The writer of this article was for upwards of twenty years a believer in and student of the philosophy of materialism; but after his conversion to faith in Jesus Christ he rejected it in toto, first because it was found to be contrary to the Scriptures, and second, because, upon careful investigation, it was also found to be opposed to every pertinent fact of history and natural science.

      As regards "evidence" in support of the theory there is none that would be admitted in any court of law. It rests wholly upon unprovable assumptions, and upon highly speculative and far-fetched inferences. The evidence against it is abundant and convincing; and while the subject is so vast and complex that we can present, in an article like this, only a small part of the counterproof, yet we can give all that is needed in order to show that the theory is not only unsupported by proof, but is opposed both to the facts of science and to statements of Holy Scripture.

      Our design, in writing these pages (originally prepared for use in the compilation of a Bible Cyclopedia by the Bible Union of China) was to set forth the main features of the theory of Evolution in such a way as to make it easy to be understood by the unlearned. The exponents of science and philosophy usually adopt a style and vocabulary which effectually hide their meaning from "the common people," and which are well calculated to produce the impression that the subjects they discuss are too mysterious and profound to be understood by any but the few who (like themselves) are gifted with intellects of a superior order, and possessed of knowledge unattainable by the ordinary man.

      But the truth is that--when we disregard mere [7] refinements of detail, and technicalities of a non-essential character--the doctrine of Evolution in general, and that of the Origin of Species (the Darwinian hypothesis) in particular, can be set forth "in words easy to be understood," and can be understood by persons of ordinary intelligence and of common school education. And furthermore, the scientist and philosopher have no facts upon which to base their conclusions except such as are matters of common knowledge, or are accessible to all men through textbooks and cyclopedias. We fully concede to experts their special competence in investigating, clarifying, and setting forth the facts; but, in the all important matter of drawing conclusions from those facts, the expert has no greater ability than the ordinary persons, of whom juries--which in common-law cases are the sole judges of the facts--are composed. It is for the benefit of these that we are now writing; and in summoning Evolution to stand trial at the bar of ordinary common sense, our own function will be mainly to present the pertinent facts as fully and concisely as possible.

      As regards the reasons commonly advanced in support of the doctrine of Evolution it is one of the most palpable weaknesses of the case that the alleged "evidences" for it have to be sought in the darkest corners of creation and in the remotest regions of time and space; and further that, when brought into the light of honest inquiry, they cannot be recognized, by ordinary persons, as having any relation at all to the doctrine they are cited to sustain. For Evolution is set forth as a cosmic process---that is, a law operating always and everywhere. It is either that or nothing. But, if so, then the evidences of it would be always and everywhere apparent. Whichever way we might look they would force themselves upon our notice, in countless numbers and endless varieties of forms. The proofs would be so abundant that the [8] demonstrator of the doctrine would never get to the end of them; whereas, as the case actually stands, the efforts and the ingenuity of the evolutionist are mainly occupied in trying to account with plausibility for the total lack of evidence in nature for the support of his doctrine.

      Another thing which must impress every fair-minded investigator of this modern theory is the fallacious character of the reasoning often employed by its advocates. Take the case of the now extinct varieties of horse having three and four toes. Appeal is often made to the remains of those creatures as if they proved the whole case of Evolution; whereas they do not even prove that the existing varieties of the equine species were derived from those extinct forms. There is nothing whatever to forbid the idea that the present varieties of the species existed at the same time with those now extinct forms. Proof of connection between them, and of derivation of the one from the other, is wholly lacking. But even if such connection were established, it would not tend in the least to prove the evolution of one species from another, which is the matter in dispute. That many varieties of a common species can be produced is a fact so abundantly in evidence in both vegetable and animal kingdoms as to create a strong presumption that, if it were possible to cross the boundary lines of a species, there would be abundant evidence of that also. But the fact is that, with all nature under observation, and with the plain records of the fossiliferous rocks, not one transitional form to help bridge the gulf between one species and another has ever been found. The four-toed horse is as much a "horse" as the one-toed variety. And Mr. Darwin was himself compelled to concede all that we here point out. He said (Life and Letters, Vol. III. p. 25): "There are two or three million of species on earth--sufficient field, one might think, for observation. But it must be said today that, [9] in spite of all the efforts of trained observers, not one change of a species into another is on record." This statement can be made with even greater confidence now, after a lapse of over half a century since Mr. Darwin made the above admission.

      It is vain, therefore, for the evolutionist to think he can ride upon the four-toed horse to a successful demonstration of his theory.

      The doctrine of Evolution is doubtless the culminating effort and fruit of "the wisdom of this world"; and our thought about it is that God will make use of it thereby to exhibit the utter "foolishness" of human wisdom. Never has there been a cosmic philosophy set forth with such pretentiousness, or backed with such authority by "Science"; and never has there been a doctrine so audaciously proclaimed in direct and defiant opposition to the truth of Creation, revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Therefore the theory of Evolution is pre-eminently suited to exemplify the Scripture, "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Cor. 1:20.)

      Framingham, Mass.
            April, 1922. [10]

[EATB 7-10]