62 The Fundamentals they called it evolution, thinking perhaps the name might prove useful, but we trust not to be blamed for preferring growth, for “evolution” is something of a harlequin, having turned a complete somersault within a hundred years, while growth is universally acknowledged to be a character of vegetable, animal, and human life. In addition to finding natural growth, Professor Huxley claims the discovery of a “tendency to assume a definite l i v i n g form”. This of course is ridiculous. The sun rises with sufficient regularity to become a striking phenomenon, and we have discovered a tendency towards sunrises. Specu lation is invoked, but speculation died with the great god Pan when Jesus was born. Scientific observations are dumb, except to say that all God’s creatures are fearfully and won derfully made. LIKENESSES It is settled that low adult forms and embryos of higher order are strikingly alike. An embryonic reptile passes through the transformations of a fish, and a man in the germ cannot be distinguished from any other mammal. Here the Darwinist drops his glass and jumps at the conclusion that all creations, even vegetables, are consanguined brothers. His microscope has failed him and he has forgotten the ardent astronomer who saw strange quadrupeds in the moon, until he discovered the mouse nest in the telescope. The appar ently similar cells are different. The outcome proves it. One is a butterfly and the other is a whale. Indeed, Oscar Hertwig now claims to have found the differences of the denouement in the cells themselves. But it does not matter. The Darwinist has mistaken likeness for proof of parentage; as a matter of fact it never proves it. Parentage is more likely to prove likeness. In either case the origin must first be established and then the likeness may illustrate it. But recurring to the differentiation of life, as our Maker has conferred on us consciousness, thought and religiosity,
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker