You are on page 1of 13

CHAPTER

III
>

DECADENCE

BY REV,

OF DARWINISM

H 'ENRY

H.

GRAND JUNCTION,

BEACH,

COLORADO

( Copyright, 1912, by He11ry H. Beach,)

This paper is not a disct1ssion of variations tying withi 11


. the boundaries of heredity ; nor do we remember tl1at tl1e
Hebrew and Greek Scriptures reveal anything on that subject; nor do we thinlc that it can be rationally discussed unti1
species and genus a.re defined.
.

Failure to condition spontaneous generation by sterilized


l1ay tea,, and a chronic inability to discover the missing link
have shaken the popularity of Darwinism.
Will it recover?
Or is it f a:lling into a fixed condition of innocuous d.esuetude?
As a purely academic qt1estion, who cares whether a
protoplastic cell, o,r an a1noeba, or a11 ascidian larva, was
his primordial progenitor?
It does not grip us~ It is doubtful
. whether any purely academic question ever grips anybody.
But the issue between Darwinistn and mankind is 11ot a
purely academic qttestion.

Half his life Cl1a1le


s Darwin was af rai 1d of t.he rep101acl1.es
of Christia11s., I t \\1as something like the fear felt by anotl1er
Charles, of the reproacI1es of the H uguenots were he to
1
1c1ons1ent to the assassination o,f Coligny. He ref ers to it in
tl1e ''Introdu ,ction to the Descent of Man'':
''During many years I collected notes on the origin ancl
descent of man, wit hout any intention of publislting 011 the
subject, but rather with the determination not to publish ;
as I thought that I should thus add to the prejudice s against
my views~''

At the end of the book he say s : ''I am a ware that the


conclusion .s arrived at in this worl{ wi]I be denominated by

'

36

lI

Decadence o,f Darwi1iisnz.

37

Some as highly irreligious ; bui he ,vho denounces them is


bo4nd to show why it is 1nore irreligious to explain the
origin of man as a distinct speci,es by descent fro1n some
lowly form, througl1 the Jaws of variation and nat11ral selection, than to explain the birth of the individual thiough the
laws of ordinary reproduction."
''I
He confessed his fear by protesting his innocence:
hal'e done notl1ing only explained . a choice between two
theories of bringing man into the world''. This way of puttii:ig
it is .characteristic. I-le often refers t,o traversing the doctrine
of successive creations, as, the sum of his offending. rfhe
Prestidigitator calls special attention to one hand while be
works the trick with the , othe r. His apprehensions were
not altogeth er groundless.
Pr ofessor Haeckel was braver, or, mo re rash, ,vhen lie
styl ed the ''Descent of Man'' as ''anti-Genesis''; ,vith equal
truth and moderation he might have added, anti-John, antiThe point to pierce the busi~e
Hebrews and anti-Christ.
and bosoms of men is a denial of the integrity and reliability
of tl1e Word of God. We cannot depend on the Bible to
show us ''how to go to heaven'' if it misleads us as to ''how
tl1e heavens go'' regarding the origin, nature, . descent and
destiny of brutes and men, Darwinists have been diggi11gat
the foundations of society and souls ; and their powers of
endurance are a matter of some mom ent.
We venture to differentiate life and if we ,go too fat a1e
sure to be corrected :

l. Vegetable life is the su1n of the forces which pervade

2.

Brute life is the st.1m of the forces which pervade

conscious an ,d thinks.
3. Huma ,n life is the

u1n of the f,orces whi,cl1 perva(le

tonscious, thinks and is religious.

The Fu1idamentals

38

It is logical to assu1ne, until disp .roved, that these three


kinds of life t.ouch ea ch otl1er, but n,ever merge. They as
sociate as intimately as air and light, but are as far from
passing fro 1m plants to brutes and from brutes to men as
i 'rom no 1t.-being to being. ''By f1aitl1 we u11derstan,d the age,s
to be set in order by the saying of God, in regard to the
. things , seen n,ot haying come out . o,f the 'things manif 'es t''
(Heb. 11 :3).

. He who would overtl1row Biblical Christianity e,xpect ,s


to t.ake the initiative. H e recognizes . that there is al,vays a
p~esutnption in favor of an existing institution; and has
always , been ,swift t 0 open the battle,
. Professor I-Iuxley, in his article on evolution, in the ninth
edition of th e Britannica, has ably brou ,ght together th ie arguments ! for Darwinis1n; and we will foll ow his order.
1

GROWTI-I

Given a nucleated cell, and Darwinists have watcl1ed the


process of generation from its beginning to birth, ''with the
best optical instruments' ,. There have bee11 two theories.
The first theory is that nothi 11gnew is, p1oduced i11 the living
world; the germs f ronri which all organis1ns have developed
l1ave contained in miniatu1e, and passed ort do,vn through
success ive generati .0 ns, a]l the e.sse nti .al organs of adults. To
get anything out of anything it mu st first be in it. This
is archaic. The ,second tl1eory is that evolution i,s progressive;
it results from so111etl1i11g
in11ate in tl1ings, dynamic and pantheistic. This is up to date.
All tha't the Dar ,wit1ists, ''witl, th~ be.st opt .ical i11str111nents' ', have actually seen is g1owth; b11t they have inf erred
a whole pantheon. N a.tural selectio n is tl1e s,upreme demiurge ;
exual selectio ,n an d vari ,atio11 are su bordinates.
A 'billion
ye ars ago there was a God, but He immediately disappeared.
I t wa,s 'Oe,c,essary to l1ave Him then, to b,ridge the g11lf bet,veen nothing and something. Having discovered growth,

'

..

Dec,adence of Darwinism

39

they called it evolution, thinking perhaps the naa.1e might


prove useful, but we t1~st not t,o be b,lame d for pref erring
gro~th, for ''evolution'' is something of a harlequin, having
turned a complete somersault within a, hundred y,ears , w'hi]e
g1owth. is univ ,ersally ac,l<:nowled.ged to be a character of
vegetable, a11imal, and hwnan life.
In additio .n to , finding nat ,t1ral g10 wth, Prof essor H11xley
claims the discovery of a ''te nde11cy to assume a definite
living f9rtn''.
This of course is ridicttlous. The sun rises
wi,th sufficient regula ,rit.Y to b,eco111
,e a striking phenomen on,
and we have discovered ~ tend.en,cy towards sunri ,ses. Speculation is invoked ., bu.t speculation died with the great god
Pan when Jesus was born. Scientific ob servations are dumb,
excep t to say that .a11God's c1eatu1..es are f ear fully an d wonder ully made.

.
1

LIKEN E:SSE,S ..

It is settled that low adult forms and embry,os o,f higl1er


order are st1iking1
,y a1ike. An embryonic reptile passes
througl1 tl1e transformations
of a fish~ and a man in tl1e
"'""""'
germ cannot be distinguished from any other mam~al. Here
tl1e Darwinist d.rops his g,lass and ju1nps at tl1e, conclusi on that
all creati ons, even vegetable s, are con, a11guined brother s.
His microscope has failed him and he has forgotten the ardent
astrono1ner who Saw ,strange tJuadr ttpeds in t'he moon, until
he discovered the mouse nest in the telescope. Tl1e appar~
ent1y :si111ilar ce]l,s a1,.e diff,eren ,t. The ,ottticome proves it.
One is ,a butterfly and the other is a whale. In ,deed, Oscar
Hertwig 110,v claims to have found the diffe1~ence s of tl1e
denozt,ement in the cells themselves. Bttt it 1cloes, not matt er.
Tl1e Darwinist has mistaken liken ess for proof of parentage ;
a,s a ma,tter of f a ct it nev er prove s it. P ,arentage is 1nore
lil<:elyto . prove likeness. In either case the origin must first
be established and then the likene ss may illustrate it.
- But recurring to the differentiation of lif e, as our Maker
has confe .rred on tts consciot1sne ss, thought and relig~0sity,
1

The Fitnda1ne1itals

40

an d 0n brutes . consciousne~s and thought, a11d on all of us


that which preserve ,s out bodie s from deca.y and causes them
to gro-w:, it seems natural that, in tl1e holy of holies of His
laboratory, He has constructed us with similar characte rs,
ttanscie11t or p,errnan ,ent.

But the very nomenclatut e of evolution h.as been. seduced


and C0 rrt1pted. ''Rever sion'' and ' 'ru diment'' must be laid
a.w .ay with phlogiston and caloric . Tl1ere are no retreatin .gs
. or abortions in the D ivine eco11omy, but God adjusts every
feature to present and future conditions, and causes all to
march regu 'larly forward in the grand procession of eternal
progr ess.
.
But wh)i, it may he asked, are so many creatures b,tiilt on
The answer is
the same plan las, for instance, vertebrates?
axio1natic. The whole creation is divided into vertebrata
and invertebrata, becattse there 1nust in the nature of things,
'be at leas.t tWo classes ; ,or boundless monotony or an eternal
1011eliness. But wl1y s,o ma11y v,er tebrates?
Bec.ause t'l1,er e
1
caln be but 0 ne best of a clas.s .and vertebr .ates are h est. The
number redounds to the glory _of God, not the glory of evolution~ This is kind ergarten inst1--uction, but some seem to

1ntSS Jt.
But we st1'bmi't a broade1 generalization.
The whole
univers e bears a family re sein b,lance. It is tl1e warm touch
of the M~ er,, and. His i1niver sal style.. Li,ght is truth, and
darkne ,ss is error. I-Ioli11ess is pu1itJ', and sin is dirt . Phys
icaJ birtl1 and g1owth, decay and deatl1, typif 'y sp,i1itual birth
and growth, decay and death.
T,vo pictures hang side by sicle.. The subjects diff,er greatly
and they differ in size. Ffl1e larger is th e ''Dom ,es of th,e
Y osemit e'' and . the sma.1Ier ''Sun set in. California''.
But they
see.in strangely alike. The smaller must have evolved from
the larger. So,me Mahatma, an adept of the Himalayas, abte
to do ''the plant trick''t has done it. No! The san1e artist
pai ,nted both. .

41

Decade1ice of DatAwinism

Nature ''s limit 'less netw ork of types and. s,ymbols and
resem blances is wondro us 1y beauti f ttl. It wakens the spi1it
of poe.tiy in the soul, but an abse11t-m1ndeddreamer has gazed
and forgotten himself ., and is lost in a labyrinth of vagaries.
Darwinists have been turning th e world over searching for
a co,mm,on fatherhood, but th iey have found a 1common makerl1ood. An Italian a Dr. Barrago gave his book the title,
''Man, made : in the imag e of God, was also made in the
image of an ape'', and Mr. Darwin refers to it without disapproval, and the bla sphem y is logical. Darwinism degrades
God and man.
,

'

RUDIMEN Ts

The Darwinian notion of rudime11t s is that they are


abortive reversions to ancestral types.
erever one oi the
cult has heard of anything nearly or rem otely Ii.ke rudiments,f or insta nce, Stanley Hall on rhythm , beati ng waves, ancestraJ
fish and dancing particul ar ly out side the bounds of heredity,
it h.a s been grist for their mill. And yet they ha .rdly know "'
Whe1e to put the se st1uctur es. If they claim that they are
absolt1teJy u seless the y p lace them ot1ts,ide the sce>pe of natural
selection; an d if, on tl1e other hand, they ad mi t that they se1ve
so1ne purpose they admit t11at God may l1ave 1nade t'hen,. Huxley f e]t the difficulty when he confessed !

''It is almos t impossible to prove that any strttcture, 110,vlever rudiment .ary,. is useless ; that _is. to say , that it plays no
part what ,ever in the economy; a11d if it is in the sli,ghtest
degree useful there is no rea son why, on the hypothesis of
direct creation, it should no t have been . created.'' (Britannica, Art. on E volution.)

May we add th at if Mr. I-Iuxley an ,d Mr. Darwin and I


and you have ailed to di scover the use of anytl1ing, ''there
is no reason why it should not have been created''?
We
- remember that 'We have not even defined life; that the most
that we can do is to distinguish ome of it~ forces; that we
1

'

..

42

know as little of its essence as of that of .matter. We may


as well be, modest .
Accepting then the dictum of Professor Huxley tl1a11
whom n,o one has ever been better qualified that it is almost
imposs,ible, to prov ,e the useless11ess of rudiments, we p,a ss
the subject with the remarl< that, like lilcenesses, they are
a signet of the Almighty an d a badge of His creatures -not
ne,cessari],y of kinship, 'but of remoter 1,el1at'io1ns. Tirie,r ,e a,re
some men who need the evidence of their own rudimentary
mammae to prove to them that they belong to the same race
wi 'th their 'Wives ,an d sl10t1ld ,enclure th e s,ame hardship s and
do a little more work,
1

SELE CTI ONS

Sexual selection, as the nan1,e implie,s, is concerned witl1


pairing and reproduct ion; bt1t the Darwinian end in view,
like that of natural selecti,on, is evolution. But sexual S election fails to discrimin .ate, an,d turn ,s out degene-rat ,ion. Fe1,al
and unrege ,nerate sexua 'l selec,tio,n is 1no1e lust than love.
From hares to elephants wild tl1ings are blinded by jealoltsy
and ,cr ,azed by heat. Lil<:e the Jukes' family, th,ey drop their
young by the highway. We do1nesticate brutes .and plants
,ancl, with great care and skill, breed them for improved
po ints; b1ut we so,on tir1e and then d ogs beco,me patial1s., cats
turn vagabond s,, potatoes gro w small, and horses ,are not
wo1th catcl1ing and breaking. Cultivated apples never repeat
the ,ir p,arent trees , but nine l1un dred and nine ty -nine ti1nes
out of a tl1ousand sit1k far below them. The ''loves of tl1e
pla11ts'', as Darwin's whimsical grandfather called them, are
disreputable, and even, to thi s civilized day, ht11nan beings
need to be re,str a,ine,d by law to prevent the1n fro1n Contracting
unhealthful alliances. Wirien th e string breaks the kite fall s~
Ages before the tin1e when Mr. Dar,vin drea ,m,ed that
in the din1 obscurity of the pas t we can se,e that the early
progenitor of all the vertebrata must have been an aquatic
animal, provid ed with branchiae, with the two Sexes united in
1

43

Decadencc of Darwinism
1

the same individu ,al, with the most importa11t or.gans of ~he
body ( such as brain and heart) i1nperf ectly or not at all
developed, and an animal 'more like tl1e larvae of the existing
mari~e Ascidiatts tl1a11any other known fottn'', God macle
That cell was a vegeone prot~plastic ce11 and disappeared.
table, and, as all cells are ,microscopic, i11visible. It was also
hermaphroditic.
It contained hairs and rootlets, nuclei and
-nuclPo]i, mother stars ana daughter stars, grot1ping, advancing and retreati11g', as if dan cing quadrilles.
And, as the
story goes, tl1is one cell has be en the father and motl1er of
all living creatu1es. Natural selection, aided only by sexttal
selection and accid ent, has evolved the .m, b,y almost imperceptible degrees.
E,vid.ently Da1win and Wallace follow ,ed what they thoL1gl1t
the line of least resistance in introducing God before the
first living ge1..m, for, other1Aise, there must have been degeneration to .satisfy present con,ditions ,. Bttt was it no,t an error
in anothf r regard?
While they were in the business of
tllaking gods, it would have bee11 easy to have allowed for~
thre~ne
for plants, . one for brutes, and one for men.
-liobody was looking. They migl1t. have done it, but, as it is,
tl1ere is a dead lift at each beginni11g.
''We may feel sure,'' explain s l\lfr. Darwin, ''that an y vari-
ation in the least degree .injuriou s ,,ould be rigidly destroye 1.
This preservation
of favorabJe iridividual differences and
variations, and the de,struction of tl1ose w'hicl1 are inj'11riotts,
I ha,,e called natural selection or the surviv~al of the fittest.
Variations neither usefttl nor injuriou s \.vould not be affected
by natu1 ..a1 selectio11 and would be left either a flt1ctuating
eleme11t, as perhap s we see in certai n polymorphic specie s,
or would ultimately become fixed, o,ving to the natt11e of
the organism and the nature of the conditions''.
(''Origin of
Species/' Vol. I, page 121.) Natural selection is destrttction and pre'servation. All ''injuriou s'' differences and varia-
tion~ are destroyed and some individuals with ''favorable"
1

44

parts preserved.

N atu ,ral death is th e means o :f cl.es,truction;


and generation, of preservation,
The ''favorable'' alw,ays
prove the stronger, tl1e ''injurious'' th e weaker ,. Alth ,ough
sweetest graces and most resplendent virtues of the highest
type of man are product ,s of natur ,al S,election, th e,y a,re con-,
ditioned promiscuously on l{illing the other fellow and pro creating o,ne's kin.cl. The :killing is ,done ''by acts of Goid'',
as express companies phr .ase it, and by hatred, envy, anger,
avarice, .sel.fishness, In the strugg te for , e:xistence the , stronger
gloat over the s.lain while poverty of spirit, meekness, mercy
and peace die, unhonored a11dunsung. B;y these means every
kind of organic being will eventually gain the summit of
finitud e. It js imm oral.
Professor Huxley make s a notable concession to truth and
s,anity when he says :
''It 1s quite conceivable that every species tends to pr0r
duce varieties of a limited nt1mber ,and kind, and th,at the
effect of natural selection is t.o fav .or the development of
so1n,e o~ th,ese, while it op po ses the developm:ent of others
along their predetermined
lines ,of modification.''
( Britannjca. Evolt etio,n.) Taking the P1..of ess or' s la11guag,e as ac. curate, he surrenders
natt1ral selection. We were tau .ght
e ,as gravitation, but if we get the notion
t'l1at, it wasl as rcliabl1
that some species improve, some are stationary and some
deterior .ate, a,greeably with heredity and envi1onm1ent, we
have no further use for it. To sum up tl1e case for natural
selection:
( 1) It is, poor n1orals. A theory of nature must be
ideal t0 be t1,.ue. Natural sel ection is a s,cheme for the sur,..
vival of the p,assionate and the violent, the destruction of the
weak and defe11se
:l.es.s., To be true, black must be white, and
.rrong must be right, and God an I van the terrible ..
(2) l 't ,s as sumptions ar ,e f a'lse ,. It is fa1s e tt1at unlimited
attenuation of the steps of the process, and unlimited time for
the accomplishm ,ent of it, assure , us tha t it might hav ,e been
1

Decade1ice of Dar'lv~
inisrn

45

Po sible. ''Attenuation'' and ''t ime ' iVouldhave been but conditions, not causes. They could prove 11othing.
It is false that in tl1e struggle for existence the ''fittest''
survive. The ''fittest'' is an ambigt.1ous word. With natural
selection it means the strongest and best armed. They do
not surv ive ; they degenerate and expire. They who bear.
arrns challenge attack. This providence may be penal or carr,ective.
It is false that man is derived from a brute and a br ,ute
from a vegetable. One of the forces of human life makes
for . a recognition of God arid a consciousness ' of sin against
liim. This was not unfolded fro1n anthrol)oid apes, for it

is not in them. Brutes are distinguished from plants by


self-consCiousness, and this was not developed from plants,
for it is not in them.
..
(3) Natural selection is self ~contradictory and impo ssible. Fifty years ago, Alfred Russel Wallace devised the
Scheme and wrote Charle s Darwin about it. Mr. Datwin
PUblisl1ed the plan. He afterwards refers to Mr .Wallace
as having ''an innate genius for s.olvi11g difficulties'' . . (E>es--......
cent," p. 344.) rfwo years ago Mr. Wallace, in an address
at tl1e Dar\vin anniversary, before tl1e Royal Institution in
Lo11don,. ref erring to Professor Haeckel said :
. ''These unavailing efforts seem to lead us to the irr~sistible conclusio11 that beyond and above all terrestrial agencie s,
~ere is some great source of energy and guidance, which
1n unknown ways pervades every form of organized life, and

Which ,,re ourselves are the ulti.mate and f or,eordained outcon1e''.

Tl1us an author of the theo1y, hin1self,, a,dn1its the cont1a1


diction of claiming a ''selection', and denying a selector.

n ,ISTRIBUTION

. The Darwinists assutne that because certain creatures live


tl<>win limited areas, like the loth in South Amer.ica ancl

The Fundament als

46

the ornithorynchus
in Au stralia and Tasma11ia, they have
reached their pre sent abodes by evolution through fishes.
Let him asst1me it, but we beg for mercy to the man on the
street who sl1rinl<s from that 1n,ode of tran spor tati on and
believes tl1at they migl1t have been created in \Ve stern A sia,
dispersed by various possi 'ble means, wherever climati~ and
otl1er c6ndit ion.s we1e favo1--ab,le; and st1.ffered exti11ction, excep,t ,vl1er,e we: find . them ; 01,. that tl1ey might have been cr,eated
where they are. . The rapid extinction of the American 'b i..son
suggests the p,os.sibility of extinction, as a factor of the pr:oce.ss .

GE0 LOGICAL
1

SUCCESS ION

Professor Huxley addu ,ces only one more argumentsuccessive geo]ogical forms. ''It must'', he remarks, ''suffice
in this place, to say that tl1e successive f 0 rms of the Equine
type have be-en fully worked OUt, wh,ile those of nearly rail
the other ex:i.sting types of Ungula ,te mammal .s and of the
C'arnivora have bee11 n,early as clos,el,y fol1,owed t'hrough . the
Te1,.tiary deposits' ''. We l1ave a 1nisty re membrance of' having met that Equus before, and, somehow, ass,ociate l1im
with po1is asinoruni. Tl1e Professo r hangs his case On the
term ''successive'' ''succe ssive geological forms,.'. He confu ses it with ''sin1ilar'', but neither is o,ffensive. Fossils and
Jiving forms belong in th e same cat ,egory, but a radical diffe1~e11ce
betw ,een ''successive'' 01ms breaks the chain of evolution. If the ungulate f'os.sils are like living forms ., we
greet tl1en1 las old f riend .s, if unlik 1e we beg an intr ,oduction.
In either event it i.:s not Darwinism, bu t Don Ql1ixote at~
ta cking another wind .mill.
The actual origina tio11 of 1na11,brute .s and p,lants, from
one simple sit and lo,vest f or111 of organic life, by natural
a11d Godless selections a11d varia tions , is the essence of Dar\vinis1n. It is aclmitted and t1nclisputed tl1at it was first
definitely elaborated by Cl1arles R. Darwin, an d it stands .. or
fall s with Darwi11' expe1iments and arguments, and the) are

Decadence of

Da1"tvi1i1~sni

47

n.1arvelously unscientific. Loui Agassiz, Lord Kelvin, and


Dr. Virchow 'having passed on, the outloo lc for experimental
cience l1as been look ing dark; but suddenly the light is
breaking.
Professor Gaston Bo11nier, of the Sorbonne, M.
de Cyon, and other . , l1ave ju st truck a th ri lling chord and
cientific Europe is awakening.
Criticising Mr. Dar,vin in
Poit1'*et Co1itre le Darwi,1iisme, 1\1. ,onnier says:
''Tl1e illustrious natur alist had no idea of the experin1 ntal method,'' and l1e adds tl1at he was imaginative and
careless in l1is observations. In corroboration of this passing
by tl1e spilce-horn deer, tl1e aquatic bear and tl1e worn-off
l1uman tail, wl1ich all who are familiar with ''The De scent
of Man'' will recall t.ake, f Or i11sta11ce,the following:
'' ome naturalists have maintained that all variation s are
onnected with the act of sex ual reproduction ; but this is
ertainly an error; for I l1ave given, in another work, a long
list of sporti ng p,lants, as they are called by gardeners ; that
is, of plants which have sttdde nly produced a single bud
with a new and some ti1ne widely different character from
that of the other buds 011 the ame J)lant. These bud varia- ~

t1ons, as they may be called, can be propagated by grafts,


offsets, etc., and sometimes, by seed.'' (''Origin of Species,"

Vol. I, p. 35.)
How could Mr. Darwin know that the seed from which
tl1e tree of the strange bud had grown had not been pollenized,
any number of generations previously, by the strange strain?
What would happen if vegetable and animal atavism not a
teversion t-0 ancestral type , but latent generation, the wakinu
ancl appearing of a strain as old, it may be, as the race,
improved or damaged, even to, the extent of freaks or
1nonstrosities should be found to accord with all k11own
facts of the case, and to answer the hard questions for . whicli
Darwinism was devised? Surely the progression of a character beneatl1 tl1e surf ace, whether for one year or a n1illion
- -as the temper of a father 11otdiscernib]e in a son bttt en1erDi~

48

ing ir1 a grandson is as credible as reversion under Similar


conditions. Backing up is hardly in harmony with the twenti,eth century.

Tl1e teaching of Darwinism, as an approved science, to


the cl1ildren and youth of the schools of the world is the '
most deplorable feature of the whole wretched propaganda.
It would be difficult to fix the re sponsi bility of it. D3.rwin
himself hesitated. Virchow trie d, nobly, to protect tl1e
primary schools of Germany. The burden of his lecture at
Munich is througho ut a caut .ion against eva ,ding the di stinc tion between the problematical and the proven ; they a1e not
on the same evid ,ential level. ''H e woul.d tea,cht', he said,
''evolution, if' it were only proven; it is, as, yet, in the hypothetical stage; the audience ought to be . warned that the
speculative is only the possible, no,t actual truth; that it belongs to the region of belief, and riot to that of demonstration.
As long as a problem continues in the speculative stage, it
Would be mi.schievous t 0 teach it i11 our school.s. We ottgl1t
not to represent our conjecture as a certainty, nor our hypothesis as a doctrine.'' I-Iaeclc
,el, al,vays rash, a.dvocated, it.
As tl1e;y struggled, somebody lighted the fire . It was like
the burning of the temple at Jerusalem. Titus had is ..uecl
an order to spare it, but a Roman s,oldier threw a . blazing
torch into a small window and tl1e whoie structure \Vas in
flames. It was like the revenge of the Pied Piper; of Hamlin
Town. It was ''Racl11elweeping for he1 childrent and she
wo11ld not be comfo rted, because they were not'' .
1