588 SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE EVOLUTION THEORY. 



life on the earth that his brain ever approximated in size that of the mon- 

 key ; nor even, so far as brain capacity is concerned, that recent man has 

 "been developed or evolved from the prehistoric man. In fact, Dr. Broca, 

 President of the French Association at the recent meeting at Havre, in an 

 address on the "Human Fossil Eaces of Western Europe," declared that of 

 the three distinct races of prehistoric men, the last or latest known, called 

 the race of Furfooz, was not equal in point of intelligence to their immedi- 

 ate predecessors. All these things render it extremely imjDrobable, at least, 

 that the human brain was developed by natural selection from that ot the 

 ape or any of the lower animals. 



Still further, apes not only fall below man in mental power, but below 

 several other animals which are never by the wildest stretch of the imagin- 

 :ation associated with him, such as the dog and horse, both of which surpass 

 the highest apes in intelligence and adaptability to surrounding conditions, 

 and none of which could, under any stress of external circumstances, leave 

 the natural line of development and put on clothing to protect themselves 

 against cold, manufacture arms to defend themselves, or make their food, 

 by cooking, more dii^.estible and acceptable ; while on the other hand it is 

 very certain that man cannot attain the opposite of these things by natural 

 selection or evolution. Finally, man is separated from the most develoj^ed 

 of apes by faculties ©f mind, such as conceptions of good and evil, right and 

 wrong, beauty and taste for art, reverence for his Maker, and lastly a hope 

 ■of happiness in the future life, none of which can be exj^erienced by the 

 most exalted brutes. As M. Quatrefages says, "It is not hy his body that 

 man has acquired that empire that he possesses, but he owes it to his intel- 

 ligence, of like nature, but immensely superior to that of animals." 



Coming at last to the question of creation or evolution, we find, as be- 

 fore observed, a point blank irreconcileabilit3^ There is no compromise on 

 the part of the evolutionists. They deny in a breath both creation and 

 'G-od. Spencer and Tyndall do so without hesitation, and Draper but feebly 

 recognizes the superiority of the Law Maker to the natural laws He has 

 established. To show how the least atheistical of them talks, I will quote 

 a few lines from Draper, who delivered an address on the subject of Evolu- 

 tion before the Unitarian ministers, at their Institute in Springfield, Mass., 

 last month. He says: "The hypothesis of evolution asserts that from one 

 or a few organisms all these that we see have been derived by a process of 

 evolving or development. It will not admit that there has been any inter- 

 vention of divine jjower." "The hyj)othesis of creation asserts that Al- 

 mighty God called into sudden existence, according to His good pleasure, 

 'the different types of life that w^e see." "Creation reposes o-n the arbitrarj^ 

 act of God ; evolution on the universal reign of law." "As to the origin of 

 organisms, it (evolution) withholds for the j)resent any definite expression. 

 There are, however, many naturalists who incline to believe in spontaneous 

 generation." Speaking of JSI"ewton'8 Frmcipia, he says, "it gave undisput- 

 able reasons that Kepler's laws are a mathematical necessity. For the finger 



