September 1925
385
TH E K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
“ Our knowledge of many of th e causal factors of evolu tion is still as it has always been, in a highly theoretical and speculative sta te ” (Newman, Outlines of General Zoology, p. 432, 1924). Three Aspects of Organic Evolution We stated in Chapter Two th a t th e ■ th ree aspect's of organic evolution are Origin of life, Process, and Results. Suppose we add “ Cause” to these three, giving Origin, Cause, Course, and Results, and asking ourselves once more ju st how much concerning each of these aspects is fact and how much fancy. We have already seen th a t th e evidence for th e origin of life, is all in favor of special creation, bu t w hat is m eant by resu lt? This refers to living and extinct life on th e earth. There are about 600,000 kinds of living animals and 250,- 000 kinds of plants a t present known to science: Evolu tion claims th a t these have all evolved from a single one- celled parent. M artin’s description of th is.is as follows: “Evolution refers to th e processes or Changes whereby new forms arise from previously existing forms, * * * The first organism s to inhab it the earth are supposed to have been single celled. * * * From these one-celled organ ism s, others arose consisting of more th an one cell, and these were followed by organism s still more multicellular, * * * and so on the process continued, giving rise to all the various kinds of plants and animals we now have” (Botany, p. 558, 1919). W hat evidence have we of this?, None a t all. Isn ’t there somewhere in history, the record of some plan t or animal changing into ano ther kind of plan t or anim al? No, we haven’t a single record. Isn’t th ere th en one example of such change found in th e fossils in th e rocks? No, not a single example. W hat about mutations,—we hear so much about them ? We have never had a m utation th a t was dif feren t from the p aren t and th a t would no t cross back w ith th e parent. A rose-mutation is always a rose, and a pigeon- m utation is always a pigeon. Therefore th ere is no evolu tion here. W hat evidence have we, then, th a t these 850,- 000 kinds of life have evolved from a common ancestral form? None a t all. On the p art of evolutionists, this is pure assumption. The Cause of Evolution F o r every cause th ere is an effect and for every effect th ere is a cause. There is no exception to this in logic or in science. G rant th e evolutionist the assumption th a t the results of life are due to evolution, then th ere must be a cause for th is effect or result. This we call th e process, cause, mode, or method. Suppose we consider th e causal aspect of evolution briefly. Henry Fairfield Osborn w rites on th is as follows: “We know— th a t th ere has existed a more or less com plete chain of beings from monad to man (the assumed resu lt again)-^-. We do not know th eir in tern al causes, for none of .the explanations' which have in tu rn been offered during the last hundred years satisfies the demands of observation, of experiment, of reason ” (The Origin and Evolution of Life, p. 10, 1917). F airb airn has this to say: “The more the process is simplified th e more complex does it require the cause or the sufficient reason of, the movement to be; and 'the more u rgen t does th e demand become th a t th e action of th e cause be immediate, contin uous, universal.—W ithdraw or paralyze th is cause, and N ature as its effects ceases, i;e., w ithou t the sup ernatu ral the n atu ra l can neither begin nor continue to be.” (The Philosophy of th e Christian Religion, pp. 39, 56). But evolution has no place for the supern atu ral, th e re fore, there is no efficient cause according to Fairbairn.
We like Dr. Menge’s logic w ith reference to th is ques tion. He w rites: “We have been reversing the order of things, by forget ting th a t if a tiny cell or organism has th e ability or poten tiality of becoming a highly complex animal it must be much more complex th a n th e la ter organism into which it is to grow. For, surely, th e smaller an object may be, which can contain all th a t it is later to become, th e g reater in •complexity it must be. And, if such a tiny object is so intensely complex, it could not have suddenly sprung into existence w ithout an intelligence of some kind arrang ing it. The stud en t of depth has been driven into out and out skepticism of anything being tru e in science, or has gone over en tirely to mysticism.— For example, Physics tells him th a t no more work can be obtained from a machine than is p u t into it, and th a t nothing can rise higher th a n its source. Then the evolutionist tells him th a t more complex forms come from those less complex. This belies both laws, for intelligence is certainly something higher, and more than non-living m atter. And Intelligence cannot be explained in term s of either physics or chem istry” (General and Professional Biology, pp. 410, 411, 1922). We may agree w ith Bateson and many others, then, th a t the cause of evolution is not and probably never can be known. The Course of Evolution But what about th e course or path of evolution? T hat th is is very uncertain also is seen in th is statem en t by Shull: “ In tracing the descent of the larg er groups, still g reater uncertainty exists, * * * th e v ertebrates have plainly come from a gill-bearing animal. * * * There has been much controversy over th e question w hether th e mammals, for example, sprang from a rep tilian or an amphibian ances to r * * * j t has been held probable th a t th e annelids and arthropoids have descended from common ancestors, partly because the members of both these phyla are segmented. * * * Tracing such supposed pedigrees was fashionable among zoologists during the la tte r th ird of th e nineteenth century, un til it was realized how speculative is the process” (Principles of Animal Biology, p. 358, 1920). The path of evolution is generally shown by a diagram or tree of life. These vary greatly as scientists are not a t all agreed as to th is path. Then, again, evolution doesn’t always mean “ upward and onward.” M artin has th is to say about regressive evolution: “Most generally evolution resu lts in the origin of organ isms w ith tissues and organs better differentiated and thu s b etter adapted to perform special functions, bu t in some cases evolution moves backward, resu lting in the origin of organisms w ith tissues and organs fewer and less differen tiated. Thus through regressive evolution the Bacteria and Fungi are though t to have arisen from th e Algae” (Bot any, p. 290, 1919). Regressive evolution is difficult to explain and almost impossible to picture. Trees of life are pictured as growing upward and outward. Regressive evolution can’t be shown on such a tree, to th a t th e p ath or course of evolution is also seen to lie in the realm of th e imagination. W h at Is th e Conclusion? Did you say evolution is a fact? W hat are th e evidences? They are included und er these four heads: (1) the origin of life, (2) th e cause of evolution, (3) the path of evolu tion, and (4) the resu lts of evolution. But we have ju st found th a t th e evidences back of each of these four aspects of organic evolution are ag ain st not fo r the idea of evolution. And yet scholarly men call evolution a fact! (To be continued)
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs