387
T H E
K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
July 1926
T h e P r o t e s t o f C o m m o n S e n s e REV. JOHN a REID, Ph.D. Spokane, WdSKington
This keen, concise setting forth by Dr. Reid of the absurdities of the claims made by those who hold to the evolutionary theory will be helpful to all those who may have been a little awed by their pretentious assumptions of superior knowledge and learning. An ounce of common sense the author so ably demonstrates— is worth a ' pound of foolish supposition.
etc., rolls harmless from me as water from a duck’s back. I admit all that they may say, and smile. But to any man of average intelligence, claiming or possessing even a modicum of common sense, the "five smooth stones from the brook which any wide-awake school-boy having a steady hand and eye can use,— are all he needs, though he may not have "proved Saul’s cumbersome armor,”— though he may have neither experience or training in the elaborate equipment of the Philistine. Plain, homely, every day common sense, untrained, raises a lot of questions which, though most pertinent and fair, áre yet most disconcerting to any evolutionist who finds no answer thereto. Should any be skeptical as to this, I refer them to an eight page leáflet published by "The Home Pub lishing Co.” , Rogers, Ohio,— “ 100 Questions for the Teacher of Evolution” (20c a doz., 2100 a 100). One thing is clear to Common Sense, to wit: that phenom ena adduceable by myriads are not explained or accounted for by, nor are they the result of, Evolution! No one of these phenomena of these "higher and more complex mani festations of organic life,” at any stage in the progression, was evolvéd from the lower as the “ result of the operation of resident forces acting in accordance with certain fixed laws” (LeConte)— for the very good and sufficient reason that neither the new elements, nor any germ thereof, was in the preceding form. The unalterable dictum— the fixed law— of science is that you "cannot get blood out of a turnip”— that you cannot get out of anything what is not In it— what is not there! Mendel has taught us that no species can transmit to a successor what it does not possess. “ Exvacuo evenit (evoluit) nihil.” “ Exnihilo nihil lit.” I surely may be pardoned for such unequivocal, unquali fied dogmatism of assertion, in view of the example set me by our evolutionist friends who brook no questioning of their most positive, however astounding, pronunciamentoes. One thing which always has loomed large in my consid eration of the theories advanced to account for these muta tions and transmutations, and which, has challenged my common sense, is the fact that the language employed uni formly represents them as the result of self-determination, __of deliberate choice and volition on the part of the animal (or plant even), seeking to better its condition, to adapt itself to its environment, to gain some advantage, this event uating in the atrophy from disuse of certain organs; the evolution by persistent (volitional) use of a new organ; or the hypertrophy of organs already existing,— toward the end desired! • In no case can the origination of the idea (sic)— of intel ligent apprehension of the advantage to be gained by a change, i.e., by an advancement to the next higher stage— be accounted for. In no case can any desire or volition on the part of the worm (e.g., to advance to the fish or reptile __of the reptile to become a bird— of a bird to take even the necessary first steps toward “ evolvi(ng” into a mammal) be (sanely) predicated. This simple, unescapable fact is
HAVE for some time been following with a pro found interest, by no means wholly academic or speculative, the controversy— now nation-wide— regarding Evolution. Or, since the bone of con tention is not evolution, but a certain philosophical theory, I should with greater precision have said, “ The Evolution ary Hypothesis." I have read with avidity, seeking to main tain as nearly as possible the Judicial attitude of a juror sworn to “ render a verdict according to the evidence,” everything pro or con— in book, periodical or tract to which I could obtain access. Dr. Conklin, indeed, in the preface to M b “ Direction of Human Evolution,” complains that these anti-evolutionists not only lack such first-hand knowledge as is indispensable to a fair Judgment, “ but that they evince no desire to get it even second-hand,— no willingness even to consider it when offered them,— or to hear the other side.” Will it be thought ungenerous or unfair to inquire if Prof. Conklin and his confreres have displayed any marked willingness ( “ desire” might be too strong a word) to "hear the other side” ? Too often, when notable books and articles, etc., on the other side, such' as those by Price, O’Toole, McCann, Mauro, Brown, et al, have been brought to_ their attention, prom inent evolutionists have brushed them aside as not deserv ing serious consideration because, forsooth, He is not a Biologist” ; "He has no standing or reputation as a Sci entist” , etc.,— declining to express any other opinion of arguments (possibly unread?) which to many a thoughtful reader seem very cogent, deserving,— yes, more, demanding specific answer and refutation. I am not concerned, Just now at least, with reconciling Evolution with the first chapters of Genesis,— nor with a defense of the Biblical account. The Word of God has always been abundantly able to take care of itself! The ground around the anvil is littered with the broken handles and battered heads of the hammers by which it has been assailed, but the anvil stands, and shows no scar— or mar! I am content, for the sake of the argument, tentatively to dismiss the Bible, as if there were none. Bible or no Bible,— if there were no Genesis to wrangle over, as we seek by its aid to account for the origin and phenomena of life, animal and human,— common sense repudiates the Hypothesis of Organic Evolution as it is now blazoned abroad with such uncompromising positive ness of assertion. The conviction deepens that the most effective angle from which to meet its pretensions is the reaction of the average man of ordinary intelligence to those pretensions, when presented to him— unmasked. Common Sense Disclaims Evolution It is not as a Theologist, still less as an expert Scientist, that I enter the lists. The sneer, "He is not a trained Biol ogist, or Zoologist, or Paleontologist," et al; “ He is an ignoramus! He does not know what he is talking about,”
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker