Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1881-11-05
EVOLUTION.

EVOLUTION.
Prof. Reid, in the presence of q large audi
ence, delivered u scholarly and able lecture o
ibis subject lately in the Baptist church of tbl
t place.
Insre were several points made by him, which
mink, should not be allowed to 20 unnotlced
ISL. be asserted that every eminent Twin
scientist was q believer in evolutlon; that is
every man who was an original investigator
Ihfs was surely q sweeping assertion. Ii it l
true. and whenever it Is true, 1 expect to be al
evolutfonist teo. For 1 consider it = purel,
!, scientific question and to be settled by scientist
alone. For my " information on this poln
l wrote to Prof. Swallow, the leading ~scientis
! CT tnls state. and received the following reply:
COLUMBIA, MO-, Oct. 18th, 1881.
Rev. j. A.. Quarles-My Dear Sir:-You,
natierlng note is at hand; thanks for your goot
opinion.
You ask two questions not dflhcult to answer
tnough one answer will be different from tina
given by Profs. Huxley and Marsh.
ISL. lis evolution the accepted doctrine of tn,
scientific world ?" Certainly not. Evolution
as taught by Haeckel and Spencer and as de.
fined by Tyndall and virchow, including tn,
genesis Of life and all organic beings. but few
"S"S HASS@oAy sAAAA .
proved, while many hope it will be established.
evolution, as taught by Lamarck and Darwin,
including the development OF all organic beings
from a few prImordlal organisms, is accepted
ny many, especially the younger scientists, de.
Voted TO bo,any and zoology, but the Older
eclentists Of a wider range Of studies, especially
those devoted to geology, reject it or accept il
as o mere hypothesis. The most distinguishes
comparative ANTAGONISTS and they are best quail
lned to decide the natter say 1t is impossible to
derlve man from any known animal. Cuvier
VirchOw, Huxley. owen and Agassiz all declare
IL impossible to derive the physical man from
any known animal,
Evolution, then. even in the limited. form pre-
scented by Lsmsrck and Darwin is not an accept
ed doctrine of science.
I'd. ''Ars Tyndall and virchow evolution
Ists ?" They are not.
Mr.. Iyndall says: ''Inasmuch as it is still in
Its hypothetical state the van of exclusion ought
to fall on evolution"
MIR. Tyndall also says: 81 hold with Mr..
Virchow that the failures have bee n lamentable.
that the doctrine Is utterly discre dlted.,p
Mr. Virchow Is no less explicit. In speaking
OF the evidence Of mans derivation by evsls-
ton. he Gays: ''And Herewith Is the verdict
pronounced. that all Investigations down tn the
present day have not led to evidence. Int merely
to conjecture"
Mr.. Virchow, in the German Assootati on of
Scientists, very sharply and emphaticalIv re-
buked his fellow scientists FOR teaching evolu.
ton as q principle of science IN the schools of
Germany.
Tyndall and Virchow certainly are not evoln-
tionists. They pronounce their convictions most
emphatlcslly against the two and
most vital principles of the hypothesis-ths eyo- |
iullon OF life and the evolution of man.
Scientists Of the broaaest culture and highest |
have considered evolution In its COM |
piete form, and as taught by Its most dlstin-
Suisnea advocates. as not advanced beyond the |
stage. or as an improved hypothe-
'ls. Agasslz, Dana, Henry. Guiot, Piercs.
Hall. Meehan and Dawson, of America. and
OuVier' Quatrefages. Barrande. Pictet, VIr.
Mivart. Max Muller, BeaIe. Owen. Tvn.
iail, thompson and Carpenter. of Europe. all
lave pronounced against it In some of its fea.
ures. Some reject it in toto, others In some
It's vital parts, and have left it a criunIed
hypothesis.
MY own opinion. after thirty years study of
Is various manifestations in the works of
'uhon, DR.. Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck in the
.Vestiges OF. Creatlon.'' and In the works of
ir. Charles Darwin. Huxley, Marsh LeConte
no many others, is that evolution is an hy- /
othesls built upon hypothesis and facts by a !
'ose process Of mingled induction and de-
uction. {
1t is not scientific In its facts and poatulates :
or in its modes and conclusions. I
Darwin, the great apostle of evolution. ia ,.ss |
than Paul, the great apostle Of /
1ristianity..
Much ID said of dogma. Darwin and Huxley '
US dogmatic as Moses and John.
Mr.. Darwin says: 1.-THE early proesnitors
man nere. no doubt, coxsyed win hair. )
~ sezes AaSing oeards. Their eoys we're Il
'snfed and capable of Increment, and Their
'dses ~eve p,oSiaed ariH a lai1; . the I 1
n9s preAensize. And our progeni- y
rs no DOUBT. nere ar6s, eat. go 6requeuf- l!
o some ~arS. fore.f-chod land. 49,. At y
earlier period tie progeni2oyy Of man mmst {
rye been aquatic b
The italics are mine, v
ihese len q claratlous about our early ii
about which there is ssno IL
anu one of which 'smust have
are not facts, for every authropologis b
'0Hs there Is no proof of them In The who'll. ~
OF science. II they are postulates, ne ci
'kes no systematic efforts to prove them And sc
upon these Statements, call them what you - -
H. and many similar statements, Mr., Oar. 81
IL draws the conclusion that man is descended fe
the monkey. because the monkey has ali OF
'se CHARACTERISTICS of our progenltors, save %
e. Inc aquatic And the fishes ssmust have OF
our still earlier ancestors, because .hey ~
aquatic. Now If these are not a fair an
nple OF Mr. Dsrwin's postulates, facts, of
MODS and conclusions then 1 an incapable of w
him. The only way to reconcile tV
ten statements about our ancestors, with ra
nest teaching. 10 to call them dogmas. Moses ~
scarcely equal this in dogmatlsm. We
utterly fails to give any logical
utioh Oh the iannas and doras of the geologic
anu present ages ofthe earth. 1t fails to &C.
mt Tor mans physical system; his intellect Y,
dis moral religious natures. It Is not estab. Y
led by science. an
ses of this discussion that evolution ia ubonv M
with christiany; that Moses. and Nc
7ld and Paul are wrong, il Haeckel and ea
kley and Spencer are right. If the dormas Mi
facts and sequences of evolution are truo set
q the dogmas and facts and sequences of the e y.
10 are false. God is the dogma, Christ the tw
and Immortality the sequence of the bible. acl
physical law is the dogma, matter the fact. r Me
deatn the sequence Of evolution. The one Isl
'ires hopes OF eternal lie; the other clouds tai
~ bright hope with the shades of death Io1
ID life; law is death. rsr
ut We need have no tears Of the result. IF the eig
'ution of Lamarck, which wss sustain.d ira
more logic than Darwin ,passed away AFTER nul
ing French science and the French church acr
leir foundations, certainly we need not fear vi
wave of evolution, though IL has fue
Ell over a Wider field and captured more sail
ries. sec
fence Is now stronger. and the church ia and
nser than then. Very truly and fr.terna,lv que
3. G. G. SWALLOW. trss
l object to the idea set forth by Prof. Reid by
the spiritual di%scernment OF the christian ia
eth sense, to be classified with the fast. bet,
h, sight. hearing and smell. This smacks o'cl
hou
I...... cOul
4 P'o'ee' against the manner in which the ceeC
our OF men, the eternal Son OF God, was pre- bldt
"a rs 1.-THE culminant son of man AID the O ~ .
Son OF God" This seems, ut least tn proi
l thas Christ ID the connecting link between pen!
ana Goa. in the sense that He was the Last "
he series of evolved men. and the first In = dc
s oil to-be-evolved sons of God. This. to -
Is untrue, and even blasphemous. E,iz
ia. Q. NV,
senate adjourned last Saturday. r
faye
seems that the star reuters are to Miye
pc. Bloc
diret
1881