12
THE K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
January 1925
Vulnerable Points in the EvolutioruTheon? By P rofessor Leander S. Keyser, D. D., H anuna Divinity School, Springfield, Ohio The first in stalm en t of th is “up-to-the-m inute” challenge to th e advocates of evolution, appeared in ou r December issue. In th a t article, Dr. Keyser asks fo r an explanation of th e theories of “The Survival of th e F itte st” ; “The Daw .of th e F ixity of Type” ; “The Vestige Theory” , etc., The en tire article will la te r be published in leaflet form .
icals. The Claim of Superior Knowledge |N tune w ith the condescending mien of th e editor of “The World” we quote from a recent letter . w ritten to us by an advocate of evolution. He refers to several of our articles in various period- Then he says: “All of which I have read w ith intense in te rest.’’ To th is he adds th e following observations: “Able as they are, they and many other papers th a t I read make me wish th a t all of the clergy could have an extensive laboratory knowledge of biology. The theologian and th e n atu ra list are not so far ap a rt as th e clergyman sometimes imagines.” In nowise do we resent our friend ’s somewhat patroniz ing manner. It is ju st possible th a t all of us debaters sometimes ta k e on the same superior airs, even though we do not mean to do so. Still, it may be well to analyze our correspondent’s paragraph. He th ink s th a t an extensive laboratory knowledge of biology m ight convert one to the doctrine of evolution. We frank ly adm it th a t we have not had an opportunity for extensive laboratory work. But we have read many of th e works of the experimental biologists. We take it for granted th a t they publish th eir books fo r the purpose of having people buy and read them . It is also assumed th a t they w rite th e ir books in such a way th a t people of general intelligence and somewhat technical tra in ing may be able to understand them . We assume, in addi tion, th a t they repo rt th e resu lts of th e ir findings correctly. Then why cannot a read er form a judgm ent regarding th eir findings? Must one perform every experiment in the physical and chemical laboratory himself in order to know the composition of th e various form s of m atter? We th ink not. If one reads the adepts understandingly, does not th eir knowledge become his own? Now suppose one has read Dr. E. B. W ilson’s “The Cell in its Development and Inheritance,” and his more recent book (copyright 1923), “The Physical Basis of Life,” does he not know a good deal abou t th e so-called un it of life, th e organized cell? Professor L. L. Woodruff (himself a biologist) calls Dr. Wilson “ the dean of American biol ogists” (see “The Evolution of the E a rth and its Inhab ita n ts,” p. 94). Then suppose one has read George A. Bait- sell’s excellent recent book (1923 ), “Manual of Biological Form s.” Suppose one has for many years been following the progress of biological studies. In these circumstances can one righ tly be called igno ran t of w h at is being done in the biological laboratory? •We need not answer these questions, because they answer themselves. Well, what do Dr., Wilson and P rofessors Woodruff and Baitsell teach us regarding th e source of living forms? Says Dr. W ilson; “The study of the cell has on th e whole seemed to widen rath e r th a n to narrow th e enormous gap th a t separates even the lowest forms of life from the inor ganic world.” Professor Woodruff endorses th is saying. In agreem ent w ith these statem ents is Vernon Kellogg (surely no novice in biology) in his last book, “Evolution” (1924 ). He says (pp. 110, 111):
“But nobody has yet made an amoeba in a te st tube, nor infusoria in a sterilized hay infusion. P asteu r and Tyndall long ago exploded th e naive claims of the believers in spon taneous generation. Omne vivum ex vivo. I t is only life’ th a t produces life. . . . There is a g reat gulf between w hat is living and what is not. And th a t gulf creates th e g reat question for evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike: the question of th e origin of life.” The rest of Dr. Kellogg’s discussion of th e subject is extremely interesting. Must one have spent long years in the experimental biologist’s laboratory to understand and appreciate these conclusions of th e specialists? But we must go fu rth er. Have the biologists discovered a clear case of th e tran sm u tation of species? They have not— if we may judge from th eir own repo rts of th e ir inves tigations. They have not brought fo rth a single concrete instance. In th is respect they have failed ju st as much as have theft zoologists and paleontologists. They (th e biolo gists) tell us th a t the impregnated cell (o r eggs) of th e var ious kinds of animals and of man are so n ear alike th a t they cannot be distinguished w ith any degree of certainty. But they also inform us th a t the various kinds of eggs develop in each case tru e to form. The cell of the ape does not unfold into a hum an being, nor does th a t of the human being into an ape. Every one who has been reading up on science knows th a t these are facts. Go back to the amoeba, the little uni-celled creatu re of common ditch w ater, of which Dr. E. E. F ree has w ritten so enlighteningly in his series of articles in P opu lar Science Monthly. Dr. F ree seems to th in k th a t this creatu re is m an’s real ancestor. Yet the amoeba, like all its kindred in th e organic realm , breeds tru e to form— th a t is, always brings fo rth another amoeba, never an organism of a higher and more complex natu re. Cannot any one draw the logical conclusion from th is fact which is based on laboratory obser vation, namely, th a t th e Bible speaks in a tru ly scientific sense when it declares th a t all living form s were originally created to procreate “each after its k ind ” ? We must ask our correspondent th is p ertin en t question: Have the expert biologists made any discoveries which they have kept back from the public? T hat is not likely. If they had found any case of spontaneous generation or the tra n s m utation of species, they would have rushed post-haste into p rin t w ith the news, for it would have forthw ith given them th e victory over th e ir opponents. Thus the rest of us know th e situation as well as do the specialists if they have tru th fully reported th e ir findings. So Many Logical Fallacies As an example of illogical reasoning, we cite Vernon Kel logg in his late book entitled “Evolution” (1924). On page 94 he says: “The principal th ing needing now to be known about evo lution is to know w hat causes it. This has, indeed, been an outstanding need all along. Biologists have for a long tim e had no doubt about the reality of evolution, bu t they have always had doubts about the validity of the various causes th a t have been suggested to explain it, from the times of th e Greeks to those of the m utationists and th e Mendelians__ which are th e tim es of today. Oddly enough, the anti-evo- (Continued on page 41)
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker