The theory of the evolutionist is that the genital organs of a man generate spermatozoä, with all their properties and potentialities, spontaneously and automatically, without the aid of any extraneous, psychic or creative force, and that those of a woman produce ova in the same manner. He maintains that a spermatozoön and an ovum unite and fuse into a germ-cell (fertilized ovum) and that this cell (germ) then becomes, automatically, a living being; that it develops and grows spontaneously and automatically, to be a man or a woman, without the aid or guidance of any extraneous psychic or creative force, whatever.
As a fact the fertilized ovum does not develop into a man or woman at all, but a vast number of daughter-cells are produced from it, which are metamorphosed and molded by the Creator into a man or woman. The evolutionist holds that the fertilized ovum inherits all its properties and potentialities from its parents. In other words, he contends that the germ-cell develops and grows as it does because its father and mother developed and grew in the same manner. Is there any apparent reason why the germ-cell should develop and grow at all? Why should it develop and grow, spontaneously and automatically, as its father and mother grew? The germ-cell is a new combination of the atoms of which it is composed; the embryo is built up of new materials; wholly different from those which compose the bodies of its parents; and by new forces and motions, altogether different from those which built up the bodies of its parents. How could the mode, in which the bodies of the father and mother developed and grew, possibly affect the development and growth of the child?
The fact that each normal body develops and grows in the same manner that the bodies of its parents grew, and as every other normal body grows, is conclusive evidence that the development and growth of each human body is caused, guided and controlled by an extraneous supernatural psychic and creative force, which is ubiquitous, all over the earth. No other hypothesis can explain the uniform mode of development and growth, which we observe, among all the mammals in every age and country.
The fact that the child resembles its father or mother, or both of them, is strong evidence that the same creative force made all three of them. We cannot believe that the blind, unthinking cells, which build up the body of the child, automatically, group themselves in such a manner as to make the child in the image of the father or mother.
Everyone knows that each human body is built of atoms and cells, which are assembled and grouped into certain chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements by force and motion, and that there cannot be any such thing as force and motion without, at least two physical bodies, the one to transmit the force and the other to move. The word, “heredity,” does not denote a physical body nor a physical force. It is a mere name for a group of vital phenomena. How could heredity bring two or more atoms or cells together? Such a suggestion is too absurd even for the imagination.
Perhaps the orthodox churchman would maintain that the Creator endowed Adam’s genital organs with the power to generate spermatozoä; and also endowed those of Eve with the power to produce ova; that He endowed these spermatozoä and ova with the power to produce new men and woman, automatically; and that He ordained that they should have the power to produce new spermatozoä and new ova, with the same properties and potentialities that were possessed by the original spermatozoä and ova, that were generated in the bodies of Adam and Eve and so on forever.
This brings us back to the proposition that every human body is a compound physical structure, composed of atoms and cells, which are grouped into certain chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements; and that intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion are necessary to make these combinations and arrangements. To do this work, automatically, these atoms and cells must be endowed with divine intellect, memory, will-power and creative force; and this is equivalent to a special creation. So if it be said that each fertilized ovum is endowed with the power to produce a new man or woman, the answer is that this endowment is equivalent to a special creation.
The reader may argue that the Creator endowed Adam’s spermatozoä and Eve’s ova with the power to develop men and women, who were endowed with the power to produce new spermatozoä and new ova, with the same properties and potentialities that were possessed by those of Adam and Eve and so on forever to the nth. generation.
There are several insuperable objections to this theory:
First.—It is inconceivable that a man could be endowed with the power to produce spermatozoä before he is born; nor could a woman produce ova before her birth; nor is it possible to endow a fertilized ovum with the power to produce a man or woman before it is formed. When Adam’s spermatozoä and Eve’s ova were made the men and women to be produced from them had not come into being; and it was impossible for even the Creator to endow them, at that time, with the power to produce spermatozoä and ova. Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion were necessary to group the atoms and cells of which the bodies of these new men and women were to be composed, into the necessary chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements in order to construct their bodies. Neither the spermatozoä, the ova nor the germ-cells produced from them, had intellect, memory, will-power nor the necessary force. Therefore it was impossible for Adam’s spermatozoä and Eve’s ova, or germ-cell, resulting from their fusion, to produce Adam and Eve’s children, automatically.
Secondly.—Neither the children of Adam and Eve nor of any other man or woman ever had the power to generate spermatozoä and ova, voluntarily. It is inconceivable that the blind unthinking genital organs of Adam’s children or of any other man or woman ever produced spermatozoä and ova spontaneously and automatically. We are compelled to believe that the Creator always generates, guides and controls the forces and motions which assemble and group the atoms into the form of the spermatozoä and ova; and that he directly and specially endows each spermatozoön and ovum with such properties and potentialities as it may possess.
Thirdly.—Life is not a property of matter. If it were, there would be no such thing as death; for matter and all its attributes and properties are eternal. The atoms, of which a man’s body is composed, are as old as the earth. But during his life, they are grouped together; and this group of atoms is endowed with the properties and potentials of a living being. The human body has identically the same physical properties, whether it be living or dead. Thus, it has the same weight, length, breadth and thickness after death that it had while living, until disintegration sets in. Apparently, the living human body is similar to a piece of iron, when charged with electricity or magnetism. Neither of these adds anything to the weight of the iron; nor do they change its structure, form, size, nor its appearance. When they leave the iron it remains as it was before it was charged with them. So it is with the human body for a time after life leaves it.
Life not being a property of matter, it must be directly and specially conferred, by a supernatural creative force, upon the body in which it resides.
It is agreed by all biologists that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation of animals, nor of plants at this time. As Huxley puts it: “Omne vivum ex vivo,” “all life comes of life.” (Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) 8, p. 746.)
Now, if there be no such thing as spontaneous generation of animals, nor of plants, why should there be spontaneous generation of life? Neither the spermatozoön, nor the ovum can live alone. But when united and fused together, under proper conditions, this combination takes on the manifestations of life; and these manifestations continue until death.
Any good chemist can analyze a fertilized ovum and learn, exactly, the chemical elements of which it is composed, and the proportions in which they are combined. He could then make a new combination of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen in the same proportions, in which these substances were combined in the fertilized ovum; and if life were a property of that combination of atoms, this new chemical compound, ought to become a living creature. But no such thing could ever happen.
As already remarked, neither the spermatozoön nor the ovum can live alone. But when fused together, the combination becomes a living creature. The atoms in the combination are identically the same that were in the spermatozoön and ovum before the fusion occurred. Why should the combination live when the two component parts of it could not?
It is clear that no man can, voluntarily nor involuntarily endow a spermatozoön with the power to develop, alone, into a human being; for every one of them dies in a day, or within a few days, after it matures; unless it be so fortunate as to unite and fuse with an ovum. It is equally clear that no woman can endow an ovum with the power to become a human being. Every ovum soon dies, unless it unite and fuse with a spermatozoön under conditions favorable to growth. Haeckel says: “there are calculated to be 72,000 [ova] in the sexually mature maiden.” (Evolution of Man, p. 347.) The number of spermatozoä, generated in the sexual organs of a man greatly exceeds the number of ova produced by a woman. It follows that countless trillions of spermatozoä and ova die daily, and disintegrate.
Now, if no man can endow a spermatozoön with the power to develop into a new human being; and if no woman can endow an ovum with power to do so; how is it possible for either parent to endow the fertilized ovum with that power, when it is no part of the body of either of them?
But the evolutionist maintains that the child has in fact, many of the qualities, characteristics and traits, both physical and mental, of its parents; that the parents transmit these qualities, characteristics and traits, to their child, by and through the spermatozoön and the ovum; that this is the only means by which the child could acquire the qualities, characteristics and traits of its parents. Hence, the evolutionist infers that heredity is based on the physical qualities and properties of the spermatozoön and ovum.
But, as I have already argued (Sec. 15) the spermatozoön and the ovum are, themselves, new, direct and special creations, and so is the embryo body. While the physical qualities and characteristics of the spermatozoön may affect the body and mind of the child, to some extent; yet the child remains a new, direct and special creation.
Neither Darwin, nor any other man, has ever shown how it is possible for the father, his body or any part of it, to impress, modify or affect the spermatozoön, or any part of it, in such a manner as to cause the child to resemble him in any particular; nor has it been shown how it is possible for the mother, her body or any part of it, to impress, modify or affect the ovum, or any part of it, in such a manner as to cause the child to resemble her. When we consider the great number of spermatozoä and ova that are produced; their small sizes and short lives; their location in the genital organs; and the lack of intellect, memory and will-power in every organ and part of the bodies of the parents, and the fact that the “gemmules” must reach the spermatozoön and the ovum through the blood, we are compelled to believe that it is impossible for the spermatozoön and ovum to transmit, unaided and alone, any quality, characteristic or trait of a parent to the child; and we are forced to infer that the Creator, directly and specially, endows the spermatozoön and ovum with power to convey to the child such qualities, characteristics, and traits of its parents as they do, in fact, carry to it.
Assuming for argument that certain qualities, characteristics and traits of the father and mother are transmitted to the child by and through the spermatozoön and ovum; this fact does not militate against my theory of special Creation; for it seems reasonable to suppose that the spermatozoön and ovum are specially endowed by the Creator, with such powers and potentialities as they possess. Moreover, the evolutionist and materialist are in this attitude; they cannot show how it is possible for the germ-cell (composed of the spermatozoön and ovum) to produce, unaided and alone, a child with the qualities, characteristics and traits of its parents; nor can they prove that the germ-cell and its daughter-cells do, in fact, automatically, produce the child without the aid of the Creator.
Assuming for argument that the spermatozoön, ovum, germ-cell and its daughter-cells appear to do automatically all the wonderful things that the evolutionist and materialist say they do, the question remains: do these senseless, unthinking atoms and cells, spontaneously and automatically build up the embryo body with all its organs and parts, or does the Creator, in fact, generate, guide and control the forces and motions, which group these cells into the embryo body? In other words: when the atoms and cells, which go to build up the embryo body, appear to act spontaneously and automatically, are they, in fact, moved, guided, controlled and grouped into the form of the embryo body by the Creator?
The facts in relation to the development and growth of the embryo are easily described and understood. But the real question is this: “What force or agency causes this development and growth?”
What force or agency causes the child to resemble its parents? Do the germ-cell and its daughter-cells spontaneously and automatically cause this resemblance; or does the Creator cause it?
Referring to the origin of life in the individual, Professor Martin says:
“At present we know nothing in physiology answering to the match which lights the furnace; those manifestations of energy we call life are handed down from generation to generation, as sacred fire in the temple of vesta from one watcher to another. Science may at some time teach us how to bring the chemical constituents of protoplasm into that combination in which they possess the faculty of starting the oxidations under those conditions which characterize life; then we shall have learnt to strike the vital match.” (Martin, Human Body, p. 312.)
I do not believe that life is handed down from generation to generation. On the contrary the Creator strikes “the vital match” when each fertilized ovum is formed; and every such human ovum is directly and specially endowed by the Creator, with the power to develop into a man or woman.
Nature is defined as: “The forces or processes of the material world conceived of as an agency intermediate between the Creator and the world, producing all organisms and preserving the regular order of things; as in the old dictum, ‘nature abhors a vacuum.’ In this sense, nature is often personified.” (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3943.) It follows that “nature” is not a substantial nor a material entity or thing, like a man, a tree, or a stone; but is only a name for certain real or imaginary “forces or processes.” The word does not indicate by what agency these “forces or processes” are generated, guided nor controlled. But we use the word to indicate or describe certain phenomena, which we do not understand, in the same manner that we use the word “gravitation.”
The naturalist or materialist would say that nature generates the spermatozoön and ovum; that it unites and fuses them into the germ-cell; and that it develops this cell into a man or woman. One might as well say, historically, that the spermatozoön and ovum are generated and fused; and that a man or woman is produced from it. But this statement does not explain anything. It does not tell us what force selects, assembles and groups the atoms into the spermatozoön and ovum; nor what endows it with life; nor who nor what creates its soul; nor what force or agency causes the embryo to develop and grow to manhood or womanhood.
To say that “nature” generates and evolves new men and women, is no explanation of the phenomena of reproduction. Nature has no physical body, no weight, length, breadth, nor thickness, no intellect, memory nor will-power; nor can it voluntarily generate force nor motion. It follows that “nature” cannot form the spermatozoön nor the ovum; cannot cause them to unite and fuse into a germ-cell; nor cause the necessary atoms and cells to assemble and group themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements required to build up the embryo body, its organs and parts.
In other words, “nature” works by and through the spermatozoön, the ovum and germ-cell or fertilized ovum. It has identically the same powers and potentialities that they have—no more nor less. It follows that nature cannot, automatically, generate nor evolve, a new man, nor a new woman.
To determine this question it is necessary: first, to ascertain what work has to be done in order to create a new human being; secondly, to consider whether this work can be done, spontaneously and automatically, by the germ-cell or fertilized ovum and its daughter-cells, or whether a supernatural psychic and creative force is necessary to do it.
Darwin ought to be accepted by the evolutionist and materialist as high authority on any biological question, and specially on the subject of special creation. I call him as my first witness. In his Origin of Species, last edition, 1872, (vol. 2, p. 298) he says:
“I believe that [all] animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype.”
Again, on page 299, he says:
“If we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organic beings, which have ever lived on this earth may have descended from one primordial form.”
The last ten lines in his Origin of Species (vol. 2, pp. 305-306) are in these words:
“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one, and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on, according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful, have been and are being evolved.”
Thus, the reader will see that Darwin, himself believed that the first one, or the first few, animals and plants were directly and specially created by Almighty God.
I base the theory that every Human being is a new, direct and special creation by Almighty God, on the following propositions:
There was a time when there were no animals, nor plants on our planet. Therefore, they must have appeared at a definite period.
The rocks tell us that animals and plants first appeared on the earth in the archæozoic or primordial geological age, which, according to Haeckel, began 100,300,000 years ago. (Last words on Evolution, p. 165.) He also says that “life began to exist at a definite period,” “on our planet;” that “no organism can exist or discharge its functions without water. No water, no life!” and that the surface of the earth had to cool down so as to convert “the envelope of steam into water” before animals and plants could live. (Evolution of Man, p. 200.)
Mysterious and miraculous as it may seem, animals and plants have lived on the earth during this eternity of time. The earth is now covered with countless millions of them. We know that we, ourselves, are here. How did they happen to be here? How did we get here? How did life originate on the earth?
It is obvious that the first animal or plant that appeared on the earth was either directly and specially made, by a supernatural psychic and creative force, of inorganic matter; or that it arose, by spontaneous generation, from such matter; for it must necessarily have originated in the one manner or in the other. How else could it have come into existence?
So far as I know, there are only two theories, among educated and scientific men, as to the origin of animals and plants. The one is that they were directly and specially made by the Creator; the other is that they arose by spontaneous generation, from inorganic matter. Which of these is most plausible? (Spencer, Principles of Biology, vol. 1, pp. 415-416.)
The evolutionist and materialist maintain that the course of nature is “uniform, continuous and everlasting;” that the earth is now behaving identically, as it has been ever since it came into existence; that animals and plants are now being evolved, as in the past, while others are becoming extinct, and that every animal and plant is merely a co-ordinated term in natures “great progression.” (Huxley, Man’s Place in Nature, p. 151.)
According to this view, if an animal or a plant was ever spontaneously generated from inorganic matter, we would naturally expect to find them arising in the same manner today, for there is no reason to suppose that the nature of the “inorganic matter,” which they say produced the first animal or plant, has been exhausted; nor that it has changed; nor that the conditions have changed, nor that the forces which are supposed to have caused the spontaneous generation of the first animal and plant have ceased to exist.
Professor Huxley (1825-1905) was a scientist and philosopher of the first magnitude. He was an intimate friend to Darwin; an evolutionist and materialist of the strictest sect and fully competent to speak for these schools of philosophy. Among other works on evolution, he wrote, “Man’s Place in Nature” (1863), in which he argued at great length that man is a descendant of an ape. Hence the following quotations from his works may be taken as authoritative admissions on the part of the evolutionist and materialist.
He says:
“The fact is that at the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis [spontaneous generation] does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which the existence of life on the globe is recorded.” (Huxley, Anat. Invert. An., pp. 40-41.)
Writing in the Encyclopedia Britannica (9 ed., vol. 8, p. 746) he says, in substance, that the aphorism: “omne vivum ex vivo” (“all life comes of life”) is a “well established law of the existing course of nature.”
The theory of spontaneous generation assumes that certain inorganic elements, spontaneously and automatically grouped themselves together in such proportions and in such a manner, chemically and mechanically, as to produce one or a very few animals or plants; and that all other animals and plants have descended from this one, or these few primordial forms. No one pretends to say that there is any direct evidence that any such thing ever happened. On the contrary every fact within our knowledge tends to negative the theory of spontaneous generation. But, in order to dispense with the theory of special creation, the evolutionist and materialist invented the theory of spontaneous generation. There is not only no evidence to support the theory of spontaneous generation, but after many trials scientific men have wholly failed to produce any living substance, whatever. On this point Professor Huxley says:
“To enable us to say that we know anything about the experimental origination of organization and life, the investigator ought to be able to take inorganic matters, such as carbonic acid, ammonia, water and salines, in any sort of inorganic combination, and be able to build them up into protein matter [nitrogenous or albuminoid bodies] and that protein matter ought to begin to live in an organic form. That, nobody has done as yet; and I suspect it will be a long while before anybody does it.” (Huxley, Origin of Species, p. 69.) After discussing the theory of spontaneous generation at length, and describing the experiments which are supposed to have destroyed that theory, he says:
“For my part, I conceive that with the particulars of M. Pasteur’s experiments before us, we cannot fail to arrive at his conclusions; and that the doctrine of spontaneous generation has received a final coup de grace” [stroke of mercy or death blow.]
After describing the experiments of a number of scientists the New International Encyclopedia, published in 1905, (vol. 1, p. 463) says:
“The result of these experiments and conclusions is that the view that spontaneous generation takes place at the present day, has been entirely discarded.”
If there was ever any such thing as spontaneous generation of animals and plants, from inorganic matter, why should it not continue to happen, down to the present time?
We are therefore compelled to believe that there never was any such thing as spontaneous generation from inorganic matters; and we know that all the men of the earth, acting in concert, could not produce a single live worm!
If it be admitted, as Darwin does, that the Creator made “one or a few” animals and plants, in the beginning, we may well suppose that He could have made a million, or a million of millions, as easily as one.
If it be admitted that He created the first one, or the first few, animals and plants, why should we doubt that He created all of them? If He began to create them, why should He cease to do so? His works are uniform, continuous and everlasting.
But in his “Origin of Species” (vol. 2, p. 304-305) Darwin says:
“Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.”
What are “the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,” that have anything to do with the reproduction of animals and plants? What laws “impressed on matter” have any bearing on the question whether animals and plants have arisen from inorganic matter, by spontaneous generation or by special creation? Perhaps Darwin means to say that he supposes the Creator would naturally make one or a few primordial forms of animal and plant and turn them loose upon the earth to shift for themselves subject to “secondary causes,” namely, the factors of evolution. But he does not profess to have any special knowledge of the Divine Mind; nor does he pretend to know more of it than any other man does.
Perhaps Lamarck (1744-1829) was the first to suggest the theory of spontaneous generation, in the sense in which these words are now used, and the evolution of species. (Encyclopedia Britannica 14, p. 232.) Down to his time, no one doubted the Mosaic story of the creation. Belief in the theory of special creation was well nigh universal down to the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, in 1859. This belief was shared alike by both scientists and laymen. But shortly after the publication of that work, belief in the theory of organic evolution became a fad among educated people; and that belief was supposed to indicate intellectual power and independence of thought.
According to the evolutionist and materialist, the reproduction of the human body from a fertilized ovum is, in substance and effect, the same thing as spontaneous generation of such a body from inorganic matter. The work to be done in the one case is identically the same as that to be done in the other. In fact the spermatozoön and the ovum are made of dead matter; and if we consider the making of the spermatozoön and the ovum as the first steps in the process of reproduction as they are; and also assume that the Creator takes no part in that process, we would then have to say that the human body arises by spontaneous generation from inorganic matter; for it is undoubtedly true that the spermatozoön and ovum are made of inorganic substances, namely: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. It is equally true that the fertilized ovum has no more intellect, memory nor will-power than its component atoms of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen had; nor has it any more power to generate, guide and control forces and motions than they had. It follows that the same psychic and creative force is necessary to produce a new human being whether it be made from a germ of inorganic matter or from a fertilized ovum; the ovum being only one remove from inorganic matter. Moreover, the entire human body is made of dead matter except the infinitesimal fertilized ovum.
There is no middle ground between special creation on the one side and spontaneous generation on the other; either the Creator generates, guides and controls the forces and motions which build up the embryo body, its organs and parts; or the atoms and cells, of which they are made, do, spontaneously and automatically, assemble and group themselves into the chemical combinations, and into the mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to make them.
The reader may argue that “nature,” “heredity” or the germ-cell (fertilized ovum) does this wonderful work of building up the embryo body; and, therefore, that neither the Creator nor spontaneous generation does it. But “nature” and “heredity” do all their work by and through the germ-cell; so their powers are identical with those of the germ-cell. This germ is a tiny bit of protoplasm composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, with a possible trace of sulphur and phosphorus. It has no brain, eyes, ears, nose, touch, nor taste; no intellect, memory, nor will-power; no knowledge of anatomy, chemical elements, chemical affinity, form, size, time, nor space; nor any constructive power nor force; has no power to generate forces nor to guide and control motions.
Therefore, it is impossible for the germ-cell, or its daughter-cells, to build up, automatically, the embryo body, with all its organs and parts. It follows that this body must be directly and specially created by Almighty God.
Again, every embryo body is made of cells (organic bricks) and these are made of dead atoms. In order to construct this body it is necessary to group a certain number of these atoms into certain chemical combinations; next these combinations must be grouped into certain mechanical arrangements. Thus, the skeleton is made of bones; they are made of cells, which in turn are made of dead atoms of lime, carbon, phosphorus, etc.; these cells must be grouped into phosphate of lime, carbonate of lime, gelatin, etc. These combinations must then be grouped into the two hundred and seventy-eight bones of the embryo skeleton, giving each bone its proper form, size, structure and place in the skeleton. It is clear that neither the father nor the mother takes any part in making these chemical combinations nor in making the mechanical arrangements. It is equally clear that they are not made by chance nor by accident; nor by the “factors” of evolution.
It follows that the atoms and cells of which the embryo body is made, do, spontaneously and automatically group themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to construct the several organs and parts of the embryo body without the aid or guidance of any extraneous psychic or creative force; or that every organ and part of the embryo body is directly and specially made by the Creator.
Human bones are composed of ten chemical elements, namely: carbon, chlorin, hydrogen, lime, magnesium, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sodium and sulphur. As found in the bones, these elements are grouped into the five chemical combinations, following: phosphate of lime, carbonate of lime, carbonate of soda, chloride of soda, and gelatin.
There are eight bones in the cranium, fourteen in the face and six in the ears, making twenty-eight in the skull, besides the thirty-two teeth. (Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) vol. 1, p. 822.) In the infant there are thirty-three vertebræ (joints) in the spinal column, namely: seven cervical, in the neck; twelve dorsal, in the back; five lumbar, in the small of the back; five sacral, in the sacrum; and four coccygeal, in the coccyx. But in the adult, there are only twenty-six, the five sacral joints having fused into one bone, and the four in the coccyx having fused into another; these two and the twenty-four regular vertebræ (joints) making twenty-six. (Same book, p. 820.) In the chest there are twelve pairs of ribs, the sternum or breast bone and the hyoid or tongue bone, twenty-six in all. (Same book, p. 822.) Each arm and hand, including the scapula or shoulder blade, consists of thirty-two bones, making sixty-four in the two arms and hands. In each leg and foot, including the bones of the pelvis, there are thirty-one bones, making sixty-two in the pelvis, legs and feet. So that the adult human skeleton consists of two hundred and six bones, besides the thirty-two teeth. (Johnson’s Universal Cyclopedia, 7, p. 553.)
The same book, (p. 533) says:
“At birth their number is 278; at the age of twenty-five, 224; in advanced old age, 194. About 660 segments are needed in the formation of the 206 bones.”
In another place it says:
“Thus, the thigh bone or femur represents the fusion of at least five distinct segments, the union not being fully completed until about the twentieth year.” (Same book, p. 553, column 1.)
There is no bone in the fertilized ovum; therefore each skeleton and each bone is produced anew; that is, it grows anew for itself. No two bones are exactly alike. In the case of pairs similar bones are on opposite sides of the body, thus half the ribs, one arm, hand, leg, and foot are on each side of the body. Each of the twenty-four regular joints in the spinal column is similar to every other joint except the atlas. But, beginning at the top and going downward, each joint is smaller than the one next below it.
The bones of the skeleton have pores, foraminæ (holes), cavities, processes, joints and sutures. Some of them are long, others short, broad and irregular. Each is attached to one or more other bones by a joint or a suture. Each is adjusted to, and correlated with every other, in structure, form, size and function. The bones in the infant body grow inside of it and while in the mother’s womb. There is no model present by which to make it.
Who determines at what points in the embryo body these two hundred and seventy-eight bones shall be built up? Who ordains that there shall be twenty-two in the skull, thirty-three in the spinal column, etc.? Who fixes the structure, form, and size of each bone? Who adjusts and correlates each bone in the skeleton to every other? Who counts them? Who guides and controls the forces and motions that build up the skeleton, in such a manner that the bones on the right side have the same structure, form and size as those on the left? How does it happen that the bones on the right side are the reverse of those on the left? How does it happen that each human skeleton is exactly like every other. Who fixes nine months as the time in which the infant skeleton shall mature sufficiently for birth?
The father contributes the spermatozoön and the mother the ovum; these two cells fuse into the germ-cell (fertilized ovum), which is composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen, with a possible trace of phosphorus and sulphur. Whatever qualities, characteristics, traits and potentialities pass from the parents to the child must necessarily be transmitted by and through the germ-cell (or fertilized ovum), for nothing else passes from the parents to the child. This cell is about the size of one-sixth of a common pin’s head; and is barely visible to the naked eye under the most favorable conditions. It has no intellect, memory nor will-power; no knowledge of anatomy, nor of the human body.
It is immediately divided into two daughter-cells, these into four, eight, sixteen, thirty-two and so on to infinity. Thus, it appears that the infinitesimal fertilized ovum is soon disintegrated, divided into millions of pieces and distributed among the new cells which are made from the food of the mother.
It is impossible to believe that the minute fertilized ovum when divided into a million pieces, selects the atoms, generates, guides and controls the forces and motions which build up the two hundred and seventy-eight bones in the infant body. It is preposterous to suppose that the millionth part of the germ-cell can determine the point in the embryo body, in which the skull bones, the ear bones, the spinal column, the arm-buds, leg-buds, etc., shall appear. Nor can we believe that this little cell or any of its daughter-cells can spontaneously and automatically produce any of the vital phenomena, manifested by the human skeleton.
Every one knows that neither the father nor the mother has any voluntary power, nor any control over the development and growth of the embryo.
Does the embryo develop and grow by accident or chance? Surely not; for each embryo develops and grows precisely as every other does, in every age and country, thus showing that the same ubiquitous creative force makes all of them.
“We must not assume any original creation, nor repeated creations,” says Haeckel, “to explain this, but a natural, continuous and necessary evolution.” (Evolution of Man, p. 26.) He argues that there is no personal God.
Writing in the Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 8, p. 746, 9 ed.) Professor Huxley says:
“No exception is, at this time, known to the general law, established upon an immense multitude of direct observations, that every living thing is evolved from a particle of matter, in which no trace of the distinctive characters of the adult form of that living thing is discernible. This particle is termed a germ.…
“The definition of a germ as ‘matter potentially alive, and having, within itself, the tendency to assume a definite living form,’ appears to meet all the requirements of modern science … And the qualification of ‘potential’ has the advantage of reminding us that the great characteristic of the germ is not so much what it is, but what it may, under suitable conditions, become.…
“In all cases, the process of evolution consists in a succession of changes of the form, structure and functions of the germ by which it passes, step by step, from an extreme simplicity, or relative homogeneity, of visible structure to a greater or less degree of complexity or heterogeneity; and the course of progressive differentiation is generally accompanied by growth, which is effected by intussusception,” [interstitial deposit.]
“… And so far from the fully developed organism’s being simply the germ plus the nutriment, which it has absorbed, it is probable that the adult contains neither in form, nor in substance, more than an inappreciable fraction of the constituents of the germ, and that it is almost wholly made up of assimilated and metamorphosed nutriment.”
This being true, it cannot be said that the germ (fertilized ovum) ever develops into a man or woman. On the contrary it is annihilated; and its identity is wholly lost among the daughter-cells which are made of the mother’s food.
Herbert Spencer invented what he calls “physiological units” or “constitutional units,” and “structural proclivity.” But neither he nor any other man ever saw one of these “units,” they being wholly imaginary. In his Principles of Biology (vol. 1, p. 368) under “Genesis, heredity and variation,” he says:
“So that though all parts are composed of physiological units of the same nature, yet everywhere, in virtue of local conditions and the influence of its neighbors, each unit joins in forming a particular structure appropriate to its place.”
Could anything be more absurd?
For Spencer’s view of “physiological units” and “structural proclivity” see Principles of Biology 1, pp. 226, 361, 362, 365, 368, 372, and vol. 2, pp. 612-618.
The effect of the above quotations is that the atoms and cells of which the embryo body is composed, do spontaneously and automatically assemble and group themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to build up the human body, without the aid of any extraneous psychic or creative force whatever. This is necessarily the theory of the evolutionist and materialist; for they deny that there was ever any such thing as special creation. Besides, every one knows that neither the father nor the mother has any power, nor any control over the development and growth of the embryo.
It follows that the blind, unthinking, fertilized ovum and daughter-cells arising from it, spontaneously and automatically assemble themselves together in the form of the two hundred and seventy-eight bones of the embryo skeleton; or that the Creator generates, guides, and controls the forces and motions which build up the embryo body. Which theory is most plausible?
We cannot even imagine the dead atoms of carbon, chlorine, hydrogen, lime, etc., which compose the bones, assemble and group themselves into the twenty-two bones of the skull; nor into the thirty-three joints of the spinal column; nor into the bones of the arms, hands, legs and feet with all their pores, foraminæ, cavities, processes, joints and sutures.
But the evolutionist says that “heredity” produces the embryo; and another says “nature” does this wonderful work. I reply that whatever “heredity” and “nature” may do toward the production of the embryo must necessarily be done by and through the fertilized ovum, and I have already argued that this little atom is powerless to do any such thing. See index, infra, “Heredity.”
Each bone in the skeleton, and all of them as a whole, testify that they were designed and made by the Creator!
Two new eyes must be made, out and out, for each embryo.
The eye is formed before birth. This fact makes it clear that the alleged factors of evolution have nothing to do with its production.
It is obvious that the father takes no part in the construction of the child’s eyes; for he contributes the spermatozoön, only; and the formation of the eye begins a considerable time after the spermatozoön fuses with the ovum. It is equally clear that the mother has no voluntary agency in the production of the child’s eyes. In brief, the child develops and grows in the mother’s womb, as a parasite, she being merely its host. Moreover, the reader will readily admit that all the scientists on the earth, acting in concert, could not make a living eye for a toad.
Each human eye has the same parts, the same construction, form, and substantially the same size that every other such eye has; and performs the same functions. So all human eyes occupy the same relative position in the face. We are, therefore, compelled to believe that human eyes are not produced by accident nor by chance; but they develop and grow by force of a universal law; or that they are made by the Creator.
But the almost universal belief is that “heredity” or “nature” causes the child’s eyes to grow, as those of the parents grew.
A cause is described as: “An antecedent, upon which an effect follows according to the law of nature.” (Cent. Dic. 1, p. 868.)
Ordinarily, the word “cause” is understood to mean a force or agency which produces a given effect or result, which could not happen without that force or agency. Such a force or agency is termed an efficient cause. (Cent. Dic. 3, p. 1849.)
It would be absurd to suppose that the eyes of the father and mother cause or produce the eyes of the child. It follows that there is no causative relation between the eyes of the parents and those of the child. The most that could be said in this direction is that the same force or agency which produced the eyes of the parents, namely: the Creator, also caused and produced those of the child.
The fact that the father and mother have eyes is no reason why the child should have them; for the forces and motions which made the eyes of the parents ceased to exist long before the formation of the germ-cell from which the child is produced.
Each human eye is a new combination of the atoms and cells of which it is composed. No atom, in it, was ever a part of an eye of either parent. The atoms and cells, of which it is made, are grouped into new chemical combinations; and these are mechanically arranged in such a manner as to construct the human eye for the first and last time. The forces and motions, which build up each eye are peculiar to it. The work done in making the eyes of the parents, has nothing to do with the making of the eyes of the child; for the atoms and cells which are employed in constructing the child’s eyes must be assembled and grouped into the necessary chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements as if the father and mother had no eyes. In other words, each eye must be made anew, without regard to the eyes of the father and mother or any other person. If a man make a million bricks, it requires the same work to make the last one that it did to make the first one; so if a hundred million silver dollars are coined at a mint it requires, identically, the same work to coin each of them that it did to make every other; and so of the eyes.
While discussing “organs of extreme perfection,” and referring to the imaginary evolution of the human eye, in his Origin of Species (vol. 1, p. 228), Darwin says:
“Let this process go on for millions of years, and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds, and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might be thus formed, as superior to one of glass as the works of the Creator are to those of man?”
In brief, Darwin’s theory is that the eyes of each individual are better than those of his parents; and that he transmits to his child all the improvements made on his eyes during his life and so on to the latest generation. In other words, according to Darwin, the eyes of today are the “accumulated improvements” of millions of years.
Apparently Darwin thinks that each individual gets the benefit of all improvements made in the eyes of every other individual of all other species without regard to genetic relations, for he says, “on millions of individuals of many kinds,” etc. According to this view, a man would avail himself of any improvement that might be made in the eye of a fly, which is preposterous.
There would be some force in Darwin’s argument if it were possible to transfer the father’s or the mother’s eyes, bodily, to the child. But such a thing is too absurd to be dreamed of.
Every one knows that each eye, and every part of it, grows anew, as if the parents of the embryo had no eyes. Neither Darwin, nor any other man has ever shown how it is possible for the eyes of the father or mother to modify or affect the development, growth, form, size, color, qualities or characteristics of the child’s eyes. According to Darwin’s theory of “gemmules” the eyes of the father and mother give off gemmules which get into his or her blood and thence into the spermatozoön and the ovum and thence into the fertilized ovum and these produce eyes, in the child, like those of its parents. But everybody saw that these “gemmules” would have great difficulty in finding the spermatozoön and ovum, and in getting into them when found; and that after they reached the fertilized ovum, which divides into two, four, eight, sixteen or a million daughter-cells, these gemmules would have great difficulty in finding the orbit where the new eye is to grow; and that they were as apt to land in the back, heel or toe of the embryo as in the orbit.
Besides, if there were any such thing as Darwin’s gemmules there would have to be at least one for each coat, muscle, artery, vein, nerve and part of the eye; and it would be impossible for them to arrange themselves in the proper order in the embryo eye. Moreover, there might be too many or too few gemmules; some of them might get lost and leave the embryo eye without one or more of its coats or parts; then the gemmules from the father’s ayes might clash with those from the mother’s.
No other man has ever suggested any more plausible theory, than Darwin’s “gemmules,” of the manner in which the organs and parts of the parents’ bodies may be supposed to modify and affect those of the child. But this theory was rejected by every one, but Darwin, as absurd and impossible.
Every human being begins life as fertilized ovum, in which there is no eye. No part of the eyes of the father is transferred, bodily, to those of the child; nor is any part of the eyes of the mother. Every part of each eye must be made anew; each part must have the proper structure, form, and size; must be adjusted to and correlated with every other; finally, the several parts must be arranged in the proper order in the eye. In other words, two entirely new eyes must be made for each child.
Either the blind unthinking atoms and cells, of which the several parts of the eye, namely: the several coats, the aqueous humor, the lens, the vitreous body, the optic nerve, the muscles, arteries, veins, nerves, etc., are built up, do, spontaneously and automatically, and without the aid of any extraneous, supernatural, psychic and creative force, assemble and group themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements necessary to construct the embryo eye; or the Creator, directly and specially, makes it. Which hypothesis is most plausible?
Two new ears must be made, out and out, for each embryo.
The ear is a complex acoustic apparatus; is more complex, and has more parts, than the eye; and every part of it is well fitted to perform the function assigned to it. What was said in the two preceding sections, of skeleton and eye, as tending to establish the theory of special creation, applies equally to the construction of the ear.
Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion are required to form the chemical combinations and make the mechanical arrangements necessary to construct the ear; and every part of it testifies that it was contrived and made by the Creator!
An entirely new brain must be made for each embryo. What has been said of the several parts of the skeleton and of the eye, (section 40 and 41, supra), applies equally to the size, form, structure, position and number of the several parts of the brain.
Every human being begins life as a fertilized ovum, in which there are no sexual organs whatever. It follows that a new set of such organs must be made, out and out, for each individual embryo.
Who or what determines whether the child shall be a male or female? For several weeks after the formation of the fertilized ovum there is nothing to indicate whether the child is to be a boy or girl. If it is finally decided that it shall be a male, a full set of male sexual organs is made for him. On the other hand, if it is to be a female, a set of female organs is made for her. But the production of male organs for the one, or female organs for the other is not the only thing to be done; for every organ and part of the body is modified, adjusted to and correlated with, the sexual characters whether male or female. The reader will readily recall all the distinctive differences between a man and woman, including the secondary sexual characters. In other words, if it is determined that the child shall be a male, every non-sexual organ and part of his body must be so differentiated and modified as to make a man of him, in both mind and body. On the other hand, if the child is to be a female, all of her non-sexual organs and parts must be so differentiated and modified as to make a woman of her, with all of the qualities, characteristics and traits that belong to woman.
Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion—creative force—are necessary to convert a sexless embryo body into a male or female child. This cannot be done by accident nor by blind chance; nor by the alleged “factors” of evolution; for this work is done before the birth of the child and before the “factors” have had an opportunity to do their “work;” besides, we cannot believe that the blind “factors” can metamorphose a sexless embryo into a male or female child.
Neither the father nor the mother has any power to determine the sex of their child; nor has the fertilized ovum any such power; for it has no intellect, memory nor will-power, nor any knowledge of sexual organs nor of anything else. Moreover, before the sex of the child has been determined this ovum has been annihilated by division among a million of daughter-cells, which are made of animal and vegetable food eaten by the mother, which was never a part of any other human body.
Can we believe that the blind, unthinking atoms and cells of which the embryo body is built up, do, spontaneously, automatically and without the aid of any extraneous psychic force, group themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements, necessary to construct the sexual organs of a male or female child? How can these atoms and cells elect whether it shall be a boy or a girl? If they do so elect, how can they differentiate and modify all the non-sexual organs and parts of the body so as to correlate them with the sexual organs?
The evolutionist and materialist will say that “heredity” or “nature” determines the sex of the embryo. I reply that the force and power of “heredity” and of “nature” are identical with those the fertilized ovum because they can act, only, by and through it; and it has no intellect, memory nor will-power to determine the sex of the child; nor to construct the male nor the female sexual organs after electing between them, even if such a thing were possible; nor any power to correlate the non-sexual organs and parts, with the male or female sexual organs so as to produce a man or a woman. In fact the germ-cell has no knowledge of sexual organs, nor of their form, size, structure nor functions. It follows that neither “heredity,” nor “nature” has any power to determine the sex of the child, nor to correlate its non-sexual organs with its sexual ones.
We are, therefore, compelled to believe that the sex of every human being is determined by the Creator; and that all sexual organs are directly and specially made by him.
For like reasons, we are compelled to believe that the heart, lungs, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, arteries, veins, nerves, and other organs and parts of the body are directly and specially made by the Creator.
For example, the form, size, structure and position of the several bones in each skeleton, and the number of them, are proof that they are all made by the Creator.
So, the form, size, structure, and position of the several parts of the brain, eye, ear, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc.; and their number cannot be explained on any hypothesis, other than that of special creation. The same is true of the muscles, arteries, veins, etc.
Every human body that ever lived in any age or country was composed of identically the same chemical elements that were or are found in every other such body, in whatever age or country such other body may have lived. So, each normal body, in whatever age or country it may have lived, had the same chemical combinations; the same mechanical arrangements; the same structure, the same organs and parts, and substantially the same form and size, that every other such body, of the same sex, had, whenever, and wherever such other body may have lived.
How could this universal sameness of chemical elements, chemical combinations, mechanical arrangements, etc., in all human bodies have happened? Could it have happened by accident or chance; or by force of the blind factors of evolution; or did the blind, unthinking atoms and cells, of which each human body was built up, spontaneously, and automatically, group themselves into identically the same chemical combinations, and mechanical arrangements that the atoms and cells in every other human body had grouped themselves; thus making chemical elements, chemical combinations, the mechanical arrangements, the organs and parts in each human body, identically the same as those in every other such body, whenever and wherever it may have lived? Such a thing is impossible; specially when we consider that each body grew anew, for itself.
But the evolutionist may say that this universal sameness in all human bodies is caused by “heredity.”
I reply that each human body begins life as a fertilized ovum; that it develops and grows anew for itself, independently of the development and growth of any other body; it is a new combination of the atoms and cells—“organic bricks”—of which it is composed; it was made by new forces and motions of new materials, peculiar to itself. In order to build each body the atoms and cells, of which it was composed, must have been selected, assembled at the building site and there grouped into the necessary chemical combinations and mechanical arrangement. Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion were necessary to do this work, in each instance.
Heredity is only a name for certain vital phenomena. It it not a material entity; it has no weight, length, breadth nor thickness; no constructive force; no intellect, memory nor will-power; nor any power to generate force nor motion. Nor has it any power to assemble the atoms and cells; nor to group and arrange them in such a manner as to form the body, its organs and parts. Nor can “heredity” “breathe the breath of life” into the fertilized ovum nor create a soul for the embryo body.
“Heredity” does all its work by and through the fertilized ovum. It has identically the same properties and potentialities that this ovum has, no more nor less. Surely this ovum has no knowledge of the bodies of its parents, nor of their organs and parts; nor can it have any memory of a thing that it never knew; nor has it any inherent power to reproduce the bodies of its parents or either of them.
It is impossible to explain and account for this universal sameness of all human bodies without assuming that each of them was made by one and the same hand, namely: Almighty God. We cannot doubt that He directly and specially created every human being that ever lived on our planet.