j. " (Tf .i1" J' V ""
;'Hi ? f-fWW m jrv
rT v
Commoner
APRIL, 1921
iH'J
..
$
?n
WttJM
M
ITHE MENACE OF DARWINISM
By WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
When the mainspring is broken a watch ceases -.
i bo useful as a timekeeper. A handsome case
Sjljjpay make it still an ornament and the parts
miay have a market value, out it cannot servo
?He purpose of a watch. There is that in each
.human life that corresponds to tne mainspring
Sofia watch that which is absolutely necessary
litfthe life is to bo what it should be, a real life
Sxfd not a more existence. That necessary thing
HlkA BELIEF IN GOD. Religion is defined as
itne reiauon Detween uou uuu wuu, uuu iuwiuj
las described morality as the outward expres
sion of this inward relationship.
If it be true, as I believe it is, that morality
pF dependent upon religion, then religion is not
ionly the most practical thing in tne world, out
ftSe first essential. Without religion, viz., a sense
f4?oi? dependence upon God and reverence for Him,
7SJme can play a part in both the physical and the
j fipTellectual world, but he cannot live up to the
' .impossibilities which God has placed within the
ireach of each human being.
f'SPA belief in God is fundamental; upon it rest
iPB influences that control life.
' iiHiFirst. the consciousness of God's presence in
Sthe life gives one a sense of responsibility to
, Mtfie Creator for every thought and word and
raeeu.
ESecond, prayer rests upon a belief in God;
)S1...4A. ...i4-V tVm funnfMt in f Via ovnroaalnn ntf
-KKCU1UJU1UU1UU YVltiX IUO Uiouiui iu vu. v4 wuu.w. w
igratitude and in pleas for guidance powerfully
influences man.
Third, belief in a personal Immortality rests
ipon raitn in lioa; tne in warn restraint cunt
frana lincis in a raitn tnat iooks iorwara to u
future life, with its rewards and punishments,
rjfpSfcGs outward restraint less necessary., Man
13Kweak enough in hours of temptation, even
JSFhen lie is fortified by the conviction that this
mill, is out a small arc oi an muniie circus; ma
,jpwer of resistance is greatly impaired ir ne
accepts the doctrine tnat conscious existence
terminates with' death.
Fourth, the spirit of brotherhood rests on a
elief in God. We trace our relationship to
Wxv fellowmen through the Creator, the Com-
n Parent of us all.v
iFifth, belief in the Bible depends upon a be
lief, in God Jehovah comes first; His word
MMi -. m 3
'comes aiterward. 'mere can do no mspira-
' Mftfc
V,
,jt
i-
W
f-l
-, r -irW
JT h1l
Sj'.it
v -.hi
r'WM
ft1,
4 f .
&f
&
.!
,vj
if j3
x&
' '.$
'".fe- ... . vt ,. n.ii j. il.
ition Wltnout a neavemy raiuer to mim.
JBjjSixth, belief in God is also necessary to a,
iSR" : "IVo.ir.1 . 4-l-i -v Oa nmilil tint Vinva rotronlorl
tne' Father to man according to any atheistic
Seory. And so with all other Christian doc
trines: they rest upon . belief in God.
If belief in God is necessary to the beliefs
numerated, then it follows logically that any
thing that weakens belief in God weakens man,
wad, to the extent that it impairs belief in God,
deduces his power to measure up to his oppor
tunities and responsibilities. If there is at work
the world today anything that tends to break
jfckis mainspring, it is the duty of the moral, as
well as the Christian, world to combat this in-
uence in every possible way.
1 believe there is such a menace to funda
mental morality. The hypothesis to which the
rcTame of Darwin has been given the hypothesis
Shat links man to the lower forms of life and
nakes hinf a lineal descendant of the brute
is obscuring God and weakening all the virtues
that rest upon the religious tie between God and
an. Passing over, for the present, all other
bases of evolution and considering only that
art of the Bystem which robs man of the dignity
conferred upon him by separate creation, when
Std breathed into him the breath of life, he
ecame the first man, I venture to call attention
the demoralizing influence exerted by this
doctrine.
If we accept the Bible as true we have no
'difficulty in determining the origin of man. In
he first chapter of Genesis we read that God,
fter creating all other things, said "Let us
ghake man in our image, after our likeness; and
let him have dominion over the fish of the sea,
nd over the fowl of the air, and over the cat-
le, and over all the earth, and over every creep
ing thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God
treated man in his own image, In the image
of God, created he him; male and female created
e them."
But the materialist has always rejected the
ible account of Creation and, during the last
alf century, the Darwinian doctrine has been
the means of shaking the faith of millions. It
is important that man should havo a correct
understanding of his line of descent. Huxley
calls it the "question of questions" for mankind.
He says: "Tho problem which underlies all
others, and is more interesting than any other
is the ascertainment of the place which man
occupies in nature and of his relation to tho
universe of things. Whence our race has come,
what are tho limits of our power ovor nature,
and of nature's power ovor us, to what goal are
we- tending, are the problems which present
themselves anew with undiminished interest to
every man born in the world."
The materialists deny the existence of God
and seek to explain man's presence upon tho
earth without a creative act. They go back
from man to the animals, and from one form
"of life to another until they come to the first
germ of life; there they divide into two schools,
some believing that the first .germ of life came
from another planet, others holding that it was
the result of spontaneous generation. One
school answers tho arguments advanced by the
other and, as they cannot agreo with each other,
I am not compelled to agree with either.
If it were necesssary to accept one of these
theories I would prefer tho first; for, if we
can chase the germ of life off of this planet
and out into space, we can guess the rest of the
way and no one can contradict us. But, if wo
accept the doctrine of spontaneous generation,
we will have to spend our time explaining why
spontaneous generation ceased to act after the
first germ of life was creatod. It is not neces
sary to pay much attention to any theory that
boldly eliminates God; it does not deceive many.
The mind revolts at the idea of spontaneous gen
oration; in all the researches of the ages no
scientist has found a single instance of life that
was not begotten by life. The materialist
has nothing but imagination to build upon; he
cannot hope for company or encouragement.
But the Darwinian theory is more dangerous
because more deceptive. It admits, or permits
one to believe in, a God, but puts tho creative
act so far away that reverence for tho Creator
is likely to be lost.
Before commenting on the Darwinian hypothe
sis, let me refer you to the language of its author
as it applies to man. Professor Darwin, on
page 180 of his Descent of Man (Hurst & Com
pany Edition 1874) says: "Our most ancient
progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata,
at whicli we are able to obtain an obscure
glance, apparently consisted of a group of
marine animals, resembling the larvae of the
existing Ascidians." Then he suggests a line of
descent leading to the monkey.
It will be noted, first, that he begins the sum
mary with the word "apparently," which the
Standard Dictionary defines; "as judged by ap
pearances, with passing upon its reality." His
second sentence turns upon the word "prob
ably,," which Is defined; "as far as" the evidence
shows, presumably, likely." His works are full
of words indicating uncertainty. The phrase
"we may well suppose," occurs over eight hun
dred times in his two principal works (see
Herald & Presbyter, Nov. 22nd, 1914). The
eminent scientist is guessing.
After locating our gorilla and chimpanzee an
cestors in Africa, he concludes that "it is useless
to speculate on this subject." If the uselessness
of speculation had occurred to him at the begin
ning of his investigation he might have escaped
responsibility for shaking the faith of two gen
erations by his guessing on the whole subject of
biology.
Having given Darwin's conclusions as to man's
ancestry, I shall quote him to prove that his
theory is not only groundless, but absurd and
harmful to society. It is groundless because
there is not a single fact in the Universe that
can be cited to prove that man is descended from
the lower animals. Darwin does not use facts;
he uses conclusions drawn from similarities. He
builds upon presumptions, probabilities and in
ferences, and asks the acceptance of his
hypothesis "notwithstanding the fact that con
necting links have not hitherto been discovered"
(page 162). He advances an hypothesis which,
if true, would find support on btrery foot of the
earth's surface, but which, as a matter of fact,
finds support nowhere. There are myriads of
living creatures about us, from insects too small
to be seen with the naked eye to the largest
mammals, and, yet, not one is in transition
from one species to another. Every one is per
fect It is strange that slight similarities could
make him ignoro gigantic differences.
Probably nothing impresses Darwin moro than
the fact that at an early stago tho footus of a
child cannot bo distinguished from tho footus of
an ape, but why should such a similarity in tho
boginning impress him moro than tho difference
at birth and tho immeasurable gulf betwoon the
two at forty? If science cannot detect a dif
ference, KNOWN TO EXIST, between tho foetus
of an ape and tho foetus of n child, science
should admit its incapacity and not libel man.
If tho follower of Darwin will go back a little
further ho will find, as Drummond tolls us,
(seo Price's "Now Light on tho Doctrines of
Creation"), that sclenco cannot detect any dif
ference betwoen tho single coll of a child, an
elephant, an eagle, a worm and a plant, and yet
we -are asked to substitute tho Inferences, the
presumptions and tho probabilities of sclenco
for tho word of God.
Science has rendered invaluable sorvico to so
ciety; her achievements arp innumerable and
tho hypothosos of scientists should bo considered
with an open mind. Their theories should bo
carefully examined and their argumonts fairly
weighed, but the scientist cannot compel ac
ceptance of any argument ho advances, except
as, judged upon its merits, it is convincing! Man
is infinitely more than science; science, as well
as tho Sabbath, was mado for man. It must
be remembered, also, that all sciences are not
of equal importance. Tolstoy insists that tho
science of How to Livo Is moro important than
any other science, and is this not true? It is
bettor to trust in the Rock of Ages than to
know tho age of tho rocks; it is bettor for ono
to know that ho is close to the Heavenly Father
than to know how far tho stars in tho heavens
are apart. And is it not just as important that
the scientists vho deal with matter should re
spect the scientists who deal with spiritual
things, as that the latter should respect tho
former? If it bo true, as Paul dcclaros, that
"the things that are seen are temporal" while
"the things that are unseen are eternal," why
should those who deal with temporal things
think themselves superior to those who deal
with the things that are eternal? Why should
the Bible, which the centuries have not been
able to shake, be discarded foi scientific works
that have to be revised and corrected every few
years?
The two linos of work are parallel. There
should bo no conflict between tho discoverers of
REAL truths, because real truths do not con
flict. Every truth harmonizes with every other
truth, but why should an hypothesis, suggested
by a scientist, be accepted as true until its
truth is established? Science should bo the last
to make such a demand because science to bo
truly science is classified knowledge; it is the
explanation of facts. Tested by this definition,
Darwinism is not science at all; it is guesses
strung together. There is more science in the
twenty-fourth verse of tho first chapter of
Genesis (And God said, let the earth bring forth
the living creature after his kind, cattle and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
kind; and it was so.) than in all that Darwin
wrote.
It is no light matter to impeach the veracity
of the Scriptures in order to accept, not a truth
not even a theory, but a mere hypothesis..
Professor Huxley says, "There is no fault to be
found with Darwin's method, but it Is another
thing whether he has fulfilled all tho conditions
imposed by that method. Is it satisfactorily
proved that species may be originated by selec
tion? That none of the phenomena exhibited
by the species are inconsistent with the origin
of the species In this way? If these questions
can bo answered in the affirmative, Mr. Darwin's
view steps out of tho ranks of hypothesis into
that of theories; but so long as the evidence
adduced falls short of enforcing that afflirma
tive, so long, to our, minds, tho new doctrine
must be content to remain among the former
NOTE. Dr. Etheridge, Fossiologist of the Brit
ish Museum, says: "Nine-tenths of the talk of
Evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on ob
servation and wholly unsupported by facts. This
museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of
their views."
Prof. Beale, of Kings College, London, says: "In
support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning
man's origin, there is not at this time a shadow of
scientific evidence."
Prof. Pleischmann, of Erlangen, says: "The Dar
winian theory has in the realms of Nature not a
single fact to confirm it. It is not the result of
scientific research, but purely the product of imagi
nation." Prof. Hackol admitted in his old age that he
stood practically alone and that "most modern in
vesltgatora havo come to the conclusion that the
doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism,
is an error and cannat be maintained." Funda
mentals, "Vol. 8, page 29.
i'-iii ;LjUlkki&&f& i&kJiw Ji!1iioCRiv-'"i. -Ci,-k"riJu.fc.ifi..fc..I wj-j &J,lJtidii
x-Wa.; U'A.! - UJidu& j.iA:.lJriJ,i.iU7iiUJ.iik2&L, A itgfeu -J. .
ijjtiTuik ,&ifo tl"
