THE ORIGIN OF MAN 33 



the highest form of animal might, if there were proof 

 of it, be admitted without raising a presumption that 

 would compel us to give a brute origin to man, why 

 should we admit a thing of which there is no proof? 

 Why should we encourage the guesses of these specu- 

 lators and thus weaken our power to protest when they 

 attempt the leap from the monkey to man? Let the 

 evolutionist furnish his proof. 



Although our chief concern is in protecting man 

 from the demoralization involved in accepting a brute 

 ancestry, it is better to put the advocates of evolution 

 upon the defensive and challenge them to produce 

 proof in support of their hypothesis in plant life and 

 in the animal world. They will be kept so busy trying 

 to find support for their hypothesis in the kingdoms 

 below man that they will have little time left to combat 

 the Word of God in respect to man's origin. Evolu- 

 tion joins issue with the Mosaic account of creation. 

 God's law, as stated in Genesis, is reproduction accord- 

 ing to kind; evolution implies reproduction not accord- 

 ing to kind. While the process of change implied in 

 evolution is covered up in endless eons of time it is 

 change nevertheless. The Bible does not say that re- 

 production shall be nearly according to kind or seem- 

 ingly according to kind. The statement is positive 

 that it is according to kind, and that does not leave any 

 room for the changes however gradual or impercep- 

 tible that are necessary to support the evolutionary 

 hypothesis. 



We see about us everywhere and always proof of 

 the Bible law, viz., reproduction according to kind ; we 



