What is man? or, Creationism vs. evolutionism

Contents

PAGE

Preface I

Introduction 3

Preface

I fully realize that I have undertaken a task of no mean significance when I undertake to refute the doctrines advocated by such eminent men as Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer, Prof. Thomas H. Huxley, and Dr. Ernst Haeckel; all of world-wide reputation, and made so by the advocacy of the doctrine I have engaged to refute.

Whether or not I have succeeded in the refutation of the doctrine of evolution as enunciated by those eminent men, I leave to the judgment of those who may do me the honor to read my words.

I trust that those who read this book will overlook the fact that its author is an obscure personage, and only consider the subject matter presented, passing judgment upon it on its merits.

These words have been written after a study of the theory of evolution covering several years' time, and with a thorough desire to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion for myself. They were brought about by the following incident :

Some years ago, while attending a medical convention in a certain city, one evening, I, with five others, "purveyors of pills," went out to a restaurant for supper. While at table, the conversation turned to church matters, and religion in general, and from this to Darwinism. One of the company said : "I am a member of and a

Deacon in the First Baptist Church of City; I

go to church pretty regularly, and pay my money to the church, but I don't believe a word I hear preached; I don't believe in the doctrine preached in any of the churches to-day. I am an evolutionist, and I think there is no more inspiration in the writings of the Bible than

2 PREFACE

there is the writings of Darwin; I think the Mosaic account of the creation is nothing but fiction, not a word of truth in it."

This declaration, made so broadly and bluntly, shocked my sensibilities not a little. It made a deep impression on my mind. I thought it over again and again, and determined to investigate for myself, and find out the truth of the matter, if I could. Accordingly, I procured the works of Darwin, Spencer, Huxley and Haeckel on evolution and kindred subjects, besides the best works on biology, anthropology, ethnology, the antiquity of man, and geology. Then, with a good encyclopedia to refer to, I began the study of the subject, and have canvassed it to the best of my ability ; and now I make known the result of such investigation.

I trust the contribution may be received in the spirit in which it is given, overlooking the many imperfections of an inexperienced author.

Judson D. Burns, M.D.

Grundy Center, Iowa, 1908.

Introduction

Theories are formulated, hypothecations set up, in attempts to find bases from which to explain different phenomena. Many a theory has come to be accepted, in the past, that has later been found to be false; and such a theory has often stood in the way of recognition of the truth. It has biased the mind and led to false interpretation of the facts. In this way wrong impressions, of the most momentous character, gain the ascendency. This is preeminently the case with Darwin's theory of the evolution of the species.

In all the affairs of men, especially in the field of mechanical physics, theories are tested in every conceivable manner to prove or disprove them; but here is a theory advanced which it is not even pretended has been tested in any branch of the great field of nature; and it is accepted by many and declared to be a scientific statement of the origin of all the species of organic creatures. Now, it is not only without proof, but it is so contrary to the facts, that every law of nature, in the field of reproduction, is arrayed against it. Nevertheless, in the face of all nature to the contrary, this untested theory is declared to be a scientific truth.

While it is proposed in the following pages to combat and refute, on scientific grounds, the Darwinian theory of evolution, not making use of the written word of the Bible in proof of our position, yet it is unquestionable that ample proof of the fallacy of the Darwinian theory is contained in the Bible itself. Reference is made to that authority at times because science confirms its teachings, and is in accord with our findings.

When we come to the full answer to the question, "What is Man?" we are forced to go to the Bible for

4 INTRODUCTION

our answer. Nowhere else in all the literature of the world is an adequate answer given. Suppose we had never heard of the Bible, and knew nothing of its teachings, what would be our condition to-day? Probably we would be entertaining the same ideas that our progenitors did when they sailed from Jutland, worshipers of the god Woden, or possibly worse. Could we then answer the question?

A great deal of trouble seems to have arisen from a want of a proper understanding of the meaning of the word "evolution." A writer on metaphysics, in dealing with evolution, says: "Evolution in the scientific sense, is neither a controlling law nor a producing cause, but merely a description of the phenomenal order; it is a statement of method and is silent about causation.

"Whenever a doctrine of evolution transcends the field of phenomenal description, and claims to give a theory of the productive causes, it then becomes metaphysics and must be handed over to philosophical criticism for adjudication. We may have entire unanimity concerning evolution in the scientific sense along with complete disharmony in its metaphysical interpretation." (Brown.)

In Mr. Darwin's discussion of evolution he has confounded the duties of evolution proper with his own peculiar doctrine as to the causes of the evolution; and so he has become a metaphysician as to the production of the species. Hence we see the term evolution used in one sense on this page, and on another it is used in another sense.

In some places he holds that the cause of new phenomena in the species is the extreme tendency in nature to change; that changes are constantly going on, and these changes bringing out new forms of life by evolution. In other places he holds that the cause of the changes, and the production of new forms of life, is due to a very peculiar something, which he denominates "selection." In still other places, and that most commonly, he holds that evolution is the cause of the new forms of life instead of being a description of the phenomenal order of the development of the new forms of life.

INTRODUCTION 5

It is this mixing and conglomeration of causes that he makes use of in his "Evolution of the Species," that has served to cover up and mystify his doctrine. This mystification, in turn, has given the doctrine its strength, and is the only reason for its acceptance by many. He is a metaphysician on one page, and a naturalist, writing in the spirit of a novelist, on the next page — making use of the cause that is best suited to the necessities of the case in hand. This practice, coupled with fictitious, purely imaginary interpolations, amplified with specious arguments, which are used with great adroitness, seemingly has served to mystify the whole subject, as well as to render the argument plausible to the unwary or non-critical reader. The fictitious effect thus reached is set over against the theory, as if it were real ; with the result, it is ventured, that few comprehend fully his doctrinal theory, because of the metaphysical entanglements, and fictitious interpolations, without which his work is barren.

As a matter of truth, there is not a single essential, biological fact there adduced to substantiate his theory of "The Evolution of the Species." It is surprising, beyond measure, to find this to be actually the case, in all his writings, though they glow with brilliancy of thought.

We conceive it beyond question, in this material world, that every effect must have an adequate cause; that nothing whatever comes by chance ; and that like causes, under like circumstances, produce like effects ; no difference how remote the time, nor how widely separated the instances of the causes, the action or effect must be the same.

WHAT IS MAN?

Chapter I An Epitome Of The Evolutionary Scheme From Moneron To Man

"What a piece of work is Man !" cries Hamlet. "How noble in reason; how infinite in faculty; in form and moving, how express and admirable; in action how like an angel ; in apprehension how like a god ; the beauty of the world ; the paragon of animals."

From a biological point of view, Man, the genus Homo, is an animal. A biped, bimanous, placental mammal; a vertebrate of the highest order, and possessing qualities of mind superior to that of any other in the animal kingdom ; the only form of animal life using articulate language to communicate with his fellows. His habitat is the earth, wherever animal life is found and can be sustained.

But it is not simply Man's classification in the animal kingdom that interests us so much at this time, but rather to inquire as to his origin, his present status, and his probable objective.

While, in this inquiry, possibly little new matter will be presented, endeavor will be made to look at the subject from a different standpoint from that of any other modern presentation of the subject.

Historically, Job was the first man to ask the question which has been taken for the "text" for what is to follow on the subject, a little more than fifteen hundred years B.C. His language was, "What is Man that Thou shouldest magnify him, and that Thou shouldest set Thine heart upon him, and that Thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment?" The substance of this question, at least, has been reverberating down the ages. Very probably the same question has been asked thousands of times by inquiring minds.

The Psalmist asked the great question in this form: "What is Man, that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of Man that Thou visitest him?"

To the writer's mind, the answer to this question depends entirely on the origin of Man. In studying this question, therefore, it becomes very necessary and practical to review the subject of Man's origin, inasmuch as there is a controversy on that pivotal point. It is the intention to present, in the following pages, all the facts already known on the subject, so far as the writer is acquainted with them. A different interpretation, however, will be put upon those facts from that of others who have written along these lines and an endeavor will be made to eliminate all fiction from the subject.

There is but one place, to the writer's knowledge, where we can go for any historical light on the subject, viz., the book of Genesis. But this authority has been called in question, along down the ages, very frequently, both as to the authorship and the subject matter. Nothing, however, was offered to take the place of the Biblical history of Man, that would bear scrutiny or stand anything of a test, at any time. At length, however, Charles Darwin, an English naturalist of the highest eminence, formulated and promulgated a connected chain of ideas; a theory as to the origin, not only of Man, but of the entire animal world, differing entirely from the Biblical history, and thereby introducing an entirely new aspect of animate nature, and which, it is supposed, he thought gave a scientific answer to the question, "What is Man?" So that there are, at least, two answers to the question at the present time, which in effect, as well as in the modus operandi, differ so widely as to be antagonistic and irreconcilable. That is to say: if either one be true, the other cannot be true. Originally, it was only for the purpose of satisfying myself on the question that I studied the subject.

There are many people, we suppose, who think it does not matter which of the two, if either or neither of the answers is the correct one. Maybe it does not; maybe that Man's status would not be changed, whichever horn of the dilemma you hang your faith upon. But it seems to me that it makes a very great difference, judging from the effects which are seen, as well as from our own reason in the matter.

The following statements, it is thought, are logical conclusions : If the Biblical account of Man's origin be true, his status is fixed, in this world, as a separate creation ; a creation that is no relative to any other genus in the animal kingdom; a creation for a purpose; and that his objective is provided for and determined in accordance with laws laid down by the Creator. If, on the contrary, the scheme laid down by Mr. Darwin, commonly known as the evolutionary theory of the origin of Man, be true, Man is an aimless accident in nature; in that, any break in the long evolutionary chain, which might readily have occurred, would have cut Man off entirely; or any imperfections in the transitions, which are made necessary by the theory, would have altered the effect, by changing the sequence from what it would have been had there been no imperfections in the evolutionary transitions. Man would, therefore, have a nondescript status, without an objective and without a destiny, save annihilation, like all his predecessors; it being that he is an offspring from animal life ; a relative ; one of the family of animal life, all having sprung from a common fatherhood; and why should he have a different destiny from that of the rest of the family?

At the time that Job and again when David asked the question, there was but one answer to the inquiry as to the origin of Man ; Darwinism had not then been evolved. If they were constrained to ponder the question in their time, how much more of an incentive have we, in this age, to study it? Apparently this question is beclouded to-day. Perhaps it might be said that it is more of an enigma to-day than it ever was in the past, because of the promulgation of this unique doctrine, and the acceptance of it by great numbers, with and without underio • WHAT, IS 'MAN?

standing, to an extent that the movement has swept over this country and Europe like a prairie fire, and has influenced more or less the entire rising generation. This doctrine is taught largely in all high schools, colleges and universities. The theory being so startling, it is deemed worthy of consideration, whether true or not. Then again, the college professor who is not up to the times, in teaching the latest in everything, is considered a back number and is liable to have his head cut off, metaphorically speaking; and so he has to teach all that comes from the mill of so-called scientific thought, whether vagaries or not. The subject of biology being in the curriculum, the student is obliged to give it his attention, and accept the teaching, at least tentatively.

It is not common for the student, studying the theory of evolution, to put before himself, clearly and frankly, the question whether or not this theory is a scientific explanation of the existing order of things. To the student, as he looks at nature, the infinite number of details is sufficient to claim his entire attention. These details occupy his mind so constantly that he rarely looks above or beyond them. The superficial sufficiency of the evolution doctrine seems to meet and explain the details to him. As he thus studies nature, naturally enough the doctrine assumes greater and greater prominence, until it becomes a mistaken verity. It is a fascinating study, and in his eagerness to grasp the tangible within his reach, the student forgets the fundamental principles and problems, so that his study of the subject is only superficial. As a result, many have accepted the doctrine as the whole truth; some for one reason, some for other reasons; among which are: First, misunderstanding or lack of understanding; second, because, if this doctrine be true, Man is relieved of all responsibility; third, because it offers a good excuse for religious skepticism, and holds up before him the ever present life, as being all in all; fourth, because it is something new, a fad of the crimp.

It is very easy and catchy as well, to say that the simpler forms always precede the more complex forms, without stopping to ask : Do the simpler forms always,

FROM MONERON TO MAN n

or even ever, give rise to the more complex, and if so, how? But is it logical?

In the judgment of the writer, no single affirmation has been more prolific of skepticism, has done more to unsettle the faith in Christianity since the Christian era began, than the doctrine of evolution as enunciated by Charles Darwin. The reasoning forces itself on every candid mind: Can there be such a thing as sin in animal life? Have animals souls to be saved? Is it possible that animals have a Redeemer? It is plain that, if one has, all have. The answer comes at once: If Man has no future life, any more than any other form of animal life, what is the use of bothering about it? It is all a delusion. Thus the foundation of civilization is swept away at one fell blow.

It may not be that we shall satisfy anybody else on this question, even though we may know the exact truth ; and notwithstanding it has been demonstrated to be the truth at the birth of every representative, of every form of animal life, since the creation; but I have satisfied myself on the question, and I feel it a duty as well as a privilege, to "let my light shine" on all questions of this kind; the reason of each individual is appealed to, and accordingly each individual must decide for himself, before he can logically or reasonably formulate a belief, for or against.

Let us then first study the evolutionary theory of the origin of Man. Even before Mr. Darwin wrote, there were several starts made, by naturalists, to get away from the creation theory and the creation story. At first, writers were moderate and somewhat chaotic in their opinions. Saint Hilaire accounted for the different animals by saying that what constituted what are now called species, were degenerations from the same type — thus suggesting evolution by degeneration; but that theory would not fit at all in the synthetic evolutionary scheme.

Lamarck at first believed that "The use and disuse of organs according to necessity was sufficient, as a principle, to account for the development of new organs, and the lapse of others." Later, in 1801, he was the

12 WHAZ 'IS M'AN?

first to dispute the separate creations, as well as the immutability of the species.

Time is one of the necessary elements in the scheme of evolution, and, therefore, there being no possible objection, the advocates of the theory appropriated all they wanted; varying in their estimates greatly, until the latest school decides on a round one hundred million years as the time necessary in which to build the animal world by evolution.

Sir Archibald Geikie says: "Of the first appearance of organic life upon our planet we know nothing. Whether plants or animals came first, and in what forms they came, are questions to which as yet no satisfactory answer can be given. But it is in the highest degree improbable that any trace of the earliest beginnings of life will ever be found."

It is gleaned from the writings of evolutionists that they think animal life and the animal world, at least in its beginning, came first. Starting then, away back there one hundred million years ago, some time perhaps in what is called the Laurentian period, at a time when this earth was a barren waste, not a leaf nor a blade of grass appearing, and before the rocks of that period had even begun to form, life somehow, somewhere, some way or other began; and was made manifest in the onecelled animalcula called the moneron. Whether the whole family of the monera were in this, some way brought into being at once, or whether there was but a single representative at first, they do not tell us. It is to be presumed, however, that the whole family were spontaneously called into being at one and the same time, inasmuch as no progress, along the evolutionary lines so far laid down, could be made with but a single representative of the species, as we shall see further along.

Numerous theories have been advanced as to how life started; as to how this little cell came to have the life-element in it, and it was then the representative of all the animal life, and the progenitor of all animal life in the succeeding ages, up to this time. I will leave this subject, at this time, for another place; sufficient now to say that, by some means, it is held, the moneron is born.

Think what had happened! Something entirely new had mysteriously come into the world. An entirely new element had come into existence, perhaps clandestinely, on this, so far, barren sphere. Life! What an epoch! Think of it! The shuttle had been thrown for the first time that was eventually to weave the great fabric of animal life on this earth, and continue it forever.

From the Darwinian standpoint, not a particle of intelligence was manifest on this earth, save only what this new element brought with it; and whither it came or whither it goeth, no man can tell. Nevertheless, life had started on its destiny, in this miniature cell, without architect to make plans, or an intelligent hand to guide the way. Chaos reigned supreme. Looking backward, we can just begin to comprehend the great possibilities stored up in this miniature, single life-cell, which is destined, or predestined, without architect or guide; without the shadow of a brain-cell, and therefore absolutely without any intelligence whatsoever, to build the animal world ; being charged with the great, the mighty responsibility of fathering all forms of life on this earth, of whatsoever shape or form, be it beast, bird, fish, or reptile. Reader, do you realize, can you realize or even imagine, upon what a slender thread hangs our being?

Is Sir Archibald Geikie right when he says : "Of the first appearance of organic life upon this planet we know nothing. It is in the highest degree improbable that any trace of the beginnings of life will ever be found"? If he is right, from whence comes the information that life, on this earth, began in the monera? Is it not purely assumption, made necessary by the scheme of evolution? It seems very reasonable and probable that Sir Archibald Geikie is exactly right ; but, such is their theory,' and that is what we are considering.

This globule of protoplasmic matter called the moneron, for the first thousands of years, a very long but indefinite time, had no nucleus, and was therefore incapable of budding or segregation, consequently could not grow or change its form; neither could it propa-

14 WHAT, 7S MAN I

gate new cells; and so it becomes a great mystery how life was perpetuated in this globule, during all these ages. But eventually, another stage of development succeeded; a nucleus was implanted in the life-cell, which gave it new possibilities. The single cell could now subdivide itself and thus become "many cells." A brand new creation? Rather a brand new manifestation of life, an advancement. This new manifestation of life was brought about by a law, as Darwin supposed, and which he at first stated in these words : "The law of selection by natural adaptation," but which he later changed to read, "Natural selection." At a still later date he adopted Herbert Spencer's wording of this supposed natural law: "The survival of the fittest." And on this dictum, ignoring all other natural laws, he builds the whole scheme of "The Evolution of the Species." Think of it for one moment! All the possibilities of the future development of animal life to be hung on the perfect working of this one antiethical law, the "Natural selection" of Darwin, "The survival of the fittest" of Spencer, or "The struggle for life" of Huxley; which they say are one and the same thing. Can anybody guess how the world struggled along for at least nearly six thousand years without those laws? Before they promulgated their antiethical law, there was in operation an ethical law in nature, that can be traced back as far as the creation, and is of far greater consequence, it would seem, than this other law ( ?), even though much less has been said about it. The formula is very simple and easy to understand: "The struggle for the life of others." A beautiful conception and most appropriate wording for a very potent law of nature. This is Mr. Henry Drummond's contribution on the subject, and with it, Darwinian evolution is completely routed from the field. Of course Mr. Drummond makes the attempt to erect his own scheme on the ruins of Darwinism, but we shall advert to that later on.

"The struggle for life" represents egoism ; "The struggle for the life of others" represents in its fullness, altruism. And so, we have these two words representing two principles claimed to be in nature by different schools of evolution. They are perfect antagonisms ; perfect antitheses, expressing two opposite characteristics in the animal, as well as in human life. The one looking after self to the exclusion of every other creature; the other sacrificing self for other creatures. They have been called characteristics; neither can be dignified into a law of nature, because neither all animals nor all human beings observe either of them; and we know that every one cannot observe both of these principles at the same time; or, in other words, no one can have two opposite characteristics, as this involves a contradiction. But, reader, which of these two characteristics forms the greater factor in the building of the animal world? In the brute, both are instinctive, if at all, in different personalities; in the human being, either characteristic can be acquired. Darwinism builds the world with egoism alone. Why entirely ignore "The struggle for the life of others" ? Taking no account of the love, the patience, the tender care and the self-sacrifice, the promptings of instinctive duty, that even the brute shows so markedly to its offspring, he formulates his scheme with egoism alone. Mr. Drummond very pertinently remarks : "Without the struggles for the life of others, obviously there would have been no others. Egoism would soon kill itself off and then there would have been no evolution." Egoism may propagate the species, but we must have altruism to preserve and rear them. Now I apprehend the truth to be, that both these two characteristics (they cannot be called laws) have been working side by side ever since the creation; without the latter perpetuation would be an impossibility.

But to the story. It is said that in time these "manycelled" animalculae developed into "hollow-spheres," and so, in the Cambrian period, came the amoeba; the first to have a primary stomach. This new growth has the quality of motion, in a limited degree it is true, but still it has the new quality, and is an advance over its predecessor.

In the Silurian period came the flat worm, and then the cord worm, consisting of an aggregation of cells. These animalculae subsist by burrowing in the slimy protoplasmic matter at the bottom of the sea. It is estimated and claimed that it took fifty million four hundred thousand years to complete this period of advancement, by evolution.

In the Devonian period the lowest order of fishes developed : the Balanoglossus, having a head like an acorn, and a broad, flat tongue, always extruded, and a long tail.

About this time the vegetable world had made a start; the fern alone decorated this earth. It is also said that, during all these ages, these lower orders of animalculae kept multiplying) multiplying, MULTIPLYING in numbers, as there were none of the higher forms of life, as yet, to prey upon them, and so, life developed luxuriantly, and "took on" a new form: "skulless vertebrates," as represented by the Amphioxis, a very low order of fishes, with a tail on both ends, was the next in the Cambrian period.

Now, reader, right here is where the wonder of the world was performed. That the law (?) of "selection" should so influence procreation that it should induce the invertebrate, a simple little aggregation of organic matter, without a bone in its body, to bring forth, from its primordial cell, its spawn, if you please, a vertebrate — a fish with a back-bone and a spinal cord with all the nervous accompaniments, is an exhibition that stands out as the most unique freak that nature had fathered (if it were true) ; it stands among the greatest of imaginary achievements in the world's history. Especially is this true since, according to their own tell, there had been no "struggle for life." This law ( ?) had cut no figure whatever, so far, because there were no higher forms of life to prey upon those primary forms of life, and they could not put up much of a struggle between themselves. Apparently all lived together in peace and harmony, thus far. The law (?) of "the survival of the fittest" had not, as yet, had anything to do with the evolutionary process. It would be appropriate then to ask, What, from a Darwinian standpoint, has furnished the impetus for the change, the advancement, in the evolutionary process, so far?