The Commoner
ISSUED MONTHLY
..■!■■■■—■ ■■—■■— . wiin ■ ■ i ■■ ■■■■ Mil ■ ■■■■—1
Entered at the Postoffice at Lincoln, Nebraska,
as Bccond-cl&ss matter.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, CHARLES W. BRYAN,
Editor and Proprietor Associate Ed. and Publisher
Edit. Rms and Business Office, Suite 207 Press Bldg.
establish a descent from one species to another,
or change from one species to another. If the
hypothesis were true, evidence of its truth could
be found on every square foot of the Earth’s sur
face. Being untrue, evidence can not be found
anywhere.
The active search has now been going on for
more than sixty years, interrupted by “lo here”
and *‘lo there!” but the latest word in science
is that the search has so far been in vain. A
year ago last December Professor Bateson of
Great Britain, who crossed the Atlantic ocean and
addressed the American Society for the Advance
ment of Science at Toronto, declared that
EVERY EFFORT TO FIND THE ORIGIN OF
SPECIES HAD FAILED. He concluded: “We
still have faith in evolution, but we have our
doubts about the origin of species.” We are not
so much concerned about his faith, which seems
to persist in spite of universal failure, but we
are interested in the fact that evolution still
rests upon imagination—upon a presumption—
an unproven hypothesis—a mere guess.
But the case against evolution is even strong
er. Chemistry, the science with which man is
best acquainted and from which he has drawn
the largest practical benefit, presents what seems
to be conclusive proof against evolution. Chem
istry deals with the original elements, some
ninety-two of which have been found on the
Earth. Its business is to separate these elements
from the other, to analyze them, and to reveal
their differences and relationships. If the evolu
tionary hypothesis is true ANYWHERE, it must
be true EVERYWHERE. It can not be isolated
like a germ and confined to some particular por
tion of the universe. If it explains the heaven
ly bodies, the strata of rock, vegetable life,
animal life, and man, linking each to every other
by indissoluble ties, then surely it must exert a
controlling influence over every atom of matter
(and over the 1,740 electrons which make up
the atom) and over every larger unit of matter,
wherever it is found and whatever it is doine
CHEMISTRY HAS NOT DISCOVERED ANY
LAW OP EVOLUTION. It has registered the
various gases and diagrammed the movements
of the molecules, but it has discovered no push
ing at work :n the original elements of which all
things animate and ininmate are composed.
Chemistry is an exact science; it mocks the
atheist and brings confusion to the evolutionist.
Let us take, for instance, the best-known thing
with which man deals—water. It is the daily
need of every living thing. Without it, there
could be neither plant life nor animal life. It
was, therefore, on the Earth before either plant
or animal life appeared. It is the largest single
element in man’s body. Even an inebriate can
not bake into his stomach at any time alcoho1
equal in amount to the water that there is in
his flesh all the time.
V ater is composed of hydrogen and oxygen
H 2 O. Is it conceivable that two such gases as
oxygen and hydrogen should just happen? And
yet, according toi Professor Leuba of Bryn Mawr
University, in his book “Belief In God and Im
mortality, “more than half the prominent sci
entists of the United States do not believe in a
personal God.”
But even if it were conceivable that CHANCE
could bring into existence oxygen and hydrogen,
could CHANCE unite them at a certain fixed
rat:o so that a drop of water is always and ever
the same wherever found, whether in the clouds,
in the ocean, or in the veins of the Earth?
Oxygen and hydrogen are inflammable when
separated, but when they are united in water,
they put out fire. If the evolutionary hypoth
esis which assumes constant progress in every
thing, is true, water must have developed from
something. What was water before it became
water, and what will it be when it ceases to be
water? Or was the law of change suspended
when the two gases united in the formation of
water.
Take another instance. Chemistry tells us that
sugar is composed of carbon-12, hydrogen-22
and oxygen-11—C12,1122,Oil. This is sugar
wherever we find it. There is no evidence that
Miis combination of carbon, hydrogen, and oxy
gen was ever anything but sugar or ever will
be anything but sugar. What evidence have we
of evolution working on carbon, hydrogen, and
oxygen? And if it does not operate on these
three fundamental food elements, why are they
excepted from its operation? •
Every thing that man eats, wears or uses will
serve as an illustration of exact and PERMA
NENT relationship between various forms of
matter.
Chemistry has taught us the properties of mat
ter and the way to utilize them, but they are
now stationary. We can collect nitrogen from the
air, but, as Slosson says, “we are dreadfully
clumsy about it.” He adds that man “takes a
thousand-horse-power engine and electric furn
aces at several thousand degrees to get carbon
into combination with hydrogen, while the little
green leaf in summer time does it quietly, with
out getting hot about it.” And yet some sci
entists who know all about hydrogen, oxygen,
and carbon seem to know nothing about God;
they even deny His existence.
The natural and logical tendency of evolution
is to produce agnosticism, and agnosticism is
merely a way station on the road to atheism.
Darwin, just before he died, declared himself an
agnostic and said that “the beginning of all
things is a mystery insoluble by us.” A large
percentage of the students in the higher classes,
according to Professor Leuba, discard the cardi
nal principles of Christianity. He says it is due
to the influence of the cultured instructors un
der whom they study.
In so far as chemistry proves anything, it
proves that degeneration and not progress, dis
integration and not construction, are the rule
in nature, so far as the Earth is concerned.
Uranium, for instance, degenerates through
radium, that wonder-making mineral, into com
monplace lead. “How are the mighty fallen!”
Some of the scientists speak very knowingly of
what is going on in the heavenly bodies and are
quite positive that they know how old the Earth
is, although the difference between guesses
equally creditable is almost infinite; but they
seem to ignore the lessons taught by chemistry,
in spite of the fact that its lessons are easily
learned.
Why, it may be asked, will “learned men” ac
cept the evolutionary hypothesis, not only with
out proof, but in spite of proof? That is hardly
a fair question. If we prove that they DO ac
cept the hypothesis without sufficient evidence,
it is for them to explain WHY they do so. But
it may further expose the weakness of the posi
tion taken by the evolutionists to state some of
the reasons that lead them to substitute Darwin
ism for the Bible.
The first reason was suggested by Tolstoy
more than twenty years ago. He says “the cul
tured crowd” regard religion as a superstition,
good enough for the ignorant, but think one out
grows the need of religion when he reaches a
certain period of intellectual development. That
is the attitude of many scientists today. They
regard religion as a superstition. Some of them,
when they can do so without peopardizing their
salaries, hold religion up to ridicule. They think
that education can be substituted for religion.
Tolstoy’s rebuke to them is the strongest I have*
read. He says that religion does not rest on a
fear of the unseen forces of nature, but upon
“consciousness of man's finiteness amid an infi
nite universe, and of his sinfulness—which, he
adds, “one can never outgrow.” ~
Mind worship is the great sin in the intellect^
ual world today. Romanes, when he had tired of
the husks of materialism and, like an intellect
ual prodigal, started back to his Father’s house,
explained that it was evolution that led him away
from the orthodox faith. (See his “Thoughts
On Religion,” page 180.) On page 142 he ex
plained that his inability to pray was due to “an
undue regard to reason as against the heart and
will.”
There is a second reason that possibly has as
much influence as the first, namely—that evolu
tion tickles the vanity of the egotist. The Chris
tian not only admits, but declares, that the
Bible is a mystery to all who do not believe in
God. The miracles are mysterious; everything
supernatural is mysterious to those who exclude
God from their calculations.
If one believes in a God all-powerful, all-wise
and all-loving, he has a First Great Cause suf
ficient to explain everything.
In the first chapter of Genesis we find three
verses that mean more to the race than all the
books that man has written. The first gives us
the beginning of all things; the 24th gives us
a law governing all reproductions, and the 26th
gives us the only explanation of man’s presence
on earth.
The evolutionist says to the student: “Here
is an hypothesis that explains everything. There
need be no mysteries, because evolution is
omnipotent; it is the law of development, the
origin and explanation of species." The theistic
evolutionist regards it as "God's method" of do
ing things, while atheistic evolutionists regard
it as a method without any God back of it.
Of the two, the theistic evolutionist is the
more dangerous. The atheist alone can do little
harm because evidence of the existence of a God
is sufficient to convince all except the^ mind-wor
shipers, but theistic evolution lulls to sleep; it
may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens
the patients pain while atheism removes his re
ligion.
The evolutionist, to the extent that he en
dorses evolution, substitutes it for God. When
ever a Christian comes upon anything which
seems impossible of explanation, he says "God
did it." Confronted by the same situation, the
evolutionist says: "It is not inexpiable; evolu
tion explains it; but the changes can not be
traced or proven because of the time required."
The Christian puts his faith in the infinite pow
er of God; the evolutionist relies on infinite
time.
But there is a third reason that may explain
why some evolutionists have accepted the hy
pothesis, viz.—it furnishes an excuse for the in
dolent man; it is the laziest excuse ever invented
to justify inaction.
If a man believes in evolution, he can go to
the zoological garden on Sunday morning and,
standing in front of a cage of animals, speculate
on how far he has come, on his superiority-over
his ancestors. There are some people who would
rather boast of what their forefathers have done
than to do anything themselves.
If however, one is a Christian, he feels that
he should attend church and seek to know how
far he has yet to go before he is “perfect, even
as your father which is in Heaven is perfect."
The evolutionary hypothesis robs man’s corn
science of its compelling force. What feeling or
duty can man have or what sense of responsi
bility to God if it must be strained through the
blood of all the animal life below man? Re
ligion, on the contrary, inspires to action. Chris
tianity is not a lazy man’s job. It presents the
highest ideal known. It defines life as a ladder
reaching from Earth to Heaven; no matter how
high we climb, there are heights still above us.
The Christian ideal, while in sight of the weak
est and lowliest, is yet so high that the best and
the noblest are kept with their faces turned ever
upward.
1 here is a fourth reason that must not be
overlooked. Evolution is the doctrine of the fa
talist—the plea of the invertebrate. If man is
but a “bundle of tendencies inherited from the
brute,’’ why hold him accountable if, following
the instincts of his remote ancestry, he is brut
ish? Evolution excuses the sensualist and en
courages the worshiper of the god of ease. Paul
gives us the philosophy of the materialist: “If,
after the manner of men, I have fought with
beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the
dead rise not? Let us eat and drink, for to
morrow we die.”
Evolutionists who are occupying Christian pul
pits accuse the “fundamentalists” of bringing
discord into the church. Who is to blame for
any discord that may exist—those who hold to
the “faith of the fathers” and seek to stimulate
the young to realize the possibilities which God
has placed within the reach of His creatures, or
those who reject the Bible account of creation,
link man in generations with the beast, and give
him a materialistic philosophy of life? A preach
- er has no moral right to conceal his views from
those who pay his salary
A similar answer can be made to those teach
ers in the public schools and colleges who are
undermining the faith of Christian students.
They claim the right to teach what they please.
It is no infringement on their freedom of con
science or freedom of speech to say that, while
as individuals they are at liberty to think as
they please and to say what they like, they have
no right to demand pay for teaching that which
the parents and the taxpayers do not want
taught. The hand that writes the pay check
rules the school.
Christians are compelled to build their own
schools and colleges in which to teach Christian
ity. Why should not atheists ad agnostics be re
quired to build their own schools and colleges
in which to teach their doctrines? Will they
make the sacrifices that Christians do?
If the evolutionists deny that they are either
atheists or agnostics, and contend that they are
simply teaching a “scientific interpretation” of
the Bible, they should receive the same answer:
What right have the evolutionists—a relatively
small percentage of the population—to teach AT