The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1876-10-13
Huxley,s Evolution.


EAuxley's Evolution.
Prof. Huxley is a great man. He
knows much. He may not know
everything. His evidences of Ev-
Ointion" are worth reading. The
theory of evolution is now attract
ing much attention. Prof. HuxIey's
bold way of asserting things about
it, and other theories Prospecting
the past history of life upon the
globe" is truly refreshing. He
speaks like man of authority. He
seems to expect his bearers TO swal-
low down everything he says, with
out question. Huxley speaks, and
the ''Miltonic" and other hypothesis
crumble into dust. The great philos-
pher mods and evolution, in other
hands a mere theory, becomes an
eternal fact. He says the "MiltonIc
hypothesis" ia completely and fully
negatived." Prof. Huxley knows.
John Milton and his admirers may
retire.
But now that evolution has been
established, will the man of all
learning and wisdom allow an ig-
norant seeker of truth to ask 8 few
questions What is meant by the
following sumner ?-"According to
the hypothesis of evolution, the ex-
listing state of things is at the last
term of long series of antecedent
states, which, when traced back,
will be found to snow no Interrupt
ton and no breach of continuity"
Of course there Is no ambiguity In
''the last term" But l am little
curious to know how the establish
ment of such thory sets aside the
"Miltonic hypothesis" SO called ?
Does Mr.. Huxley mean to say that
the doctrine of evolution does away
with the idea of an ever-existing
intelligent Creator? Or is he,
like many other of his friends, a
little hypocritical in the use of the
phrase, "Miltonic hypothesis ?" Was
he not afraid TO say right out be-
fore a New York audience that he
and his fellows ignore the existence
of personal God?
Let that be as it may. have a
few more questions to ask. Of
course. L do not question his theory
concerning Niagara. Prof. Huxley
always speaks what he knows;
but am a little curious to know
how the fact that the remains of
shell fish 10000 years old establish
evolution. And if such remains do
establish evolution, how do they
disprove the existence of an Eter-
nal Creator? Admitting even the
eternity of matter, reason still asks
for an intelligence to bring order
out of chaos. The question is still
pertinent, can matter in any form
produce, of itself, other forms of
being? Is it not fact that ''like
begets like ?" Can a stream of itself
rise above its fountain? If Hux.
ley's evolution is true, it can. In
animate matter is capable of pro-
ducing animate forms. Mollusks
can produce vertebrate animals.
Quadrupeds can beget bipeds. An
unintelligent semi-biped is fully ca
pablo of producing, in course of
time, a noble, thinking, soaring
creature, which, for convenience,
we call man. The whole OF it is,
"the last term of a long series of
antecedent states" has been brought
about by first term of "star mist"
or some other ethereal matter.
But the philosophers proof is
overwhelming. Why, Prof. Marsh
has in his collection the fossil re-
mains of hesperdniS RECALLS, that
is, bird about six feet high, which
was provided with teeth. Such a
bird could not exist unless evolu-
ton be true! Then in the Mesozoic
rocks we find the remains of the
pterOdoctylus specta6ilis. This mon
ster had the shape of bird but was
devoid of feathers, and in place of
wings sported ga great web like a
bats wing" Now, reader, give it
up. Such creature as that was
certainly evolvedl But then, in sr-
der to silence all -questioners, the
learned Professor showed how the
hind limb of the dtnoSaur and croc-
odile resembled that of some ancient
bird. It required little imagina-
ton to make the resemblance per-
feet, but Huxley knew what he was
about; and where the facts were
not complete, he could just put
them Sin the position that they
must have (had) in nature" So he
fixed up Creature (compsognd thus
lOngipes) with long neck and bird
like head" to fill up the gap hitherto
existing between the reptile and
bird. He had to ''stretch the class
of birds to birds having teeth" so
that there was "little more than the
addition of feathers"-"to convert
it int a bird" But never mind,
such stretches establish evolution.
And if evolution is true, why the
Bible is q book of fables, and the
idea of personal Deity is explod-
ed! And to accomplish that we can
afford to have a featherless bird
stretched into the dimensions of a
crocodilel
In hard earnest, does not the
whole thing look like a strained
stretched effort to build up a