!590 somij: objections to the evolution theory. 



plasms, through the ihvertebrates to the vertebrates, and finally to man 

 himself; the attributing of these supposed processes to what Prof. Draper 

 •calls "natural law," a "process of evolving or development," the "universal 

 reign of law," and the rejection of "divine intervention" and the intrusion 

 ■of "supernatural interference" as revolting to common sense, and afterwards 

 the admission that all these things manifest the "unchangeable purposes of 

 the supreme being," seem to mrj mind a manner of stating the case un- 

 worthy of so powerful a thinker. To den}^ in one sentence the divine inter- 

 vention, and to call the active exercise of his power in the processes of 

 Nature "capricious intrusion," and in the next to make so broad an admis- 

 sion of the manifestation of his unchangeable purposes, is to destroy the 

 effect of all Draper has said, and to convict him of reasoning in a circle. 

 Spencer and Tjaidall do not thus stultify themseles by appearing to place 

 God in a subordinate position to the laws he has made. They boldly ad- 

 here to theii premises and follow them to their logical conclusions, that 

 there was no creation, that there is no God, but that every step in the phe- 

 nomena of life can be accounted for without invoking the supernatural, and 

 that even the genesis and development of man's mo?\il nature are solely 

 ^attributable to the interaction of social forces. 



In support of the Creation theory we must call attention to the sudden 

 -and most remarkable increase of animal forms in that part of the Tertiary 

 .-age known as the Miocene period, as it is impossible for the necessarily slow 

 ■development of evolution to have accomplished it. The few .nammals 

 found in the beds of the previous or Eocene period are comparatively un- 

 noticeable, but when we turn the corner, as Prof. Williamson says, " it 

 •.appears as if some great magician had waved his wand and in response to 

 the magic summons, life of the most varied character and in forms most 

 •dissimilar to what immediately preceded, flash into existence," and as he 

 further says, "this unexplained outburst of new life demands the recognition 

 of some factor not hitherto admitted into the calculations of the evolutionist 

 cschool." 



One of the most striking proofs of the truth and correctness of the Evo- 

 lution theory is claimed to have been recently perfected by the discovery of 

 the remains of the Eohippus in the lowest Eocene of the Tertiary deposits 

 of Western Kansas, by the celebrated American naturalist. Professor O. 0. 

 Marsh. This Eohippus is claimed as the original progenitor of the modern 

 horse, having four complete toes and a rudiment of the fifth on the front 

 feet and three behind. In size not exceeding a fox, and with 44 teeth, this 

 horse, imperfect as he is, holds the place of the apex of the Pyramid of Evo- 

 lution, the crowning glory of the series which terminates in a domestic 

 animal so indispensable to man that these same evolutionists account for 

 man's earlier absence in different portions of the earth by the absence of 

 the horse. Is it not strange that we find no evidences in ancient or modern 

 limes that our progenitors, the apes, ever made any use of this indisjDensable 

 .animal ? 



