December 1927
791
T h e
K i n g ' s
B u s i n e s s
were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” Prof. Staling’s law of hormones, of which Sir Arthur speaks, may or may not survive the test of time, but there is no doubt that not one jot or tittle of God’s Word shall fail, or that His omnipotent power over all creatures in the world shall never cease. If one rules God out as the Man ager and Overseer of the developing human embryo, he might as well ally himself with agnostics and atheists, for he is standing with them upon common ground. In speaking, of the mistakes of the past and in trying to explain them in harmony with the theory pf Evolution, or to “unravel man’s pedigree—through the meshes of a complicated network,” Prof. Keith is simply juggling logic to try to make out a case. Neither he, nor any one else, can prove that separate species and genera were ever more closely related in the remote past. Extinct fossil forms which have a similar appearance do not and cannot prove cross-fertility or .genetic relationship. Sir Arthur notes, as a new lesson of biology, that “the guide to the world of the past is the world of the present.” Species are not cross-fertile and new species are not being produced today. We should take this as a guide to our reasoning concerning the past, at least until we can prove otherwise concerning the present. . B rings O ut , T he F ake M issing L inks Though Prof. Keith reaffirms the argument for the extreme antiquity of man from the fossils of the so-called Ape-man (Pithecanthropus) and the Piltdown man, he is surely aware that no real proof can be established from such srnalhremnants;of fossils; from fossils of individuals so widely scattered when found, and concerning which there can be no certainty, even as to their comparative age. The fossils of one were found by a river bed which is con stantly changing and those of the other in surface gravel which had been disturbed by workmen. New excuses will not make old follies true. Suppose I should find one or two bones this autumn and one or two more next spring along the bank of a river near which I live; suppose these were separated from five to fifty feet distant one from the other; suppose none of these has the appearance of hav ing belonged to a human being, but something of an ape like appearance; suppose I report this find to a group of Anthropologists and the larger number, after examining them and knowing the conditions of the discovery, decide that there is no evidence in them of scientific value; sup pose that one or two of these men attempt tQ reconstruct a creature from them and succeed in producing a recon struction which might be imagined to be a missing link; suppose one of these men gains a reputation as an Evolu tionist and as time passes succeeds in drawing the world’s attention to this peculiar form and in convincing some of his friends that here is one of man’s ancient ancestors; what after all has been, or can be, proved? No one can possibly prove that these bones ever belonged to the same creature. If they are alike they might have belonged to twins buried side by side. If they are unlike it is nothing but a wild guess to declare that here is a link in the chain of the evolution of man, but in this stage of his existence one portion of his body lagged far behind others in the course of upward progress. There is no more proof than this in the celebrated fossils of Pithecanthropus (ape-man) and the Piltdown skull which are mentioned by Prof. Keith as proof of man’s evolution from the ape. It is freely admitted that there are resemblances, as Sir Arthur asserts, between the brain, embryo, blood, glands, and diseases of man and the chimpanzee, or other
anthropoids ; but so are there resemblances between these in man and other animals. It is, however, denied that these or other resemblances prove genetic relationship. The contrasts are more striking than the resemblances. Dr. Arthur I. Brown points out that of all mammals the milk of the ass is more like human milk, as shown by a qualita tive chemical analysis. The next in order is the milk of the horse, then that of the cow. Does this prove that the ass is more closely related to man than the horse or cow? T h e B lood T est A rgument That which is most surprising, as coming from Prof. Keith, is, that he should regard the blood-test, or com parative reaction of the blood of man and animals, as sat isfactory proof of relationship of man to the anthropoid apes. Dr. Brown shows, the absurdity of such a claim. He shows that these tests of Prof. Nuttall, referred to by Prof. Keith, were performed more than twenty years ago. That they were inaccurate and contradictory then and that they prove nothing as to the relationship of man to the animals. That in these tests the blood is not used in trans fusion but only the serum of the blood from which has been extracted most of the original chemicals and con stituents of the blood. Some of the tests would tend to show that the whale is more nearly related to man than that cousin of the apes, the lemur. Other tests would in dicate that the rabbit, which belongs to the rodent family, is more nearly related to man than the ox. Another test would indicate that the whalebone whale, one species of baboon, the tiger and the African antelope are all equally related to man. We, therefore, continue to believe, with more evidence to fortify our belief as the years pass, that man, in place of rising from animal origin through a million years, as Prof. Keith declares, and through evolution reaching his present state, has rather been created, as the Bible af firms, in the image of God. We believe he has fallen from that state and in multitudes of cases has degenerated into the crudest form of savagery ; that he can be restored to a high and pure state, not through biological forces, but only by the grace of God as applied by His Holy Spirit. The serious phase of this matter is, not merely that this address has been broadcast over the world, although that is serious enough ; it is not merely that atheistic societies are busy circulating this address widely, although that makes its appearance doubly serious ; but the most serious and sad phase of it all is, that not only Sir Arthur Keith, but his fellow scientists, medical instructors, biologists, psycholo gists, are teaching such skeptical, agnostic and atheistic theories to impressionable youth in British and American Universities, yes, even in the public schools in multitudes of towns and cities throughout the civilized world.
g E SURE
— to read T h e K ing’s Business Christmas A dvertisem en t on th e back cover, outside. H e re ’s a fu rth e r sug gestion— make you r g ift subscriptions fo r TW O YEARS and get ou r special two-year ra te o f $2, and also receive ou r p rem ium book— “T h e Betrayal of Jean W h itn ey .”
Made with FlippingBook Annual report