The origin of man;
■ Hal Ik lg| f* I ■ J ^m rv -^ ' <\ /y 0 *>"^% / o5 ^ ,x/ <■ . %;;!\::;^- s * ^ <C ^s ■N*? -^\ ?\^ ^ ,vv '■> <&' \V W -l ^j The origin of Man OR Evolution or Revolution — Which ? BY G. W. POOL, Ph.B. FROM THE PRESS OF THE WESTERN METHODIST BOOK CONCERN CINCINNATI I APR tCcived 1905 .Copyngnt uary COPY 3. Copyright, 1904, by G. W. POOL .PS2. Author's Preface. T^HERE have been so many works written on evolution that the publication of another book on that subject demands an explanation. The circumstances that called forth this volume are these: The writer some ten years ago had gathered his materials together to begin the writing of a book on an entirely different subject, when the question of the method of treatment presented itself. If evolution were true, the manner of treatment must be in harmony with this hypothesis : but, if special creation were true, it must be made to conform to this theory. It was useless for the writer to proceed with the work until he had settled in his own mind which theory was a proba- ble truth. Prior to this time he had made no thorough study of the evidence adduced to support these theories, but from that time to the present hour, he has given every spare moment to the investigation of the claims of these theories. This investigation was made to satisfy the writer's own mind, and with no intention whatever of writing i book on the subject. But having presented some of the results of the investigation in the form o\ lectures, some of those who heard the lectures, in whose judgment the writer had confidence, thought that they were worthy of 3 4 The Origin of Man a wider circulation and should be given a more permanent form. But these views would not have been presented to the public even then, had not the writer been impressed with the fact that what had been written in defense of special creation was largely of a negative character, while it seemed to him that there was abundance of positive scientific evidence that tended to establish this theory. And the writer was convinced also that the faith of many was being unsettled by the revolutionary changes that have been taking place in this age of transition, resulting from the disturbing influence of the evolutionary philosophy. The hypothesis of evolution has been accepted as fully demonstrated, and the doctrines of the Christian religion are being reconstructed and made to conform to the teach- ings of this new philosophy. Far-reaching changes, con- sequently, have taken place in the religious beliefs that have been held formerly as truths that could not be shaken. Evolution has been accepted as a proved result of science, and criticism based on its deductions tend to undermine the faith of many in a divine revelation. The danger is not that this criticism will destroy the Bible for it will stand as impregnable as Gibraltar when the critics are dead and forgotten and their criticism has power only to provoke a smile. But the faith of many in the Bible is being destroyed, and this is a serious matter. It seems to the writer that there has been an undue haste among re- ligious teachers to adjust the beliefs that have long been held as established in order to harmonize them with the doctrines of evolution. If the hypothesis is fully estab- lished, of course, the only thing to do is to harmonize the Preface 5 teachings of the Scriptures with the theory, or abandon the Bible and Christianity altogether. The writer began his investigations fully expecting to find that the scientific evidence would be overwhelm- ing in favor of the theory of evolution, and contrary to his expectations found abundant evidence to confirm his belief in the theory of special creation. He began the study of the subject with the determination to accept the theory that had the preponderance of evidence in its favor, supposing from the confident assertions of popu- lar writers that this would be the hypothesis of evolution ; but he emerged from his investigations with his belief in the theory of special creation firmly established as a ra- tional and scientific hypothesis. This book has not been written for men of science, but for intelligent, thinking laymen, who do not have time to investigate such questions for themselves, but who are vitally interested in the results of the investiga- tion, and for this reason all technical terms, as far as pos- sible, have been avoided. There is no claim made to lit- erary excellence. The attempt has been made to give a clear and concise statement of the essential facts of these theories upon which the reader might be able to base a judgment. It has seemed more important to set forth the thought clearly and give a correct theory, than to sacri- fice these for mere literary embellishments. The writer makes no claim to originality except in the interpretation of the facts demonstrated by science and in the method of treatment. There is abundant lit- erature on the subject, and this has been made use of in the investigation. In fact, the materials for the work 6 The Origin of Man have been gathered largely from the writings of evolu- tionists themselves. The facts discovered by evolution- ists have been made use of, but their interpretations of these facts have not been accepted. Wherever the doc- trines of evolutionists have been set forth, the language of these writers has been closely followed. In a book involving the reading of such a large num- ber of works, it is difficult to make adequate acknowl- edgment of one's indebtedness. The writer acknowl- edges his indebtedness to the philosophical writings of Professor Borden P. Bowne in the preparation of the in- troduction. And, besides the regular text-books on Geology, he is indebted to the works of the distinguished geologists, M. Joachin Barrande, Dr. Alexander Win- chell, but chiefly to Sir J. William Dawson. And where he is indebted to other writers, or where there has been thought transference, particular acknowledgment has been made in the footnotes. The reader is granted the same privilege in perusing these pages that the writer has claimed for himself in reading the works of others. He asks nothing more than that the line of thought be followed to the end, and that the reader then draw such a conclusion as in his judgment seems to be a probable truth. Table of Contents Page Introduction, - 9 part first Chapter I. Evolution,  155 II. The Formation of the Earth, - - 205 III. The Development of the Species, - - 239 IV. Man a Revolution, - 269 V. The Origin of Life, - 317 VI. The Source of Man's Origin, - 359 INTRODUCTION 9 "The men who in field and laboratory are working out the facts, do not speculate at all. Content with slowing building up the sum of actual knowledge in some neglected and restricted province, they are too absorbed to notice even what the workers in the other provinces are about. Thus it happens that while there are many scientific men, there are few scientific thinkers. The complaint is often made that science speculates too much. It is quite the other way. One has only to read the average book of science in almost any depart- ment to wonder at the wealth of knowledge, the brilliancy of obser- vation, and the barrenness of idea. On the other hand, though scien- tific experts will not think themselves, there is always a multitude of onlookers waiting to do it for them. Among these what strikes one is the ignorance of fact and the audacity of the idea. The moment any great half-truth in Nature is unearthed, these unqualified practitioners leap to a generalization; and the observers meantime, on the track of the other half, are too busy or too oblivious to refute their heresies. Hence, long after its foundations are undermined, a brilliant generalization will retain its hold upon the popular mind; and before the complementary, the qualifying, or the neutralizing facts can be supplied, the mischief is done." — Drummond. 10 INTRODUCTION. UPON the highest pinnacle of the earth's life, stands man, the crown jewel of the universe. He stands without a rival at the head of the ascending scale of life on the earth. Man is the supreme product, the crowning glory of the creative process. He is a self-con- scious being, possessing sensibility, the power of free voli- tion, the ability to think, the capacity to know, the faculty of reason, together with a high moral and spiritual nature. Whence came this ponderous sphere which man inhabits ? And whence came the man that dwells upon it? Man is, in some way he came to be, but how did he originate ? This is a question of paramount importance to every member of the race. And man in his eager quest after knowledge has sought long and diligently to discover the source of his origin. He has been tireless in his efforts to solve the mys- tery that surrounds his advent in the world. He has pene- trated the earth beneath him, and has soared into the heavens above him, that he might learn the secret of his origin. The question as to how the human race came upon the earth is one that can not be banished from the mind, and must be given a careful consideration until a satisfactory answer is obtained. Man has either always inhabited the earth, or he has taken up his abode here at some definite time in the world's history. But it is an impossibility for the race to have al- ways dwelt upon the earth, for reason demands a beginning. That which is eternal must of necessity be self-existent, but that which is temporal must have been caused to exist, ii 12 The Origin of Man hence, must have had a beginning. An unending mutation marks the history of the human race. Man stands, as it were, on the brink of an illimitable sea, that never restores again anything that falls into its waters. We hear only the moan of the relentless waves that beat upon its shores. The lands we occupy were once the dwelling place of other peo- ples, who lived, and wrought, and passed away. There is a limit to life beyond which we can not pass. Decay and death are inevitable. What has taken place with the gen- erations of the past is prophetic of our own history. Man is not self-existent, therefore he can not have always in- habited the earth. It is impossible for us to conceive of the material uni- verse with its numerous forms of life, in the light of the present state of knowledge, as having always existed. The science of Geology has demonstrated a beginning for the earth, the species, and man. The geologist traces the his- tory of the planet on which we dwell through its various geological stages until he comes to a time when the globe was in a molten condition, and, then, still further back when it was in a gaseous state. Life was an impossibility in these early periods, for such was the condition of the earth in the gaseous and molten state that no living matter could have existed upon it. Life being an impossibility in these earlier epochs, it must have originated at a later age, when the earth had reached a condition in its development that it could sustain life. Every existing species can be traced back to a time in the history of the earth, when it had no existence. Geology demonstrates a beginning for man, therefore he must have been caused to exist. What reason demands and geology demonstrates, reve- lation proclaims. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Introduction 13 Lord God made the earth and the heavens." "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." Reason demands a beginning, but it does not trace the earth back in its history to the real cause of this beginning. What the cause of the beginning was, is left as a matter of conjecture. And the fact that geology traces the globe back to a beginning in a primitive incandescent vapor, does not explain the ultimate cause of the present order. The be- ginning reaches back from the origin of the earth into the limitless depths of eternity. But what was back of the be- ginning, without beginning, self existent, and eternal? What is the ultimate cause of all things? What is the source of man's origin? Revelation does not merely pro- claim a beginning, but also the cause of the beginning that reason so imperatively demands, and that geology so fully demonstrates. The question of man's origin, however, can not be settled by proclamation alone. The facts relating to his origin must be established by proofs that will meet the requirements of reason and satisfy the moral sense. There are two current theories that undertake to account for the origin of man. One is that of special creation, which teaches that man had an independent origin, having been created by Almighty God in his own likeness from the dust of the ground. The other theory is that of evolu- tion, which holds that man had a common origin with the lower animals, having been gradually evolved from the lowest forms through countless ages by means of resident forces, until he reached his present position at the head of life; and this theory denies most emphatically that man had an independent origin. If the theory of special creation is true, man had a he- ginning, having been spoken into existence at a definite time by divine fiat. If the theory of evolution is true, he had a 14 The Origin of Man beginning, for he is traced back' in the process of his de- velopment to a time when the earth was in such a condition that life could not exist upon it. Both of these theories are agreed, therefore, that, not long ago, comparatively speak- ing, the earth was, but man did not inhabit it. The ques- tion for our consideration is, How did man come upon the earth? Was man a supernatural creation, or was he de- veloped by the more gradual process of evolution? Man exists, was he spoken into being by divine fiat, or was he evolved from simpler and lower forms of life? Is the ex- planation of life to be found in the traditions of the past, or must it be sought in the philosophy of the present? The existence of the universe and the species must be accounted for in some way. Did man originate as an event or a process? In either case, what was back of the event or process? We desire to know, not only how man origi- nated, but to know the cause of his origin as well. Grant the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God, and either hypothesis may be true. Man could have been spoken into existence in the full possession of all his powers, in a moment of time, by a single word from the Almighty. He could have been, on the other hand, the product of minute changes by transmutation from lower types of life, consuming untold ages in bringing him to his present high state of development. We can not limit the Almighty in the method which he might choose to employ in the production of man. If man originated by special creation, then, it follows that this was the method employed in his production. But, on the other hand, if he originated by the slower processes of evolution, this was the method employed in producing him. All evolutionists are agreed on the method of origin, whatever their beliefs may be as to other things. But the theistic evolutionists and the materialistic evolutionists dis- agree on the real question at issue, that is, the cause of man's origin. The one sees in the processes of evolution evidence of a divine mind, while the other sees in these processes nothing but the operations of the laws of nature. The theistic evolutionist and the atheistic evolutionist agree as to the facts which relate to man's production, but they differ in their interpretation of these facts. The theistic evolu- tionist sees back of the process of evolution a divine cause ; the atheistic evolutionist sees nothing in the process of evo- lution to lead him to believe that there is any higher cause than nature itself. Nature is self-sufficient, and there are no causes except material causes. The doctrine, as it is held by materialists, maintains material causation against supernatural causation ; and contends for continuity and uniformity of process in nature against break and interven- tion. But the theory of evolution, as held by thoroughgo- ing evolutionists, who have carried it to its logical con- clusion, excludes the possibility of a creation by supernat- ural power, by any method, however gradual its process of operation. The hypothesis of evolution, when carried to its logical conclusion by its ablest and most distinguished advocates, is diametrically opposed to the theory of special creation as it is held by the consistent religionist. The one. makes man the offspring of God by creative act; while the other, makes him the product of nature through the operation of fixed laws. There is a well-defined issue between the two theories 16 The Origin of Man that demands careful consideration from all thoughtful per- sons. And any attempt to evade the issue should not be countenanced for a single moment. The acceptance of the theory of evolution requires not merely a change of opinion as to the method of origin, but a change of one's whole view of the world and life. The leading evolutionists hold that their theory accounts for the universe, the species, and life itself, without the necessity of divine intervention. The theory of evolution is sufficient in itself to account for all things that exist. There is no need whatever for a divine First Cause. We must accept their interpretation of the theory, and evolution must be met squarely as it has been set forth by its ablest and most distinguished advocates. It does not meet the exigencies of the case to say that evolu- tion was God's method of introducing man into the world. The real issue between the two theories must not be evaded by compromise. There is not the slightest evidence to show that material causation in any way secures order and prog- ress. And supernatural causation is by no means incon- sistent with uniformity and progress by slow degrees of advance. From the bare notion of material causation, we can infer nothing as to the mode of its manifestation; nor from the bare notion of supernatural causation can we infer anything as to the method of its operation. This, there- fore, is not a mere question of method, but it is primarily a question of cause. It is the question whether man orig- inated by an act of special creation, or by the process of evolution. It is an unequivocal question of origin. It is not a question of how man might have originated, or how he ought to have originated, or how he could have orig- inated. But it is a plain question of fact, How did he originate ? The question, however, that seems to be under discussion at the present time, is not whether the theory of evolution is Introduction 17 true, but in what form it shall be finally accepted. It is taken for granted by most of the popular writers on this subject that the theory is true ; and that the only thing that remains to be settled is whether it shall finally be received in its theistic form, or in its atheistic form. It may be thought by some that the discussion has passed entirely be- yond the question as to the truth of the theory. But the question, as we regard it, is not in what form it shall be finally accepted, but whether it shall be accepted in any form whatever. It is not what form of the theory is true, but is it true at all? Is it necessary for us to accept the theory in any form, either in its theistic or atheistic form? This is a question that can not be settled by mere authority. The origin of man can not be settled ex cathedra either by re- ligionists or by evolutionists. Those who accept the Bible as a divine revelation may contend that the Mosaic account of creation should be ac- cepted without question. But this account of creation can not be accepted in this way, for there has been formulated a plausible theory which claims to account for the origin of the inorganic and organic world without divine inter- vention. Great weight has been given to this hypothesis from the fact that it has been generally accepted by men of science. The truth of the theory of special creation has been called into question. For this reason, no matter how irreverent this may appear to the devout religionist, the theory must be put to the test. And if special creation can not stand the tests that are applied to similar hypotheses it must be abandoned. The sincere religionist regards Moses as the mere instrument through whom God revealed the eternal truths of creation ; and because he spoke by divine inspiration, the religionist thinks that the revelation must be accepted without question. But the Mosaic record of 2 18 The Origin of Man creation must be treated precisely like any other hypothesis that undertakes to account for the universe. The sincere inquirer after truth must refuse to accept dogmas on the authority of any one, whether they be the dogmas of scientists or of religionists. We have advanced beyond the age when we will accept anything on mere au- thority. In this age of enlightenment no one believes any- thing because it was formerly regarded as true. The ques- tion that is now asked is whether it is reasonable. There was a time when men were compelled to assent to a proposi- tion held by the Church and believed to be taught in the Scriptures; but fortunately for the interest of truth, that day has long since passed away. But the truth is endan- gered at the present time by a new source of authority. Scientists have seemingly usurped the authority that was once exercised by theologians. Such is the vital importance and the far-reaching results of the teachings of evolution that it can not be accepted on mere authority, however able it may be, and worthy of our respect. We can not accept a theory as true because it is taught by distinguished nat- uralists, or because it is currently accepted. A person must necessarily be impressed with the learn- ing and industry of such scientists as Darwin, Spencer, Romanes, Huxley, Tyndall, Haeckel, and other scientists of equal note. These men possessed transcendent gifts as observers of the phenomena of nature. They gathered to- gether a vast amount of data in their chosen fields of re- search. The industry and acumen of these men, as revealed in their extensive writings, is remarkable indeed. But every hypothesis must be tested apart from the intellectual stand- ing, the reputation for scholarship, or the religious belief of its advocates. It is no proof of the truth of a given theory to be able to quote distinguished men's names who have held it, and to be able to point out the fact that great scholars Introduction 19 have taught it. It is not infrequently the case that the greatest scientists and the ablest scholars are deficient in reasoning powers. Tyndall says himself: "Men of science, when pursuing a line of investigation to prove a favorite theory, once admitting their principles are a logical necessity, assume absurd conclusions." There are many men of such peculiar type of mind that when dealing with abundant and complex data, they substitute their logical deductions for scientific facts. It is doubtful whether any other hypothesis has been more unfortunate in this respect than that of evo- lution. The evolutionary philosophy is a series of logical and metaphysical deductions from established scientific facts, and its advocates demand that their deductions be received with the same authority as the facts of science on which they are based. The men who have advocated the theory of evolution have been eminently fitted for their work as observers of nature and collectors of data. But they were not content to be mere observers of natural phenomena and collectors of data related to these phenomena. They entered the field of speculative philosophy, and began to draw their deduc- tions from these data which they had so industriously gath- ered, and here they revealed themselves to be deficient in reasoning powers. Logic deals only with the inferences from premises, while reason seeks to ascertain the truth of the premises themselves. If there is an error existing in the premises, the rigidity of the logic only tends to intensify the error. There is such a thing as being logical in the statement of the facts, and illogical in the conclusions drawn from the facts stated. Not infrequently false conclusions have been logically deduced from true premises, hence it does not always follow that true premises are sufficient to justify the acceptance of the conclusions thai are Logically drawn from them. Evolutionists in this way have often be- 20 The Origin of Man come the victims of their own logic. Their conclusions re- veal the tyranny to which the mind is subjected whenever philosophical deductions from established facts are invested with the same authority as the scientific facts from which they are deduced. And for this reason, whenever the con- clusion is irrational and contrary to the moral sense, it must be rejected, no matter how true the premises may be, or how logical the process of deduction. The fundamental error of evolutionists is in attaching the same importance to mere philosophical deductions that they do to demonstrated scientific truths. We accept the results of the labors of scientific experts in their chosen fields of research without question. This becomes necessary because laymen can not always test these matters for themselves without a great outlay of time and means in study and investigation. The evidence of science can not all be presented to the laity in relation to any given fact, for this would require little less than the presentation of the whole of that particular branch of science to which this fact is related. For this reason the people are forced to accept the results of scientific research. The majority of the people, perhaps, do not fully comprehend the astronom- ical evidence upon which the predictions of the eclipse of the sun are made. But notwithstanding their lack of knowl- edge as to just how these predictions are made with such accuracy, they accept them as demonstrated by science, and never doubt for a moment that an eclipse will occur at a given time. What science has demonstrated must be received with- out question, but what is a mere matter of speculation we are under no obligations to accept. The doctrine of evo- lution has been received by many because they have been led to believe that it has been demonstrated by science, and, as a matter of course, the discoveries of science must be ac- Introduction 21 cepted as true. Evolution has been heralded as a universal law. And the conception of evolution as an efficient cause has been carried into every field of human knowledge. It is high time that a halt be called. For already there have been too many concessions made to the evolutionary phi- losophy. It is unscientific and irrational to contend that conclusions are certain which have not been demonstrated and are not demonstrable. There are two distinct questions involved in the theory of evolution — a scientific question, and a philosophical ques- tion. In so far as evolution deals with the phenomena of nature, it is scientific, but so far as it deals with the deduc- tions from these phenomena, it is philosophical. Science, properly speaking, does not have anything to do with the origin of the earth and life, for it does not deal with origins. Science can not go back to origins, for this is beyond its legitimate sphere. It deals with the laws and modes that relate to phenomena, and must of necessity start with cer- tain axioms of unknown origin. Science conducts us to ultimate facts, and discovers laws for which it can give no explanation. The distinction must be clearly defined be- tween what is scientific in the theory of evolution and what is merely speculative. Science deals altogether in natural phenomena, and points out the laws of development as ob- served in nature. It furnishes the data for philosophical speculation, but science itself does not speculate. Science fails to point out the origin of anything, for it only under- takes to show the process through which things pass after they have come into existence. The realm of science is secondary causes and processes. When we pass beyond process and phenomena, we immediately get beyond the legitimate dominion of science. The nature of cause is the problem of philosophy. Where science ends, philosophy begins. The origin of life is not a question of science, but a 22 The Origin of Man problem of philosophy, Evolution is largely a system of metaphysical philosophy, rather than a system of science. The hypothesis is deductive, and not inductive. Its conclu- sions are the result of philosophical speculations, and not of scientific observations. Evolution may be a description of the order of phenomenal development, or it may be a phil- osophical theory of the causes that underlie this develop- ment. These two distinct conceptions are seldom made by evolutionists. They seem to be unable to grasp the distinc- tion between nature as an observed order, and nature as a system of causation. There is confusion in the minds of evolutionists which is revealed in all their writings by the double significance they give to the term evolution. The word is employed indiscriminately to explain both the cause and the develop- ment, which renders the use of the term misleading and de- ceptive. As it is used on one page it means a process of development, and as it is employed on the next it means the cause of the development. And they reason that be- cause there is a process of development in nature, that the evolution is the cause of the development. Evolutionists fail to discriminate between what is scientific and what is philosophical in their theory, seemingly having no suspicion that both are not identically the same. Scientific facts and philosophical speculations, inductive and deductive prob- lems, are intermingled in hopeless confusion. Evolution, in the scientific sense, carries with it no theory of origins, for the question of process is forever distinct from the ques- tion of cause. But evolution is made to include processes both modal and causal. The first implies development un- der adequate causes. The second assumes itself to be a cause, which, in the very nature of things, it can not be. You are led to believe that the men who accept the hypothesis of evolution are sincere in what they have claimed Introduction 23 for their theory ; but that in their constant study and inves- tigation of the subject they have, imperceptively to them- selves, passed from the firm ground of scientific observa- tion to the unstable ground of philosophical speculation. In their eagerness to establish their theory they have rushed to unwarranted conclusions, and have offered for the truth, often that which they hoped was true. The wish has been father to the thought, and they have proclaimed as true much for which they have had no positive proof. And for this reason it will soon be necessary to reconstruct the entire evo- lutionary philosophy in order to bring it into harmony with demonstrated truth. The Christian scholar has often been held up to ridicule for rejecting the teachings of scientists. And much capital has been made out of the supposed conflict between religion and science to the detriment of the cause of religion. But the men of science are as much to blame for this supposed conflict as the teachers of religion. When a trained theolo- gian reads the works of men who claim to be scientists, and finds that they make no distinction between the observed facts of nature and their deductions from these facts, both being put forth as the results of science and of equal au- thority, is it strange that he should refuse to receive not only their speculations, but, sometimes, even the facts on which they are based ? When he sees that they are seeking to sub- stantiate their working theories by the aid of speculative de- ductions, the fallacy of which he readily recognizes, there is nothing remarkable in the fact that he rejects their specu- lations. But the evolutionists are as severe in their denun- ciations of those who refuse to accept their deductions from scientific facts as they are of those who refuse to accept the facts themselves. This is because they make no distinction between their observations and their deductions from them. And this is why the religionist is often accused of being 24 The Origin of Man narrow and bigoted, when in reality he is open to conviction, but demands more convincing proofs than metaphysical speculations before he abandons his cherished beliefs. Evolution in the sense of the simple description of an observed order in nature is a statement of process, but it is entirely silent about causation. The process of develop- ment is compatible with any kind of causation. The con- ception of a process of development in nature lies within the field of science, and may be proved or disproved by science. But where the doctrine transcends this limit, and claims to give a theory of the causes at work in nature, it then becomes philosophical. Evolution is neither a con- trolling law, nor a producing cause, but is simply a descrip- tion of a phenomenal order of development. The con- clusions of evolutionists are largely the result of specula- tion, and not of observation. They pass skillfully from in- duction to deduction, and seem to think that every one should accept their deductions on the same basis as their inductions. The deductions of speculators can not be re- ceived as the result of scientific observation. There should be a careful distinction made between what is the result of scientific observation, and what is the result of philosophical speculation. What is the result of the former must be re- ceived as true, but what is the result of the latter may be accepted or rejected according as it meets the demands of reason. For the phenomena of the universe we must look to science, but for the origin of the universe we must look to philosophy. The theory of evolution has been extended from its proper limits in the development of natural phenomena into a theory of the origin of the universe, then to the origin of life, and finally to the origin of the mind itself. The origin of these phenomena is a problem for philosophy alone. On this question of origin, science, in its proper sphere, has Introduction 25 absolutely nothing to say. The theory of evolution has been set forth as a profoundly scientific hypothesis. While it is true that scientific experts have had much to say in the interests of evolution, yet this fact does not by any means make its philosophical deductions the result of scientific ob- servation. It is necessary to distinguish carefully between fact and the explanation of fact in the study of this subject. Whatever men of science may teach in the way of philosoph- ical speculations, science does not teach that evolution goes any further than its scientific evidence carries it. The ex- tension of evolution as a science from its legitimate field in the phenomena of nature into a theory of the origin of the present order, is an act for which science furnishes no war- rant whatever. Professor Tyndall says : "There ought to be a clear distinction made between science in the state of hypothesis and science in the state of fact : inasmuch as it is still in the hypothetical stage, the ban of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution." And this applies with equal force to the theory of evolution at the present time as when first spoken, for it is still in the hypothetical state. Science should be confined strictly within the limits of the observed facts, and every theory should be avoided that tends to mere speculation. What the scientist should do is to note precisely what has occurred in nature, and re- port accurately on this without addition or subtraction. And special care should be taken against speculating on the facts in order to substantiate any theory. There should be no substitution of a hypothesis for scientific fact. And there should be no setting forth of philosophical speculations for demonstrated science. One of the most deplorable things in this discussion is the readiness with which scientists have accepted the hy- pothesis of evolution as an established fact and taught it as such, when all the claims of wisdom and candor would re- 26 The Origin of Man quire it to be held as a hypothesis yet to be proved. They unfortunately abandon the position of strict scientific inves- tigation, and become mere dogmatic enunciators. They speculate on the facts of science, and then assume these speculations to be of equal authority with the facts that have been demonstrated by science. They now assume that these speculations are scientific facts as well authenticated as the actual facts of science; and then contend that the conclusions at which they have arrived must be accepted as the results of scientific research. The scientist and careful investigator ceases just here, and the speculator and theorist begins. And unfortunately for the cause of truth, the scientist fails to recognize the fact that he has become a speculator. He imagines that he is still in the bright sun- light of scientific investigation, when he is hopelessly lost in the dense fog of philosophical speculation. There is a process of evolution in nature. And there is no objection to the use of the term, if it is understood to mean the development of that which has already an ex- istence. The evolution to which objection is raised is that which holds to the spontaneous development of something out of nothing. An evolution of atoms without a guiding mind into all the complex forms of nature both organic and inorganic. There is an evolution — a process of develop- ment— not a universal law, but rather a general principle. The acorn evolves into the oak. The child evolves from an embryo into a man. But the acorn contains the oak latently in all its forms and parts ; and the embryo possesses in itself the possibility of all the members, powers, and faculties that reach their maturity in adulthood. Evolution takes place only where there is something existing in the germ, which by development becomes what it was already potentially. In the realm of life evolution has its place between origin and maturity, and leads from the first to the last. The evo- Introduction 27 lution unfolds all the fullness of life and being of which the individual plant and animal are already possessed. The possibility of the evolution is in the germ cell, a part of its inherent nature, a function of its life. The evolution is the outgrowth, the unfolding, the manifestation of the life latent in the germ. Evolution is a process of development that brings to perfection the powers that belong to the inherent nature of the individual plant or animal. There can be no evolution where there is no life. There is growth by ac- cretion, when sediment is deposited at the bottom of the ocean, but that is not growth in the strictest sense of the word, which is by expansion from the development of the life principle. If the phenomena of growth could be iden- tified with the accumulations of geological deposits, a strong argument could be made in favor of evolution and against special creation. But the earth, strictly speaking, does not grow by the accumulations of the deposits that are washed down from the mountains and hills, and are carried by the streams into the sea. The advocates of evolution as a rule make no attempt to explain the origin of life. Evolutionists take for granted the universe in nebulous form and life in its simplest forms. And with these assumptions they teach that the existing earth and the various forms of life were evolved from primi- tive nebula and the lowest forms of life by the accumulative effects of innumerable small variations. Evolution has to do only with the process of the development, but its advo- cates teach in one breath that it is a process, and in the next they make it the cause of the process. The cause of the process of development must always be distinguished from the development itself. Evolution can take place only where there is something to be evolved, and something out of which to evolve it, and with adequate causes for the development. 