Page Six 



E VOLUT I ON 



August. 1929 



Hesperornis was prol^ably covered with smooth, soft 

 feathers. This we know because Professor Williston 

 found a specimen showing the impression of the skin 

 of the lower leg, as well as of feathers that covered the 

 "thigh" and head. While such a covering seems rather 

 inadequate for a bird of such exclusively aquatic 

 habits, there seems to be no getting away from the 



facts. And we do have in the Snake Bird, one of the 

 most aquatic of modern birds, an instance of a similar- 

 ly poor covering. Its feathers shed the water very 

 imperfectly, and after long-continued submersion be- 

 come saturated, which partly accounts for the habit 

 the bird has of hanging itself out to drv. 



Evolution: Fact or Fake? 



Conclusion of the Debate held at Mecca Auditorium, 

 New York, February 7, J929. betzveen Professor 

 Joseph McCabe of England and Reverend W. B. Riley 

 of Minneapolis on the question : "Resolved. That Evo- 

 lution Is True and Should Be Taught in the Schools." 

 Two previous issues contained the opening speeches 

 and Professor McCabc's second speech. 



THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Riley again for twenty 



minutes. (Applause.) 



* ♦ * 



DR. W. B. RILEY: Mr. Chairman, ladies and 

 gentlemen : In my former address I began where the 

 Professor left ofT. This time I propose to take the 

 opposite position and begin where he began and track 

 him down. 



His declaration that evolution is a science is, as I 

 stated in the first instance, a matter of counting noses. 

 If the scientists agree, that settles it. How can that 

 settle it? If the matter were a matter of science, there 

 would be a demonstration of it. That is what I have 

 listened for, and I have listened in vain. 



If there is a living man on the face of the earth that 

 can bring me one instance, either out of geological 

 testimony, or, out of observation, where one species 

 ever evolved into another, he will produce the first 

 argument for this thing that has ever been found. 



I want you also to see that the Professor is not sin- 

 cere in reaching his conclusion, that because scientific 

 men agree he is bound to believe it. He is not sincere. 



The scientists of the world in religion are agreed, 

 for the most part, on the existence of a God, certainly 

 as perfectly agreed as the material scientists are agreed 

 upon this subject, for while Evolutionists come to a 

 kindred conclusion, they divide over every point in the 

 so-called progress. 



Now, I want to ask the Professor if he will accept 

 these gentlemen, great, outstanding men in the realm 

 of religion, and will go with them for a personal God 

 because they are so overwhelmingly in the majority? 



Why isn't the thing that is good in one realm equal- 

 ly good in another? 



Here are a few people who have spoken of the exist- 

 ence of God — William James — and this is a matter of 

 philosophy, not a matter of science at all. That is why 

 it was born with the old Greeks. That is why it is re- 

 born at the present time. 



But William James opposes the Professor's views 

 as set forth in every one of McCabe's books that I 

 have read. Again, Professor McCabe repudiates the 

 ontological argument of .St. Anselm. 



He will have none of Father Boedder's arguments. 



He will have none of the reasonings of Dr. 

 \\'arschauer as they proceed from cause to effect. He 

 separates from Sir Oliver Lodge, concerning whom 

 McCabe asserted : 



"He is a man of science and does not eke out his 



arguments with quotations from ancient authorities 



or foreigners whose names and authority the reader 



is not likely to know." 



The great Dr. Wallace, the matchless Lord Kelvin, 

 the notable Sir J. J. Thompson, Principal Lloyd 

 Morgan, Dr. Ballard, the immortal Bergson, Eucken, 

 Martineau, LaConte, John Fiske ; those several Amer- 

 ican professors who in 1897 published a book, "The 

 Conception of God": Dr. Rashdall. Professor James 

 Ward, the seven Oxford men who in 1912 gave to the 

 world their "Foundations," intended as a reconstruc- 

 tion of the Christian belief — these all have written 

 sufficiently well to disturb my opponents and lead them 

 to attempt an answer to each and every one of them, be- 

 cause they are united on the fact that there must be an 

 infinite Creator back of nature ; and yet. their united 

 testimony makes no profound impression upon Mr. 

 McCabe, so deeply immersed is he in the atheistic doc- 

 trine of evolution. 



When Henry Fairfield Osborne, one of our first 

 .\merican scientists, claims, as he does in his recent 

 l;)ook. that the great outstanding minds of the world 

 today believe in God, and that many of them are ad- 

 vocates of the Christian religion ; and even when no 

 less a name than that of Robert Millikan joins him 

 at once in the exercise of that faith and its far-reaching 

 influence, the united testimony of these is all swept 

 aside by McCabe. For what reason? To save the face 

 of the false and atheistic philosophy of evolution. 



With not one of them will he agree concerning God. 



Why not be consistent? If we are going to accept 

 this because the scientists say it. why not accept God 

 in His creative acts, because men who are scientists in' 

 religion, have agreed upon the subject? 



I do not need to tell you that I am not intellectual. 

 The Professor will tell you that. He has already told 

 you of his own ! The man who is intellectual will never 

 have to assert it. He doesn't need to assert it. 



Now, he said I passed over some of his points. I be- 

 lieve I did, two of them. One of them was about the 

 blue and white and red stars, or. to get them straight, 

 blue, red and white stars. Will you tell me why in the 

 world that confirms the evolutionary hypothesis? 



There isn't a single hint in Genesis or a claim on the 



