he Darwinian doctrine of Natural Selection has been discarded by Spencer, Huxley, and other leading evolutionists, who thus leave the theory of Evolution, as it were, suspended in midair, without any method whereby it could work. Mr. Darwin himself had serious misgivings as to his theory, and never regarded it as established.
We consider that the abandonment of Natural Selection must logically involve the abandonment of the entire doctrine of Organic Evolution. It is appropriate, therefore, to make brief reference to the very general repudiation in recent years of the Darwinian concept.
Dr. E. Dennert’s book At the Death-bed of Darwinism gives the testimonies of leading scientists, showing that the title given to his book is fully justified.
Prof. Luther T. Townsend has also written on The Collapse of Evolution, giving testimonies of prominent men of science to the same effect.
St. George Mivart (University College, Kensington, England) says: "With regard to the conception as put forward by Mr. Darwin, I cannot truly characterize it except by an epithet which I employ with great reluctance. I weigh my words, and have present to my mind the many distinguished naturalists who have accepted the notion, and yet I cannot call it anything but a puerile hypothesis."
Prof. Fleischmann of Erlanger, who once accepted Darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, says: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature.
It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."
Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, bewails the fact that he is left standing almost alone. He says: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of Evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and cannot be maintained." And he gives an impressive list of "bold and talented scientists" who, he admits, have abandoned the theory of Darwin, though at one time they advocated it. This admission by one of the most noted infidel evolutionists is important. A house thus sharply divided against itself cannot stand.
Dr. Gotte has published an instructive history of Darwinism, showing the stages through which it has passed, from its enthusiastic reception down to its final stage "when its days will evidently soon be numbered."
Edward yon Hartman also shows that Darwinism has passed through four stages, and says that the opposition has now "swelled into a great chorus of voices, aiming at the overthrow of the Darwinian theory. In the first decade of the twentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are numbered"; and he gives the names of eminent scientists who are "among its latest opponents."
Prof. Joseph Le Conte, of the University of California, says: "The evidence of geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly, and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the term of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their places apparently by substitution, not by transmutation."
Dr. Robert Watts says: "The record of the rocks knows nothing of the evolution of a higher form from a lower form .... Both nature and revelation proclaim it as an inviolable law, that like produces like."
Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, said recently: "If the theory of Evolution be true, then, during the many thousands of years covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there would certainty be known at least a few instances of the evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known."
Prof. Owen declares that "no instance of change of one species into another has ever been recorded by man."
George Ticknor Curtis, in a recent book, Creation or Evolution, says: "The whole doctrine of the development of distinct species out of other species makes demands upon our credulity which is irreconcilable with those principles by which we regulate, or ought to regulate, our acceptance of any new matter of belief."
Prof. Dana, in his Manual of Geology, says: "Science has no explanation of the origin of life. The living organism, instead of being a product of physical forces, controls those forces for its higher forms, functions and purposes. Its introduction was the grandest event in the world’s early history."
Lord Kelvin, the very foremost of English scientists in his day, in an address delivered in 1903, said: "Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country, if he believed that the grass and flowers which we saw around us grew by mere chance force. He answered, ‘No; no more than I believe that a book of botany could grow by mere chemical force ..... It is not in dead matter that men live and move, and have their being; but in a creative and directive Power, which science compels us to accept as an article of faith. Is there anything so absurd as to believe that a number of atoms, by falling together of their own accord, could make a crystal, a microbe, or a living animal?’"
There is nothing so reasonable as faith. For faith is simply the acceptance of the testimony of God, given to men in "the Scriptures of truth," which have proved themselves, in their history and influence in the world, to be super-human.
Conversely, there is nothing more unreasonable than unbelief; for it denies not only the light of Divine revelation, but that of nature (# Ro 1:20; Ac 14:15-17; 17:24-29). Small wonder is it that men who vaunt the human intellect and who have rejected the word of the Lord, should be so fatuously credulous as to attribute designing skill and creative power to a mere concourse of atoms.
The same Lord Kelvin, whom we have just quoted, is on record as declaring that, there is not a single ascertained fact of science which conflicts with any statement of the Bible.
When, therefore, we hear, as is common enough nowadays, assertions made by unbelieving theologians and others, to the effect that "science" has shown this or that statement of Scripture to be erroneous, let it be remembered that we can bring the testimony of the most eminent men of science to prove those assertions false.
Dr. Ethridge of the British Museum, a noted expert in fossilology, speaking of the views of evolutionists, says: "This Museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views."
Prof. L. S. Beal, acknowledged to be in the front rank of British scientists, in an address delivered June 1903, said: "The idea of any relation between the non-living, by gradual advance of lifeless matter to the lowest forms of life, and so onward to the higher and more complex, has not the slightest evidence from any facts of any section of living nature of which anything is known."
Virchow of Berlin, regarded by some as the foremost chemist of the world, said, "It is all nonsense. It cannot be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal." He went so far as to denounce the theory as dangerous to the state, and demanded that it be excluded from the schools.
Much more of the same sort might be added; but it will suffice to refer to Prof. Fairhurst’s Theistic Evolution (Standard Publishing Co., Cincinnati), and Graebner’s Evolution, already referred to, from which most of the above quotations are taken. We will only mention additionally a statement made in a very recent address (February 1922) by Prof. Wm. Bateson, the distinguished English biologist, a scientist of the first rank, who, speaking in Toronto, Canada, is reported to have said: "It is impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin’s theory of the origin of the species. No explanation whatever has been offered to account for the fact that, after forty years, no evidence has been discovered to verify his genesis of species."
Surely our "liberal" theologians, who teach as truth that monstrous fiction which true men of science never regarded as more than a speculative theory, and now have, with practical unanimity, repudiated, are utterly without excuse.
The Existing Danger
Notwithstanding the fact that Darwinism is no longer believed in the circles in which it originated, its influence for harm was never so great as now. The reason is that the theory has found its way into the theological seminaries, and into the school-books of the children, where it is doing the deadly and truly devilish work of discrediting, in the eyes of many, the statements of the Word of God.
Darwinism In The Schools
A parent, writing to a religious periodical, tells of a textbook brought home by his seven-year-old boy, the title of which was "Home Geography for Primary Grades."
The following quotation will serve to show what is now being taught to children of the most tender years. Discussing the subject of birds, this textbook for primary grades says: "Ever so long ago their grandfathers were not birds at all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings nor feathers. These grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long tail, and jaws with teeth. After a time feathers grew on their bodies, and their front legs became changed for flying. These were strange looking creatures. There are none living like them now." Such are the monstrous fictions now taught to little children as scientific truth.
It is a significant and disquieting fact that a determined effort recently made in the legislature of Kentucky to forbid the teaching of Evolution in the schools of that State was defeated. Thus the arch enemy of God and men has manoeuvred this "Christian" country into the position where the accepted canons of education forbid the teaching of the Bible to the children of the tax-payers, but permit the teaching of the most anti-Christian and unscientific doctrine that ever made a bid for public favor.
The support for the teaching of Evolution (which in practically all cases means the utterly discredited theory of Charles Darwin) came from "educators and religious leaders" (so says the Literary Digest, March 25, 1922) like Lyman Abbott, Dr. Angell, President of Yale, Dr. Lowell, President of Harvard, and Dr. Mcfarland, Sec’y of the Federal Council of Churches.
It is high time for parents to be awakened out of sleep as to the dangers to which their children are exposed in our modern schools. These are indeed "perilous times"; and one of the greatest perils thereof is the teaching which is now being given to the young. Parents, who would be careful to keep their little ones from the dangers of the streets, recklessly expose them every day to the more serious dangers of the schools, and give themselves little concern as to what they learn there from teachers and companions.
