The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1876-11-17

! this, which rests from Its very
first step on mere assumption, We
claim the right to say it is moi
proved, and to hold our minds in
Isuspense until unquestionable
proof is brought forward. II
may be of interest to some Of our
readers, if We give a brief outline
of the theory OF evolution. Ac
cording to this hypothesis, the
primary condition Of the earth
was in the form of s.cosmic gas
then 'sfirey cloud" then q peri
cd of cooling and contraction,
and then s'sea slime, s'mucus" or
sProtoplasm.', This all took
place without any creative inter-
vention. Professor Huxly de-
scribes the production of life on
the globe as follows: carbon, n.y.
drogen, oxygen and nitrogen, are
all lifeless bodies. OF these, car
bon and oxygen unite in certain
conditions to give rise to carbon
ic acid; hydrogen and oxygen
produce water; nitrogen and n.y.
drogen give rise to ammonia.
These new compounds, like the
elementary bodies of which they
are composed, are lifeless. But
when they are brought together,
under certain conditions, they
give rise to the still more complex
body, protoplasm, and this proto-
plasm exhibits the phenomena of
llfe." This life is then by SIC
cessive evolutions developed into
its highest form, as we see in man.
In his lectures here, Prof. Huxley
did not discuss this question of
the origin of life. Perhaps he
was afraid to do so, lest he might
"place himself on the level of the
theologian. or the unscientific
spectator" or perhaps he dreaded
an exposure of the weakness of
the foundation on which his whole
theory rests. Now what are the
proofs presented for the truth of
this theory? Can we accept this
statement regarding protoplasm,
as true? II is given with all the
authority of scientific teaching,
and on it as the first link, hangs
the whole system of evolution, or
what its author calls "Nature's
great progression, from the form
less to the formed, from the
inorganic the or organic, form
blind force to conscious intellect
and will" 1t will not surprise
our readers when we state on the
authority of scientists Of eminent
ability, and q writer in q late
number of the Contemporary
Review, that this whole theory of
protoplasm is but Pigment of
the Imagination, and that "the
doctrines here stated" by Mr..
Huxley ''are so utterly at vart-
ance with the most familiar facts
of chemistry that it Is marvellous
they should have SO long passed
unchallenged." And he proceeds
to show that "under no possible
conditions can carbonic acid
water and ammonia, when brought
together give rise to the still
more complex body protoplasm.
Surprising 1t to be only a chemi-
cal compound, we can decompose
it into what we are pleased to call
its elements, but it has never been
reformed, except under the direct
agency of actually living proto
plssm. It is not in any sense true
that any substance even distantly
resembling organizable matter
has been formed" Now here il
the direct testimony of one com
petent to judge,tha the very foun.
dation of evolution is as un.
substantial, as the "baseless fabric
of a vision" If this evidence il
true, which to the non-scientest il
of equal authority of Professor
Huxley, then we may consistent
ask, where is the 'morality o.
science" when those claiming to
be its foremost advocates and
teachers persistently disseminate
as scientific truths the most i'll
usive assumptions?
We have treated the subject il
hand as simply scientific ques.
which, like others, must be sub
stantiated by unquestionable
proof before it be accepted.
Indeed, the principle which we
apply now must be applied in
every new claim set up by scien
lists. Let US have something bet
ter than assumption or assertion
We would demand this in any
case, whatever bearing the ques.
ton might have on Theology and
Revelation: we would demand it
for the sake of the truth.