578 SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE EVOLUTION THEORY. 



this spirit of fairness equally governing me, I have made my investiga- 

 tions among all classes of authorities within my reach, and herewith give you 

 the results, not attempting to disprove the existence of facts, but merely in- 

 dicating some objections which to me seem, with present actual knowledge, 

 almost insuperable. 



The Evolution theory is no new thing, being readily traceable all along 

 the history of science, from the times of Aristotle to the days of philosophic 

 speculation in the 17th century; through the groping and uncertain exper- 

 iments and researches of the alchemists to the brilliant and wonderful 

 discoveries of modern scientists in the broad fields of physics, chemistry 

 and biology. 



Amono" the comparatively recent explorers and writers, Lamarck may 

 be regarded as the father of the Evolution Theory, having, as long ago as 

 1801 in his work on the Yertebrate animals suggested the idea, among many 

 other similar ones, that "ISTature, in the long ages during which the world 

 has existed, may have produced the different kinds of plants and animals by 

 gradually enlarging one part and diminishing another to suit the wants of 

 each," and later, in 1809, having written a work called 'Zoologic Philosophy," 

 to prove that the way in which the Creator has formed different plants and 

 animals, has been by altering them gradually from simple to complex forms. 

 Another of Lamarck's theories was that new organs could be produced in 

 animals by the simple exertion of the will, called into action by the creation 

 of new wants, and that the organs thus acquired could be transmitted by 

 generation, which was regarded by the naturalists of that day as so unrea- 

 sonable and preposterous that nb attention was paid to it ; though, indeed, 

 apparently not only equalled but far surpassed by the evolutionists of the 

 present time. 



With these ideas for a starting point or foundation, the grand biological 

 theories of Darwin and others gradually grew, or were evolved, until they 

 have reached such dimensions as absolutely to undertake, not only to account 

 for all the progressive steps of animal birth, life and growth without ac- 

 knowledging the necessity of Divine influence or action in any of the steps, 

 but even, as Tyndall has recently done, to refuse "to invoke the supernatu- 

 ral in accounting for the phenomena of human life," and "to seek in the 

 interaction of social forces, the genesis and development of man's moral 

 nature." 



Supporting their theories by' the fact that as the varied forms of animals 

 and plants in different portions of the world became known, it became more 

 and moi-e difficult to separate the different species and decide which were, 

 and which were not, descendants of one parent; by the additional fact that 

 all the animals of each class were formed upon the same plan ; and by the, 

 still further discovery that the embryos of all animals are so precisely alike, 

 at first, that those of man and the higher quadrupeds cannot be distinguished 

 from those of the lower animals, such as fishes and reptiles, they began to 

 build these theories up by assuming certain points as true without sufficient 

 proof. Thus, they?began to read geological history like a printed book, to 



