belief in a future
state of existence is ennobling because it is a prophecy
of the life to come. Nature is not out of joint, nor
false to her most sacred promises.

If we hold the universal belief in a future existence
to be but the result of an instinct inherited through
countless generations, yet must we account for the
instinct. The love of life is one of the strongest
instincts, and instincts are quite infallible. Instinct
comes by birth, and harmonizes with the facts of the
nniverse.

Whatever be the origin of the universal belief in a
future state of existence—whether instinct, reason or
revelation—the fact that this faith exists shows the
profoundest yearnings of human nature, and, from
analogy, we may believe that the future holds in store
the means of satisfying the boundless aspirations of
the human soul.

Life and death go hand in hand. The Power that
made life also ordained death. If life is good and
desirable, we may also trust that death is equally good
and not to be feared. Both are parts of the uni-
versal plan. We may trust that the Power that rules
will make no mistakes—that all things through the
endless ages will be wisely adjusted.

Time flows eternally, and events succeed each
other without intermission; among these events are
life and death, and they must be in harmony with

A FUTURE LIFE 271

each other. Death cannot be the contradiction of
life. In the endless chain of events death can only
be one link—a brief transition from the life that now
is to the life that is beyond. The stream of life flows
forever on. Death is not its end, but only the closed
door that shuts it out from mortal view.

Nature proclaims with universal voice that things
which are shall be. Change is not annihilation, but
the establishment of new relations. Matter, force
and mind exist for eternity.

The upward progress through the long ages indi-
cates that there may be other steps in the future.
Matter, plant life, animal life, grading from the sim-
plest organism, a single cell, with no sense except
that of touch, and that but feebly developed, on up
through more and more complex forms till we reach
the highest vertebrates, with all the senses highly
developed and with marvelous instincts; thence on by
the greatest of all steps of progress in creation to the
mind of man—this upward march of purpose in crea-
tion speaks of something higher yet to come.

The purpose of the Creator, it seems to me, cannot
be fulfilled by blotting out his noblest work, but
rather may it be by advancing the soul to other
opportunities for which the experiences of this life
have prepared it.

XVII.
DESIGN IN NATURE.

Dogs nature furnish satisfactory evidence of de-
sign, and, therefore, of the existence of an intelligent
Creator?

Nature seems to be a vast machine with infinitely
complicated parts—with springs, and levers, and
wheels within wheels, all nicely adjusted and lubri-
cated, and seemingly capable of perpetual motion.

We know not when its operations. began, nor can
we tell when they will end. Through the long ages.
of the past it has been ceaselessly at work producing
a series of results varying much in their nature. As
the ages have passed slowly by her spindles have
drawn out finer threads and her looms have woven
more wonderful fabrics.

The stream of creation has flowed upward. Begin-
ning in matter, it ended in mind. Matter and force,
vegetable life, animal life, animal instincts, and miod
constitute a series of steps upward that cannot be
explained in terms of matter, motion and force.

This upward movement in creation, culminating in
mind, which persistently refuses to be identified with
all else in creation, gives the broad assurance that the
Creator of all things is a God of Intelligence.

It seems reasonable to believe that the Creator is
not of a less exalted nature than the mind of man
which he has made. ‘‘ He who hath made the eye can

he not see? He who hath made the ear can he not
272

DESIGN IN NATURE 273

hear?’?’ He who hath made the mind of man can he
not think?

I am aware that this is poor logic to those who
attempt to explain all things in terms of matter,
motion and force. If they choose to explain the
highest by means of the lowest factors in creation, I
can say that I prefer to explain all by means of the
highest known power. Creation, as I believe, begins
in mind and ends in mind, while all things are to
serve the purposes of intelligence. »

The creation of matter alone, with nothing further
in view, would hardly seem to be an object. But a
world crowned with a being of noble mind, of far-
reaching intelligence, with capacities for interpreting
and enjoying all things, would seem to be an object
worthy of and demanding an intelligent Creator.

I will now present some of the facts pertaining to
the existence of living beings upon the earth which
are evidence of design.

The existence of the sun for many millions of
years at a temperature favorable to life upon the
earth, as shown by the presence of the great multi-
tude of forms of animal and vegetable life through
the long ages of geology, together with the proba-
bility that this condition will continue for millions of
years to come, is a mark of intelligence. The fact
that plants and animals have lived upon the earth for
millions of years is conclusively shown by the geo-
logical record.

Sir William Thomson thinks that the sun has not
probably illuminated the earth for more than 100,-
000,000 years, and that it has enough heat and light
to supply the earth at the present rate of radiation
for from 10,000,000 to 50,000,000 years to come.

When we remember the great extremes of tempera-
18

274 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

ture to which different parts of the universe are sub-
jected—the almost absolute zero of interstellar space,
the frigid moon, the sun with a temperature of thous-
ands of degrees—and when we remember that a
change of temperature of comparatively few degrees
would destroy all known forms of life, and that for
many millions of years the earth’s temperature has
been so uniform that life has existed in abundance,
nothing short of intelligent purpose can explain these
facts. Even if we accept the theory that the sun’s
heat has been generated by the bombardment of me-
teors, which is, indeed, the most plausible physical
theory, yet it would seem to require Divine intelli-
gence and power to keep the supply uniform.

In addition to the quite uniform temperature of
the sun during this long period, certain conditions
were necessary upon the earth in order to prevent its
temperature from undergoing much greater variation
than has taken place. The existence of the atmos-
phere around the earth and of moisture in the atmos-
phere is of the greatest importance in retaining the
heat of the sun which has reached the surface of the
earth. The rays of heat of high refrangibility readily
pass through the atmosphere to the earth, but on
striking the earth they are changed to rays of low
refrangibility, which do not readily escape through
the atmosphere into space.

Also, the large quantity of water upon the surface
of the earth has much to do in rendering the climate
uniform. The high specific heat of water enables it
to absorb a large quantity of heat without undergoing
much change of temperature, and this heat is slowly
given up by the water to render the climate more
uniform.

The production of a uniform climate through long
periods involved not only a sun of uniform tempera-

DESIGN IN NATURE 275

ture, but also the existence of an atmosphere and of
a large quantity of water on the earth.

In addition to these things, the fact that water
expands on cooling from 4° Centigrade until it
reaches O° and freezes, thus rendering the ice con-
siderably lighter than the water, so thut it floats on
the surface, is a matter of much importance. If,
instead of expanding when it freezes, it were to fol-
low the almost universal law and contract on cooling
to the freezing point, the ice formed would be heavier
than water and would sink to the bottom of rivers
and lakes, thus causing it to accumulate in much
larger quantities than at present; so much would
probably be formed, owing to the fact that the sur-
face water would not be protected by ice as it now is,
that it would probably destroy all life, at least in the
fresh waters of the globe.

These large provisions in nature, adapting the
earth to the existence of a countless number of or-
ganic forms, we cannot regard as having been pro-
duced by chance.

The distance of the earth from the sun is such as
to give a temperature favorable to life. If ether
exists, its resistance to the progress of the earth in its
orbit is causing the earth to slowly approach the sun
ina spiral orbit, and this gradual approach may pos-
sibly compensate for a decrease in the radiant energy
of the sun.

The length of days and nights on most parts of the
earth is of great importance in helping to preserve a
uniform temperature which favors the existence of
living organisms. If the days and nights were much
lengthened, it is evident that this would produce
much greater extremes of temperature than at pres-
ent.

The fact, also, that the northern hemisphere of the

276 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

earth, in which is much the greater part of dry land,
is nearer the sun in winter than ip summer, and that
the reverse is true of the southern hemisphere, in
which most of the water exists, is a wise provision
for preventing those extremes of temperature which
would occur if the sun were in aphelion in our win-
ter and in perihelion in our summer.

Also, the various seasons of the year are well
adapted to the growth of vegetation and to the wel-
fare of animals. The seasons are due to inclination
of the earth’s axis to the ecliptic, and their length is
determined by the time required for the earth to
revolve round the sun.

The wonderful chemical laws to which atoms are
subject—the law of combination according to atomic
weights, and the law of multiple proportions, show
the infinite wisdom and power of the Creator. Each
atom of matter is stamped with power that is definite
and invariable, so that it acts with absolute precision
in all that it does. Thus the primary building mate-
rials of the universe show that they are the workman-
ship of an Infinite Intelligence. Can the chemist
who understands the great multitude of ways in
which elements combine according to well-known and
invariable laws doubt that behind these laws there is
a ruling Intelligence? JI have already sufiiciently con-
sidered these laws in the chapter on Matter.

If we consider the kinds and relative quantities of
simple substances that are found in the earth, with
reference to the existence of living beings, and finally
of man upon the earth, I think that the evidences of
design are unmistakable.

It is evident that many material conditions must be ~
fulfilled before it is possible for any living thing with
which we are acquainted to exist, and vastly greater
must be the number. of such conditions before a

DESIGN IN NATURE 277

world, adapted not only to the existence of man, but
also to the gratification of his innumerable desires,
could be established.

A world which contains an almost infinite number
of different objects which may contribute to the
physical and mental well-being of man—a world fur-
nished with many forces which he can use as instru-
ments to accomplish his purposes—a world of infinite
but harmonious complications of materials and
forces, which, the better they are understood, the
more they serve the highest purposes of intelligence
—such a world cannot be separated from the idea of
an intelligent Creator.

If we inquire concerning the possibility of the ex-
istence of living beings upon the earth, and more
especially as to the possibility of man’s existence and
welfare here, with the idea of creation by chance on
the one hand, and according to intelligent purpose on
the other, I feel sure that we shall find the weight of
facts to be greatly in favor of the latter.

For this purpose I will now consider the kinds and
relative quantities of simple substances that enter
into the composition of the earth.

About seventy elements are well known to the
chemist. Of this number, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen
and nitrogen are necessary in the composition of
every livingorganism. In addition to these, in most
animals, calcium, iron, sodium, phosphorus, sulphur,
chlorine, and, perhaps, some other elements are nec-
essary. In plants additional elements are found.

The human body contains sixteen elements, most of
which exist in very small relative quantities. The
soft parts of animals are composed almost exclusively
of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. In addi-
tion to these four elements, the earthy part of bones
contains calcium and phosphorus, while shells are

278 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

composed of calcium combined with carbon and
oxygen. Plants are composed mostly of carbon,
hydrogen and oxygen, with a small per cent of nitro-
zen, together with the ingredients of the ash.

Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen are pre-
eminently the most important elements in the organic
world. If any oneof these elements had been left
out of the earth, or if it had been bound up in cer-
tain compounds in the earth’s crust, so that it could
not be used by living beings, then life could not exist.

Considering them in detail: Oxygen constitutes
more than one-fifth of the volume and nearly one-
fourth the weight of the air, in which it is mixed,
but not chemically combined, with nitrogen. It com-
prises eight-ninths of the weight of water, and from
forty to fifty per cent of the solid crust of the earth.
It is by far the most abundant element in the surface
of the earth; and when we consider the fact that it
combines with each of the seventy elements -except
one, we at once see the necessity for its great abun-
dance. If there had been only enough to aid in form-
ing the solid crust of the earth, then water and the
free oxygen of the air would not exist, and life would
be impossible.

If to the oxygen entering into the solid part of the
earth there had been added the enormous quantity
that ig found in water, and no more, then the free
oxygen of the air would be absent, and animal life
could not exist, for all animals require free oxygen.

Hydrogen is another element that is necessary in
the structure of every living thing. Its absence would
mean the absence of life. It constitutes one-ninth of
the weight of water, and it forms a part of certain
other compounds that serve as food for plants. If it
existed in only small quantity, as is the case with
most elements, then it would all be locked up in com- -

DESIGN IN NATURE 279

pounds that compose the crust of the earth, so that
there would be no free water, and life could not ex-
ist. If it had existed in much greater quantity than
at present, it would have combined with all the free
oxygen of the air, thus forming more water, and ren-
dering animal life impossible.

Carbon is a third element that is necessary in every
living being. It exists largely in carbonates, of which
limestone is the chief; also, in coal, coal-oil, and
‘‘natural gas.’’ One of its most important com-
pounds is carbon dioxide, or carbonic acid, which ex-
ists in small quantity in the air, and from this gas
plants obtain their supply of carbon.

If the quantity of carbon had been largely increased
it would have combined with all the free oxygen of
the air, converting it into carbon dioxide, thus ren-
dering life impossible.

If the quantity had been much smaller than it is,
then none would have been stored up in the form of
coal for the use of man, and the supply in the atmos-
phere would long since have been exhausted by plants,
thus rendering the earth lifeless.

Nitrogen is a fourth necessary element. Free nitro-
gen comprises about four-fifths of the volume of the
air. It also helps to form certain compounds which
exist in small quantities in the soil, and which are nec-
essary food for plants. These compounds do not
accumulate in large quantities in the soil, owing to
the fact that they are very soluble and are conse-
quently carried away by running water into the oceans.
Besides, their presence in large quantities in the soil
would be destructive to vegetation.

To keep up the necessary supply of nitrogen com-
pounds in the soil, it is claimed that the free nitrogen
of the air is, by the process of nitrification, being
slowly converted into food for plants. The supply of

280 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

free nitrogen is, however, so great that it will, no
doubt, last for millions of years.

If the supply of this element had been very small,
its compounds would long since have been washed
into the oceans, thus rendering the growth of plants,
and, consequently, animal life on the dry land, impos-
sible.

Besides, if the quantity of nitrogen in the air were
greatly decreased, thus leaving the atmosphere mostly
oxygen, the destructive effect of conflagrations would
be so great that cities could not exist, and the perils
to property and to human life would be greatly mul-
tiplied.

If the quantity of nitrogen in the air were largely
increased, then the oxygen of the air would be too
much diluted to serve, in the best way, the purposes
of breathing and combustion.

Phosphorus is a fifth element that is necessary to
the organic world. It is found in greatest abundance
in the seeds of plants and the bones of animals. It
exists in small quantities, as phosphates, in all fertile
soils. In the free state it is extremely poisonous,
and its preponderance, as an element, in the structure
of the earth would destroy all life, either directly, as a
poison, or indirectly, by uniting with all the oxygen
of the air.

The metal calcium is a necessary part of bones, and
of the shells of animals. There is nothing, so far as
we know, that could take the place of phosphate of
calcium in the growth of bones, or of carbonate of
calcium in shells and corals.

In addition to the above, iron, chlorine, sulphur,
sodium and other elements are important and prob-
ably necessary in most plants and animals. If any
one of the various metals of the alkalies had greatly
preponderated in the composition of the earth, then

DESIGN IN NATURE . 281

its waters might have been alkaline and its surface an
alkaline waste.

If chlorine were as abundant as oxygen, then the
air would be laden with a deadly gas; or if bromine
were as abundant, the streams on the surface of the
earth would be liquid poison.

The various poisonous elements exist in such small
quantities that they are all locked up in harmless and
useful compounds. Many of the most useful com-
pounds contain elements which, in the uncombined
condition, would be destructive to life. Common
salt, for example, is composed of two deadly ele-
ments.

Again, it was necessary in order to form stable con-
tinents that would remain permanently above the
water of the oceans, that most of the minerals on
the surface of the earth should be quite insoluble in
water, otherwise the land would soon be carried in
solution into the oceans. This object has been well
accomplished by the great abundance of especially a
few elements, such as silicon, aluminum, calcium,
magnesium, iron, carbon, oxygen and others, which
form harmless, insoluble compounds, and which are
adapted, not only to give permanence to the conti-
nents, but also to form proper soils for the growth of
plants.

I might continue indefinitely with regard to the
kinds and relative quantities of elements in the earth
as related to the existence and welfare of plants,
animals and man. The number of relative quantities
in which the seventy known elements might exist so
as to render life impossible is inconceivably great,
and when we add to this the probability that some
one or more of the various elements necessary to life
would, if left to chance to select, have been omitted,
it amounts, I think, to a certainty that the creation of

282 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the earth cannot have taken place without the guid-
ance of a Supreme Intelligence.

Let him who believes in the doctrine of chance in
creation, calculate the probabilities for and against
the proposition that matter, assuming it to exist,
could be collected by chance, of such kinds and in
such relative quantities that life of any kind would be
possible, and then let him calculate the additional
contingencies that are involved in the existence of
man as an animal, and then of man as a being of
lofty intelligence with many desires to gratify, and
then let him add the difficulties involved in the exist-
ence of the sun at the proper temperature for mill-
ions of years, and of the earth’s motions and rela-
tions to the sun, and I think that he will agree that
the probabilities of creation by chance are few com-
pared to those in favor of creation by an Intelligent
Cause.

It will be noticed that I have been speaking of a
very complex condition of things that must exist be-
fore living organisms, such as those with which we are
acquainted, could originate and continue to live on
the earth. These complex inanimate conditions
could not have been evolved from each other. We
know of no method by which any one of the seventy
elements found in the structure of the earth can be
produced from any other one.

The kinds of primary building materials and their
relative quantities, as found in the earth, could not
have been determined by the process of evolution.
If the doctrine of evolution is true aside from a con-
trolling Intelligence in the creation of the earth, then
evolution must account for both the kinds and the
quantities of the elements that exist in the earth—a
thing which, I think, it is totally incapable of doing.
IT cannot too strongly emphasize my conviction that

DESIGN IN NATURE 283

the extremely complex nature of physical condi-
tions which must precede life, and which are well
adapted to the existence of countless forms of living
beings, and to the gratification of the innumerable
desires of an intelligent, moral being, such as man,
could not have been produced by chance nor by an
evolution destitute of a controlling Intelligence. The
argument in favor of design, I think, might safely
rest on this branch of the evidence.

I will now consider the evidence of design as seen
in the existence of man under present conditions.
The doctrine of evolution is not opposed to the idea
of design, unless evolution is atheistic—a thing which
most evolutionists do not claim.

The same intelligence would be required to make a
machine in a year that would be necessary to con-
struct itin a day. The length of time occupied in
creation cannot affect the answer to the question of
design, one way or the other.

That the body of man is composed of matter there
can be no dispute. That man would be just as noble
if evolved from a gorilla as if created directly from
inorganic matter, is also true.

The question as to how long it took to make man
from inorganic matter—whether one minute or a hun-
dred million years—would not seem to be a matter of
great importance, and yet this question, I think,
involves the essential difference between those who
believe in creation by fiat and by evolution.

To lift a hundred pounds a thousand feet high in
a vertical line requires the same amount and kind of
force as to lift it a thousand feet high by rolling it
up 2 long inclined plane.

If it would require intelligence to construct a full-
grown living man in an hour from earth, water and

284 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

air, it would require equal intelligence to make him in
a million years. Unless time and intelligence are
essentially the same, it is futile to attempt to substi-
tute the former for the latter as a factor in creation.

If I were the only human being known to myself
on the earth, and should go out some day and meet a
man, and then begin to inquire and reason concerning
his origin, what would be the logical conclusion to
which I might come? Was he created by chance or
by design?

For the purpose of answering this question I pro-
ceed to obtain all the possible facts. I examine him
as a piece of mechanism, and find him exceedingly
complex—composed of bones, muscles, nerves, carti-
lage, and various other tissues; I find that the mus-
cles are more than five hundred in number, of many
shapes and sizes, and so attached to the bones and
other parts as to give infinite varieties of motion, and
so arranged as to furnish strength and beauty.

I look more closely and see that each muscle is
composed of fibers of microscopic size, each fiber of
cells, and each cell of molecules formed by the union
of many atoms of several elements.

I examine the frame-work of his body and find it
composed of more than two hundred bones, differing
much in size and shape, and joined together so as to
permit the most varied motions, or firmly united in
order to furnish the best protection to the most deli-
cate organs. I find them to be of such shapes and
sizes, and composed of such materials and occupying
such relations to each other as to constitute a perfect
mechanism for motion and protection.

I look with the microscope, and see that what be-
fore seemed to be solid bone is permeated by tubes
and by small openings in all directions, which serve
as highways for the passage of nourishment.

DESIGN IN NATURE 285.

I find in him a complex alimentary canal, for the
reception and digestion of food, connected with which
are various complex glands which secrete from the
blood peculiar juices that are capable of preparing
the food to enter the blood.

I see all these organs working in perfect harmony,
both by mechanical means and by the wonderful
chemical processes of digestion, to prepare the food
for the nourishment of the body.

I follow the digested food through certain organs
which help to prepare it, into the blood. Then I see
the heart, a double force-pump of wonderful struc-
ture, pump this life-giving blood through a most
intricate system of channels into every part of the
body, in order that every nerve, and fiber, and cell
may renew its life. I see each separate tissue take
from the blood, as if by instinct, just what it needs to
renew itself, and nothing more, and transform it into
new living tissue like itself. I see the blood gather
and carry from all parts of the body the worn-out
tissues that have been rendered useless by doing their
work, and carry them to the lungs, kidneys, and skin,
in which complicated organs the waste materials that
would soon poison the body to death are removed
fram the blood and cast into the external world.

I see the lungs constantly at work pumping out
deadly materials and pumping in oxygen to be used in
liberating heat and other forms of energy for the use
of the body.

I see the brain, an organ of most delicate and com-
plex structure, connected with its intricate system of
nerves, with their countless fibers, extending, like a
system of telegraph wires, to every part of the body.

I see the various organs which compose his ex-
tremely complex body performing their numerous
functions in perfect harmony. Each organ knows

286 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

when and how to work, and how much to do. Each
works for itself and for all the others. They con-
stitute a well-organized, well-trained society of work-
ers in which the division of labor is carried to per-
fection. They are so well trained that most of them
perform their work without being under conscious
control.

I look again and see within, seated upon the throne
of the brain, a king of wondrous power and wisdom.
I hear him say, ‘‘I see and know myself. I am king
within this realm.’’

I see numerous messages of various kinds gliding
noiselessly into him through the delicate nerve fibers,
and I see him send back swift and unerring answers.
Again I hear him say, ‘‘ I rule also a realm outside of
myself, and receive tribute from all things on earth
and from afar.”’

I see him looking out throngh the windows and
doors of his soul and holding communion with the
external world. The morning breeze touches his
brow and he smiles in recognition. The sense of
taste adds enjoyment to the eating of his food. The
ear reveals to him the world of sound and of har-
mony, and the eye that of form and color and of end-
less activities and beauties.

I see him with instruments of his own invention
measure the distance to the sun, moon and planets,
and hear him declare with mathematical precision the
times of their coming and going in the heavens.

I see the streams of past experience flowing into
his soul through the channel of memory, and the
future brought near by the exercise of his imagination.

I see his heart glow with love for his fellow-men,
his eye kindle with righteous indignation at the sight
of outrage, and his conscience tremble at the thought
of sin.

DESIGN IN NATURE 287

I see him going forth over the face of the earth
and bringing all things into subjection to himself.
The beasts of the field are conquered and made to
serve him. By his hands forests are leveled, and the
soil is made to yield her increase in a thousand useful
fruits and grains. By his hands cities rise, railroads
‘‘annihilate space,’’ telegraphs dispense with time,
and ships bridge the oceans.

I see him leading in captivity at his chariot-wheels
all the forces of nature, and sending forth the deadly
lightning on messages of mercy and love.

I press to my ear an instrument which he has in-
vented, and recognize his voice through a thousand
miles. Through the phonograph I may hear the
songs of the departed, or listen to the embalmed elo-
quence of orators who have been dead a thousand
years.

‘I see this man reaching out in all directions, and
with conscious intelligence laying hold on all kinds of
matter and all the forces of nature, on infinite worlds
and infinite time and infinite space, and binding them
together into a harmonious universe.

I hear him declare that behind all that human eye
has ever seen, or human ear has ever heard, there is
one Power which has made all and which works in
and through all. In a word, I see in man a body most
intricate in the construction and arrangement of its
parts, all delicately adjusted to each other so that
they work in perfect harmony; self-regulating, capa-
ble of repairing themselves as rapidly as they are
worn out, and of making known their need of rest; a
body which, in structure and functions, is highly
adapted to the wants of the soul that dwells within.

I see in him a soul of many powers, of unbounded
desires, a seeker after infinite knowledge, a believer
in the infinite and the eternal, with a hope that

288 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

reaches within the veil, with aspirations as high as
the heavens, with a faith that must ever outrun
knowledge, and with a Christ-like love.

If we knew that this man was made from inorganic
matter. in a day, could there be any doubt of design
by the Creator? If the power that made him pro-
longed the miracle through a million years, could
this fact decrease the evidence of design? Is it pos-
sible that time alone may become a substitute for
intelligence? If not, then the evidence of design is
complete.

But the objector may claim that the creation of
man in a day from inorganic matter would be a mir-
acle, which implies the existence of a designing Intel-
ligence, and that, on the other hand, the evolution of
man in a million years requires the action of second-
ary agencies alone. To this I reply that the creation
of man in a short time does not exclude the use of
secondary agencies, nor does his creation in a long
period exclude the action of the primary Cause.

We cannot know whether the creation of living
beings was by means of secondary agencies or not,
nor can we know the length of time occupied in the
creation of any organism. Whether I do a given
work without tools or with them cannot exclude my
design in doing the work. Whether the Creator of
man employed secondary agencies or not cannot affect
the necessity of design.

There stands a magnificent temple composed of a
million stones. If the architect built it in a day, it
shows design. If he set in motion machinery which
prepared and put in place one stone a year for a
million years, the evidence of design would seem
even more wonderful. And so it is true, I think,
that the questions as to the length of time and as to

DESIGN IN NATURE 289

secondary agencies in creation can have no bearing on
the question of design. :

I dwell on this for the reason that some people
seem to imagine that by beginning with nothing, and
adding little by little through the ages, we may
obtain a given product from factors different from
those that would be required if the work were done
inashorttime. Time alone cannot change the qual-
ity of the factors involved.

Design is not only seen in looking at man as an
isolated individual, but also in his multitudinous rela-
tions. All things visible are made to contribute to
his physical well-being or his intellectual growth, and
the unseen powers of nature are his servants.

The world without him would, as a matter of ulti-
mate design, seem to be incomplete. He fits into the
place which, through the long ages, the Creator had
been preparing for him. He‘came as the crowning
act of creation to control and enjoy a world of con-
ditions and objects which it had required ages to
prepare.

Creation through its long geological history was a
perpetual prophecy of something higher and better to
come—a constant march upward toward mind as the
goal. Each of the ten thousand things that could be
of use to an intelligent being only, was a prophecy of
the coming man; and when he came and converted
these things, which had been so long in waiting, to his
use, the prophecy was fulfilled.

Many things upon the earth are useless to all organ-
isms below man. This is true of most elementary
substances and minerals, and largely true of most
plants and of many animals.

Man’s appearance completed the divine purpose of
bringing under the contro] of intelligence aH created
things. ee was fulfilled in the creation of a new

290 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

designer. In him is fulfilled at once a multitude of
the highest purposes, in that he possesses powers by
which he can understand and bring into use all
things, and make them contribute to the welfare of
mind,

The existence of beauty in many forms, in every
department of nature, and man’s capacity to enjoy
the beautiful, are marks of design indicating the wis-
dom and beneficence of the Creator.

The wor!d might have been created by design, and
everything made with a view to utility alone, but we
find that creation goes far beyond this by furnishing
the capacities and the means for enjoyment to a far
greater extent than the existence of an intelligent
being strictly demands. Man has been endowed with
a great wealth of capacities which not only enable
him to exist as an intelligent being, but also to enjoy
to the fullest extent the countless beauties that fill
the earth.

In whatever direction he turns his eyes, beauties of
some kind greet him. The earth is clothed with beau-
tiful green vegetation. Innumerable forms of plants
bear flowers of infinite varieties of shapes and colors
and sizes—flowers of delicate fragrance, and fruits
delicious to the taste. The forests are composed of
beautiful trees, among whose branches are birds of
beautiful plumage.

The earth yields her many gems of beauty which
vie with the rainbow in the delicacy of their tints.
The sea abounds in beautiful corals, delicately-tinted
shells of beautiful forms, and in objects innumerable
that can delight the eye.

The heavens are flooded with clouds painted by the
setting sun with crimson and purple and gold, and
with a multitude of other rich and delicate colors,
forming pictures so variable, gorgeous and sublime,

DESIGN IN NATURE 291

that their imitation is beyond the dreams of the
painter.

From the countless worlds that sparkle in the heav-
ens at night, the eye, aided by the spectroscope and
the telescope, gathers wondrous beauty, while the
microscope reveals the beautiful workmanship of a
world of objects that are almost infinitely small.

Beauty reigns everywhere—in the heavens above, on
the earth, in the earth, and beneath the waters. In
the world of beauty, and in the capacity of man to
enjoy this beauty, is manifested a quality of work-
manship that points to the existence of an intelligent
Creator.

Design in the creation of man is also shown in his
moral nature,—in his adaptations as a moral agent to
his fellow-men, and in his ability to comprehend an
ideal system of truth by which he can regulate his
conduct. Without the moral nature, human life,
even with all of man’s intelligence would be a
failure.

Again, design appears in the fact that man is a
religious being, who seeks to know the Creator and to
bring his thoughts and feelings and conduct into har-
mony with his purposes.

I am aware that there are those who regard man’s
religious nature as simply long-inherited superstition,
which serves, perhaps, a very good temporary purpose
in his present condition, but I look upon it as a fact
which points to an intelligent Creator with whom
man sustains spiritual relations.

The fact that law prevails everywhere in nature,
and that man can understand and obey it, is evidence
of intelligent purpose in creation. <A lawless world
would be a godless world. In such a world life could
not exist.

The laws of nature are the methods by which

292 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

nature does her work. The forces of nature-do their
-work in certain definite and uniform ways, so that we
can predict with certainty the results of a given set
of physical conditions. In every law of nature is
implied the idea that like causes produce like effects.
and that unlike causes produce unlike effects. As
the cause varies so must the effect vary.

Law prevails from atom to world. All true science
is the embodiment of law. The natural sciences show
nature’s methods of doing her work. Man’s exist-
ence depends upon the fact that the laws of nature
are quite uniform. When he has learned them once
his knowledge holds good for an indefinite time.
They furnish a permanent basis for conduct and en-
able him to prophesy future results. Armed with the
knowledge of law, man is prepared to live in the
world and to make further progress.

The succession of events in nature is uniform only
so far as the causes producing them are uniform.
The causes of certain classes of events are uniform,
and results in these cases may be repeated with math-
ematical exactness—as is the case with chemical
actions which produce compounds that are absolutely
alike.

In other cases the causes vary, thus producing
unlike results, even where it might be supposed that
they would be alike. This is seen in the animal and
vegetable kingdoms, in which no two individuals of
even the same species are alike. Parent and offspring
always differ from each other. _

In the organic world there is no such thing as uni-
formity in nature in the sense that nature repeats
herself with absolute exactness. When we speak,
therefore, of the laws of nature, we do not mean
that the results of the operations of nature are neces-
sarily uniform.

DESIGN IN NATURE 293

Events are chained together as cause and effect.
When we see unlike effects we infer unlike causes, or
if we know the causes to be unlike, we may predict
that the effects will be unlike. Uniformity in the
laws of nature means that like {causes produce like
effects—and this in turn means that matter and force
are indestructible—that they are neither increased
nor decreased. If nature had methods by which she
could either increase or decrease her quantity of en-
ergy, then we could have no means of knowing what
results would be produced, even approximately, for
causes of events might constantly vary.

‘The fact that the events of nature succeed each
other according to uniform principles is of the great-
est importance to the welfare of man, and I regard
this as evidence of the intelligence and wisdom of the
unseen Power that controls all things.

I have considered man in relationto design, because
I believe that in him as an isolated being, and also in
his infinite relations of body and mind to the external
world, it is most comprehensively manifested.

While this is true, it is none the less evident that
every living organism shows by its structure, which
adapts it to its peculiar mode of existence, the evidence
of adaptation of means to ends, so that by consider-
ing these, the force of the argument is vastly multi-
plied. The earth is crowded with organic beings,
mixed in endless ways, yet all are capable of obtain-
ing food and they are nicely adapted to their environ-
ments.

That we do not understand why some of them were
created is no evidence of the absence of design. It
is only within recent times that man has learned
much concerning nature, and the more he learns the
more evident the fact of design becomes.

This is true especially in the relation of things to

294 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

himself. Many things that were formerly regarded as
worthless, have, in recent times, been made to minis-
ter to his welfare.

Many organisms that would seem to be useless
serve to advance the general good of the organic
world. Numerous humble forms, such as worms and
insects, loosen the soil, thus adapting it the better for
the growth of plants, while all organic beings by
the decomposition of their bodies render the soil
more fertile. In fact, the fertility of soils depends
largely upon the decomposition of organic remains.
Many organisms act as scavengers, thus helping to
purify the earth and to render it a more fit dwelling-
place for man.

The relations between minerals, plants and ani-
mals show a wise economy in the use of materials.
Minerals serve as food for plants, and plants as food
for animals; and when these organisms decay they
give back to the air and the soil the materials of
which they are composed, mostly in such inorganic
forms as serve for the food of plants. In this way
the same matter may enter in succession into count-
less organic beings.

Plants purify the air for animals by removing from
it carbon dioxide, and animals exhale this gas for the
use of plants. During the Carboniferous Age, the
amount of carbon dioxide which plants removed from
the air was enormous, as is shown by the great depos-
its of coal in many parts of the world, and in this
way the air was the better adapted to the use of the
higher animals, and coal was stored up in anticipa-
tion of the coming man.

Organic matter has also, by its deoxidizing power,
played an important part in storing up in many places
beds of iron ore for the use of man.

The wonderful adaptations of many flowers and in-

DESIGN IN NATURE 295

sects to each other, as to the fertilization of the
former, and as to the life of the individual insect and
the propagation of its kind, are evidence of design.
For example, there are certain species of plants that
are dependent for their fertilization on certain species
of moths which live in the flowers, and the moths, in
turn, are dependent on the plants. They deposit their
eggs in the ovaries of the flowers where the young
are hatched and nourished. The moths in some cases
carry the pollen and place it on the stigmas of the
flowers, as if guided by intelligence. Their action is
a most marvelous case of instinct.

We might consider the subject of adaptations in-
definitely. The world is full of them. Every organ-
ism, viewed with regard to its own existence, is an
example, for it has the capacity to obtain its food and
to contend with other organisms in the struggle for
existence. Every organism has also the capacity to
adapt itself, to a certain extent, to varying conditions,
and many of them exhibit it in remarkable ways, as is
shown by the various methods by which they adapt
themselves to different periods of their development
and to the different seasons of the year.

Taking the great mass of facts bearing on the ques-
tion of design, while there are some things that we do
not understand, yet there is so much that is plain—
so infinite are the adaptations in nature, many of
which, especially the adaptations of the inorganic to
the organic world, cannot be explained by the theory
of evolution,—that it would seem to leave but little
room for doubt.

Like other questions with which we have to deal,
it must be decided by the weight of evidence, and one
is not called upon, before making a decision, to an-
swer every conceivable objection. If this were re-

296 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

quired in a court of justice, few cases could ever be
decided.

I will now consider certain objections that have
been offered against the theory of design in nature.
One very commonly urged is, that design will not
account for rudimentary organs. It is asked, for ex-
ample, why is it that unborn calves have teeth in the
upper jaw which never cut through the gums? I
would answer this question by asking and answering
this larger question, namely, why is it that the calf is
here at all? :

There are hundreds of parts in a calf which are not
rudimentary and which are marvelously adjusted to
each other in structure and function. In deciding the
case as a juror, as to whether or not the calf is an in-
dication of design, shall the fact that it has several
rudimentary teeth in the upper jaw during the early
period of its existence outweigh the hundreds of facts
of perfect structure and function and adaptation on
the other side? Is it not safe to say that the hun-
dreds of facts which indicate design, ought to deter-
mine my decision in the face of the one fact in which
I may not be able to see any design? If not, then the
rules of evidence must be reversed.

Again, we are told that man has a vermiform
appendix, which seems to be useless, and into which
hard substances sometimes find their way and pro-
duce disease and death. Therefore, God did not
make the vermiform appendix nor (by implication)
did he make any other part of man. And so it hap-
pens again, that the thousand well known facts in
favor of design are made to weigh less than one fact
which might seem to be opposed to it.

If the thousand facts can be satisfactorily accounted
for without assuming design, then the theory sug-

DESIGN IN NATURE 297

gested by the one fact may stand, otherwise it must
fall.

Rudimentary organs constitute one of the principal
strongholds of the evolutionists against the theory of
design. It is evident, however, that if an organ
should become rudimentary by disuse, this fact is not
opposed to design. On the other hand, it would
seem to be in harmony with design, that, as a useful
organ becomes useless, if this ever happens, it would
gradually disappear. If this were true, however, it is
no evidence that organs can arise de novo and be
brought to perfection by the process of evolution.

Again, we are told that there are defects in nature
which show the absence of design. The question as to
whether anything in nature should be regarded as an
imperfection or not, can arise only in regard to the
relation of living beings to their environments. So
far as the relations of the different kinds of inorganic
matter to each other are concerned they are equally
perfect, whatever they may be.

The world is adapted in infinite ways to the exist-
ence of countless forms of living beings. The fact
that each organism is so well adapted to its environ-
ment shows the lack of imperfection. The great
length of time through which many forms have ex-
isted with little change in their structure—the fact
that animals and plants, similar to those now living,
have lived through the long geological ages, shows the
completeness of the adaptations of the earth to
organic beings.

Conditions which may be perfect for some organ-
isms may be imperfect for others. If the million
species of living organisms could speak with regard to
the conditions most favorable to their existence, there
would be a great multitude of different answers.
Some would declare the land, others the water, and

298 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

others still the air, to be the only perfect place in
which to live; and there would be an endless number
of voices from every nook and corner and crevice of
the earth—from under rocks and logs, from holes in
the ground, from inside and outside of every species
of vegetation, from caves and mountain tops, from
the hottest desert and from the temperate and the
frigid zones, from deepest ocean and from shallowest.
pool—each creature, from the smallest microscopic
form to the huge whale a hundred feet in length,
would declare that its mode of life and its place of
existence arethe most desirable. According to these
answers there would be a countless number of stand-
ards of perfection.

We, however, are accustomed to judge of the per-
fection of nature from its relations to man. The infi-
nite adaptations of nature to all organisms below man
are presumptive evidence that nature is quite per-
fectly adapted to him.

The fact that he has been here for thousands of
years, and that he has made, and is still making, prog- ~
ress—the fact that whatever work he desires to under-
take, he finds the means for its accomplishment at.
hand, whether it is to lay an Atlantic cable, cut a
Mount Cenis tunnel, suspend a Brooklyn bridge, blow
up Hell-Gate, talk around the world, or bring distant
worlds into view, the materials and forces for the
accomplishment of these purposes have been prepared
in advance. The Creator has anticipated all the
wants of man’s highest intelligence. The more fully
his intelligence is developed the more perfect nature
appears in her adaptations to him, and, judging from
the past, we may well believe that in the future, as
his knowledge becomes more perfect, the perfections
of nature will be more and more revealed, until what
now seem to be imperfections will wholly disappear.

DESIGN IN NATURE 299:

The savage, judging from his low standpoint of
knowledge, would probably decide that most things
in the world are useless, many of which the civilized
man has found to be of the greatest use.

Our adverse judgments of to-day against nature
may be reversed by future generations. Because we
do not understand the importance of certain things
now, it is no evidence that they are useless. If we
had lived in the Carboniferous Age, when the coal
was being formed, we might have thought its forma-
tion a useless waste of vegetation; or if we had lived
in the Silurian Age, we would have thought that the
earth as a place for man was a failure, and that it
would always remain a failure.

It has required whole geological ages to reveal some
of the [purposes of the Creator, and, doubtless, the
process of revelation, made possible by the progress
of man, will continue for ages to come.

The wisdom and purposes of the Creator in the
things created are unfolded as rapidly as man is pre-
pared to receive them. It is, doubtless, not the lack
of perfection in the things created, but man’s lack of
ability, that causes the seeming discord.

With regard to man, it might seem that it would
have been better for him if the world had been
made so that it would require less effort on his part,
and yet we do not know that this is true. The
countless difficulties with which he must contend
develop his physical and intellectual powers, and
enable him to rise higher.

If the physical blessings of life were all given to
him without any effort on his part, there would be
little incentive to progress. We know that man is
made happiest, wisest and best by engaging in neces-
sary employments. The fact that blessings are made

300 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

to depend on individual effort is one of the wisest
provisions in nature.

Intelligence and virtue are the necessary attain-
ments of him who would best adapt himself to the
affairs of this world, and the greater his attainments
in these things, the more perfect are the blessings
that are meted out to him. And so it happens that
in and around us is an ever present power ‘that
makes for righteousness.’? Things are so ordered
and arranged that they help draw man upward by
holding out incentives to effort. The perpetual
struggle for existence results not only in the preser-
vation and propagation of the strongest, but also, on
the average, of the wisest and best, so that humanity
moves upward.

Thus it happens that the great end attained, and,
as I believe, design fulfilled, is the development of
man and the formation of human character. The
greatest design of all this vast machinery of earth is
to serve in the widest sense the well-being of man—
a design that is consistent with the highest concep-
tions that we can form of the Creator.

XVIII.
EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE.

THE existence of evil in the world is a problem
that has taxed the greatest minds in all ages. What
is evil? Can we reconcile its existence with the pur-
poses of an all-wise, all-powerful and _ beneficent
Creator?

We do not apply the word evil to the inorganic
world. Whatever may be the conditions and rela-
tions of inorganic materials to each other, we cannot
think of them as being the subjects of evil. Nor can
we apply the term to plants, although their environ-
ment may be such as to dwarf orto kill them. Nor
does it seem appropriate to apply the word evil to
the lower forms of animal life, such as sponges,
polyps, etc., which have no nervous system and which
are capable of only the dullest sort of feeling.

The word is applicable in the case of all organisms
which are capable of experiencing pain, especially in
acute forms. By evil I think we commonly mean
suffering, and we speak of an environment as being
evil when it produces suffering. Is the mission of
suffering wise and beneficent? Could not animals
and man have been made without the capacity to suf-
fer? is sometimes asked.

Organic beings may be graded according to their
capacity to enjoy and to suffer. These two capacities
increase and decrease together. The more elevated

the animal in the scale of existence—the more highly
301

302 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

organized its nervous system—the greater are its
capacities for pleasure and pain.

Enjoyment arises largely from the adaptation of
the organism to its environment, and suffering from a
lack of such adaptation. Suffering comes, therefore,
as an incentive to the animal to adapt itself to its
environment. Without hunger the animal would
starve without knowing it; without thirst it would
perish even in the presence of water; without pain
from cold it would freeze; without suffering from
heat it would be destroyed by fire; and without pain
from pressure the body would be crushed, with no
warning. Pain from disease and injury is a warning
that the body needs rest and change of environment.

Suffering in our present condition is absolutely
necessary for our protection and preservation, and to
this extent it must be pronounced good, and not evil,
in a moral sense.

Suffering also arises out of man’s ignorance of
events that are to occur. Accidents are not foreseen,
and injury and death follow. It should be remem-
pbered, however, that the laws of nature are invari-
able, and that in the true sense there are no accidents,
but only results produced, according to fixed laws,
and that such laws are necessary for man’s welfare.
Gravity by its action produces much suffering and
many deaths, and yet it is the force which holds the
stars and planets in their orbits, and it produces
suffering only when sentient beings fail to recognize
the universal law of its action. Would we banish
this force and thus wreck the universe because of
the suffering it produces? or would it not be better
that we heed its existence and strive to regulate our
conduct accordingly? Fixed laws of nature are neces-
sary for man’s preservation. They work injury only
when they are violated, and the consequent suffering

EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE 303

is necessary to induce man to acquaint himself with
them. If it were not for this inducement he would
make little effort. The fact that the laws of nature
are uniform enables man to determine future results,
and thereby to regulate his conduct. If they changed
from day to day he would never be able to tell in
advance what would be the result of any course of
conduct—his labors would be fruitless, and he-would
speedily perish. If, therefore, fixed laws are neces-
sary for man’s existence, and if the failure to comply
with these laws produces suffering, it cannot justly be
claimed that the Author of Nature’s laws acted un-
wisely in establishing them, nor that he was destitute
of love for those who suffer. Suffering is incidental
to the operation of laws that are necessary for man’s
existence and well-being. Besides, it is the school-
master who compels him to search out and obey these
necessary laws.

The total amount of suffering is small compared to
the amount of enjoyment among sentient creatures.
Imagination, I believe, greatly exaggerates the real
sufferings of humanity. Those who are most sensi-
tive to pain interpret the sufferings of others through
their own natures as standards, thus greatly exagger-
ating the facts. The man who has always been rich
misinterprets the sufferings from poverty of the man
who has always been poor, and if the rich man is
suddenly reduced to poverty, his suffering is fre-
quently so keen that he is led to commit suicide.
The gratification of desires becomes painful when
carried to excess, and this pain is necessary to save
the organism from complete exhaustion and death.

If any finite creature—man, for example—were
incapable of suffering, and if all its acts resulted in
pleasure only, then its powers would speedily become
exhausted. Suffering, therefore, seems to be the

304 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

most effectual check to conduct that would lead to
destruction, and is a consequent means of salvation.
The office of pain is not to destroy, but to save. Its
introduction, therefore, into the plan of nature ought
not to be regarded as due to moral obliquity on the
part of the Creator; it is but a part of the universal
plan which works general good.

But it is urged that the ignorant suffer. This seems
to be a necessity due to the establishment of general
laws in nature, and such laws, we have seen, are nec-
essary for the existence of man. Besides, if the
ignorant were exempt from the penalties of nature’s
laws, while those having knowledge were punished
for their violation, this would be the highest possible
premium on ignorance, and the greatest possible dis-
couragement to the acquisition of knowledge. If
such were the case, man would feel it to be his inter-
est to remain in ignorance—the wheels of progress
would be blocked, and man would remain the most
ignorant and degraded savage.

According to the present arrangement of things the
Creator has placed the highest possible premium on
knowledge, thus introducing a motive that is capable
of leading man to the fullest development of all his
powers.

Again, it is objected that the innocent suffer.
Children, for example, inherit diseases and tenden-
cies towards diseases from their parents. This, of
necessity, arises from the fixed laws of inheritance,
and we have reason to believe that these laws are
beneficent. That the offspring shall closely resemble
in structure, and partake of the qualities of the par-
ents, is an organic law of the highest importance to
man in enabling him to foresee and produce definite
results in the propagation of plants and animals.

The law of inheritance in the human species is cer-

EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE 305

tainly as important as it is among animals. Much of
the suffering and imperfection due to inheritance
among men may be avoided by the application of pos-
sible knowledge to the subject. When man learns to
give even as much attention to the propagation of his
own species as to that of the domestic animals,
human suffering will be greatly decreased.

It is not necessary that the laws of inheritance be
changed, but it is of primary importance for the
human race to increase its knowledge of these laws,
and to regulate its conduct accordingly. The time
will come, I have no doubt, when this subject will, of
necessity, receive the attention which its importance
demands. Man himself, and not the Creator, is mor-
ally responsible for the propagation of known hered-
itary diseases, and for the consequent entailment of
suffering.

A large proportion of human suffering is produced
by man’s willful transgression of the law. Is this
fact consistent with the existence of an omnipotent,
beneficent Creator?

It has been stated that the Creator has established
laws which are undoubtedly for the well-being of
man. He has created man, who is the highest known
work of his hands. Man is superior to all other
creatures, not only physically, but especially by reason
of his mental and moral powers.

The fact that he isa moral agent implies that he
knows the difference between right and wrong, that he
is free to choose his course of conduct, and that he
has a conscience which approves or disapproves his
motives.

If he were capable of only one course of conduct,
he would not bea moral agent, he would have no con-
science—he would be simply a machine. Can it be
Gomisted aver he isa far nobler being constituted as

306 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

he is, with the power of doing both right and wrong,
than he would be if he were not a moral agent? Sin
is the transgression of law. The power to obey im-
plies, in a free agent, the power to disobey. Man’s
sole duty is to acquaint himself with the laws of the
Creator and to ebey them.

But it may be objected that man would have been
more perfect and elevated if he had been created
with less disposition to transgress.

In answer to this it may be said that all of man’s
powers are intended for good, and they serve good
purposes when properly used, and that it is possible
for him to govern them.

The appetites and passions which stand on the
lower plane of human nature, when made the ser-
vants of reason and conscience,serve noble and neces-
sary purposes in human life. If, however, they be-
come masters, and the higher powers become their
servants, then human nature is debased.

It is man’s duty not to eradicate the appetites and
passions, but to subdue and govern them. There can
be nothing irretrievably bad in the works of God.
Our own moral natures tell us that there can be no
wrong which shall not be righted. It is not conceiv-
able that the moral qualities of the Creator are of a
lower grade than those of man whom he has created.
‘“*To them that love God, allthings work together for
good.”

It has been claimed that the struggle for existence
has determined the course of organic evolution, and
that this principle is one of selfishness, which causes
much suffering. The weak are destroyed in countless
numbers by the strong. Throughout the kingdom of
living things, organisms not only contend with each
other, but they destroy and devour each other as
food. A large part of the animal kingdom lives ex-

EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE 307

clusively by preying upon the bodies of other ani-
mals.

Judging from this, it might be concluded that
‘*might makes right,’’ or, rather, that there is no
principle of right in nature.

As to suffering, it may be said that most animals
are not capable of suffering to any great extent. The
lowest forms have no nervous system, and a great mul-
titude of others have only a slightly developed ner-
vous system, so that sensation is dull, and acute pain
is impossible.

It seems very probable that consciousness of pain
is confined to the higher forms of life, and only the
highest vertebrates, such as birds and mammals, have
great capacity for suffering.

As already stated, the capacities for pleasure and
pain increase and decrease together. This being true,
man, by the greatness of his nature, far excels all ani-
mals in happiness and misery.

If the life of the individual organism be considered
as a whole, on the average the amount of pleasure
greatly exceeds the pain. Throughout the animal
kingdom the duration of suffering is short compared
to the length of life, and the amount of pain is small
compared to the pleasures of existence. This of it-
self would be sufficient justification for the creation
of such beings.

But I have already shown that suffering is benefi-
cent, in that it is necessary for the preservation of the
life of the animal.

Many organisms perish for lack of food. But little
pain results from the deficient nourishment of the
body, even in man. The body gradually wastes by the
oxidation of its tissues until a painless death results.
Perishing of cold is but a brief and painless process.
As arule, the duration of the pains of fatal disease
is short compared to the length of life.

|
308 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED
t

When death results from destruction by enemies,—
as the killing of the bird by the hawk, or the antelope
by the tiger—it is believed to be quite painless, owing
to a partial paralysis of the nervous system.

If, therefore, in the great and ceaseless struggle for
existence, many speedily, and all, finally perish, yet it
is true, I believe, that when we look at the individual
animal, or at the animal kingdom as a whole, we find
that the amount of pain is small compared to the
great amount of enjoyment.

As to man, the actual pains of life and the fear of
pain are great incentives to the acquisition of knowl-
edge and to right conduct. It is, perhaps, a necessary
schoolmaster to man in his present condition. Remove
from his mind the fear of suffering for disobedience
of law, and the results would be most disastrous.

Pain chastens the spirit, and it heightens pleasure
by way of contrast. The present enjoyments of life
are heightened by the memory of past hardships and
sufferings.

Looking at suffering, therefore, in its various as-
pects, I think that we may rightly conclude that it
serves beneficent purposes, and that therefore its
existence is consistent with the idea of a Beneficent
Creator.

Beyond and above the selfish struggle for existence,
which, it has been commonly claimed by evolutionists,
is almost the only means of progress, is the principle
of Altruism—a regard for the |welfare of others—
which is inseparably woven into the warp and woof of
Nature. This great fact has been dwelt on with
emphasis by Shaler, Drummond, and other authors.
If we would find fault with Nature because she in-
flicts pain through the selfish struggle for existence,
we must allow that she redeems herself and promises
to yet more and more redeem herself by the unselfish

EVIL AND ALTRUISM IN NATURE 309

struggle for the welfare of others which she has
instituted.

The process of reproduction throughout the organic
world, by which the parent gives part of its own sub-
stance for the propagation of its kind, is a prophecy
of the great spiritual gifts that follow.

The preservation of the life of the young, in a large
part of the animal kingdom, and especially in its
highest part, is due to the care and affection of the
parents—especially of the mother.

Many of the animals of the lower sub-kingdoms
deposit their eggs in secure places, and in localities
where food will be convenient, while many others
protect them by cocoons or webs of silk. Others
exercise great patience and care in feeding their
larve.

Among bees the great care and anxiety for the in-
terests of the queen seem to indicate an exceptional
wealth of affection.

Some of the lower vertebrates, especially those
which lay but few eggs, deposit them in places of
security, but it is the rare exception that they care
for their young.

It is not till we reach birds and mammals that pro-
longed care and great affection for the young are
manifested. These animals are so helpless when born
that they would speedily perish if it were not for the
care of the mother.

Among these highest forms, therefore, Altruism in
action, if not in motive, is a necessity for the preser-
vation of the species. Helplessness and help must go
hand in hand. If Nature ordains that the infant
shall perish if left to itself, she with equal certainty
ordains that help shall be furnished.

With what unceasing labor does the mother bird
gather food for her nestling young, and with what
affection does she protect them with her own body

310 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

from rain and storm! Although by nature extremely
timid, yet she will frequently imperil her life in their
defense.

Our domestic animals often exhibit a strength of
attachment to their offspring that might well be emu-
lated by man.

Who can say that the affection of the cow for her
calf is not purely unselfish and Divine? Her grief
when she is forcibly separated from her offspring
is of the intensest kind, and she can only be
pacified by the restoration of her young. She will
stand in its defense against the beasts of prey. By
her caresses she shows a tenderness of feeling that
seems to be truly human. In this unselfish affection
of the lower animals we see something of the great
power which, working in man, can alone redeem the
world from selfishness and glorify man.

Altruism alone can found a true home and give
permanence to a state. Homes are built in hearts,
and hearts alone can give security to government.
The mother’s love is the strongest bond in human
society.

Selfishness has seemed to hold almost universal
sway in the animal kingdom, and it is still a great
motive in man. But its right to rule over man is now
disputed with new vigor. Altruism and Hedonism,
Unselfishness and Selfishness, are the two gods which
face each other on the battle-field for dominion over
the human heart.

The contest has been long and painful, but we have
every assurance that the redeeming power embodied
in the Son of man will triumph.

Love will ever be the golden rule—the supreme
organic law of the Universe.

XIX.
AGNOSTICISM.

THE human mind believes and affirms that space is
infinite. Of this we feel absolutely certain and noth-
ing can convince us to the contrary.

If, in imagination, we travel to the most distant
star, we feel certain that space extends beyond, and
if we could repeat this process an endless number of
times in all directions, we feel certain that we could
nowhere find a limit to space. Can it be said that we
have no true conception of the quality of infinite space?
The mind feels certain that all space is alike. This
unalterable belief concerning infinite space is justly
founded on our knowledge of a limited portion of
space. It can be truthfully said that the human mind
cannot form an image of infinite space or of anything
that is infinite. It may be said that the laws of pure
logic forbid that we should declare space to be infi-
nite. But the experiences of the human mind are
greater than the laws of logic. The legitimate beliefs
of the mind are not limited to things acquired by the
logical process.

Mr. Spencer says: ‘‘ But of Space and Time we
cannot assert either limitation or the absence of limit-
ation. We find ourselves totally unable to form any
mental image of unbounded space; and yet totally
unable to imagine bounds beyond which there is no
space.’’ *

The mind feels conscious that it might take any

* Synthetic Philosophy, p. 48.
(311)

312 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

finite unit of volume and multiply it by any finite
number, and that it would not occupy all space. Our
inability to set bounds to space is, I think, regarded
by the mind as conclusive that space is infinite.

For a similar reason we regard time as infinite.
The belief that space and time are infinite is so firmly
fixed that we rightly regard it as positive knowledge.

Again, Mr. Spencer says: ‘‘It results, therefore,
that Space aud Time are wholly incomprehensible.
The immediate knowledge which we seem to have of
them proves, when examined, to be total ignorance.
While our belief in their objective reality is insur-
mountable, we are unable to give any rational account
of it.’’*

I think it will occur to the common sense of man-
kind that an ‘insurmountable belief’’ is quite good
enough to be accepted as a part of any philosophy.
Why waste words in talking about time and space,
doubting their existence and declaring total ignorance
as to their nature, if we have an ‘‘insurmountable
belief ’’ that they exist, that we know their qualities,
and that they are infinite? Why use the words time
and space if they are simply expressions denoting
total ignorance?

The fact is, that the attempt to subject all phe-
nomena and all faculties and all human experiences
to logical processes is a failure, for the reason that
logic cannot comprehend all of them. The logical
faculty has no rightful claim to absolute supremacy
over all other powers of the mind. When we are told
that we have an ‘insurmountable belief’? which we
dare not assert to be true according to the laws of
logic, then the common sense of mankind will say
that logic must stand aside.

A universal ‘‘insurmountable belief’? is all that

* Synthetic Philosophy, :p. 50,

AGNOSTICISM 313

man needs for any legitimate intellectual purpose.
Logic does not make the facts with which she deals.
There are certain primary facts that must be accepted
as true before logic can have any material with which
to work.

Many of our “‘ insurmountable beliefs’’ are formed
without reference to any logical process, and they are
in no wise dependeut on reason for their existence;
nor can we form any mental picture as to the exact
methods by which these beliefs are produced.

If we are required to forma ‘“ mental image ’”’ of
infinite space before we can count our belief as knowl-
edge, then it must be admitted that we fail, and that
our belief is a phantom. It is also evident that if we
can accept nothing but mental images as knowledge,
then we have no claim to any valid knowledge what-
ever; for our knowledge consists of mental condi-
tions, the formation of which we are totally unable
to form a *‘ mental image’’ of.

It is not for reason to say that because she cannot
understand and explain the methods by which the
other faculties are enabled to do their work,therefore
their conclusions are illegitimate and to be banished
from the realm of knowledge.

Notwithstanding Mr. Spencer’s statement that we
are in ‘‘total ignorance’”’ as to the objectivity of
time and space, yet practically he is obliged to pro-
ceed as if his ‘‘ total ignorance ’’ and ‘‘insurmount-
able belief’’ were valid knowledge. Practically we
must act from data that cannot be compassed by logic
and reason, ‘

Time and space are objective realities, and the be-
lief that they are infinite is as firmly fixed as is the
belief that they are objective. We do not need to
comprehend the infinite before we may legitimately
declare its existence and its quality.

Missing Page

Missing Page

316 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the death-blow to all worship, for what human being
would erect an altar to the Unknowable, and how
could he engage in any act of worship whatever?
What could he think or say or do more than to repeat
this short creed expressing his hopeless ignorance?
But Mr. Spencer tells us that this creed is the recon-
ciliation of religion and science—that by it the essen-
tials of both are saved to humanity.

Inced not say that a more universal slaughter of
religions could not have been devised. It reminds me
of Nast’s cartoon showing the reconciliation of the
lion and the lamb in fulfillment of the Scripture
which says that ‘‘the lion and the lamb shall lie
down together.’? The lion was represented in the
picture, while the statement was appended that the
lamb was inside of the lion. This creed may do for
science, but it swallows religion. If reconciliation
means death, then it would be best not to be recon-
ciled.

His method of reconciliation is stated as follows:
‘¢ This method is to compare all opinions of the same
genus; to set aside as more or less discrediting one
another those various special and concrete elements
in which such opinions disagree; to observe what re-
mains after the discordant constituents have been
eliminated; and to find for this remaining constituent
that abstract expression which holds true throughout
its divergent modifications.”’

Religion being asked her creed, says, ‘‘I believe
that there is an inscrutable Power.’’ Science says the
same. How can we know that the inscrutable Power
is identical in the two cases? I submit that this is
no reconciliation, but only an expression of inability
to reconcile—an expression of total ignorance.

The assumption underlying it all is that there is an
irreconcilable conflict between Religion and Science,

AGNOSTICISM 317

and that by pushing the two off into a region of ab-
solute darkness, of which the human mind can know
nothing whatever, they will discuss their differences,
shake hands and agree to dwell in peace.

In deriving this creed, Mr. Spencer claims to have
eliminated from Science and Religion everything that ,
they could not hold in common. It is evident, I
think, that his eliminations were too numerous.
Those things only ought to have been eliminated that
were clearly in conflict. Those that were not in con-
flict needed no reconciliation. Science and Religion
occupy different fields and embody different facts, and,
for the most part, they need no reconciliation. So
far as the most of the facts embraced in them are
concerned, we might not be able to see either har-
mony or discord, and yet both sets of facts might be
true. Chemistry and astronomy are two well-defined
sciences, and yet the two classes of facts with which
they deal are so different, and there is such little
relation seemingly between the two, that if we affirm
harmony, it might be very difficult to determine in
what the harmony consists.

It is evident that the unifying of all natural phe-
nomena must be done by tracing all to a common
cause, but when the sciences do this, as I think
they have fairly done, must it be by ignoring the
special facts that compose each science? So if
religion traces herself to the same origin, must she, of
necessity, ignore all of the special facts that have
been sacred to man through the ages?

If, for example, the facts of science may be har-
monized without referring them to an intelligent,
final Cause, is it necessary that religion should sacri-
fice her belief that the Ultimate Cause is intelligent?
Intelligence in the Creator is not inconsistent with the
facts of science, although science might deem it ex-

318 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

pedient to stop short of affirming this attribute. It
may be that the attribute exists, although she fails to
affirm its existence. Religion may demand attributes
in the Creator over and above those that answer the
purposes of science, and still both may be right.

Science is generally satisfied with secondary causes,
while religion always seeks the primary Cause. If
religion believes in supernatural acts—such as mira-
cles and revelations—we do not know that they are in
conflict with the facts of science.

The possibility of miracles is simply a question of
fact. If the evidence shows that miracles have been
performed, it is not for science to deny the possibility
of miracles on any ground whatever.

We do not know that miracles are opposed to the
processes of nature, or that they are a break in the
continuity of the processes of the universe. They
may be a part of the plan of the Creator.

The question as to whether miracles have been per-
formed or not depends for its solution on the value
of human testimony, and not on a priori affirmation
as to the continuity of natural processes. The scien-
tific method of determining whether miracles have
been performed or not, is not to declare, without
investigation, that miracles are impossible, but to
examine the evidence, pro and con, in each particular
case, and to decide accordingly. Our knowledge of
the universe is not so complete as to enable us to de-
clare that miracles are impossible. Even if we believe
in the Unknown and Unknowable Power, I do not
know on what ground we might affirm that it is
impossible for that Power to perform a miracle, or to
reveal truth to the human mind. Science becomes
dogmatic when she affirms the impossibility of a mira-
cle or of a revelation.

It may be possible to believe in the continuity of

AGNOSTICISM 319

natural processes and also to believe in miracles. JI
do not see that the raising of the dead by supernat-
ural power would be any more of a break in the con-
tinuity of the action of natural forces than would be
the lifting of a stone by the hand of man. In each
case a superior force is introduced to overcome phys-
ical forces and to produce a result that would not
otherwise have been produced.

When we lift a stone there is no break in the con-
tinuity of the action of gravity, and in raising the
dead there would be no break in the action of the
forces of nature, but, in spite of the action of these
forces, a new result would be produced by the action
of the superior force.

Miracles, special providences, and revelations, may,
for ought we know, have a place in the universe with
as much consistency with the laws of nature as has
the mind of man in the affairs of the earth. Nor is
it necessary to regard these things as ‘‘ patch-work,”’
or ‘‘ tinkering ’’ with the laws of nature, or ‘‘ after-
thought,’’ but they may be a part of the infinite plan
and consistent with all else.

These things are consistent with the indestructibil-
ity of matter, with the correlation and conservation
of energy, and with the uniformity of law, and the
continuity of natural processes.

The action of mind destroys neither matter nor
force, nor the laws of, nature, nor continuity of action
of the forces of nature; and yet, mind, by its control
of matter and force, produces an endless number of
diversified results.

Agnosticism, by denying our right to affirm the ex-
istence of an Intelligent.Creator, sweeps away at one
stroke all that flows from a belief in the existence of
such a Power. Revelations, miracles and special
providences—all are impossible. All human testi-

320 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

mony that has been given to prove the truth of these
things is not answered, but is simply ignored, because
it is regarded as testimony advanced to prove that the
impossible has occurred.

That man can comprehend the infinite no one
would affirm. But this does not preclude the belief
that the Creator might reveal truth with regard to
himself to a finite mind.

Mr. Spencer, in speaking of the Ultimate Cause,
says: ‘*And may we not therefore rightly refrain
from assigning to it any attributes whatever, on the
ground that such attributes, derived as they must be
from our own natures, are not elevations but degra-
dations?’’ *

Mr. Spencer here shows a due spirit of reverence
for his Unknown and Unknowable God, and he
advises us not to degrade him by assigning to him any
attributes. Are we to refrain because it will degrade
the Unknowable? or because it will degrade us? I
presume he means the latter.

Our highest duty is, according to his creed, to wor-
ship ‘The Unknowable.”” But to worship such a
power would be folly, for we cannot know how to
worship the Unknowable. And yet we are told that
this worship is elevating, compared to the worship of
a God to whom we attribute omnipotence, omnis-
cience, justice, mercy and love,—that the worship of
a God with these attributes is degrading to human
nature. I think the facts of history show that the
belief in a God with these attributes has done more
to elevate the human race than all other beliefs.

Mr. Spencer professes to have great respect for the
wide-spread and long-standing beliefs of mankind,
and for this reason he gives religion a place in his
philosophy.

* Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 109.

AGNOSTICISM 321

He, however, ignores this great fact in history,
namely, that the human race has universally and per-
sistently attributed intelligence to their objects of
worship. It is just as natural for man to attribute in-
telligence to his god, of whatever kind, as it is to
worship at all. Why eliminate this universal testi-
mony of humanity in formulating a creed? The
belief in a God with attributes is not opposed to
science. Science may not affirm the existence of such
a God, but it cannot deny it, and, therefore, there
ean be no conflict.

By the. Agnostic creed man’s duty is as follows:
‘* By continually seeking to know and being continu-
ally thrown back with a deepened conviction of the
impossibility of knowing, we may keep alive the con-
sciousness that it is alike our highest wisdom and our
highest duty to regard that through which all things
exist as The Unknowable.’’*

The highest wisdom and the highest duty of our
lives is to continually strive to know ‘‘ The Unknow-
able,’’ with the ever-growing consciousness that the
task assigned is utterly impossible to be accomplished.
Why this hopeless task should be regarded as the
highest wisdom and duty of humanity I feel sure that
the great mass of the race will never be able to com-
prehend.

Mr. Spencer admits that ‘“‘An immense majority
will refuse, with more or less of indignation, a belief
seeming to them so shadowy and indefinite.’’+

Also that ‘* Very likely there will ever remain a
need to give shape to that indefinite sense of an Ulti-
mate Existence which forms the basis of our intelli-
gence. We shall always be under the necessity of
contemplating it as some mode of being; that is, of
representing it to ourselves in some form of thought,

* Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 113. + Ibid,
21

322 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

however vague. And we shall not err in doing this
so long as we treat every notion we thus frame as
merely a symbol, utterly without resemblance to that
for which it stands.’’*

From this it would seem that he thinks that the
constitution of the human mind is such that it must
represent the Ultimate Existence as being like things
that are known, and that this is very good mental
exercise, and innocent if we only remember that there
can be no truth in what we think. But how can he
know that our symbol is ‘‘utterly without resemblance
to that for which it stands?’’

The most that Agnosticism would be justified in
affirming is not lack of resemblance, but that we can
not know that there is any resemblance between our
symbols and the Ultimate Existence.

But Mr. Spencer admits that his creed is adapted
only to man in a highly developed condition, and that
the religions of the world have served and are still
serving a good purpose.

He says that the imperfections of religion ‘‘ have
been imperfections only as measured by an absolute
standard, and not as measured by a relative one.
Speaking generally, the religion current in each age
and among each people has been as near an approxi-
mation to the truth as it was then and there possille
for men to receive.”’

I think that this last statement is incorrect. Accord-
ing to this the various savage tribes scattered over the
earth at present have religions which embody as
much truth as they are capable of receiving. The
fact is, however, that the lowest tribes of men are
sufficiently developed to receive the Christian relig-
ion; and there is nothing more remarkable in history
than the changes wrought by Christianity among such

people.
* Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 113.

AGNOSTICISM 323

Again he says: ‘‘Even now, for the great mass of
men, unable through lack of culture to trace out
with due clearness those good and bad consequences
which conduct brings round through the established
order of the Unknowable, it is needful that there
should be vividly depicted future torments and future
joys—pains and pleasures of a definite kind, pro-
duced in a manner direct and simple enough to be
clearly imagined.’’*

Thus he settles the long-mooted question as to
whether a lie is ever justifiable or not. The preacher,
if he finds it necessary to move his hearers, is, in
duty, bound to threaten them with the tortures of
fire and brimstone, for the reason that the end justi-
fies the means, and at the same time he knows that
what he threatens is utterly false. Thus, systematic
lying may be the best possible practical teaching and
the highest morality.

I do not see why Mr. Spencer might not consist-
ently and conscientiously become a preacher under,
any existing religious creed whatever. If, as he con-
tends, each people has a religion as near an approxi-
mation to the truth as it can receive, and if cach
religion is practically best for the people professing
it, then it would be the duty of every missionary to
forsake Christianity, and to proclaim the religion of
the heathen to whom he is sent.

His claim is that all religions are practically good,
but that their fundamental teachings are utterly
false. These conclusions are the logical results of
Agnosticism. The Agnostic creed, he says, is the
only true one, but we must abandon this absolutely
true creed until, by the teaching of false creeds, we
have elevated humanity to a position where it can
accept the one true belief in The Unknowable.

* Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 117.

324 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

It would seem that there must be something funda-
mentally wrong in the structure of the universe when
it is necessary to systematically teach falsehoods in
the form of religion, for ages, in order to elevate
man morally, religiously and intellectually. If this is
true for Religion, it is strange that the teaching of
untruth has not been best in Science.

Mr. Spencer says again: ‘‘ Indeed, were it not that
throughout the progress of the race, men’s experi-
ences of the effects of conduct have been slowly gen-
eralized into principles—were it not that these princi-
ples have been from generation to generation insisted
on by parents, upheld by public opinion, sanctified by
religion, and enforced by threats of eternal damnation
for disobedience—were it not that under these potent
influences habits have been modified, and the feel-
ings proper to them made innate—were it not, in
short, that we have been rendered in a considerable
degree, organically moral; it is certain that disastrous
results would ensue from the removal of those strong
and distinct motives which the current belief sup-
plies. Even as it is, those who relinquish the faith in
which they have been brought up, for this most ab-
stract faith in which Science and Religion unite, may
not uncommonly fail to act up to their convictions.’’*

Here we have again the unqualified admission that
the creed of Agnosticism is not adapted to the human
race in its present condition. The most that can be
claimed for it is that it might be adapted to an imagi-
nary world of philosophers. For practical, efficient
work in elevating humanity he admits that we must
fall back on the old false creeds. He also admits
that a general acceptance of Agnosticism would be
very destructive to morality.

What is truth? and why should truth be demoraliz-

* Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 118.

AGNOSTICISM 325

ing? Are the affairs of the universe so out of joint—
is mind so distorted in its relation to facts that fic-
tions must be substituted for them?

I cannot believe that this has been made necessary
through the long history of man, and that it must
continue through the ages to come.

Mr. Spencer’s teaching is that the race cannot be
elevated by Agnosticism, but that this can be done
only by the other creeds. Agnosticism is the only
true doctrine, but we must not teach it because it
would be destructive to morality. The creeds are
false, but we must teach them to save humanity.
The moral quality of teaching, according to this, does
not consist in its truth, but in the fact that it will
accomplish a certain purpose. Truth and falsehood
are equally good if they perform a certain work.

If practical results are to determine the nature of
the teaching, and if Agnosticism would be demoraliz-
ing to the great mass of humanity, on what ground
can Mr. Spencer justify his teaching? Why not seal
the creed of Agnosticism up and lay it away in the
heart of an Egyptian pyramid until humanity is pre-
pared to receive it? Even if the creed should be lost
sight of for-some millions of years, the mind of man
will discover it at the proper time, for, according to
his theory, all religions are evolved, and every people
has as much truth as it is prepared by evolution to
assimilate. Why, then, should the demoralizing creed
of the Agnostic be introduced into the world at pres-
ent? Looked at in relation to duty to humanity, I do
not see any justification for the introduction and
defense of Agnosticism.

Mr. Spencer justifies its announcement at present
as follows: ‘‘He must remember that while he is a
descendant of the past, he is a parent of the future;
and that his thoughts are as children born to him,

326 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

which he may not carelessly let die. He, like every
other man, may properly consider himself as one of
the myriad agencies through whom works the Un-
known Cause; and when the Unknown Cause pro-
duces in him a certain belief, he is thereby authorized
to profess and act out that belief.’’ *

Let us see what these statements logically mean.
All beliefs in the mind of man are produced by the
Unknown Cause. The fact that a belief is produced
by the Unknown Cause, gives authority not only to
profess, but to act it out.

These propositions being true, man is not responsi-
ble for his beliefs nor for his acts; and, therefore, no
belief nor act can have any moral quality. In other
words, all beliefs and acts are equally good and true,
even when they are opposed to each other, and when
they produce the most dreadful results.

We have here the doctrine of fatality—the denying
of human responsibility—the annihilation of moral-
ity—the responsibility of all beliefs and actions is
thrown on the Unknown Cause. This is the justifica-
tion for the promulgation of Agnosticism.

He may remember that ‘‘he is a descendant of the
past,”’ but he does not necessarily become a ‘‘ parent
of the future.’’ It is in his power to determine
whether he will leave progeny or not—and if children
of the mind are born, he may determine whether they
shall live or die. Nor can he escape the responsi-
bility of destroying intellectual monstrosities by
throwing the responsibility of their birth on the Un-
known Cause. He owes no duty to the Unknown
Cause which requires him to murder the moral
natures of his fellow men by promulgating a destruc-
tive creed.

If Agnosticism is true, then its truth is a calamity

* Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, p. 123.

AGNOSTICISM 327

to the human race, not only for the present, but must
be for countless generations to come. If accepted, it
would become the disorganizer of the most enduring
and sacred human institutions, and the destroyer of
human happiness. It takes away from life all that is
dearest and best, and leaves humanity to gaze eter-
nally into ‘‘ the blackness of darkness,’’ with no hope
of ever.receiving a single ray of light.

It is impossible that the human mind should ever
make the Unknowable the ultimate foundation of a
philosophy of life and duty.

What have I to do with thee, O thou Unknowable,
thou impenetrable darkness, destroyer of my hopes
and joys !—what canst thou’ demand of me or I of thee?
Thou art darkness, and in thee is no light at all. Why
should I prefer thee to the faith that ‘‘God is light,
and in him is no darkness at all?’’ Surely the way of
darkness is the way of death, but the way of light
leadeth unto life.

So far as human duty is concerned, the Unknowable
must be to me as though it were not. To make, as
Mr. Spencer does, man’s highest duty to consist in a
ceaseless effort to know The Unknowable, is a totally
impracticable creed, for the moment the creed is
adopted, all effort would cease, unless man is so fool-
ish as to regard wasting his time in an absolutely
fruitless search after truth as the chief end of life.

If the creed of Agnosticism is good, it must be so
for a race of beings that we know not of. If it is
true, then its truth and human nature are eternally at
war with each other. To call Agnosticism a reconcil-
iation of all things is to make for it claims without
foundation, for it is opposed to human nature itself,
That which is fundamentally irreconcilable with the
nature of man cannot be the reconciler of things
which involve the highest interests of humanity.

328 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

Agnosticism is a negation—a destroyer. It tears
down the house in which humanity dwells, robs man
of the intellectual and moral fruit of ages, and leaves
him in his individual helplessness to perish. It
sweeps away the foundation of his religion, destroys
his brightest hopes and most sacred beliefs. It tells
him not only that knowledge is impossible, but that
faith and hope are in vain. It breaks the backbone
of morality by denying the divine authority of its
precepts; and it abolishes religion by counting all
acts: of worship as due to ignorance and superstition.
It destroys the highest incentives to virtue and truth
by denying the possibility of a revelation from the
Creator to man.

Its mission is that of the cyclone—destruction and
death—while it brings naught of goodin return. It
constructs no system of religion, no system of mor-
als, but denies the validity of our knowledge and
abolishes faith and hope. It comes like the Arctic
current in the ocean, leaving death in its track—freez-
ing the noblest sentiments and aspirations of the
soul.

Over against this most destructive creed of Agnos-
ticism we place Christianity, which is not a negative
but a positive religion, adapted to man in all places
and in all possible conditions. It does not, like
Agnosticism, demand a world of philosophers before
it can be of use to man, but it comes to man as he is,
and inspires him with infinite motives. It does not
paralyze all effort bytelling him that he cannot know,
but it says, ‘You shall know the truth and the truth
shall make you free.’’ ‘‘ And this is life eternal, that
they should know thee, the only true God, and him
whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.”’

If there is one thing that seems plain above all

AGNOSTICISM 329

else, it is that the only inspiration which can cause
humanity to move forward on the road of progress
until it reaches the fullest possible development of all
that is best in human nature, is the positive teach-
ing of the Christian religion.

In conclusion, I repeat that no sane mind claims to
comprehend the infinite, but we believe in the infinite
—as shown by our belief that time and space are in-
finite—and we believe that we may know something of
the quality of the infinite. And above all, we believe
that it is possible for the Creator of the universe to
reveal his nature to the mind of man: for ‘* God
created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him.”

XX.
RECAPITULATION.

I witt now briefly recapitulate some of the con-
clusions reached in the preceding pages. In the first
place, I have called attention to some of the chemical
properties of matter, showing that the elements act
according to definite laws; that in combining they
produce compounds, the nature of which could not
have been predicted, and that the carbon compounds
especially are indefinitely numerous and wonderful in
their properties.

We have seen that the chemist can prepare from
the elementary substances certain carbon compounds
which are produced by animals and plants, but that
he is not able to produce matter in the organized form,
such as protoplasm, in which life manifests itself.

I next considered energy, or the forces of nature.
Energy was defined as being that which can put mat-
ter in motion. It was seen that the transmission of
energy seems to demand a medium of some kind, and
that ether is believed by physicists to be a universally
distributed medium.

The existence of this medium does not explain the
action of the force of gravity.

It is believed that matter and ether fill all space,
and that they are in constant motion; but the inten-
sity of their motion varies at different times and in
different places.

The energy stored up in matter is being gradually

imparted to ether, and unless there is some method
(330)

RECAPITULATION 331

by which it can be concentrated in matter again,
nearly all the energy of the universe will be imparted
to the ether and dissipated through infinite space.
Assuming an infinite past existence of matter, it
ought, according to the theory of the dissipation of
energy, to be at present destitute of energy and, con-
sequently, to account for the concentration of energy
in matter requires more than a dynamical theory.

It is evident that with matter, energy and ether, the
condition of the universe is that of mechanical
motion, and nothing more.

In order, therefore, to account for the present con-
dition of the visible universe, it is necessary to as-
sume the existence of some power other than the
known dynamical agencies.

As to the theory of abiogenesis, or spontaneous
generation, evolutionists admit that it has not been
established, and they begin by assuming the existence
of life.

As a dynamical theory it involves nothing but mat-
ter and energy, and these cannot account for the
origin of even the humbler forms of organic beings,
and much less for mind.

If abiogenesis has taken place once, then it ought by
means of the same agencies to have occurred a count-
less number of times. The creation of the first living
being was an extraordinary act, for which we find no
analogy in nature, and it must have required an extra-
ordinary agent.

The evidence derived from numerous experiments
by Professor Tyndall and others is all against the
theory of spontaneous generation.

Next followed a discussion of the theory of natural
selection. It was seen that this theory involves two
factors, namely, the fact of variation and the preser-
vation of favorable variations. Mr. Darwin admits

332 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

that the causes of variations are almost totally un-
known.

This being true, the most that could be claimed for
natural selection is that it preserves certain forms at
the expense of others.

Mr. Darwin assumes that life was « originally

breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into
one.’? This admission opens the way for other mira-
cles. .
He denies that in nature there is any ‘innate ten-
dency toward perfectibility or progressive develop-
ment.’”’ If this is true, then I think that the evolu-
tion of man would have been impossible, involving
as it would the preservation in all cases of the most
perfect forms of an. infinite series.

It has been seen that Mr. Darwin’s argument has
been founded mostly on facts derived from the study
of animals under domestication, involving the select~
ive agency of man, while in nature there is no such
agent to separate and propagate new varieties.

Even under domestication, his argument proves, at
most, that new varieties which freely mingle and pro-
pagate the species can be produced, whereas, the
theory demands the production of separate species
which are cross-sterile. I have endeavored to show
the impossibility of the formation of such species in
a state of nature, and have called special attention to
the weakness of the assumption that varieties are
born, the individuals of which are fertile with each
other but sterile with the parent form—all the known
facts being opposed to this view. The necessity for
such an assumption shows that the theory is very
‘* hardly pressed.’’

I have called attention to the fact that the number
of instances of cross-sterility between parent and
offspring would, according to the theory of slight

RECAPITULATION 333

variations, have been almost infinite, and that, there-
fore, this explanation of the preservation of varia-
tions cannot be correct.

I have claimed that isolation by barriers cannot
account for the preservation of new varieties, for the
reason that it is just as difficult to account for the
preservation of a variety when formed from part of
a species as when formed from the whole species.

I have enumerated the several things which must
occur simultaneously before cross-sterility between
parent and offspring could occur and become effective,
namely, that a number of individuals must be born at
the same time possessing the same variation, that the
variation must be useful, that these individuals must
be fertile with each other, that they must be cross-
sterile with the parent form, and that, |finally, the
few, if any, individuals thus produced and being
widely scattered through the species, must find each
other before they could propagate. I regard it im-
possible that these things could all occur simultane-
ously.

I have quoted from Mr. Spencer, showing that
‘* either there has been inheritance of acquired char-
acters, or there has been no evolution.’’ He admits,
however, that there are but few known facts which
go to support his theory. It is evident that the diffi-
culties of preserving and propagating an acquired
character are those already pointed out. I see no
reason why acquired characters would not, in a state
of nature, be speedily merged.

The lack of harmony in the teaching of evolution-
ists shows that there is much vagueness as to the
details of the theory.

I next called attention to the difficulties arising
from paleontology. The theory of evolution must
assume that the first half of the history of life is en-

334 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

tirely lost, for among the earliest fossils are found
trilobites and cephalopods—‘ animals which can ,
hardly be regarded as lower than the middle of the
animal scale.”’

It must also assume that nearly all of the record
since the Primordial period has been obliterated, so
that the fossils which are known or can ever be
known, constitute but a few links in the chain of evo-
lution.

Species succeed each other, even where the rocks
are continuous and without any evidence of breaks in
their formation, as if by substitution and not by
transformation, although the rocks may be full of
well-preserved fossils. For this reason Professor Le
Conte deems it necessary to assume that species have
been formed suddenly—perhaps in one or two or a
few generations.

In the preceding pages I have endeavored to show
that throughout the various classes of the animal
kingdom there has been little progress in structure
during the whole of geological time, and I have in-
sisted that this almost total lack of progress is entire-
ly inconsistent with the enormous advance in struc-
ture and intelligence involved in evolving man from
protoplasm.

J have called attention to the fact that many species
of plants and animals have undergone but little
change through long periods of time.

Professor Huxley says: ‘‘ The significance of per-
sistent types and of the small amount of change
which has taken place even in those forms which can
be shown to have been modified, becomes greater and
greater in my eyes, the longer I occupy myself with
the biology of the past.”

The long endurance of many species, the persist-
ence of types, the absence of generalized structures

RECAPITULATION 335

from which groups could have branched,are all opposed
to the theory of evolution.

The absence of progress in structure in the various
classes of the animal kingdom within the geological
period, indicates a sudden and general arrest of
progress inconsistent with the theory of evolution.
Enormous progress is implied, the record of which in
every instance is lost, in order to reach the oldest
known members of any class, yet the rule is that
from the time when such fossils are found till the
present, little, if any, advance in structure has taken
place. Evolution must assume enormous advance in
structure, but lost record, in the history of almost
every class till the times of the oldest known fossils,
and then a sudden halt in progress through all subse-
quent geological time.

The suddenness with which many kinds of highly
organized fishes appeared, with no geological record
showing their evolution and the appearance of most
of the orders of mammals in the Tertiary, with no
geological evidence as to their method of evolution,
are remarkable facts.

The evolutionist must assume that the early his-
tory of every class and order of vertebrates has been
wholly lost, although each must have begun within
the authentic geological record, and at times when
fossils are abundant.

The survival through long periods and geological
ages of the lowest members of classes has been dwelt
upon to show the inability of such forms to progress
or to produce offspring which could.make the enor-
mous strides of progress implied in the evolution of
man. Forms which are pointed out by evolutionists
as being extremely archaic and closely like certain
links in the chain of the evolution of man are still
living, having made little change and no progress

336 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

through the ages, and these facts I regard as con-
clusive that man could not have sprung from such
progenitors.

Under the subject of Embryology, on which some
evolutionists rely largely, I have considered some of
the difficulties attending the application of the theory.
Embryology does not bridge the wide chasm between
the Protozoa and the Metazoa, nor between the Inver-
tebrates and the Vertebrates, nor between the three
divisions of the vertebrates.

The claim that the changes in the embryo of the
individual are an epitome of the history of the class
to which it belongs is simply an assumption, and it
cannot, therefore, be evidence to establish the theory
of evolution.

The theory of embryology as applied to evolution
is weak also in that it eliminates the unseen but
essential differences between eggs and embryos, and
magnifies the importance of certain transient resem-
blances.

T next called attention to some of the special objec- -
tions to the theory of evolution. This theory must
account for every part of every organism. Mr. Dar-
win himself acknowledges the great difficulty of try-
ing to account satisfactorily for the origin of the
many complex organs of animals.

The electric organs of certain fishes, the various
kinds of wings which had separate origins, the nu-
merous kinds of eyes and eye-spots which could not
have had a common origin, the several kinds of ears
differently located, the varieties of apparatus for
breathing, including different kinds of gills, trachea
and lungs have been considered. The general con-
clusion which I have drawn from these and other
organs is that it is impossible to account for the pres-
ervation, by natural selection, or by any other plaus-

RECAPITULATION 337

ible theory of evolution, of organs through their incip-
ient and long rudimentary stages, during which time
they could have served no useful purpose. I regard
this as fatal to the theory of evolution.

I have claimed that the rudimentary mamme of
males could not have been evolved by natural selec-
tion, nor by any known method, and that, therefore,
Mr. Darwin’s claim that ‘‘Rudimentary organs de-
clare their origin and plain meaning in various ways’’
is not correct in this case, and may not be in others.
The rudimentary mamme in males could never have
been functional. They have undoubtedly existed
through an immense period of geological time as the
merest rudiments. This fact shows that it is impos-
sible for such organs to totally disappear, and yet
evolution claims that most of the mamma which
have existed in females have not simply become rudi-
mentary, but have entirely disappeared.

If it be granted that functional organs may become
rudimentary, yet this is not an argument to prove
that rudimentary organs may become useful.

In the chapter on secondary sexual differences I
have endeavored to show that there is no probable
method by which horns, spurs, and other sexual dif-
ferences could have been evolved, and much less that
the fundamental differences between the sexes could
have been thus produced.

The instincts of animals give rise to other difficul-
ties. Among the most serious of these is that grow-
ing out of complex instincts which require complex
adaptations of structure before the instincts could be
useful. That they could have been either simultane-
ously or successively formed in many cases seems
impossible, since the instinct and the adaptive struc-
ture are not related to each other as cause and
effect. It seems to me impossible that chance could

22

338 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

have produced the wonderful instincts of bees and
the various peculiarities of structure which render
them useful. In the case of the workers I have called
attention to the fact that many of their instincts, if
evolved, must have been produced after they had be-
come sexually imperfect, and that, consequently, the
transmission of the instincts by heredity was impossi-
ble, and that, therefore, they could not have been
perfected by natural selection.

The instincts of birds with regard to incubation and
the structure of their eggs, rendering these instincts
necessary, present similar difficulties.

Other instances have been given to show that in-
stincts and their adaptive structures could not have
been evolved.

As to the origin of man, we have seen that he is of
very recent geological origin, that no fossils have
been found which connect him with any lower form,
and that his various physical peculiarities render it
improbable that he has been evolved.

But I have dwelt especially on the psychic differ-
ences between man and the lower animals, and have
endeavored to show that man possesses faculties which
do not belong to the lower animals.

I have called attention to the fact that Mr. Darwin
proceeds with great caution with regard to the evolu-
tion of the higher powers of man, us is shown by his
language when he says that he will ‘‘hazard a few
remarks ’’ concerning them. He admits that ‘‘man
alone can with certainty be ranked as a moral being.”’
This puts an impassable gulf between man and
animals.

The effort to evolve the moral or any other faculty
from experiences of utility, fails, for the reason that
experience can, at most, strengthen existing faculties,
and cannot, therefore, create new ones.

RECAPITULATION 339

I have called attention to Mr. Spencer’s theory,
that all psychic manifestations are composed of
“units of feeling’’ that are ‘“‘fundamentally of one
kind.’’ By this assumption he attempts to account for
the origin of all the faculties of the mind.

I have endeavored to show that there are essential
differences between the faculties, so that one could
not have been derived from another.

The theory of evolution fails to show the possibility
of evolving psychic phenomena from the inorganic
world. These phenomena cannot be explained in
terms of matter and motion, which are the only fac-
tors in the ontology of the dynamical theory of the
universe.

Starting with inorganic matter, evolution must ex-
plain the origin of life, of sensation, of the special
senses, of instincts, and of the various powers of the
mind. The evidence along this line is, I think,
extremely inadequate.

I have called attention to the fact that our knowl-
edge of mind alone is immediate, and that mind has
persistently refused to recognize itself as matter.

Mind is a cause, as is shown by its ability to con-
trol matter, and from this we may conclude that there .
is a Supreme Mind which controls the material uni-
verse. The future and eternal existence of the soul is
assured by the fact of its present existence and. the
eternal existence of God.

The indestructibility of matter and force serves as
a foundation for the faith that mind, which can con-
trol these things, is itself indestructible.

Mind is not matter, but a controlling power in the
universe, and we can form no conception as to how
it may cease to exist. God cannot die, nor can the
soul of man, made in his image, cease to be. The
persistent and universal desire for a future existence

340 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

of larger opportunities is a divine assurance of a
future life. Change is not annihilation, but the
unfolding of the universal plan.

In the chapter on Design in Nature I have called
attention to the comparatively uniform temperature
of the earth during the whole geological period, cov-
ering possibly fifty millions of years, without which
life could not have existed. A change of only a few
degrees in the climate of the earth would destroy all
living things.

We have seen that the movements of the earth and
the inclination of its axis to the ecliptic are favorable
to the existence of living organisms.

As indicating design, I have dwelt with emphasis
on the fact that the simple substances which consti-
tute the earth ‘are of such kinds and are found in
such relative quantities as not only to render life pos-
sible, but also to contribute to the well-being of man
as an intelligent and moral agent. I look upon the
concurrence of all these things, according to any
theory of chance, as being entirely impossible. The
conditions that must be fulfilled before living beings
are possible are so complex that nothing short of the
wisdom of a Supreme Intelligence could have pro-
duced them.

l have claimed that the existence of man with his
wonderful physical structure and his marvelous
powers of mind, whether he was created suddenly or
by the slow process of evolution, is unmistakable evi-
dence of the existence of God. The question as to
the length of time involved in his creation does not
_affect the question of design in his creation.

The adaptation of man physically and mentally to
nature—of man as a being of unfolding desires and
growing intelligence—has been dwelt upon.

RECAPITULATION 341

And so the countless adaptations throughout the
organic and inorganic worlds furnish an infinite num-
ber of arguments in favor of design. Each species
is perfect with regard to its environment.

With regard to suffering, it has been claimed that
the amount is small compared to that of pleasure and
happiness; that it is necessary for the protection of
the body; that it results from disobeying the laws of
nature which are themselves beneficent; that itis a
great and, perhaps, necessary incentive to improve-
ment; and that man by elevating himself physically,
mentally and morally by more perfectly obeying the
laws of nature, can continually decrease the amount
of suffering.

We have seen also that Altruism is woven into
Nature, and that it isthe great redeeming power of
moral creatures.

Lastly, I have called attention to the creed of the.
Agnostic as presented by Mr. Spencer. I have
claimed that a belief in the existence of infinite time,
infinite space, and an Infinite Intelligence are legiti-
mate.

I have endeavored to show that his effort to recon-
cile religion and science by referring them to The
Unknowable is not a reconciliation, but the destruc-
tion of all religion; that his method of elimination
is too sweeping, for the reason that it eliminates es-
sential parts of religion with which science is not in
conflict.

Agnosticism confesses its own worthlessness as a
ereed for man in his present condition, and Mr.
Spencer adopts the theory of fatality in order to jus-
tify himself in defending it.

Finally, it is an infinite negation which, if accepted,
would reduce the human race to a helpless condition,

342 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

by destroying the high faith and sacred hopes which
alone can inspire man to the noblest living.

In conclusion, I will say that whether or not the
doctrine of evolution be accepted, yet to my mind
the universe as it exists is but the expression of the
thought, wisdom, powerand will of the Divine Archi-
tect whose working extends through the eternal ages.

That the theory of Theistic evolution by which
through the long ages God is represented as perpet-
ually creating new forms of living beings from those
already existing is fascinating and sublime I can easi-
ly admit, and the force of the arguments in favor of
this view I have deeply felt, yet the difficulties in-
volved in creating the present order of things are, in
my estimation, too great to be explained without
assuming miracles, or exceptional acts, which cannot
have been caused by the ordinary agencies of crea-
tion.

The vital question at issue in this whole matter is
not the method of creation, but the nature of the
power that creates. Method is of interest in so far
only as it reveals the Creator.

Miracles, to my mind, are no more divine than the
ordinary events of nature, for both are due to the
power of the Creator, yet, as evidence of the exhibi-
tion of such power, the miracle is far more convinc-
ing.

Lastly, I cannot hold to any theory of the universe
that degrades man and burdens his soul with darkness
and despair. I do not, of course, charge that Theis-
tic evolution does this, but I do believe that this is
the result of Atheism and Agnosticism.

I believe that the facts of the universe must tend
to man’s highest good; that they are consistent with

RECAPITULATION 343

the joyful hope and the boundless faith; that the end-
less future is fraught with good for man,—in a word,
I believe. that the facts of nature are in harmony
with the nature of man, and that the existence and
workings of the Universe are due to the Divine Will.

XXI.
GENESIS AND GEOLOGY.

Dors the account of creation given in Genesis
conflict with the geological record? I shall not enter
upon a lengthy discussion of this much-debated ques-
tion. To begin with, I will state that I do not think
that the known evidence will justify the conclusion
that there is a conflict between these two records.

It must be admitted that the geological record of
creation extends over millions of years, and this ren-
ders it necessary to interpret the word ‘‘day,’’ in the
first chapter of Genesis, as an indefinite period. It
is so used, I think, in the fourth verse of the second
chapter, where it is said, ‘‘ These are the generations
of the heaven and of the earth when they were cre-
ated, in the day that the Lord God made earth and
heaven.”’

Our knowledge of the geological record is very
imperfect. As already stated in the chapters on Pale-
ontology, Darwin, Romanes and other evolutionists
insist that the known part of the record is as nothing
compared to the unknown. According to their the-
ory, the entire first half of the record, that preceding
the Primordial period, in geology, is entirely lost.

Romanes speaks of the whole geological record as
being so imperfect that it merits the name, ‘‘a chap-
ter of accidents.”’

We have seen that, according to the theory of evo-
lution, it is necessary to assume that every class and

order of animals originated at a much earlier period
(344)

GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 345

in geology than that in which the oldest remains of
such class or order have been found—that they orig-
inated, in fact, at unknown times.

It is probable that, within certain general limits, we
may be justified in drawing certain conclusions as to
the chronological order in which some kinds of plants
and animals were introduced.

It seems to be quite probable that water plants pre-
ceded land plants, that nothing higher than conifers
existed in the Paleozoic, and that the highest type of
plants first appeared in the Mesozoic. It is also prob-
able that the invertebrates preceded the vertebrates,
and that the latter began as fishes; that, after the lat-
ter appeared, amphibians and reptiles were intro-
duced, and later, mammals and birds. Finally, man
came in at the close of the geological record.

The evolutionist assumes that most of the organic
forms that existed during and since the Primordial
are lost. If this is correct, it is impossible for us to
tell what those lost forms were, and it is, therefore,
evident that he is in no position to assert that an un-
known lost record conflicts with one that is known.

The evolutionist admits—and he must do so, for it
is vital to his theory—that nearly all of the geological
record has not been discovered.

It is evident that, if this is true, the small amount
that is known cannot be used as a substitute for the
vast amount unknown. If one makes use of this frag-
mentary account in this way, the burden of proof is
on him to show that the small fragments of geological
history which he uses give a correct idea of the enor-
mous lost volume.

If we are told that this or that conflicts with the
geological account of creation, we may well ask, what
is the geological account? To this the answer must
follow, most emphatically and heartily by the evolu-

346 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

tionist, ‘‘I do not know.’’ He can tell you that he
has small samples which he believes represent more
or less fairly the great unknown record. At the same
time he must tell you that the unknown is unlike the
known, and that it consists largely of the lost links in
the chains of evolution.

It is evident that there might be a conflict between
the known geological record and some other account
of creation, owing to the incompleteness of the for-
mer, whereas, if it were complete, such a discrepancy
might not exist.

He who asserts a conflict between the account in
Genesis and the geological record, must show that his
knowledge of the latter is quite complete and correct.
This he will be both unable, and, generally, unwill-
ing to do, for the interest of his theory, if he is an
evolutionist, demands a most fragmentary known
record.

It is evident, therefore, that no one is in a position
to prove that there is a conflict between the cosmog-
ony in Genesis and the great unknown cosmogony of
Geology.

The cosmogony in Genesis is very general. It is an
outline painted with a few bold strokes. It was given
to a people who were in the infancy of civilization,
the masses of whom were ignorant and illiterate. A
complete history of creation, as it occurred through
the long geological ages, would have been useless to
them. They could not have understood it because of its
length and complexity, and because they were totally
ignorant of the facts on which the geological account:
must be based. If it had been fully written for them,
it would have been bewildering.

What object could have been accomplished by tell-
ing that people that Trilobites and Brachiopods
abounded in the Silurian, that Fishes of many kinds

GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 347

were very numerous in the Devonian, that Laby-
rinthodonts basked in the sunshine on the shores of
Carboniferous swamps, that mighty Frogs croaked in
the Triassic, that the Marsupial, greatest great, great,
etc., grandfather of the Opossum, was then engaged
in his craft of robbing the nests of the long-tailed
Archeopteryx, that the Zeuglodon sported in the
Gulf of Mexico, in the Eocene, that three and four-
toed horses of various kinds played base-ball with
boulders in the Rocky Mountain region, thus ridding
themselves of their surplus toes, during the Tertiary;
that Bears, Tigers and Lions of huge size fought each
other like the Kilkenny cats in England during the
same period; that Monkeys chased each other up and
down the trees and played ‘“‘hide and seek’’ in the
forests of the Pliocene, and that, by accident or oth-
erwise, the Anthropomorphous, Gorilla-like Ape lost
his tail and took to intellectual and moral habits, so
that some time during the Quaternary Period he
became Adam?

All of these things, with a great multitude of simi-
lar facts, which can hardly be numbered, are of inter-
est to the geologist and the evolutionist with their
knowledge of modern science, but to the people of
the time of Moses it would have been unprofitable
reading.

The cosmogony of Genesis had an infinitely higher
and nobler aim than the teaching of the long list of
incomprehensible facts contained in the geological
record. Jt was given to impress upon the minds of
that people and of the world, the fact of the exist-
ence of the One omnipotent, omniscient, righteous
God as the Creator of all things, and to whom all
men are responsible for their conduct.

This teaching of Monotheism came upon the infant.
race as a revelation, as a flash from Heaven, more

348 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

marvelous than the creation of physical things. It
was the one great fact that, above all others, must be
driven into the heart of the race—branded upon its
mind. The account in Genesis was for moral and
religious purposes. To serve these purposes in the
best possible way, it was necessary that the account
should be but an outline.

Some writers have attempted, in elaborate ways, to
place the cosmogonies in Genesis and Geology side
by side in detail. I regard such efforts as a waste of
labor. The one record is so general, and the other so
imperfect, that we have no certain basis for detailed
comparisons. If we cannot see that they perfectly
harmonize, still, as shown above, we are not justified
in asserting that they conflict. It being impossible to
show the existence of a conflict, an attempt at recon-
ciliation becomes unnecessary.

The conception of Monotheism, comprehending the
origin and the control of the infinite Universe, is the
most comprehensive that can enter the human mind.
It came of necessity by revelation—I say, of neces-
sity, for there is no other conceivable way by which it
could have entered the human mind, especially in
that early age.

The broadest conclusion of the most perfect science
is, I think, that there is One Cause in the Universe.
The people of that age knew no science, and, there-
fore, their Monotheistic belief could not have been
based on science. Philosophers are still disputing as
to the nature of the Final Cause. There was no con-
gress of scientists and philosophers who agreed that
“‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth.”’

The minds of the great masses of mankind in all
ages, ignorant of the laws of nature, have invented a
multitude of gods in order to account for the many

GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 349

seeming conflicts among natural phenomena. Poly-
theism has been the inevitable result of the ignorance
of the laws of nature, from which there could be no
possible escape except revelation.

Monotheism was born into the human mind from
above. It came early in the authentic history of the
race. It has survived through the darkest periods of
human history against all the assaults that could be
brought against it,—survived as the central idea of
religion and ethics, and this in the minds of a people,
the masses of whom were extremely ignorant, and
who, at every’ opportunity, lapsed into polytheism.
But the holy fire of inspiration, kindled from above,
ever burned on the altars of the hearts of the chosen
few, by which the fact of Monotheism, with its all-
important consequences, was kept and nourished in
the minds of the people.

The Monotheism of the Bible came by revelation,
for the reason that it could have originated in no
other way. The highest civilizations of antiquity did
not reach it. There is no reason to believe that the
learned men of any age within the historic period
originated the idea. The belief in One God as the
Creator and Moral Governor came suddenly in all of
its perfection and splendor. There is no effort in
Genesis, nor in the Bible, to prove by methods of
logic, science or philosophy, the existence of God.
And yet the writers speak with unwavering faith in
the existence of the One God. They write as if it
were not at all a matter of faith, but a matter of
immediate knowledge, that God spoke to them and
through them. ‘‘ Moreover, the word of the Lord
came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? ’’
‘“¢The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel,
the priest.”” ‘‘The word of the Lord that came to
Joel.’’ “The burden of the word of the Lord to

350 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

Israel by Malachi.’’ These are the unqualified ex-
pressions by which the great teachers in Israel begin
their teachings.

No shadow of suspicion that there is no God, or
that there is a multitude of gods, is ever expressed.
Their minds, one and all, from the beginning to the
end of their writings, are clear and most emphatic as
to the One God, and his relation to them and to
humanity. As witnesses of their divine knowledge
they were ready to surrender their lives. They rightly
have their places in history among the heroes who
have forsaken all else for the truth.

If, therefore, the idea of Monotheism originated
and survived by revelation through the long, dark
periods of the world’s history, the oldest record that
contains this greatest of all facts, the revelation of the
One God, may be regarded as true in other respects.

If the cosmogony in Genesis needed confirmation,
which, so far as we can probably ever know it does
not, the Monotheism of the record would be sufiicient.
He who in the first sentence could write ‘‘In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth,”
could from the same source of knowledge write that
on the third day, or period of creation, ‘‘the earth
brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind,
and tree bearing fruit;’’ and that on the fifth day the
waters were made to ‘“‘ bring forth abundantly the
moving creature that hath life,’’ and that the earth
brought forth ‘‘the living creature after its kind,
cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
after its kind,’’ and that, finally, ‘‘God created man
in his own image.”’

As in Geology, so in Genesis, life begins with plants
and moves upward to higher forms till it culminates
inman. A multitude of details which would have
been burdensome to the minds of the people is omit-

GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 351

ted, while the great central fact of the existence of
God and his creative, ruling and moral power are

emphasized.
His fatherhood is implied in the language, ‘‘ Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness.’’ ‘And

God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him.’’

It has been said that the author of the cosmogony
in Genesis made an evident mistake in representing
that the sun and moon were not created till the
fourth day, while light was created on the first day.
This may be answered, as has been done, by claiming
that the Mosaic account represents creation as it
would have appeared to an observer stationed upon
the earth and viewing the process as it took place.

That the earth was once melted is shown by the
facts of science. At that stage of its existence all
the water now in the oceans was in the form of steam
and clouds above the surface of the earth.

The sun, for a long period, was obscured by dense
clouds. Long before it could have been seen, the
light, at first small in amount, but ever increasing,
owing to the constant cooling of the earth, and the
settling of the condensed waters upon the land,
pierced in visible quantity through the clouds, so that
it could have been seen by an observer on the earth.
To such an observer, it could then, for the first time,
have been said in language that he could have under-
stood, ‘* Let there be light.’’

As the earth cooled more and more until the air
lost most of its moisture, a well-defined, visible region
appeared between the earth and the clouds.

‘‘And God made the firmament and divided the
waters which were under the firmament from the
waters which were above the firmament.”

While a permanent sheet of cloud still covered the

352 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

earth, and while the sun was still invisible, there was
sufficient light for the growth of plants, and they were
created on the third day, while the sun and moon
were still invisible.

The waters, according to both Genesis and Geology,
at first covered the whole earth. ‘‘And God said,
Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it
was so.””

Thus, beginning with an earth that ‘‘ was waste and
void,’’ shrouded in dense darkness by means of im-
penetrable clouds and vapors, as time passed slowly
on the waters settled by condensation, the light that
found its way through the cloud increased more and
more, the visible firmament appeared, dry land was
permanently established above the waters, land plants
were created, and then, on the fourth day, after the
lapse of the long periods that had gone before, the
sun and moon first became visible between the rifted
clouds.

It seems proper that the inspired seer of the pano-
rama of creation should state that the sun, moon and
stars were created on the fourth day, or period, the
earliest time at which they would have been visible to
a person on the surface of the earth.

It may be, however, that the creation of the sun
and moon is included in the language of the first
verse, ‘‘In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth,’’ and that on the fourth day, becoming vis-
ible upon the earth, they were designated as being
from that time the rulers and sources of light for the
earth.

I cannot consider the various theories which have
been advanced in connection with cosmogony. Vol-
umes have been written on the subject. I know of

GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 353

no reason why it can with truth be asserted that

Geology and Science conflict with the cosmogony in

Genesis. The latter is certainly marvelous, consider-

ing the time of its origin, and its great central truth,

Monotheism, stamps the whole as of Divine origin.
23

APPENDIX.

“THE PRIMARY FACTORS OF ORGANIC EVO-
LUTION,” BY E. D. COPE, EXAMINED.

SincE writing the preceding, I have examined the
volume entitled, ‘‘The Primary Factors of Organic
Evolution,’ by E. D. Cope, recently issued.

This book having been written by a leading author
on paleontology, endeavors to throw new light upon
the subject of evolution derived from that source.
It also endeavors to explain the origin of variations.
For these reasons, especially, I deem it proper to re-
view the volume at some length.

In the introduction the author says: ‘The doc-
trine of evolution may be defined as the teaching
which holds that creation has been and is accom-
plished by the agency of the energies which are in-
trinsic inthe evolving matter, and without the inter-
ference of agencies which are external to it. It holds
this to be true of the combinations and forms of in-
organic nature, and those of organic nature as well.
Whether the intrinsic energies which accomplish evo-
lution be forms of radiant or other energy only, act-
ing inversely as the square of the distance, and with-
out consciousness, or whether they be energies whose
direction is affected by the presence of consciousness,
the energy is property of the physical basis of tridi-
mensional matter, and is not outside of it, accord-

ing to the doctrine we are about to consider.
(354)

APPENDIX 355

‘‘ As a view of nature from an especial standpoint,
evolution takes its place as a distinct science. The
science of evolution is the science of creation.”’

As to the ‘‘energy of evolution,’’ he says: ‘‘If
the tendency of the catagenic energies is away from
vital phenomena, it is impossible that they, or any of
them, should be the cause of the origin of living
matter. This logical inference is confirmed by the
failure of all attempts to demonstrate spontaneous
generation of living organisms from inorganic matter.
Further, the principle of continuity leads us to infer
that the energy which produced organic matter must
be identical with or allied to that which is the efficient
agent in progressive evolution of organisms, and is,
therefore, anagenetic. Such a conclusion may seem
to lead toa dualism which is itself opposed to the
principle of continuity or uniformity, and which is
opposed to experience of the phenomena of energy in
general.

‘Since facts and logic do not support the derivation
of the anagenetic from the inorganic energies, can
the reverse process, the derivation of the catagenic
from the anagenetic be and have been the order of
nature? In support of this hypothesis, we have the
universal prevalence of the retrograde metamorpho-
sis of energy in both the inorganic and organic king-
doms. Phenomena of structural degeneracy are well
known in the organic world, and purely chemical
phenomena in both organic and inorganic processes
are degenerate. It appears then much more proba-
ble that catagenesis succeeds anagenesis as a conse-
quence, and does not precede it as a cause. In other
words, it is more probable that death is a con-
sequence of life, rather than that the living is a
product of the non-living.”’ *

*Page 482,

356 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

With regard to the function of consciousness, he
says: ‘*The relation of consciousness to thé phys-
ical basis is as yet a profound mystery, but that they
exercise over each other a definite mutual control is
unquestionable. The processes which produce
thought, as conception, judgment, etc., are however,
not qualitatively related to the amount of nutritious
proteids consumed in the central nervous system, but
only quantitatively; yet it is the outcome of these
processes that directs animal movements, when they
are not automatic.

‘In other words, the forms of thought, which have
no weight, direct the movements of muscles which
have weight. This is not in accord with the doctrine
of the correlation of energy. But what has the
formation of a concept or the development of a
judgment to do, per se, with the correlation of en-
ergy?

‘* While, therefore, every mental process is expen-
sive as a whole, the mental content is obedient to
the forms of thought rather than to the correlation of
energy. This is what mind is.” *

Again, ‘‘The formal statement of this phenome-
non may be found in the thesis, that energy can be
conscious. If true, this is an ultimate fact, neither
more nor less difficult to comprehend than the nature
of energy or matter in their ultimate analyses. But
how is such a hypothesis to be reconciled with the
facts of nature, where consciousness plays a part so
infinitesimally small? The explanation lies close at
hand, and has already been referred to. Energy be-
come automatic is no longer conscious, or is about to
become unconscious. That this is the case is a mat-
ter of every-day observation on ourselves and on
other animals. What the molecular conditions of

* Page 506.

APPENDIX 357

consciousness are, is one of the problems of the
future, and for usa very interesting one. One thing
is certain, the organization of the mechanism of
habits is its enemy. J¢ ts clear that in animals, ener-
gy, on the loss of consctousness, undergoes a retrogade
‘metamorphosis.

‘*To regard consciousness as the primitive condi-
tion of energy, contemplates an order of evolution in
a large degree the reverse of the one which is ordi-
narily entertained. The usual view is that life is de-
rived from inorganic energies as a result of high or
complex molecular organization, and that conscious-
ness (= sensibility) is the ultimate outcome of the
nervous or equivalent energy possessed by living
bodies. The failure of the attempts to demonstrate
spontaneous generation will prove, if continued, fatal
to this theory. With our present evidence it may be
affirmed that not only has life preceded organiza-
tion, but that consciousness was coincident with the
dawn of life.”’

Again he says: ‘*I think it possible to show that
the true definition of life is, energy directed by sensi-
bility or by a mechanism which has originated under
the direction of sensibility.”’ *

The above quotations with regard to final causes,
life and its origin, indicate that the author is not a
materialist. As to the object of the volume, he says:

‘*My aim will be to show, in the first place, that
variations of character are the effect of physical
causes; and second, that such variations are in-
herited.”’ f

In this view he follows Lamarck. Darwin thought
that, for the most part, the causes of variation were
unknown.

The first chapter in the book treats of variation.

* Page 507. + Page 14.

358 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

In this he considers the variations in color of closely
related species of beetles, snakes, and lizards. If all
that he claims here be true, yet it would be of little
importance in establishing the truth of the theory of
evolution, for it is well known that color has little, if
any thing, to do with structure, and that it is with
changes of structure that evolution is concerned.

He next considers variations in North American
birds and mammals in relation to locality. He shows
that certain species of birds and mammals vary in the
size of the individuals composing them, and that the
latter vary somewhat in the relative size of certain
organs. Size alone of individuals does not determine
species.

Then follows a brief statement of a few variations
in structural characters, in which it is shown that
among dogs the number of teeth varies somewhat,
and, also, that their structure varies slightly. The
same things occur among the teeth of different men.

It is not certain that the different kinds of dogs
have all been derived from one species, and this may
help to account for fewer teeth in some.

He endeavors to show, by comparing their skele-
tons, that the various species of Batrachia (— frogs,
toads, etc.), have had a common origin. The origin
of species cannot be determined by simply comparing
skeletons. Such comparisons are, of course, neces-
sary for the theory of evolution, but much more is
required than this in order to account for new species.

He attributes to isolation a large share in the for-
mation of species. He says: ‘‘ That existing types
of all grades are the result of the isolation of varia-
tions of species, is shown by the frequent examples of
incomplete isolation, which follows inconstancy of the
definitive characters.’’ *

* Page 62.

APPENDIX 359

To have thus formed all species would have re-
quired hundreds of thousands of isolations, which
were impossible. Besides, it is evident that isolation
could not produce variations, but could simply keep
varieties apart after they were formed.

Chapter II. treats of the ‘“‘ phylogeny or genealogy
of organisms,’’ which, he says, ‘‘ can only be deter-
mined by paleontologic research.”’

In making out the general phylogeny for the animal
kingdom,* he depends on embryology, and not on
paleontology. He claims that embryology shows that
such animals as star-fishes, oysters and snails, craw-
fishes and beetles, and all animals with backbones, in-
cluding man, have been derived from worms,—hence
the truth of the claim by theologians, that ‘‘ man is
but a poor worm of the dust.”’

Again he says: ‘‘If we could study the embryology
of the many extinct forms of life, the missing stages
would be found, but as we have not the opportunity
of pursuing this important research, we have to rely
on paleontology for our phylogeny. Paleontology is,
and always will be, imperfect, but all that we get is
palingeny, or the phylogeny itself, and not an inverted
and distorted record of it.’ ¢

It would seem from this language that the author
discards embryology in determining phylogeny, and
that he would depend exclusively on paleontology,
and yet, as stated above, he bases general phylogeny
on embryology.

The reason is evident, and that is, paleontology
furnishes no evidence whatever as to the origin of the
sub-kingdoms of animals, and consequently, he must
lean upon the mere assumptions of embryology.

The author shows { some of the shortcomings of
embryology. It should be remembered that the old-

* Page 81. + Page 210. t Page 209.

360 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

est known fossil representatives of the different sub-
kingdoms are widely apart in structure, and paleon-
tology has furnished no evidence, whatever, in the
form of fossils, to show that they had a common
origin. Nor is there any hope that she will be able
todo so. ,

He next proceeds to manufacture a phylogeny for
the vertebrates. He remarks that, “ Embryologists
are especially apt to construct impossible phylogenies,
as they are generally not systematists, and frequently
not anatomists.’’** The first half of this is, no doubt,
true.

He continues: ‘The Amphioxus (genus Branchi-
ostoma) is generally regarded as the ancestral verte-
brate. There are many reasons why this position
must be accepted, although it possesses a few second-
ary modifications. Whether Branchiostoma derived
its descent from an annelid worm, or from a tuni-
cate, is a vexed question.” f

I suggest that the degraded tunicate, grown fast to
a rock by what was once his head, be relieved of the
responsibility of having been the ancestor of man.
He evidently saw that the worm was ahead of him in
the race, and he attempted suicide by jamming his
head against a rock and holding it there till it grew
fast and, finally, disappeared, while he lived on:

But the origin of the Amphioxus, our oldest verte-
bral ancestor, is uncertain—the honor of having been
his father being divided between the writhing, wrig-
gling, squirming worm on the one hand, and the
leathery, stupid, motionless tunicate on the other,
with odds in favor of the former. I am sure that
Amphioxus, if called on to-day, would hardly be able
to recognize his own father, so much has he grown
away from him in appearance.

* Page 85. + Page 86.

APPENDIX 361

This doubt as to the pedigree of our most ancient
back-boned ancestor, will, no doubt, wound the pride
of some of the blue-bloods, but they may console
themselves with the knowledge that this slight doubt
as to the record arose some fifty, or, possibly, a hun-
dred million years ago.

As to the origin of mammals he says: ‘It is evi-
dent that Mammalia were derived from some type
probably referable to a Permian reptilian order of the
Theromerous series, although to which one is not yet
known.’’ *

Why the above ‘‘is evident,’’ is not at all clear to
me, except that the necessities of the theory of evolu-
tion make this claim necessary. So far as we know,
reptiles were the highest animals that preceded mam-
mals, and, granting that the theory of evolution is
true, it follows that mammals were probably derived
from them. But paleontology has little, if anything,
to show as to the origin of mammals. How a cold-
blooded reptile with nucleated red corpuscles and no
milk glands, could have become warm-blooded with
non-nucleated red corpuscles and have acquired milk
glands, is not even guessed at by the author.

Cope does not agree with Heckel in deriving
Batrachia from Dipnoi, but he is in doubt as to their
origin.

As to reptiles: ‘‘The Reptilia have been supposed
by Heckel to have taken their origin from the Batra-
chia.’’ | With this opinion the author agrees. ‘And
it is from the Triassic Dinosauria that I suppose the
birds to have arisen.’”’

Thus itis seen that paleontology furnishes no con-
clusive evidence as to the origin of either fish, am-
phibian, reptile, bird or mammal. A great multitude

* Page 88. t+ Page 88.

362 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

of intermediate forms necessary to connect these
classes has not been discovered.

Concerning reptiles, ‘* The vertebre are not intro-
duced into the definitions of the orders, since they
are not so exclusively distinctive as many other parts
of the skeleton.”?* Besides, it is not certain how
their various kinds of vertebrae could have had a
common origin.

Again, ‘‘ The paleontology of the birds not being
known, our conclusions respecting the character of
their evolution must be incomplete.’ The derivation
of feathers from scales of reptiles needs to be ex-
plained.

He claims that the monotremes, the lowest known
mammals, have lost their teeth and ‘their condition
is evidently one of degradation.’’ How did they lose
the numerous well-developed teeth of their reptilian
progenitors?

Again, ‘“‘In the marsupial order we have a great
range of dental structure, which almost epitomizes
that of the monodelph orders. The dentition of the
carnivorous forms is creodont; that of the kangaroos
is perissodactyle, and that of the wombats is rodent.
Other forms repeat the Insectivora.”’ How was it
possible for so many independent evolutions of teeth
to have taken place in which similar teeth were pro-
duced in marsupials and true mammals. The fact
that they were independently formed is the strongest
possible argument against the theory that they were
evolved. The author, in another place, tries to solve
this difficulty, and many others, on mechanical prin-
ciples.

He admits that the phylogeny of Cetacea, Sirenia,
Edentata and Marsupials has not yet been cleared up,

* Page 121.

APPENDIX 363

but he claims that the phylogeny of most of the
other orders is known.

The earliest known mammals (of the Triassic and
Jurassic) ‘‘are already highly specialized. They
probably represent the Monotremata of their time.”’
The fact that they were then “highly specialized ”’ is
very significant. How long had it taken them to be-
come so? When did they depart from the reptilian
type? Paleontology is silent as to their origin.
Again, he says, ‘‘The immediate didelphian ances-
tors of the monodelphous Mammalia have not yet
been certainly discovered.’”? How do we know then
that the ancestors were didelphian?

Again, ‘The history of the Monotremata is not
made out, but the earliest forms of which we know,
the skeleton, Polymastodon (Cope) of the Lower
Eocene, is as specialized as the most specialized
recent forms. The dentition of the Jurassic forms,
Plagiaulix, etc., is quite specialized also, but not
more than those of the kangaroos. The premolars
are more specialized, the true molars less specialized
than in those animals.’’*

From this it is seen that the oldest known mono-
tremes are found in the Eocene, and yet it is assumed
that monotremes were the ancestors of marsupials a
whole long age before the Eocene began.

The oldest known forms of monotremes and mar-
supials were as specialized as living ones of the same
orders.

Again, he says: ‘In conclusion, the progressive
may be compared with the retrogressive evolution of
the Vertebrata, as follows: In the earlier periods and
with the lower forms, retrogressive evolution has pre-
dominated. In the higher classes progressive evolu-
tion has predominated.” f

* Page 142. + Page 146,

364 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

It is remarkable that it must be assumed that re-
trogression in the animal kingdom has been quite as
general as progression. This principle is called in to
explain the existence of the various rudimentary or-
gans and numerous modifications of organs that exist
among animals. By adding and subtracting organs
and parts of organs from assumed ideal forms, it
becomes easy to derive any known form by the use of
the imagination.

As to the origin of man, he says: ‘‘I have ad-
vanced the further hypothesis that the Anthropo-
morpha (which include man and the anthropoid apes)
have been derived directly from the lemurs, without
passing through the monkeys proper.” *

«* The frequent presence of the tritubercular molar
in man suggests the superior claim of the lemurs over
the monkeys to the position of ancestor.’’ A great
consolation.

But man ‘ cannot be traced through any existing
type of Lemuride, but through the extinct forms of
the Eocene period.” He then gives a picture f of
the lower jaw of our possible ancestral lemur. It dif-
fers much in shape from man’s jaw. It contains ten
teeth on each side, there being but eight in man. {The
teeth, for the most part, look very different from
those of man.

It will be noticed, however, that the author only
advances a hypothesis, and: that he does not claim
positive knowledge that man was derived from
lemurs.

Concerning man and anthropoid apes he says:
“©The sole difference between these families is seen
in the structure of the posterior foot: the Simiide
having the hallux opposable, while in the Hominid

* Page 154. t Page 156.

APPENDIX 365

the hallux is not opposable. This is not a strong
character,”’ etc.

If this is true, I suggest that a slight surgical oper-
ation will convert gorilla into man, and then he can
be put on the high-road to civilization. When his
big toe is made to grow in human fashion, he will, of
necessity, abandon his arboreal habits, and he can be
kept within bounds by his teachers.

But Huxley claimed that the structural differences
between man and apes were many and great, instead
of being confined to some little difference between
the big toes.

He says: ‘I find, in fact, that those who endeavor
to teach what nature so clearly shows in this matter,
are liable to have their opinions misrepresented and
their phraseology garbled until they seem to say that
the structural differences between man and even the
highest apes are small and insignificant. Let me take
this opportunity then of distinctly asserting, on the
contrary, that they are great and significant; that
every bone of a Gorilla bears marks by which it
might be distinguished from the corresponding bone
of aman; and that, inthe present creation, at any
rate, no intermediate link bridges over the gap be-
tween Homo and Troglodytes.’’ *

Cope has, in this instance, saved his imagination
the slight trouble of bridging the chasm between man
and the apes by denying its existence, while Huxley,
equally distinguished as a comparative anatomist,
emphasizes its existence.

Again, the author says: ‘‘Itis then highly prob-
able that Homo is descended from some form of the
Anthropomorpha now extinct, and probably unknown
at present, although we do not yet know all the char-
acters of some extinct supposed Simiide, of which

* Cyclopedia of Science, Vol. 2, p. 232,

366 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

fragments only remain to us.’’ Here we have it

“highly probable’’ that man originated from some
unknown ape.

He next considers the remains of man that are re-
garded as being the oldest known, and attempts to
bridge the chasm. The skulls of ‘‘the man and
woman of Spy,”’ are compared with the Neanderthal
skull, and he concludes that they all belong to the
same race. He concludes that the peculiar characters
of these skulls, their jaws and teeth, ‘go a long way
toward justifying the separation of the Neanderthal
race as a distinct species, as has been done by some
author under the name of Homo neanderthalensis.’’
He afterwards speaks of it as a distinct species. In
this case comparatively small variations in structure
are given sufficient weight to separate part of the
genus Homo as a distinct species, while between man
and apes, ‘‘the sole difference’”’ is in the position of
the big toe. To fill the gap between man and ape, the
ape is lifted in structure by ignoring the differences.
When he comes to consider the remains of man, a
similar purpose is served by degrading individuals
that are well known to have been human, so as to
form a lower species. Differences in structure be-
come great or small according to the necessity of the
theory of evolution. The Neanderthal and Spy skulls
are of good capacity, a fact which the author neglects
to state. The capacity of the former is 75 cubic
inches, or about 1,053 cubic centimetres, which, Hux-
ley says, ‘‘Is the average capacity given by Morton
for Polynesian and Hottentot skulls. So large a mass
of brain as this, would alone suggest that the pithe-
coid tendencies, indicated by this skull, did not ex-
tend deep into the organization; and this conclusion
is borne out by the dimensions of the other bones of

APPENDIX 367

the skeleton given by Professor Schaffhausen, which
show that the absolute height and relative proportions
of the limbs were quite those of an European of mid-
dle stature. The bones are indeed stouter, but this,
and the great development of the muscular ridges,
noted by Dr. Schaffhausen, are characters to be ex-
pected in savages. Patagonians, exposed without
shelter or protection to a climate possibly not very
dissimilar from that of Europe at the time during
which the Neanderthal man lived, are remarkable for
the stoutness of their limb bones. In no sense, then,
can the Neanderthal bones be regarded as the remains
of a human being intermediate between Man and
Apes. In conclusion, I may say, that the fossil re-
mains of man hitherto discovered do not seem to me
to take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid
form, by the modification of which he has, probably,
become what he is.’’ *

Such were Huxley’s views with regard to men and
apes, and no fossils have since been discovered which,
if he were still living, would cause him to change
these views.

The latest discovery of the supposed connecting
link was made by Dr. Dubois, in Java, near Trinil.

With regard to these bones, Cope says: ‘‘ The
characters of the skull are closely similar to those of
the men of Neanderthal and Spy, but the walls are
not so thick as those of the former, and more nearly
resemble those of the latter.”? t The cranial capacity
of the gorilla is 500 cubic centimetres, that of the
man of Java 1,000, and that of the lowest normal
man 1,500 cubic centimetres. This last statement,
with regard to the least capacity of the normal skull
of man, is not correct, as the author himself shows on
the same page.

* Cyclopedia of Science, p. 253, + Page 169,

368 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

But, alas for the theory of the missing link! ‘¢ Vir-
chow has pointed out that some of the Nigritos pos-
sess a remarkably small cranial capacity, as little as
950 cubic centimetres, and an inhabitant of New
Britain only 860 cubic centimetres, a capacity even
smaller than the man of Trinil. Until we learn the
characters of the lower jaw, we shall be in doubt as
to whether this individual pertains to the Homo
sapiens or the Homo neanderthalensis.’’ *

It is admitted, then, that these bones are human,
and that their possessor was not more degraded than
the Neanderthal man of whom Huxley wrote.

The skulls of Neanderthal, Spy and Trinil, all have
a capacity of 1,000 cubic centimetres, or more, which
is considerably more than that of various living men.

So eager were Dubois and Heckel to supply the
connecting Jink between men and apes that, for the
man of Trinil, they proposed ‘‘a new genus, Pithe-
canthropus,’’ ‘‘and even a new family, Pithecan-
thropide, without having shown that he is not a
member of the genus Homo.’’ It is certain, from
what has been said, that paleontology has not shown
how man originated.

Cope, however, does not hesitate to make out the
genealogy of man, extending through all the geolog-
ical ages.t I will repeat this genealogy, giving mostly
the common, instead of the technical names, which
he uses, and I will add certain details which the
author omits. Man began away back beyond the old-
est known fossils as a Protozoan, which was simply a
gelatinous cell, floating in the ocean. In due time he
became a. jelly-fish, or, possibly, a polyp, much like
those that make coral. Desiring to lead a more
active life, he stretched his body, in his numerous

* Page 169. t Page 171,

APPENDIX 369

efforts at locomotion, until it developed into a squirm-
ing worm that groveled on the bottom of the sea.

But, as a worm, he was discontented with his con-
dition, a characteristic which the human race inherits
from his wormship, and so he aspired after a back-
bone to aid him in fighting the battles of life. After
much meditation, he concluded that he could best
acquire this new organ by shifting his habitation and
changing his diet; so he moved northward into deeper
and colder water, and he added to his diet, once a
day, small pellets of rock which would serve as food
for backbone. After endless shiftings, from place to
place, and the devouring of numerous kinds and of
numberless pellets, he succeeded in permanently estab-
lishing a rudimentary backbone. He was then an Am-
phioxus, the vertebrate ancestor of all the vertebrates.
His backbone at this time was extremely weak, and he
soon realized that a greater quantity and a firmer
quality were desirable, and so he doubled the fre-
quency of taking the calcareous pebbles, using them
at both his morning and evening repasts, in as large
quantities as his stomach could digest. At the same
time he entered the sub-marine gymnasium and gave
himself up to bending his body from side to side, in
order that the rapidly forming backbone might be
kept flexible while it increased in strength. By this
continual exercise, the hardening bone was developed
into distinct vertebre.

In this condition he was a fish. While swimming
near the shore one day, he was cast by a great wave
upon the beach, where he gave himself up as lost.
But his partner in the sea, chancing to hear his moans
of despair, encouraged him to use his fins for legs,
which he immediately did, to the good purpose of
goon reaching the water. The view which he obtained
when cast ig brought to his mind the knowledge

370 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

of the existence of another world, with which he
longed to become acquainted. So he decided that he
would proceed cautiously to explore the neighboring
land. Riding upon the crest of the highest wave, he
permitted himself to be cast upon the beach much
higher than before. Having viewed the world from
that point, he regained the water as at first. His ex-
perience in trying to use his fins as legs gave him
the knowledge that they would need to be changed a
good deal in order to adapt them to locomotion on
land, and he also felt a certain shortness of breath
while on land which he desired to overcome, in order
that he might remain long out of water and make
extended journeys.

By much flapping of his fins edgewise against the
rocks he gradually narrowed and elongated them, and
he also succeeded in breaking their hard parts into
joints.

By holding his mouth full of compressed air he
succeeded in expanding a part of his gullet into a
sac which finally developed into alung. After thous-
ands of generations, involving infinite labor, and skill,
and patience, he was able to claim as his birthright
four good legs and two good lungs; but he retained
also his gills, for, as yet, he was afraid to trust his
fortunes entirely to the dry land. He was then an
Amphibian—a water-dog, in his habits.

He reveled in luxury on land. He gorged himself
day and night with fat flies and juicy bugs. He basked
in the sunshine of the cool morning, and, at noon, he
escaped the scorching rays of the sun by stretching
* his weary limbs beneath the cooling shades of the Car-
boniferous ferns. When he first sought the land, he
returned regularly to the sea. But by and by he be-
came so wedded to the luxuries of the land, that he
neglected for days and even months to return to the

APPENDIX 371

water, and so his gills gradually disappeared, from
disuse. He was thena Reptile, somewhat like the
crocodile. But he did not lose his taste for fat flies
and juicy bugs. He began .to be more human-like.
He entered into contests with his fellow-crocodiles in
order to determine who could eat the greatest number
of a certain species of very luscious flies. In this
way he so inflated his stomach with rich diet that
some of the chyme oozed out through the ventral
surface of his body. This leakage soon attracted the
notice of the young crocodiles, and they began to lick
off this rich chyme in order to prevent the waste. In
this way the first milk glands were developed—so to
speak, by accident—and thus originated the first mam-
mal.

The hot sun dried up his scales, the winds split
them into threads, and thus hairs were evolved. He
was then the lowest mammal, something like the
duck-mole of Australia, except that he had numerous
well-developed teeth. He laid eggs and hatched
them, and hovered his young at night. By-and-by the
youthful duck-mole, not liking to be left so much at
home by the mater familias, succeeded, after much
toil, through many long and weary nights, in develop-
ing aprojection of the skin into an udder, which he
firmly grasped by his mouth, and thus he was carried
from place to place, and learned ‘‘to view the land-
scape o’er.”’

The mother, being delighted with the pluck of the
youthful ancestor of future man, determined to
make him as comfortable as possible, and so, in order
to carry him with more comfort and to shield his
youthful back from the inclemencies of the weather
and from the assaults of enemies, she drew the sur-
plus skin of her ventral region over his body and
pinned it with a thorn, and, thus, in a short time was

372 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

evolved the pouch of the oppossum, the utility and
comfort of which we witness in our day.

But the land became so thickly peopled with croco-
diles, lizards, water-dogs, frogs, duck-moles and
opossums, that it became extremely difficult to obtain
enough fat insects to serve as-food. This led to vio-
lent contentions among these, our early ancestors, as
to who should have the first choice of the most tooth-
some bugs. Angry words soon led to war, and war,
as usual, resulted in bloodshed. The sight and smell
and taste of blood soon became familiar. Some of
them, having swallowed the blood of their fellow-men
by accident, learned that it would nourish their bod-
ies, and from this beginning, an appetite for flesh and
blood was speedily formed. From this time on, a
cannibal race lived and prospered at the expense of
their inoffensive neighbors.

But it must be evident to the most superficial ob-
server, that the opossum, weighted by carrying her
numerous young, at first in her pouch, and, after-
wards on her back, was not in the best condition to
outstrip her competitors in the race of life. She was
carrying far more than the legal burden prescribed by
the modern race-course for an animal of her size. So
she explained to her infant family the necessities of
the case, and they, with unanimous voice, agreed to
remain at home and stay within doors, while she
fought the battles, captured her neighbors as prey,
and ran the race of life.

A few generations of disuse caused the pouch and
the marsupial bones to disappear, and thus came into
existence the ferocious flesh-eating animal, our great,
great grandfather, who roamed through the primitive
Mesozoic forests, ‘‘ seeking whom he might devour.”’

Time moved apace. The inhabitants of the earth
became more and more crowded, food was more

APPENDIX 373

scarce, and conflicts were so numerous and savage
that to many a poor soul life seemed not worth liv-
ing. In this extremity, our dog-like or creodont
ancestor, exercising the usual wits for which our
whole line of progenitors has ever been noted, with
an aspiring mind began to look heavenward in hope
of some sort of relief. He viewed the silvery moon
and the twinkling stars, and was pleased with their
brightness. He also observed that on the trees hung
luscious fruits, some of which, partly decomposed, he
had picked from the ground, and that numerous
glossy, fat birds flitted by day among the foilage and
roosted on the boughs of the trees by night. He
said to himself, ‘‘ What a feast if I could only
climb!’’ The intense desire soon became father to
thedeed. He soon selected a peach tree of that Age
on which there hung much golden fruit. His first
effort at climbing was extremely awkward, and he fell
to the ground.. Again he renewed the effort with all
his strength, in doing which he so jarred the tree
that some of its best fruit fell to the earth. This he
eagerly devoured. Encouraged with his success he
repeated the process ‘‘ until his stomach was fairly
filled.” His mind was then fully made up to seek
the things that were above—to climb into a world
where none of his close kindred had ever been. So
he gave himself up to the severest course of training.
He hugged the trees for hours at atime in order to
give his arms the best shape for grasping. He patted
his fore feet and hind feet against stones in order
that they might be flattened into hands for grasping
and feet for biped locomotion. He pulled his fingers
to increase their length, and placed wedges between
what are now the thumb and the forefinger, in order
to make the former stand out as athumb. In like
manner he developed the big toe into a grasping

Missing Page

Missing Page

376 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

the characters of individual animals and plants. These
influences fall naturally into two classes, viz., the
physico-chemical (molecular,) and the mechanical
(molar). The modifications so presented are sup-
posed to be the result of the action of the causes in
question, continued throughout geological time.’’
He gives the names Physiogenesis and Kinetogenesis
to the above causes. ‘‘In the animal kingdom we
may reasonably suppose that kinetogenesis is more
potent as an efficient cause of evolution than physio-
genesis.’’ * 7

Under physiogenesis the author shows the effects
of light and of certain kinds of food in modifying
the colors of a few animals; also, the effects of
changing the saltness of water on two or three spe-
cies; and, finally, he considered the blindness of ani-
mals that live in caves.

If all that he claims in this chapter is true, yet it
has but little bearing on the question of evolution.
Change of color has little, if anything, to do with
change of structure, and loss of vision by disuse can-
not explain the origin of eyes.

The chapter on Kinetogenesis occupies 140 pages.
The author, relying on this as the principal cause of
variations, attempts to explain the origin of organs
and the great changes which have, according to evo-
lution, taken place in the structure of animals.

I can only refer to a few parts of this chapter,
which will give some idea of the author’s method.

As to the origin of lungs, he says: ‘‘ The habit of
holding in the esophagus large quantities of air while
engaged in seeking food in foul water, or on land, on
the part of vertebrates which normally oxygenated
the blood by means of gills, was probably the mechan-
ical cause of the development of a pouch, and after-

*Page 225.

APPENDIX 377

wards of a diverticulum of the csaphagus, which
became ultimately a swim bladder or a lung.’’*

‘“*The segmentation of the limbs of vertebrata is a
simple mechanical problem. Paleontology and em-
bryology concur in proving that the limbs originated
in primitive folds in the external integument, and
that their connection with the internal skeleton was
of Jater accomplishment, has been shown by Widers-
heim.’’ + The origin of the limbs of vertebrates,
with their complicated structures, is a very difficult
problem. Embryology, I believe, teaches nothing on
this subject, nor does paleontology, as far as I have
been able to learn, show that the “limbs originated
in primitive folds in the external integument.”

The author claims that the original limbs were
** slender-rods which were segmented by interruptions
at suitable points.”? Strange indeed is it that folds of
the skin were developed into slender segmented rods.
One would have expected that such folds would give
rise to broad limbs of some kind.

Again, he says that ‘‘the articulations of the fin-
rays of fishes, as shown by Ryder, are fractures, due
to flexures during motion in the water medium.”’

By the process of fractures, I understand that the
author intends to explain the origin of the joints in
limbs. If this is true, it indeed becomes marvelous
when we try to account, in this way, for the origin of
all the joints in the arms and hands, legs and feet of
man. Between one and two hundred fractures, all
made by accident, with exact regularity in the corre-
sponding parts of limbs, must have occurred. If this
is true, what has become of the doctrine of chances?
How have four complex limbs, alike in pairs, and all
four closely alike, with a great, number of corre-

* Page 363. + Page 366.

378 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

sponding bones and joints,been evolved? No plausible
explanation has been given.

Again: ‘‘ The limb of land vertebrates was derived
from one of the forms of fins of water vertebrates ’’

‘“‘the limbs of the first land animals were
segmented and flexible at the joints between the seg-
ments.’’* The joints of the first land animals were,
then, if I understand the author, the joints of the fins
of fishes which had originated from accidental frac-
tures.

He continues: ‘* The terminal flexure, that of the
wrist or ankle, has been evidently due to a similar
mechanical cause, viz., the flexure due to the pressure
of the weight of the body on the terminal segments
when in contact with the earth. The distal segments.
are the most slender in all types, and least able to
maintain a linear direction under pressure, hence,
they have flexed easily, and thus the line of separation
between leg and foot had its origin.”’

He then gives a general theory to account for the
origin of joints in both exo and endo-skeletons: ‘If
we imagine that either the integuments, or an axial
rod, of a worm-like animal, has become the seat of a
calcareous or chitinous deposit, it is evident that the
movements of the animal, in swimming or creeping,
must have interrupted the deposit at definite points
of its length. -The lateral flexure of the body would
be restricted to certain points, and the intervening
spaces would become the seat of the deposit. At the
lines of interruption joints would be formed, and if
the movements were habitually symmetrical, these in-
terruptions would be equi-distant. In this way the
well known segmentation of the external skeletons of
Arthropoda, and the internal skeletons of Vertebrata
would be formed.’’ +

* Page 366. + Page 368.

APPENDIX 379

He claims that a primitive backbone * was formed
in this way, composed of wedges of bone, with their-
bases placed alternately above and below. The folds
made in the thick cloth of a coat sleeve, by bending
the arm, illustrate, he says, the mechanical principles
involved in making this backbone. From this double
row of wedges, the author imagines that two distinct
kinds of vertebral columns have arisen; from the
lower row, the backbone of the fish, and, from the
upper, that of the higher vertebrates.

Having derived these two kinds of vertebral col-
umns in this way, it becomes easy, by a still more lib-
eral use of the imagination, to account for the various
styles of vertebre; viz., concave in front, concave
behind, concave at both ends, and plane at both ends,
with various modifications of these forms. In a word,
it may be said that all the joints of the body, and the
shapes and sizes of all the bones, have. been deter-
mined by impact, strain, friction, and torsion.

The same is true of teeth: ‘‘ The history of the in-
cisor teeth of the Mammalia exhibits three processes,’’t
hypertrophy, specialization and atrophy. The ‘‘ more
severe, direct irritation from use than any others in
the jaws,’’ { will account for the increased diameter
of the molars. ‘The origin of the canine ’’ teeth ‘‘is
due to the strains sustained by them.’’ || ‘‘The pro-
gressive lengthening of the incisors’? § has been
through use. As to the Artiodactyla, ‘‘Why the
superior incisors should have disappeared in this
group, is not yet clear to my mind.’’ 4 It is, indeed,
refreshing, to find even one case which the author can
not explain readily by impact, strain, and friction, nor
by disuse.

It is claimed that the crowns of teeth, which differ
widely in structure, have been produced by wear, and

* Page 370. t Page 328. t Page 3381. | Page 331,
§ Page 346, |] Page 357,

380 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED

that the effects of wear have been inherited. To this
it has been objected by Tomes, “that it is quite im-
possible that the crowns of the teeth could have been
altered by impacts and strains, since their form is de-
termined in the recesses of the dental grooves, entirely
removed from all the mechanical influences which
affect the external surfaces of the jaws.’’ *

The existence of similar structures, which must
have had independent origins, has been regarded as
very strong evidence that they could not have been
evolved; yet the author enumerates { nine important
modifications of the skeleton, four of which have had
two distinct origins; one has had three; another,
four; two have had five; and one, six, and, probably,
eight, separate origins. Among these ‘‘ The tongue-
and-groove ankle joint’’ ‘‘has been developed inde-
pendently along four distinct’? lines. This is highly
improbable.

The author concludes this matter by saying, ‘‘ From
the preceding facts I have inferred that in biologic
evolution, as in ordinary mechanics, identical causes
produce identical results.’’{ That the mechanical
causes in the above cases have been similar, is an
assumption. Besides, it is by no means certain that
mechanical causes could produce a tongue-and-groove
ankle joint once, and much less, four times. Accord-
ing to this theory, this kind of joint ought to have
been produced in other kinds of animals also, and in
the knees as well as the ankles. The principle, if
true, is of general application, and it ought to have
produced a greater number of similar results than we
actually find. His argument proves too much.

In order to make his mechanical theory of varia-
tions available in evolution, it is necessary to prove
that slight changes thus produced are inherited by the

* Page 381, + Pages 360, 361, t Page 361.

APPENDIX 381

offspring. Thus, the effects of wear on the crowns of
teeth must be transmitted to offspring. We have no
proof that this is the case. It is well known that
mutilations of the body of the parent seldom exhibit
themselves in the offspring. In a few cases of seri-
ous injuries, the offspring have been affected. On
the other hand, it is known from accidents, experi-
ments on animals, compressed feet of the Chinese
during hundreds of years, flattened heads, and cir-
cumcision, which has been practiced thousands of
years, that mutilations of parents are not inherited by
the offspring. Until this is shown to be true, the
theory that mechanical forces have been the principal
agencies in producing permanent variations among
animals cannot be accepted.

In conclusion, I will say, that this volume by Cope
will probably be regarded by evolutionists as greatly
strengthening their theory. With most of them,
however, the doctrine of evolution has ceased to be a
theory, and they simply regard it as a fact to which
all biological facts are to be legitimately referred, and
by which they are to be explained.

Absolute zero, 14.
Abstraction, 238.
Acrosoma, 223.
Adhesion, 30.
Agnostic, 11.
Agnosticism, 311.
Air-bladder, 178.
Air-sacs, 177,
Air-tubes, 177.
Allantois, 145.
Altruism, 301, 307-309.
Ammonium bicarbon-
ate, 19,
Ammoniun nitrate,19.
Arouion, 145
A moral being, 257,
Amphibia, 120, 123,
178. ‘

Amphioxus, 125, 127,
128, 145, 177, 360.
Anatomy, 63.
Anthropomorpha, 365.
Ancestral line, 147.
Anchenaspis, 118;
Androgynous, 187.
Ankle, origin of, 378,
Antelopes, 199.
Appetites, 306.
Apteryx, 157.
Archeean, 87, 90.
Archezopteryx, 215.
Articulates, 89.
Artiodactyla, 112.
Aspredo, 219.
Atheism, 54,
Atheist, 11.
Atom, 16, 23.
Aurignac cave, 230.
Australians, 233.
Avogadro, 18,
Azoic, 92.

Backbone, origin of,
378.

Balanoglossus, 126,
127, 145.

Baleen, 137.

Barnacles, 168.

INDEX.

Bible, 53, 328.

Binet, 167.

Biology, 63.

Birds, 123, 163, 200,
361-62.

Boas, 193.

Brachiopods, 89, 92,
105, 106, 108, 113.

Brains, size of, 233,

Breathing apparatus,
177

Bushmen, 233.

Calcium, 280.
Cambrian, 87.
Camel, 134.
Canada, 87.
Capillarity, 44,
Carbon, 26, 279.
Carboniferous,
112-13.
Carinitz, 163.
Carnivora, 112, 121,
Carpenter, 105.
Cause, 51, 52.
Caucasian, 231.
Cave-bear, 230.
Cave-lion, 230.
Cave-hyzna, 230.
Cecilians, 128.
Cells, 204.
Cenozoic, 88.
Centipedes, 110.
Cephalopods, 89, 90,
92, 109.
Cephalaspis, 118.
Cervus Virgianus, 198,
Cetacea, 112, 121, 362.
Chance, 282.
Chameleon
199.

110,

Owenii,

(383)

Chemical action, 21.
Chemical aftivity, 30.
Chemistry, 27, 63.
Chemical laws, 303.
Cheiroptera, 112, 121.
Chimera, 117.
Chlorine, 14, 280.
Choroid, 168.
Christianity, 328,
Climate, 274,
Coccospheres, 105, 118.
Cockroaches, 110.
Cohesion, 30.
Coleoptera, 110.
Colors of birds, 201.
Colors of fishes, 202.
Comets, 34,
Compounds, 21.
Conduction, 32.
Continuity, 12.
Conservation, 12.
Conscience, 253.
Cook, A. J., 208, 210.
Cope, E. D.,. 118, 354,
368.
Coracoid, 161.

Cornea, 168.
Corpuscular theory,
46.

Correlation, 12, 31,

Coryphodonts, 133.

Cosmogony, 346.

Creation, 50, 51, 346.

Creator, 12, 49.

Creed of Agnostic, 321.

Cretaceous, 105, 118,
130-31.

Crinoids, 89, 111.
Critical point, 15.
Crookes, 15, 17.
Crocodilia, 123.
Crustaceans, 89.
Cupuliferze, 105.
Cuttle-fish, 169.
Cyatholiths, 105, 113.
Cyclops, 168, 170.
Cystideans, 89.

384

’

Dakota, 181.

Dana, 88, 92, 117, 130,
134, 137, 235, 265.

Darwiniana, 105.

Darwin, 11, 50, 52, 63,
93, 94, 105, 106, 151-
156, 167, 169, 183, 188,
191, 202. 213, 214, 217,
224, 236-238, 241-245,
344.

Dawson, 104, 113.

De Candolle, 105.
Deer, 199.

Devonian, 110, 117.
Design, 272.
Dibranch, 109.
Didelphia, 122, 362.
Dinocerata, 133,
Dinosauria, 162, 361.
Dipnoi, 178, 179.
Discoliths, 105, 113.
Dissipation of energy,

46.
Disuse, 157, 182.
Divisibility of mat-
ter, 16.
Dolphins, 137.
Dragon-flies, 110.
Dynamo, 31.
Dubois, Dr., 367,

Ears, 175.

Ears, location of, 176.

Echinus, 168.

Echinoderms, 105, 113.

eg, 362.

Eel,

eee oh, 146, 219.

Elasmobranchs, 120.

Electricity, 30, 31

Electric organs, 155.

Elements, 14, 277.

Embryology, 141, 359,
360.

Engis skull, 230, 233.
Eocene, 112, 121, 122,
184, 135, 138.
Eozoon, 57, 87-89, 91.
Eskimos, 235.
Esquimaux, 233.
Ether, 35, 36, 38, 40.
European, 233.
Eukeraspis,
Euripteride, 168.
Evil, 301.
Evolution, 49.
Experiences of utility,

244,
Eyes, 167.

INDEX

Eyes, location of, 172,

Eye-specs, 168.

External influences,
375.

Ezekiel, 349.

Fangs, 181.
Feathers, 158.
Fertilization, 143.
Films, 16.

Fins, 159.
Fire-mist, 15.
Fishes, 117, 119, 123.
Fluorine, 14.

Food of plants, ae
Forbes, Edw., 105.
Force, 12, 13, bo.
Formulas, 25.
Foraminifera, 105.
Footprints, 123.
Fort Bridger, 135.
Fucoids, 89.
Functions, 62,
Future life, 266.

Ganoids, 114, 115, 117,
120.

Gallus, 191.

Garden spider, 223.

Gasierepeds, 89, 92,
09.

Genesis, 351, 352.
Genesis and Geology,
344.

General ideas, 238.
Gegenbaur, 126,
oo 87, 31, 117, 181-

poe of man,
371

Geological time, 57,
107,

vgn nENORA
105.

Gills, 177.

Gill- arches, 149.

Glands, 179.

Globigerine, 105, 14,
114.

Society,

God, 18, 350-352.
Gorilla, 230
Graptolites, 89.
Gravitation, 30, 34,
Gray, Asa, 195,
Green River, 105,
Gregory, 91.

Habits not inherited,
3,

Heeckel, 125, 127, 361,
368,

Hairy elephant, 230.
Heat, 19, 30.

Heat of sun, 273.
Hedonism, 310.
Heredity, 268.
Hermaphrodite, 190.
Hippopotamus, 134.
Hogs, 134.
Holoptychius. 117.
Honey bee, 204.
Horns, 197.

Hornbill, 224.
Horse, 138.
Horse-shoe crab, 168
Hottentot, 366.
Hound, 255.
Huronian, 87.
Huxley, 105, 111-116,
119-123, 160-162, 184,
233-235, 365.
Hydrogen, 278.
Hypsiprimnoid, 122.

Idiot, 233.
Ignorance, 204.
Incubation, 214-216.
Indestructibility, 12,
29.
Inheritance, 305.
Insects, 110, 177.
Insectivora, 112, 121,
134

Incisors, disappear-
ance of, 379
Instinct, 204,
Insurmountable
liefs, 313.
Interference, 64.
Intelligent Creator,13.
Tron, 280.
Tron sulphide, 22.
Trish elk, 230.
Isomerism, 27.
Isopoda, 168.

be-

Java, 235, 367.
Jelly-fish, 169.
Jeremiah, 349.

Joints, origin of, 377.
Joel, 349,

Jourdain, M., 167.

J ungle-fowl, 225.
Jurassic, 122, 129, 181.

f
Kangaroo, 363.
Karyokinesis, 142,
Kelvin, 20.
Kinetic theory, 20.
Kinetogenesis, 376.

Laboratory, 61.
Labyrinthodonts, 112-
115, 123, 160.
Lacertilia, 123.
Lampreys, 128,

Lamarck, 357.

Lamellibranchs, 92,
108.

Laurentian, 87, 105.

Lartet, M., 230.

Law, 292.

Law of battle, 196.

Language, 240.

Law of definite pro-
portions, 23.

Law of multiple pvo-
portions, 24.

Le Conte, 88, 89, 94,
95, 109, 119, 120, 135,
137, 150, 160, 161, 230.

Lepidosiren, 114, 116.

Lemurs, 364

Life force, 28.

Links, missing, 96, 368.

Limbs, origin of, 377.

Light, 30, 31.

Lingula, 107, 108.

Liquefying gases, 15.

Lizards, 115, 158.

Lodge, 35, 39, 41.

Logan, Sir Wm. , 87,88.

Logger-head duck, 157.

Lothibius, 169.

Lungs, origin of, 376.

Ludlow, 118.

Lyell, 88.

Magnets, 30, 31.
Malachi, 350.
Mammal, 184.
Mammalia, 112, 181,
182.
Mammoth, 230.
Man-apes, 235.
Man’s body, 234.
Man, 230.
Mandibles, 179.
Marsh, 131, 135.
Marsupialia, 112.
Marsupials, 114, 116,
131, 132, 362,
Materialist, 11.

INDEX

Matter, 14.
May-flies, 110.
Media, 32, 37.
Memory, 263.
Mendeleeff, 15.
Mentone skull, 230.

‘Metazoa, 141, 143.

Mesozoic, 88, 112.
Milk glands, 184.
Miocene, 112, 121, 187.
Mind, 12.
Miracles, 318, 319.
Mivart, 162.
Molecules, 17.
Mollusks, 89.
Monodelphons,
122.
Monotremata, 122,131.
Monotheism, 348, 349.
Moral sense, 242, 243.
Morton, 366.
Music, 36.
Musk, 16.

121,

. Muller, 169, 234.

Myriapoda, 169.

Nauplii, 168.

Neanderthal skull, 230,
366.

Negro, 231, 233.

Neuroptera, 110.

Newton, 33, 35, 44, 45.

Nipples, 188.

Nitric acid, 18.

Nitrogen, 279.

Nops, 168.

Ocelli, 168.

Ocular plates, 168.

Olzewski, 14.

Ooze, 113

Opossums, 132.

Ophidia, 112.

Ornithodelphia, 122.

Orang-utan, 233.

Origin of species, 50.

Origin of man, 230.

Ornament, 200.

DE OCRE AS 91, 107,
09.

Orthoptera, 110.
Ornithorhinchus, 129.

Ornithoscelida, 112,
128.

Orton, 222. .

Oryx leucoryx, 199.

Ovum, 142.

Oxygen, 14, 25, 278.

385

Pantheist, 11.

Paris basin, 135.

Paleontology, 87, 104,
125.

Paleozoic, 107.

Passions, 306.

Pearly nautilus, 109.

Perissodactyla, 112.

Pecten, 168.

Persistent types, 111,
115.

Permian, 113, 115.
Physiogenesis, 376.
Phillips, 106.
Physiology, 63.
Phylogeny, 359.
Phosphorus, 280.
Physeter, 187.
Pictet, 104.
Pigment spots, 168,
172, 174.
Pisces, 120.
Pithecanthropus, 368.
Planets, 34.
Placoderms, 117.
Planarida, 169.
Plectrodus, 118.
Plagiaulix, 363.
Pleasure, 303.
Plesiosauria, 123.
Polyps, 111.
Polymastodon, 363.
Poison, 179, 281.
Polynesian, 366.
Polypterus, 114, 116.
Porcine, 112.
Portugal, 105.
Post-glacial, 104, 105.
Potsdam, 87-89.
Prmordial, 88, 89, 91,
92, 96, 107, 115.
Primary factors, 354.
Primitive vertebrate,
126.
Propolis, 204.
Protozoa, 89, 93, 141,
143.
Protyle, 15.
Protoplasm, 59,
104.
Pteropods, 89, 92.
Pteraspis, 118.
Pterodactyl, 157,
162.
Pterosauria, 112.
Python, 158, 193.

62,

161,

Quadrumana, 134, 139,

Queen bees, 206.

386 INDEX

Radiates, 89, 111. Special act, 58. Tortrices, 193.
Reason, 264. Special objections, Triassic, 113, 122, 129,
Recapitulation, 330. 153. 131.
Reconciliation, 315. Special senses, 247. Trachez, 178.
Reptilia, 112, 123. Spectrum, 15, 35. Trenton, 119.
Retina, 168. Spencer, 52, 166, 244, Trilobites, 89, 90, 107,
Revelations, 319. 248, 251, 252, 311, 312, 108.
Retrograde metamor- 315, 320, 323) 324. Trinyl, 368.
phosis, 357. Spike-horn buck, 198. Triton, 114.
Retrogressive, 363. Spinnarets, 222. Tunicata, 169.
Rhinoceros, 134. Sphagodus, 118. Tyndall, 60.
Rhizopods, 89. Spiders, 110, 168. Types, 111.
Rodentia, 112, 121, 184. Sponges, 105, 113.
Roemer, 91. Spon Br Bb genera-
Romanes, 77, 91, 125, _ tion, 57. . Ungul 121,
141, 155, 163, 163, 170, Spurs, 190. Units Steines oe.
171, 344. Spy, man of, 366. Unknowable, 52.
Royal jelly, 206. Squalodon, 137.

Rudimentary legs,193. Sternum, 161.
Rudimentary organs, Stars, 34.

Vacant spaces, 19.
182, 296. Star-fishes, 111, 169. ’
Rudimentary teeth, Stings, ee Yee origin of,
192. Sting-ray, 224.
Ruminant, 112. Suffering, 302. ee prostrati-
Sulphur, 280. vibe: a a
Sun’s heat, 273. Be apes 3.
Salamander, 114. Surinam toad, 218. ae ia.
Sauropsida, 161. Swarming of bees, 206. ing, 20. oss by c

Sauropus, 160.
Scorpions, 110, 169,
179

Table of geological Wallace, 231, 265.

Seaphaspis 118. ages, 86

Science and Religion, Tapirus, 134. a eet er

317. Tasmanians, 233. Was ODL, er, oe.
Sea-horse, 219. ‘Teeth, origin of, 379. Wadsworth, 91
Sea-urchins, 111. Teleology, 12. Waves. 32°
Sexual selection, 196. Terebratula, 114. Wasate b, 133,
Sexualdifferences,195. Tertiary, 95, 105, 134. Wobs 179,
Seasons, 276. Temperature, 14. Weal den, 130.
Shaler, 49, 50. Theism, 11, 12, 34. Weizhts of atoms, 24
Silurian, 93. Theist, 11. Whal ik ise
Simiidee, 365. Theromerous, 36. Whitne; * eas
arena 362. Teutonic, 208. Will pi :

ates, 155. erra del uegians, sank : 2
Skulls, 230, 366. 235. wie, 156, 157, 164,
Sound, 32. Thelodus, 118. Worms, 89
Soap bubble, 16, 20. Thomson, Sir Wm Wood. J. G., 218
Snakes, 180. 17, 39, 41, 44, 45, 273. Wrist’ oricin of. 378
Sodium, 280. Thompson, Wyville, Wromin 7 aie
Sodium flame, 16. 113. yoming, .
Space, 312. Time, 312.
Sperm, 205. Tongue - and - groove Zero, absolute, 19.
Spermatozoa, 142. joint, 380. Zeuglodon, 135, 136.

Species, number of, 49. Torpedo, 155. Zittel, 91.

See

Snes ane