"Evolution" and Evolution.
By A. T. J.
Or those who have read, attentively, these articles on Evolution, and those on Geology which preceded these, no one can fail to see the striking similarity in the essential characteristics, and the manner of treatment, of the two so-called sciences, as drawn from the writings of their most eminent representatives. To carve this, as it were, in bold relief, on the brazen faces of these two sciences, we present the following:— In the Independent of May 27, 1880, appeared an article by President Gregory, of Lake Forest University, Ill., on the question, "Is Evolution Science?" in which occurred the following quotation, and comment:— "Take, as illustration of the quality of the so-called science, the well-known passage from Mr. Darwin: 'The early progenitors of man were, no doubt, covered with hair, both sexes having beards. Their ears were pointed and capable of movement, and their bodies were provided with a tail. . . . The foot . . . was prehensile, and our progenitors, no doubt, were arboreal in their habits, frequenting some warm, forest-clad land. . . . At an earlier period the progenitors of man must have been aquatic in their habits.'" "When men laud this as 'advanced science,' we have to say that it is a double 'no doubt,' and a 'must have been' resting on a hypothesis which is conceivable, but has not a fact to support it. We protest, in the name of sound thinking, against the almighty must-be-ity with which the evolutionist constructs his system; and we do it for the same reason that we protest against the equally patent must-be-ity and per se-ity of the speculative philosophers and theologians. . . . Let us have real science, and not sham science." Now we present for comparison with the above from "Darwin's Descent of Man," an extract from Geikie's Geology, and see whether President Gregory's "protest" will not lie with equal weight against each. The third paragraph under Part III., Dynamical Geology, reads as follows:— "At an early time in the earth's history, anterior to any of the periods of which a record remains in the visible rocks, the chief sources of geological action probably [italics ours] lay within the earth itself. The planet still retained a great store of its initial heat, and in all likelihood, was the theater of great chemical changes, giving rise, perhaps, to manifestations of volcanic energy somewhat like those which have so marvelously roughened the surface of the moon. As the outer layers of the globe cooled, and the disturbances due to internal heat and chemical action became less marked, the influence of the sun, which must always have operated, would then stand out more clearly, giving rise to that wide circle of superficial changes wherein variations of temperature and the circulation of air and water over the surface of the earth came into play." So on this we too would say, "When men laud this as 'advanced science,' we have to say that it is simply 'a "probability" linked with a "likelihood" and sustained by a "perhaps," and all supported by a "must have operated," with not a fact to underlie any of it, because it is all concerning periods of which there is no "visible record." In the words of President Gregory, "we protest, in the name of sound thinking, against the almighty "probabilities," and "perhaps'," and "must have's," with which the geologist, as well as the evolutionist, constructs his system." And with him we say, "Let us have real science, and not sham science." We would not be understood as being, in the slightest degree, opposed to true science. On the contrary, we will yield to none in genuine admiration of science; but it must be "real science, and not sham science,"—a science which, when it says "doubtless," means doubtless in its absolute sense of having removed all doubt by sound reasoning and demonstrative evidence; and not as it is used by the "falsely so-called" science of our day, simply to give expression to a whole system of doubt. The truth is, that the most charming book, the Bible always excepted, of course, that we have ever had the pleasure of reading, is the most profoundly scientific book that we ever read. That is, "Maury's Physical Geography of the Sea." He does not deal much in such terms, but when he does say "doubtless," it is doubtless. As an illustration of what we regard as genuine science, we give the following from Lieutenant Maury's treatise, sections 88-93:— In December, 1853, the fine new steamship, San Francisco, sailed from New York bound for California with a regiment of United States troops on board. While crossing the Gulf Stream she was overtaken by a fearful gale, and by one single blow of a terrible sea, one hundred and seventy-nine persons,—officers and men,—were washed overboard and drowned, and the ship so crippled that she was simply adrift. The next day she was seen by a vessel, and again the next day by another; but neither of these could render any assistance, and so she was left still adrift. When these two ships reached the United States, they reported the matter; and vessels were sent out by the Government to search for and relieve the drifting ship. But the questions were, Which way should they go? and where should they look? Appeal was made to Maury, and he, sitting in the National Observatory, prepared a chart of the Gulf Stream for that time of year, and from a point where the disabled ship was last seen, he drew, as it were, upon the waters of the trackless ocean, two slightly diverging lines, thus, and said that the ship had drifted between them. Then one of the relief cutters, which was at New London, Conn., was told to go along a dotted line between these two lines, thus, to the last dot, and there she would see the object of her search. And right in sight of that very place the disabled ship was found. (For full particulars see the work referred to.) That was science in the fullest sense. When evolution can show such accuracy as that, it may lay claim to being a science; but it is entitled to no such claim as long as "facts can in no way interfere with the theory." And yet Lieutenant Maury was so much a lover of God and the Bible that he saw God's greatness manifested in every and all of the winds, currents, and creatures of the air and the ocean, and constantly found the beautiful truths of the Bible, most beautifully demonstrated in the "wind in his circuits," and by the rivers which "run into the sea," as well as in the "sweet influences of Pleiades," and held his reverence for the Bible at such a height that in one instance at least, and which he has recorded, he actually gave up, entirely, a generally accepted theory, because, for one reason, as he himself says, "I found evidence in the Bible which seems to cast doubt upon it." And so, like the true scientist that he was, he gave up the human theory, adopted the view that the Bible seemed to present, and soon demonstrated it as a scientific truth, although it was in direct opposition to one of the most eminent geologists of the day. That is the kind of science that we love; because, being based on the truth of God, it is a part of the truth of God itself. And so, consequently, when men depart from the truth of God as recorded in nature, we can expect nothing else than, as we think is plainly shown by the evidence of this series of articles, that they will depart from the truth of God as recorded in revelation. But as evolution, with all its "no doubts" and "must have been's" has never been able to give, as Mr. Darwin says, an explanation of the "loss of the tail" by "man," so on the other hand, geology with all its "probabilities," etc., cannot tell whether its changes have been wrought by the means conjectured, or by other, and totally different means and at the same time much more rapidly than is allowed in any of the calculations of geologists. And therefore we, as evolutionists, are willing to admit as a "working hypothesis" that man, as man, was created, and created, without a tail. And as geologists, we will admit as a "working hypothesis" that "once upon a time" "the windows from on high were opened, and the fountains of the great deep were broken up," and that "a flood of waters covered the whole face of the earth." And the "probabilities" are, "no doubt," that, "in all likelihood," we, as evolutionists and geologists, "must be" just as near right about these things as "perhaps" are the evolutionists and geologists of the "advanced science" school. But that geology and evolution are essentially alike, is not all. Evolution is absolutely dependent upon geology. Without geology, evolution can have no place. Proof:— "The high antiquity of man, . . . is the indispensable basis for understanding his origin."—Darwin, Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 3, Appleton's Edition of 1871. So geological science goes before and gives to the earth, all the way from ten millions to ten thousand millions, of years of growth and development, and thus the course is laid wide open, and the field entirely cleared, so that there is nothing to obstruct, in the slightest degree, the wildest flights of even the evolutionary imagination. Thus geological science furnishes to the full, the element of "high antiquity" which is demanded as "the indispensable basis" of evolution. Then evolutionary science follows after, and upon this "basis" builds up its atheistical structure. And thus the two "falsely so-called" sciences unite, not only to destroy faith in the word of God, but to rob the Creator of his prerogative and remove him from his throne. Geological science goes before and upon the basis of its deductions demands that we give up the first chapter of Genesis. With this as the "indispensable basis" evolution follows after, and upon its deductions demands that we give up the whole Bible. But that Book, from beginning to end, has been given to us as being, what it is in truth, the word of God, and— "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; PREACH THE WORD." 2 Tim. 4: 1, 2. "The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field; the grass withereth, the flower fadeth;" "but THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOREVER." A. T. J.