Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-01-21
HOW WAS MAN MADE,
lie Places IN Opposition Bible Truths and
She Eroipfion Theories ON the Dsfxion Of
sp~e1e-, and speaks Of the -vrvivsi Of
In. fittest.

New York, January 1.-THE subject
of the Rev. T.. Dewitt TaImage's ser
mon this morning was Evolution
snti-Bible, onti-s4iencc, aBti-comnsoB
SENSE" His text was found ia Time
thy, vi, ~ 20, Timothy, keep that
which Is committed 70 thy trust.
avoiding oppositions TO science falsely
20 called. -
There il no contest, Mr. Talmage
said, between genuine science and rev
Citations, The same God. who write
10y tie hands OF prophets ON patch
menf, wrote Iiy the hand ~ storms ON
the rocks. The beet Telescopes are
owned by Christian universities. By
whom was magnetic teiegTapby dis
covcrtd: by Professor Morse, an evan
gelical Christian. By whom was tlie
lightning swung under the sea, coup
ling together the continentsg Iyrus
w. Field, the Christian. Who dis
covered the angstheticai qgaiiiie- 81
chlroform, more than any other man
fhat ever lived. giving relief u psin
and turning back niuc-tenih- ~ tine
horrors Of surgery? james y. ~sinlp-
non, az eminent for p:eiy "a. for -c3-
enec. aaw the universities 81 fslin-
burgh draped ia mourning nj bis
death, and heard Isis eg-
Iogy pronounced by the DIES
fitute population of the Cow
gate. Science aud revelation are the
bass aud soprano OF the same tune. and
will yet be ack complete
harmony. But between what my text
describes rs science falsely ~ called
and revelation there X an uncompfu-
missing war, aud one or the other must
70 under.
AT the present time the air ia filed
with social and platform aud pulpit
talk Oh the subject Of evolution, aud il
is high time that the people who have
but little opportunity 10 investigate
for themselves understand that evoltI-
ton, or the theory advocated by Her
bert Spencer and Charles Da win, IN
in the first place, up and down, out
and out iniidelity, and secondly, that
IL Is contradicted by science and bfu-
TALKING in its cilects. | do not to-day
argue that the Bible IL true. 90 that II
IL in any way to be relied on AZ a trust.
worthy book. These are subject. for
other Snbbaihs. but wish YOU Ia an
dersiand that Thomas Paine and Vol
taire and Hume no more dis,elieye,t
the Bible than did the leading scien-
lists who promulgate evolution. When
l cay scientists do not MEM Iiicrar,
men who discuss thismatter ia essay or
sermon, and without time for inve,ti-
gafion look at IL from this side or that.
but ] mean the men who through la
boratoriea and aquariums aud zooiog.
ical gardens and astronomical observa-
tories give their life to the study ~ the
physical earth and lis plants aud AMI
mails aud to the exploration u regions
beyond so far rs by optical inventions
they may be explored. All these evo-
lutionists, without one exception, reject
the Bible, aud viii put them ON the
witness stand, the living AMI the dead
Ernst HacclScl, John Stuart Mil. Hux-
ley, Tyndall. Darwin and Spencer. We
men OF science, stand there and
sol.fnnly answer q few questions
Do you believe In the Holy Scrip
lures No" And so they say an
do you believe in the story Of Adam
and Evein the Garden OF Eden ~
mo" And so they say all DO YOU
believe In the miracles Of the Old and
New Testaments?H mo- Ana
so they sny all. no vou
believe TINT Christ was the sayior OF
the world ~ NO And 80 they
say ali, Do you believe in the doe
trine of the atoncmcul?" Mo-
And 50 they say all. DO you believe
IN The regeneiHting power Of the HOLY
Ghost Mo- Aud SO they say ali
do you believe that God answer,
prayer Mo- Aud $50 they say
all. Ernest lIaerkle, on the first paue
81 his three great volumes sneers AT
The Bible as a "soc1llcd revelation
Tyndall deiied all Chrlstendom hy his
prayer test 10 prove that supplication
70 tool would ever be- answered.
stuart Mill after deliberately writing
against Christianity, showed that hi,
REJECTION OF IL was complete by order
ing for his tombstone the inscription
Most Unhappy Huxley says that
when he Tlrst read Mr.. Darwin's book
what strnck him most forcibly was the
conviction that theology, by which hc
means christian theology, as c0n-
monty understood, hSd received Is
death-blow az Mr.. Darwin's hands.
put IN opposition the Bible theory
and the eyoluti0nists theory Of how
the human r1ce started The Bible ac-
count says; Let us make man I'm our
image for our likeness. So God orp,,trJ
man IN his own image He brenthed
into him The breath OF life. A nprf,ct
man. Not u perfect Kangaroo or ni,pr-
feet chimlanzoc, hut perfect man
Evolutionista' account. Infinite ot,rs
ago there existed four on five nrinlal
germs or piunt spores, and these do
feiopcd AL the living creatures OF the
ages. First therc WAC vegetable stun.
perhaps mushroom That mushroom
developed by us Innate force Into some.
thing HE a Jelly fish, aud the Jelly
nsn hy innate force developed into n
iadpoie' The tadpole developed into
snail The snail by innate force de-
inmate force developed into wolf ana
the wolf intoa dog, and Tho da@ H..
reloped Into u hahoOu, aud tho hghoo,,
developed into q man. Darwin saws
our lungs are n swim-bladder. shn,yIntr
that we once lIoatud and were ams
phihiots, and the ears were once
movable rs easily as that of a horse
when he lllia them at some irightfitl
object, From plant 10 pollyWog. fronl
pollywog 10 Insect from insect Ia 6sh
from fish 10 rcDile, from reptiie htn
monkey, irrn monkey into man
Now, anyone who says that this eva.
iuiionist account of the creation ~
man ~ not different from Tho Rih,e ~.
count makes an appalling nisrcpresen-
lion. Prefer which account YOU please
Take Darwin's origin of species in
preference 10 The book Of Genesis, II so.
you viii understand That yon are an
miideL As for myself, since Herbert
spencer was noi presentat the creation
OF the world aud the Lord God was. /
shnil take the divine account OF what
really hsppfned on that occasion.
Let nae see how honest theso evolu4
uonists are, aad see whothcr II IS NOT n
sirategem by which 60 eject the Crea