Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 1, 1923)
jng to say that he taught thi3 doctrine. I can not quite see the difference between teaching a thing and hypothecating it, for the advancement of a hypothesis is, in a sense, teaching.” Prof. Burlingame says that Darwin “had no intention of asserting that man was evolved*from any living anthropoid but merely that apes and man trace back to a common ancestry.” Prof. Murlin says: “My opinion is that Dar win’s position was purely a ‘speculative hypoth esis.’ ” Prof. Bolton says: “My opinion is that Dar win taught that man and the apes had a very remote common ancestry.” Prof. Booker says: “I have always taught that even Darwin himself was misunderstood by the ordinary reader and misrepresented by the rareless reader. .Darwin has never asserted that tnan originated from the monkey.” Dr. Schreckengast will not attempt to “in terpret Darwin as a whole.” Dr. McVey answers the second question by laying, “Answer is neither.” It will be seen, first, that these educators be lieve that man EVOLVED FROM AN ANIMAL, though they are not willing to admit that that animal was an ape. Nearly all of them deny that Darwin ever taught that man was a de scendent of the ape. Dr. Barry O’Toole, of St. Vincent's Archabby, Bays that all modern zoologists and anthropolog ists have completely abandoned the theory of man’s direct descent from the ape; but affirms that “many scientists still continue to uphold the theory of so-called Indirect Descent.” “In other wrords the modern theory regards man, not as a descendant of the monkey, but as the offspring of some undiscovered bestial ancestor of the Tertiary period, common to apes and men.” Dr. O’Toole then proceeds to quote from Dar win as follows: “Charles Darwin categorically taught the descent of Man from the Monkey. To quote his own words from the second edition of the ‘Descent of Man’; ‘The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded.’ “(Descent of Man,” 2d edit. chap. vi. pp. 220, 221). Note that he does npt say ‘Probably;’ his language is not the language of hypothesis, but of unhesitat ing affirmation.” As Darwin’s “Descent of Man” is within the reach of all the above named educators, we must conclude that they have not studied Dar winism but have merely accepted it without un derstanding it, or that they are not candid in the r answers. It is only fair that we should take the more charitable view, namely, that they have accepted Evolution without knowledge of wrhat it is or what its implications are, and that they have folloiwed Darwin blindly, expressing admiration of him without knowing what he taught. But it does not matter so much whether Dar win taught’that man descended directly from the “Old World Monkey” or descended from a tree that had several branches, among others the man branch and the monkey branch. In other words, it dees not matter materially whether the ape is a grandparent or merely a collateral rela tive; the real question is whether man is a de pendent by blood from any animal instead of he ng made by separate act and in the image of God. The educators above quoted have dis carded the Bible account of man’s creation and have accepted evolution as an explanation of man’s presence on earth. They are teaching it to the students who attend the colleges and uni versities over which these educators preside. They are unwilling to trace man’s ancestry di rectly to the monkey, the ape, or the gorilla; they think it is more reasonable to relieve that the d slant past there was a COMMON FAM TREE from which several limbs branched out. one of which developed into man and an other into the animals that most resemble man. We have made some progress when we have shaken these professors off of the ape limb, oven if they are still clinging to another imag niary limb of the same imaginary tree. But they cannot hold on to the new limb long; IT REQUIRES MORE CREDULITY TO BELIEVE THAT MAN CAME FROM A LIMB, NOT A particle of which can be found, in J;IPE, ON THE EARTH’S SURFACE, OR IN THE ROCKS BELOW THE SURFACE, THAN TO BELIEVE THAT HE CAME FROM ANI JJALS THAT BEAR SOME RESEMBLANCE TO , AN. What a prodigious imagination an evo lutionist must have if he can bridge the infl ate gulf between man and that form of life from hich these evolutionists believe man and other arumals developed. If an engineer plans a bridge K iS u :tream- he welcomes an island upon vtuch he can build a pier, because two short spans are preferable to a single long span. Y\hat engineer would disregard an island anu go above or below it in order to unite the banks of the stream by a single spaD? And yf>t, this is exactly the unreasonable thing of which the above named educators are guilty. They are ^race man back to the “common tree through the ape or monkey, as Darwin was willing to do; they reject the ape island, so to speak, and throw a span through infin te time, hoping to connect man with some distant an cestor without an intervening link—without a trace of life upon which to rest the arch. , Evolutionists today reaccept Darwin’s CON CLUSIONS as to man’s animal ancestry while rejecting every stone of the foundation upon wh ch he built his guess. Physical similarity between the simonidae and man was one stone that is now rejected by the evolutionists; na tural selection is another stone that has been practically discarded as an explanation of change of species. Sexual selection has been laughed out of the school room. Darwin believed in the ape theory and thought resemblances, natural selection, and sexual selection sufficient explana tion of change in species; he rejected the Bible account of creation and wandered away into agnosticism, denying the inspiration of the Bible and declaring that “the beginning of all things is a mystery insoluble by man.” The evolu tionists quoted by the Dearborn Independent re ject the ape ancestry, sexual selection, and to a large extent, natural selection, and yet they ac cept the evolutionary hypothesis WITH NOTH ING WHATEVER UPON WHICH TO REST THE HYPOTHESIS; THEY SUBSTITUTE A RIDICULOUS GUESS FOR THE WORD OF GOD. Without proof that any species ever came from another, they ask students to believe that ALL species came by gradual change from one or a few forms of life. If anyone questions the correctness of the views of these educators, they at once attempt to discredit the questioner on the ground that he lacks information. Bolton says: “Let Mr. Bryan and the clergy go into the laboratories, the experimental gardens, and breeding stations and spend months in close observation of what is being done. In that way they may know.” Bristol says: “The sad thing about Mr. Bryan and his colleagues is that they have not kept up to the times in their discussions.” The real difference between the opponents of evolution and these educators is that the former prefer to accept the Bible rather than to accept the unsupported guesses advanced in the name of science. Christians need not he arraid or any trutn, no matter from what source it comes. All truth is of God and truths cannot be inconsistent one with another. With guesses it is different; the air is full of guesses; each professor has a broadcasting station and throws guesses to those who have receivers adjusted to his wave length. But why should Christians discard the Bible, the long established station for the dis seminating of truth, and attempt to listen in on the fantastic imaginings of agnostic scientists? Whenever truth is established the world ac cepts it and we may rest assured that no real truth will ever do the world harm. But who will estimate the damage done to the religious faith of students by guessing teachers who have led them away from belief in the Bible and in the Bible’s God? Twenty years ago the following editorial ap peared in L’Univers: “The spirit of peace has fled the earth be cause evolution has taken possession of it. The plea for peace in past years has been inspired by faith in the divine nature and the divine origin of man; men were then looked upon as ch ldren o? one Father, and war, therefore, was fratri cide. But no.w that men are looked upon as children of apes, what matters it whether they are slaughtered or not?” Since then we have seen learning turned to the development of instruments of war; col lege graduates designed battleships and dread naughts, and then still more learned men with post graduate degrees designed superdread naughts Scientists mixed poisonous gases and made war so hellish that civilization was about to commit suicide. A tree is known by its fruits and we are now gathering some of the fruits of the doctrine of “Evolution” applied to business, society and gov ernment A cruel and selfish doctrine, fashioned IttS the “survival of the fittest,” is stifling con science and paralyzing morals. Human life in stead of becoming more precious is losing its value. The materialistic evolutionists know no God and, therefore, recognize no responsibility to a Creator. The thelst evolutionists put God so far away that He ceases to be a controlling influence; a sense of responsibility that must be strained through all the lower forms of life has no coercive power. The Bible Is discarded as an authority because it deals with miracles - and the supernatural—things inconsistent with the guess of the evolutionists. When evolution excludes the miracle it excludes the virgin birth of Christ and His resurrection as well as all of the mighty works performed by Christ. The world must have a God; the evolution ists’ God is e ther non-existent or so far away as to be no present help to man. The world needs a Bible as a guide; the evolutionists' Bible is only “a scrap of paper.” The world needs Christ;- evolutionists rob the Saviour of the glory of a virgin birth, the majesty vof His deity, and the triumph of H!s resurrection. No pigmy Christ is sufficient for the needs of today; we need tho full-statured-Christ of whom the Bible tells. The Fort Dearborn Independent has rendered a service in disclosing tho confusion that exists among the worldly wise men who have substi tuted the changing hypotheses of presumptuous sc entists for the unchangable word of God— guesses for truths. When the Christians of the nation discover the irreligious influence which dominates many of our state institutions of learning and some of our Christian colleges there will he an overhauling. Those who sup port the Chwstian colleges can he trusted to purge denominational schools of the poison that has been doing its deadly woxk among the stu dents, and the taxpayers can he trusted to re strain those who, while drawing salaries from the public, abuse their privileges and undermine Christianity. Christ ans, Protestant and Catholic, build their own colleges and employ their own teach ers for the teaching of Christianity. If atheism and agnosticism are to he taught, let them he taught in schools built for the purpose and known to the public as places where these doc trines are propagated. Or, to make the state ment still broader, if there are those who de sire to interpret the Bible in such a way as to rob it of its divine authority, let them build their own schools; they have no right to impose their doctrine upon the children of Christians, whether openly taught as irrejlg on or disguised as a scientific interpretation of the Scriptures. Whether the Bible is true or false—whether it is the word of God or the work of man —is the supreme issue. If there are honest dif ferences of opinion they should be discussed candidly and openly. The small percentage who boast of a brute ancestry do not deserve special privileges in church or school. W. J. BRYAN. BRYAN ON ABSTINENC E William J. Bryan has an editorial in The Commoner, suggesting a great total abstinence campaign to be pushed by all organizations in terested in the suppression of the liquor traf fic, by Sunday schools, churches, colleges, pro fessors and teachers and all others who can be enlisted in its aid. Mr. Bryan is on the right track. A genera tion is growing up uninstructed and unpledged as to total abstinence. It is true that in our schools, the effect of alcohol on the human sys tem is taught, but there is a lack of moral fervor attaching to it and generally no effort is made to pledge the students against touching or tasting the stuff. If we raise a generation uninstructed and un pledged on til's issue, it need cause no sur prise if it results in laxity in the enforcement of prohibition. Total abstinence and prohibition for the state are like the twm wings of a bird,—both are nec essary for flight. In the days when the saloon was a legal instituUon, it was not unusual to hear of drinking bouts by high school and col lege boys. It was a logical process. The state licensed the sale of the ituff and their fathers drank it. So they too drank. Now the state forbids the sale of drink, but we hear too fre quently of young men who could hardly be said as yet to be the victims of appetite, who indulge by drinking that which has been illegally with a transported and sold. Why not follow Mr. Bryan’s suggestion wutn a great pledge-signing crusade? It would be a good move.—National Enquirer. The United States chamber of commerce is building a two and a half million dollar home at Washington. There is one thing to be said for big business men, they know what is a prop er location for any business enterprise in which they are engaged.