58 
credited with Intelligence ; and that, too, of the very highest 
kind. For surely contrivance points to a contriver, and the 
ordering of means to ends is the evidence of wisdom and 
power. But are wisdom and power attributes of cellular tissue 
or albuminoid secretions? Certainly not. If, then, the 
potentiality which effected the results did not reside in the 
orchid nor in the moth, must we not look for it outside matter 
—in the region of the unseen—in the great I AM? 
4. There is a third class of thinkers; namely, those who, 
having examined the hypothesis of Hvolution, have found it 
wanting, and so reject it. It is true that this class of persons 
are in the minority, and are often spoken of as a narrow- 
minded, old-fashioned, and unscientific set. Under these 
circumstances it becomes the duty of these so-called unscien- 
tific persons to state clearly and fearlessly why they are not 
prepared to give up their faith in a Divine Creator for the 
new dogma of Evolution by natural selection, as taught by 
the Haeckels, the Spencers, and the Huxleys of the present 
day. 
IJ.—Rerasons ror Hortpine tHe DocrrinE oF 
SPECIAL CREATION. 
1. Because the hypothesis of Evolution is not supported by 
any reliable evidence, and hence it is unscientific. If Hvolution 
be true, then back-boned animals had progenitors which were 
destitute of a vertebral column; fish were transformed into 
reptiles; and these in their turn became birds on the one 
hand, and mammals on the other; and the human species 
originated in the struggle of a race of apes to better their 
condition, although that condition was exactly suited to their 
mode of life. 
But though not a single proof is to be found of this 
wonderful change from the lower to the higher, it is still 
asserted to have taken place; the unknown is made to do 
duty for the known, and upon the uncertainties of the unknown 
are built up the so-called certainties of the known. This is 
both unscientific and illogical. Unscientific, because it is 
regarding improbabilities as if they were certainties ; and 
illogical, because it is drawing conclusions from false pre- 
mises. It is premised that changes took place of which there 
is no proof, and then conclusions are drawn which could only 
be legitimately drawn from undisputed facts. From the known 
non-transmutation of species is deduced a past transmutation, 
and this, we hold, is illogical. 
2. In the second place, Evolution by natural selection is 
rejected, because it attributes to mere matter the properties 
