National Republican., 1883-01-22
CREATION OR EVOLUTION
DIR. Childs's Lecture Before the Young
Mems Christian Association.

Mems Christian Association.
The subject of the lecture Friday evening
was "Creation or Evolution" In opening, the
speaker said We have found reasonable evil
dence, think, of the existence of personal
God-not by hypothesis, which is simply an
assumed or supposed explanation of observed
phenomena, but by the most imperative tcs-
timony of every normal mind; by kind of
testimony that must be relied on, or nothing
whatever can be known by tho immediate,
intuitivo assertion Of adequate causation for
all phenomena, and consequently the imme-
diate, intuitive assertion of q personal intclli-
gent, adapting cause of a universe of adapta-
tions and of personal intclligenccs.
We have also, think, found reasonable
evidence that the book which we call the
Bible is not of mere human origin that the
truths it presents, the events it foretels, the
morality IL demands, the God it reveals tbs
humanity it portrays, the salvation IL pro-
vidcs the Christ it makes known, the heaven
it opens, the eternal doom it unfolds, and the
effects IL produces cannot ON any grounds of
moral probability have their source in the
mind of man. They are above nature aud
the Book that contains these truths and pro-
duces these results is not a natural book, II is
a supernatural; it is the word of God.
This being so, the volume is decisive on all
questions that it undertakes to decide. We
open it tonight with the questions: What is
the origin Of the universe? What is the origin
of man2
Taking the Bible in its obvious sense the
answer would seem to be perfectly clear. Its
first sentence Is this: In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth. See also job
xxxviii., A Psalms lxxxix, II, Gil, 25, cXlvi.,
9 John l., 3 Hebrew t., 10. These are few
of the passages which decide the questions if
the Bible is ofauthority. They stand with the
whole body of evidence that sustains this as u
divine revelation. The same remark, of
course, is true in reference to those passages
which ascribe the origin Of man in his COM
pleteness directly to the creative act of God
Genesis l., 26, 27: "And God said, Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness
So God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him."
See also Ecclcsiastcs viii, %; Hebrew H., Z.
AS this is the subject of chief interest and I'M
portance we confne the discussion tonight to
1.-THE origin Of man.
The face meaning of the passages quoted
would hardly seem open to serious qustiOn.
They atfirm-if language can attirm-the Gre
alton of man in his perfect statc-the normal
man-directly by God.
Now, against this we have the doctrine Of
evolution. This doctrine may be either the
istic or atheistic. / am unable to Sec in all
candor how it can possibly be scriptural. 1
can understand how man rejecting the
Bible as the word of God can accept evolution
as a possible hypothesis, but how he can ac-
cept it as accounting for tho origin of man
and claim to stand by the scriptures
at tho same time, cannot see.
For evolution holds, first, that man
instead of being created Immediately by God
was developed by natural law from the lowest
form of organic life; and, hence, second, in
stead of beginning existence in his perfect
state as the normal man, he began il as man
in the lowest possible state, hardly separated
from the brutcs and in pure barbarism. Ac-
cording to the Bible mans first appearance on
earth was in the image of God, after his like
ness. According to evolution it was in the
image of the beasts that perish and after the
likeness of an ape.
Not to dwell on the different forms of evo-
lutionism, let us take that of Mr. Darwin, the
recognized leader of the school. His view
was that all forms of animal life could be
traced back TO q few--not more, probably, than
four sor five-original forms, and then, from
analogy, il was fair to infer that these four or
five came from one primOrdial form or germ.
To the question that then meets us: Where
did this original atom or germ and its life
come from? Mr.. Darwin answers candidlyand
reverently, from God, Tho original atom
requires a creator, as trulyas universe, Mr..
Darwin was not an atheist But he was too
wise and too candid man to claim to be n
believer in the Bible account of creation, and
to hold also to tho evolution of man from the
lower forms of life.
Now as to the doctrine ITSELF and the argu-
ment must be presented very briefly:
/. 1t is in its best estate, simply an hy-
pothesis; that is, n supposition, n guess with
more or less of plausibility to account for the
facts we see. 1t is absolutely improved
Tho testimony of Prof. Tyndall will be re-
spected at least when that of the theOlogians
is scofIed at. Tyndall says: "Therc ought to
be a clear distinction made between science
in the state of hypothesis and science in the
state of fact. And inasmuch as il is still in
its hypothetical stage, the ban of exclusion
ought to fall upon the theory of evolution"
81 hold with Virchow," he adds, THAT the
failures tof this hypothesis) have been Ia
mentable, and the doctrine is utterly discred-
ited." The essential facts have not changed
since this testimony was given.
2. The hypothesis is not only improved ID
is against some of the clearcst facts of science,
as far as they are known to us, The general
fact certainly is that of permancncy ofspe-
cies There is not single case proved of the
transmutution Of one specie into another per-
manent and distinct specie. No such thing
is known. Even Prof. Mitchell, who believes
"that the doctrine Of derivation Of species
should be accepted" ;" admits that 'all the facts
which have fallen under one observation fail
to supply asingle specie certainly derived from
another" And yet we are asked to believe, not
only that one specie may be derived from an
other, but that, rs an established fact of
science, all the species Of animal life on the
face of the earth-man included have been
derived from one.
Prof. Huxley, one Of Darwin's ablest fol-
lowers, referring to the fact that tho effort to
cross species results in hybrid type, as the
mule admits that this ",utterly skaters" Dar-
wins hypothesis, unless he can produce the
same results "by natural selection" Prof.
Gray, of Harvard, in his "Darwinana," takes
substantially the same position,
The doctrine is unsustaincd by, and is in
conflict with, the facts of geology. If this
transmutation of species has been the
law of organic life from the beginning,
he certainly should expect to find album
dant traces OF ii in geologic formations.
We find the fossil remains of all animals,
fish, fowl, beasts, and man, but they are
all distinct and all complete after their kind,
We find no half-lOrmed animals or men, On
the other hand, the different species appear as
perfect at the beginning Of u period rs at its
close, in some cases moro So "Thc earliest
fishes" says Prof, Dana, "are tho highest
orders of that class 80 In the intro.
duction of the common fishes there is fall
below the level of the early orders" The gar
pike for instance, is higher order than the
common fish, yet it not only preceded that,
but it preceded the reptiles. The order Is not
evolution, but rctrogression.
g. The doctrine identifies man and the
brute; man is only a developed beast, This
is not sustained by the facts of science (d) as
to the physical organization Of the two. That
there are certain general resemblancos may
1. A 81. H.. l..