The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1912-03-22
Darwinism versus Christianity.
Estella, Okla
(By Ell. Nathan.)

IAN unfolding a development, as, for
instance, the evolution of bud into
leaf, or of an egg into bird or an
animal
Now much of the difficulty ON this
subject has arisen from the unwar-
rantable confusion or identification of
Evolution with Darwinism
At this juncture it would not be out
of place to say that Darwinism is a
THEORY of the process of evolution,
and both on. account of the skill (for
Mr. Darwin was man of brilliant
parts,) with which it was originally
presented, and of the singular emf
nence of its propounder, obtained for
a time very remarkable prestige.
But l fear that the gentleman who
writes under the nom de plume of
i"Observer" has become so lop-brained,
or one-sided, and so hardened against
| the Bible and Christianity, so afro
lphied on the ethical side of his mind,
that it would be hard to convince him
that there was really difference be-
tween Darwinism and Evolution in the
true scientific sense. Judging from his
latest communication one would ac-
tually infer this. 1t would almost be a
miracle to convert an egotist of his
stamp. In fact have no faith to be-
lieve that it could be done unless the
Creator would in grace bestow upon
him new set of brains. Such men
seem to have been run into matrix,
like a plaster of Paris cast, and any
effort to change them would prove dis
astrous to the cast, or man, or what
ever it is.
Any man who will write down an op-
ponent, (without certain knowledge in
the case,) that he is Ignorant" and
unable to pass an intelligent opinion
upon such vital questions as We have
been considering. recently; man who
assumes to know it all, and from
whose profound decisions there can
be no appeal; man who accuses the
defenders of Christianity of not only
being Ignorant, but full of "hypoc-
risy and superstition" a man who
climbs to the top of pedestal of in
fidel assumption and looks down on all
those who believe the Bible to be the
very Word of God, and that the Mo-
sale account of the creation is the
truth in opposition to the Darwinian
assertion to the contrary; man who
boasts himself to be a disciple of Dar-
win and advocates that dark and un-
certain system of negation, and de-
clares it to be the gospel for these
days-such man is either a moral
neurotic or an example of contemplate
Egotism personified.
And this is not said in the spirit of
intolerance" but is simply the truth.
observer" seems to think that FL.
Nathan's library is composed of a
Bible, a commentary, Fox's Book of
Martyrs, Pilgrims Progress, and a
few other "obsolete tones" when it is
barely possible that the owner of these
excellent works, has, in addition,
among his numerous volumes on his
library shelves, the very latest word
on all these momentous questions.
Further, it may be that there are a
few people in Vinita's 5000 population
who are as fully posted on the latest
developments in philosophy as is he;
who have reached beyond him in their
general knowledge, because, physiolog-
ically, they are not afflicted with that
common disease of infidels, bonehead-
edness. With such men diamond
drill, metaphorically speaking, could
not penetrate their thick skulls, and
even if this difficult operation was a
success, the drill would find an insur-
mountable resistance in the scared
and calloused conscience underneath,
There is an old Eastern axiom some
thing like this: The wild ass of the
desert is un4amable." Now, according
to the Darwinian theory, whenever the
differentiation of species" took place,
some spores, by fortuitous chance or
laws, some protaplasmic matter, some
measly little bioplasts, must have
sloughed off from the wild ass, and in
the course of limitless ages eventuated
in producing living creatures of "Ob-
servers" type. No kick coming here,
for it is Darwinianism in the concrete
to assert that such results would lie
within the limits Of the possible. To
tame an infidel of Observers type,
or impart any real intelligent informa-
ton, would be as easy as to change
the nature of the wild ass.
Will the reader pardon the forego-
ing diversion from the main topic?
I now proceed to give briefly tn ?
f! difference between evolution de facto,