spiritually is good. Such, briefly, is the theory presented by this learned scientist. With one statement in the book all Christians can agree, “ If the premise of a reasoning is false, the conclusion will necessarily be false.” The premise Dr. du Nouy builds upon is that evolution is responsible for all advance: biological, physio logical, psychological and spiritual. But, we can also say, and logically, that if the premise is doubtful and unreliable, the conclusion will be doubtful and unreliable. So far as biological and physiological evolu tion is concerned, it still lacks everything desirable and necessary to class it as a scientific certainty. And du Nouy’s book is an evidence of this. Referring to the evolution theory, he, in common with all other evolutionists, makes frequent use of such terms as perhaps, it is possible, in all probability and it may be. fie acknowledges there is a “gap” between living and non living matter which “we have not been able to bridge,” but he has hopes that science will provide that item some day, but as far as the pres ent is concerned, it is but “wishful thinking.” Many parts are missing, he admits, but we have a few present facts and a few sections of the past which “our imaginations must link together as best we can.” And what vivid imaginations these evolutionists have! As to “missing links,” he calls attention to the “transition” between such classes as reptiles and birds concerning which “the intermediary stages have not been found” and “the mechanisms of transition re main unknown.” “Birds,” du Nouy states, “have, it must be admitted, all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation, whereas we feel that such cannot be the case. This stands out today as one of the great est puzzles of evolution.” He admits that the word link is a dangerous word. The evolutionist can never af firm that “a certain form is a real link.” Du Nouy acknowledges that no actually living form is the direct ancestor of another. “Man,” he states, “does not descend from a monkey.” But he robs us of any com fort this might bring us by saying, “The pre-Cambrian sand-worm . . . may have been our ancestor.” So we have our choice between monkey and worm.
As an illustration of the difficul ties in which evolutionists get in volved, the author takes up the line age of the horse. It seems, to the
NEW book has recently come off the press entitled Human Destiny, written by the noted French scientist, Dr. Lecomte du Nouy, formerly of the Rockefeller Institute. This book has received much acclaim from1 various book reviewers which should insure a wide reading. To some extent, it is a “ shot in the arm” to the drooping evolution theory of Darwin. That du Nouy is an ardent believer in evolu tion is attested by the fact that the word occurs over one hundred times in the book. It is this biologist’s contention that evolution has been at work for countless millions of years in an effort to bring forth a man who could think and feel. Na ture, he says, made innumerable attempts in this direction, then fi nally chose the one best adapted to the end in view. When the trial on any line did not prove a success, the species disappeared and a new one came into being. By this process, man finally appeared, and evolution has since confined its efforts solely to bringing him to the point of abso lute goodness. Until man appeared, evolution strove only "to manufac ture an organ, the brain, in a body capable of protecting it.” Evolution has left all other fields but the brain as it is only “the brain,” he states, "made up of cells, which evolves.” We may illustrate du Nouy’s hy pothesis—and so he declares it to be —by a network of railroad tracks in a vast switchyard. There is a main line, but it is not distinguishable with the maze of tracks flanking it on either side. One track merges into another, or comes to a ,dead end, until finally the main line emerges and continues alone. According to this theory, nature is credited with a discriminating intel ligence which tries out one species after another. Some are found “ evolvers” and are chosen to survive. Others are “ adapters,” sufrendering to their environments and circum stances. These come to an end, for they cannot fit into the planned scheme. Out of this situation the scientist finds the moral difference between right and wrong. Anything which opposes this evolution, he says, represents, absolute evil. That which tends to make man evolve •Published at $3.50 by Longman's, Green & Co., 55 Fifth Ave., New York 3, N. Y. PAGE EIGHTEEN
Dr. Lindgren evolutionist, that there have been six intermediary stages—the first about fifty million years ago. Each of these appeared “ suddenly,” but due to lack of fossils, it has not been possible to supply the missing form “yet it must have existed.” Along with these admissions, we are told not to forget that when “it comes to establishing the direct descent of any living being we are highly embarrassed." Delving further into the evolutive process, Dr. du Nouy assert^: “In brief, each group, order, or family, seems to be born suddenly and we hardly ever find the forms which link them to the preceding strain. When we discover them, they are already completely differenti ated. Not only do we find practically no transitional forms but, in general, it is impossible to authentically con nect a new group with an ancient one.” Despite all of these embarrassing admissions, we are urged to “keep our eyes fixed at all times on the fundamental steps of evolution from the most elementary organism to man.” But, we must ask, how can we keep our eyes on “ steps” that, admittedly, are not there? How can one be impressed by,any conclusion T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
Made with FlippingBook Annual report