Basic HTML Version
174
form from that of any anthropoid ape, or other mammal, up to the modern and now existing
types of true man. Any supposition or statement that it can be done, and is true, is certainly
incorrect. It is certainly misleading and unspeakably pernicious to put forward in popular
magazines or other publications read by children pictures of gorillas or chimpanzees labelled
‘Man’s cousin’ or ‘Man’s nearest relative,’ or to publish perfectly imaginary and grotesque
pictures of a supposed ‘Java man’ with brutish face as an ancestor of modern man, as is
occasionally done. Those who do such things are guilty of ignorance or deliberate mis-
representation. Neither is it justifiable for preachers in the pulpit to tell their congregations that
there is general agreement among scientific men as to the evolutionary origin of Man from an
animal ancestor.”[The Origin of Mankind, p. 75.] But the body of man does not even present
the greatest difficulties to the evolutionist. These arise from the consideration of the spiritual
element in man, or what is usually called “the origin of mind.” It is at this point that his
helplessness becomes most painfully apparent. In spite of all his attempts, he has signally failed
to give a plausible explanation of the origin of the human mind, or intelligence
(progressiveness), language, conscience, and religion. This might be pointed out in detail, but
we do not deem it necessary. There are many who, like Dennert and Batison, still profess to
believe in the doctrine of descent, but disown the Darwinian method of evolution and regard it
as a well-nigh complete failure. Yet they know of no other method which might take its place.
This means that for them evolution has ceased to be a science, and has become once more a
mere philosophical theory. Batison said: “We read his (Darwin’s) scheme of evolution as we
would those of Lucretius or of Lamarck. . . . We are just about where Boyle was in the
seventeenth century.” The testimony of Dr. D. H. Scott is very similar. In a presidential address
before the British Association for the Advancement of Science he made the following
statements: “All is again in the melting-pot. . . . Is evolution, then, not a scientifically established
fact? No, it is not . . . It is an act of faith — because there is no alternative.” Creation, of course,
is not to be thought of. He further said that there is in natural science “a return to pre-
Darwinian chaos.” Dr. Fleischmann of Erlangen writes: “The Darwinian theory has not a single
fact to support it . . . is purely the product of the imagination.” Even stronger is the assertion of
Dr. B. Kidd: “Darwinism is a compound of astonishing presumption and incomparable
ignorance.”[Quotations taken from Zerbe, Christianity and False Evolution, pp. 271f.] Such
scientists as Fleming, Dawson, Kelly, and Price do not hesitate to reject the theory of evolution
and to accept the doctrine of creation. Respecting the origin of man, Sir William Dawson says: “I
know nothing about the origin of man, except what I am told in the Scripture — that God
created him. I do not know anything more than that, and I do not know of anyone who
does.”[Quoted by W. Bell Dawson, The Bible Confirmed by Science, p. 146. Cf. also what the
later Dawson says in Chap. VIII.] Fleming says: “All that science can say at present in the light of
definitely ascertained and limited human knowledge is that it does not know, and has no