The Sunday Oregonian., February 19, 1922, SECTION FOUR, Page 11, Image 65

THE SUNDAY OREGOXIAN, PORTLAND, FEBRUARY 19, 1922
11
V
mrbryan again attacks
teaching of darwin theory
Christian Taxpayers Will Prohibit Substitution for Bible When They
Learn What Is Being Done, Declares Commoner.
MIAMI, Kla.,
Kditor.) A
copies of '
Feb. 1. (To the
-A friend has sent me
spies ot The Oregoman con
taining criticisms made by college
professors upon my remarks about
to every man
undiminished interest
born in the world." .
Before commenting on the Darwin
ian hypothesis, let me refer you to
the language of its author as it ap
plies to man. Professor Darwin, on
.the teaching of atheism and agnositic-ipage 189 of "Descent of Man" (Hurst
ism in the schools. I a,m enclosing a
copy of my speech orOt'The Menace of
Darwinism," which presents some of
the evidence upun'whichI base the
charge I say, some of the evidence,
because I would not have', room for
all. Parents tell me nearly every day
of sons and daughters whose faith
has been shattered by the teaching
of unsupported hypotheses as if they
were true.
You will see in tho speech that Pro
fessor Leuba gives etatistics to prove
that more than ha,!f the prominent
scientists in the United States do not
believe in a personal God or a per
sonal immorrali" and that unbelief
increases as; the - students go from
the freshman to the senior class
This- month's- issue of Science pub
lishes a speech delivered by Professor
Bate.on at Toronto last December
He is a distinguished scientist who
cam from. London to Toronto to talk
to the members of the American So
ciety for the Advancement of Science.
He discussed evolution and told how
all the efforts to find the origin of
ppeciea had thus far failed and that
while scientists still had faith in evo
lution they had doubts about the
origin of species.
Why should the children, be told
that they are descendents of apes and
monkeys when not one single in
stance of change of species has been
found?
But my purpose is simply to en
close the speech with the reasons) for
so doing'. It is not copyrighted and
has been, published: in full or in part
by many papers. I am anxious to get
the facta before the Christian people
of the country. As soon as the Chris
tian taxpayers know what is going
on they will prohibit the substitution
'ef Darwin for the Bible and leave
the atheists andt agnostics to build
their own schools for the teaching of
irreligion as Christians build schools
for the teaching of religion.
W. J. BRYAN.
Sir. Bryan's address, to which he
alludes in the foregoing letter, con
tains about 13.000 words, and is too
long to be here reproduced in full.
The following extracts, however, are
pre-sented:
When the mainspring is broken, a
watch ceases to 'be useful as a time
keeper. A handsome case may make
it still an ornament, and the parts
may have a market value, but it can
not serve the purpose of a watch.
There is that in each human life that
corresponds to the mainspring of a
watch that which is absolutely
necessary if the life is to be what
it should be, a real life and not a
mere existence. That necessary thing
is a belief in God. Religion is defined
as the relaMon between God and man,
and Tolstoy has described morality
as the outward expression of this in
ward relationship.
If it be true, as I believe it is. that
morality is dependent upon religion,
then religion is not only the most
practical thing in the world, but the
first essential. Without religion, viz.,
a sense of dependence upon God and
reverence for him, one can play a
part in both the physical and the in
tellectual world, but he cannot live
up to the possibilities which God
has placed within the reach of each
human being. A belief in God is fun
damental; upon it rest the influences
that control life.
First, the consciousness of God's
presence in the life gives one a
sense of responsibility to the creator
for every thought and word and deed.
Prayer Heats on Belief. I
Second, prayer rests upon a belief
in God; communion with the creator
in the expression of gratitude and in
pleas for guidance powerfully influ
ences man.
Third, belief in a personal immor
tality rests upon faith in God; the
Inward restraint that one finds in a
faith that looks forward to a future
life, with its rewards and punish
ments, makes outward restraint less
necessary. Man is weak enough in
hours of temptation, even when he is
fortified by the conviction- that this
life is but a small arc of an infinite
circle; his power of resistance is
greatly impaired If he accepts the
doctrine that conscious existence ter
minates with death.
Fourth, the spirit, of brotherhood
rests on a belief in God. We trace
our relationship- to our fellow men
through the creator, the common par
ent of us all.
Fifth, belief in the Bible depends
upon a belief in God. Jehovah comes
first; his word comes afterward.
There can be no inspiration without
a heavenly father to inspire.
Sixth, belief in God is also neces
sary to a belief in Christ; the son
could not have revealed the father
to man according to any atheistic
theory. And so with all other Chris
tian doctrines: they rest upon a be
lief in God. '
If belief in God is necessary to the
beliefs enumerated, then it follows
logically that anything that weakens
belief in God weakens man, and, to
the extent that it impairs belief in
God, reduces his power to measure
up to his opportunities and responsi
bilities. If there Is at work in the
world today anything that tends to
break this mainspring, it is the duty
of the moral, as well as the Christian,
world to combat this Influence in
every possible way.
I believe there is such a menace to
fundamental morality. The hypo
. thesis to which the name of Darwin
has been given the hypothesis that
' links man to the lower forms of life
and makes him a lineal descendent of
the brute is obscuring God and
weakening all the virtues that rest
upon the religious tie between God
and man. Passing over, for the pres
ent, all other phases of evolution and
considering only that part of the
system which robs man of the dignity
conferred upon him by separate crea
tion, when God breathed into him the
breath of life' and he became the
first man, I venture to call attention
to the demoralizing influence exerted
by this doctrine. t
If we accept the Bible as true we
have no difficulty In' determining the
origin of man. In the first chapter
of Genesis we read that God, after
creating all other things, said: -"Let
us make man in our image, after our
likeness; and let him have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and-over the cat
tle, and over all the earth, and over
every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth. So God created man
in his own Image; in the image of
God, created he him; male and female
created he them."
The materialist has always rejected
tne siDie account or creation, and.
during the last half century the Dar
winian doctrine has been the means
of shaking the faith of millions. It
is important that man should have a
correct understanding of his line of
descent. Huxley, calls it the "ques
tion of questions" for mankind. He
says: "The problem which under
lies all others, and is more interest
ing than any other is the ascertain
ment of the place which man occu
pies in nature and of his relation to
the universe of things. Whence our
race haB come, what are the limits
of our power over nature and of na
ture's power over us, to what goal
arei we tending, are the problems
which present themselves anew with.
& Co. edition, 1874), says: "Our most
ancient progenitors in the kingdom
of the Vertebrata, at which we are
able to obtain an obscure glance, ap
parently consisted of a group of ma
rine animals, resembling the larvae
of the existing Aacidiane.' Then he
suggests a line of descent leading to
the monkey. And he does not even
permit us to indulge in a patriotic
pride of ancestry. Instead of letting
us descend from American monkeys
I he connects us with the European
branch of the monkey Iamny.
After locating our gorilla and chim
panzee ancestors in Africa, he con
cludes that "it is useless to specu
late on the subject." If the useless
ness of speculation had occurred to
him at the beginning of his investi
gation he might have escaped re
sponsibility for shaking the faith of
two generations by "his1 guessing on
the whole subject of biology.
Science has rendered invaluable
service to society; her achievements
are innumerable and the hypotheses
should be considered' with an. open
mind. Their theories should be care
fully examined and their arguments
fairly weighed, but the scientist can
not compel acceptance of any argu
ment he advances except as, judged
upon its merits, it is convincing. It
is better to trust in the Rock of Ages
than to know the age of the recks; it
is better, for one to know he is close
to the heavenly Father than to know
how far the stars in the heavens are
apart. And is it not just as important
that the scientists who deal with
matter should respect the scientists
who deal "with spiritual things, , as
that the latter should respect the
former? If it te true, as Paul de
clares, that 'the things that are un
seen are temporal while "the things
that are unseen' are eternal,' why
should those who deal with temporal
things think themselves superior to
those who deal with the things' that
are eternal? Why should the Bible,
which the centuries have not been
able to shake, 'he discarded for scien
tific works that have to be revised
and corrected every few years?
If one accepts the Scriptural ac-
I count of the creation he can credit
God with the working of miracles and
with the doing of many things that
man cannot understand. .The evolu
tionist, however, having substituted
what he imagines to be a universal
law for separate acts of creation must
explain everything. The evolutionist,
not to go back further than life just
now, begins with one or a few invisi
ble germs of life on the planet and
imagines that these invisible germs
have, by the operation of what they
call resident forces," unaided from
without, developed info -all that we
see today. They cannot in a, lifetime
explain the things that have tf be ex
plained, if their hypothesis is ac
cepted a useless waste of the time
even if explanation were possible,
Address Is Discussed.
Ijast November I was passing
through Philadelphia and read in an
afternoon paper a report of an. ad
dress delivered in that city by a col
lege professor employed' in extension
work. Here is an extract from the
paper's account of the speech: "Evi
dence that early men climbed trees
with their feet lies in the way we
wear the heels of our shoes more at
the outside. A baby can wiggle its
big toe without wiggling its other
toes an indication that it once Used
its big toe in climbing trees.' What
a consolation is must be to mothers
to know that the baby is not to be
blamed for wiggling the big toe with
out wiggling the other toes. It can
not help it, poor little thing; it is an
inheritance from "the tree man," so
the evolutionists tell us.
And here is another extract: "We
often dream of falling. Those who
fell out of the trees some 50,000
years ago and were killed, of course,
had no descendants. So those who
fell and were not hurt, of course,
lived, and so we are never, hurt in
our dreams by falling."
Of course, if we were actually de
scended from the inhabitants of
trees, it would seem quite likely that
we descended from those that were
not killed in falling. But they must
have been badly frightened if the im
pression made upon their ' feeble
minds could have lasted for 50,000
years and still be vivid enough to
scare us.
If the Bible said anything so idiotic'
as these guessers put forth in the
name of science, , scientists would
have a great time in ridiculing the
sacred pages, but men who scoff at
the recorded interpretation of dreams
by Joseph and Daniel' seem to be
able to swallow the amusing inter
pretations offered by the Pennsyl
vania professor.
A few months ago the Sunday
School Times quoted a professor in
an Illinois university as saying that
the great day in history was the day
when a water puppy crawled up on
the land, and deciding to be1 a land
animal, became man's progenitor. If
these scientific speculators can agree
upon the day, they will probably in
sist on our abandoning Washington's
birthday, the Fourth of, July, and
even Christmas, in order to join with
the whole world in celebrating
Water Puppy day. '
Birds Also Discussed.
While "survival of the fittest may
seem plausible when applied to in
dividuals of the same species, it af
fords no explanation whatever of the
almost infinite number of creatures
that have come under man's observa
tion. To believe that natural selec
tlon, sexual selection or any -other
kind of selection can account for the
countless differences we see about us
requires more faith in chance than a
Christian is required to have in God.
Is it conceivable that the hawk
and the hummingbird, the spider and
the honey bee, the turkey gobbler
and the mockingbird, the butterfly
and the eagle, the ostrich, and the
wren, the tree toad and the elephant,
the giraffe and the kangaroo, the
wolf and the Iamb should all be the
descendants of a common ancestor?
Yet these and all other creatures
must be blood relatives if- man ia
next of kin to the monkey
If the evolutionists are correct; if
it is true that all that we see is the
result of development from one 6r a
few invisible germs of life, then
plants as well as in animals, there
must be a line of descent connecting
all the trees 'and vegetables and
flowers with a common ancestry.
Does it not strain the imagination
to the breaking point to believe that
the oak, the cedar, the pine and the
palm are all the progeny of one
ancient seed and that this seed was
also the ancestor of wheat and corn
potato and. tomato, onion and sugar
beet, rose and violet, orchid and daisy,
mountain flower and magnolia? Is
it not more rational to believe in
God and explain the varieties of life
in terms of divine power than to
waste our lives in ridiculous attempts
to explain the unexpla'nable? - There
is no mortification in admitting that
there are Insoluble mysteries;. but it
is shameful to spend the time that
God has given for nobler use in vain
attempts to exclude; God , from his
substitute for God's power and wis
dom and love.
, While evolution in plant life and In
animal life up to the highest form
of animal might, if there were proof
of it, be admitted without raising a
presumption that would compel us to
give a brute orig'n to man, why
should we admit a thing of which
tiere is no proof? Why should we
encourage the guesses of these spec
ulators and thus weaken our power
to protest when they attempt the
leap from the monkey to man?
If vou question the possibility of
such changes as the Darwinian doc
trine supposes, you are reminded
that the scientific speculators have
raised the time limit. "If ten million
years are not sufficient, take twenty,"
they say. "If fifty million years are
not enough, take one or two hundred
millions." That accuracy is not es
sential in such guessing may be in
ferred from the fact that, the esti
mates of the time that has elapsed
since life began on the earth vary
fpom less than twenty-five million
years to more than three hundred
million. Darwin estimated this pe
riod at two hundred million years
while Darwin's son estimated it at
fifty-seven million. , i
Millions -of Tears Reeded. v
It requires more than millions of
years to account for the varieties of
life that inhabit the earth; it requires
a creator having unlimited power,
unlimited intelligence, and unlimited
love.. '
It requires measureless credulity to
enable one to believe that all that we
see about us came uy chance, by a
series of happy-go-lucky accidents.
If only an infinite God could have
formed hydrogen and oxygen and
united them in just the right pro
portions to produce water the daily
need of every living thing scattered
among the flowers all the colors of
the rainbow and every variety of
perfume, adjusted the mockingbird's
throat to its musical scale, and fash-,
ioned a soul for man, why should we
want to imprison God in an impene
trable past? This is & living world.
Why not a living God upon the
throne? Why not allow him to work
now? -- - . . .
But a groundless hypothesis even
an absurd one would be unworthy
of notice if it did no harm. This
hypothesis, however, does incalcula
ble harm. It teaches that Christian
ity impairs the race physically.' That
was the first implication at which I
revolted. It led -me to review .the
doctrine and reject it entirely. If
hatred is the law of man's develop
ment; that is, if man has reached his
present perfection by a cruel law
under which the strong kill off the
weak then, If there is any logic that
can bind the human mind, we must
turn backward towards the brute if
we dare to substitute the law of love
for the law of hate. That is the con
clusion that I reached and it is the
conclusion that Darwin himself
reached. On pages 149-50 he says:
"With savages the weak , in body or
mind are soon eliminated; and those
that survive commonly exhibit a vig
orous state of health. We civilized
men, on the other hand, do our utmost
to check the progress of elimjnation.
We build asylums for the imbecile,
the maimed and the sick; we institute
poor laws, our medical experts exert
their utmost skill to save the lives
of everyone to the last moment.
There is reason to believe that vac
cination has preserved thousands who
from weak constitutions would have
succumbed to smallpox. Thus the
weak members of civilized societies
propagate their kind. No one who
has attended the breding of do
mestic animals will doubt that this
must be highly injurious to the race
of man.
This confession deserves analysis
First, he commends, by implication,
the savage method of eliminating the
weak, while by implication he con
demns "civilized men" for prolonging
the life of the weak. He even blames
vaccination because it has preserved
thousands who might otherwise have
succumbed (for .the benefit of the
race?). Can you Imagine anything
more brutal? And then note the low
level of the argument. "No one who
has attended the breeding of domes
tic animals will doubt that this must
be highly injurious to the. race of
man." All on a brute basis.
His hypothesis break down here.
The minds which, according to Dar
win, are developed by natural selec
tion and sexual selection, use their
power to suspend the law by which
they have reached their high posi
tions. Medicine is one of the great
est of the sciences ami its chief ob
ject is to save life and strengthen the
weak. . That, Darwin complains, in
terferes with "the survival of the
fittest." If he complains of vaccina
tion, what would he say of the more
recent discovery of remedies for ty
phoid fever, yellow fever and the
black plague? And what would he
think of saving weak babies by pas
teurizing milk and' of the efforts to
find a specific for tuberculosis and
cancer? Can sueha barbarous doc
trine be sound?
own universe and to find. in. chance a and in personal immortality.
Divine Aspect Considered.
Those who accept Darwin's views
are in the habit of saying that it need
not lessen their reverence for God to
believe that the creator fashioned a
germ of life and endowed it with
power to develop Into what we see
today. It is true that a God who
could make man as he is could have
made him by the long-drawn-out
process suggested by Darwin. To do
either would require infinite power,
beyond the ability of man. to compre
hend. But what is the natural ten
dency of Darwin's doctrine?
Will man's attitude toward ' Dar
win's God be the same as it would be
toward the God of Moses? Will the
believer in Darwin's God be as con
scious of God's presence in his daily
life? Will he be as sensitive to God's
will and as anxious to find out what
God wants , him to do?
Will the believer in Darwin's God
be as fervent in prayer, and as. open
to the reception of divine sugges
tions? '
No wonder so large a percentage of
the boys ad girls who go from Sun
day schools and churches to colleges
(sometimes as high as 75 per cent)
nevsr return to religious wtirk. How
can one feel God's presence In his
daily life if Darwin's reasoning is
sound? This . restraining influence,
more potent than any external force,
is paralyzed when God is put so far
away. How can one believe in prayer
if, for millions of years, God has
never touched a human life or laid
his hand upon the destiny of the hu
man race? What mockery to peti
tion or implore, if God neither hears
nor answers . Elijah taunted the
prophets of Baal when their god failed
to answer with fire. "Cry aloud," he
said, "peradventure he sleepeth.'! Dar
win mocks the Christians even more
cruelly; he tells us that our God has
been asleep for millions of years. He
does not take time to affirm that
Jehovah was ever awake.. Nowhere
does he collect for the reader the
evidences of a creative power and
call upon man to worship and obey
God. The great scientist is, if I may
borrow a phrase, "too much absorbed
in the things infinitely small to con
sider the things infinitely great."
James H. Leuba, a professor of psy
chology in Bryn Mawr college, Penn
sylvania; wrote a book five years ago,
entitled "Belief In God and Immortal,
ity." It was published by Sherman
French & Co. of Boston and repub
lished by the Open Court Publishing
eompany of Chicago. Every Christian
preacher should procure a copy of this
book, and it should be ih the hands of
every Christian layman who is anx
ious to aid in the defense of thi
Bible against its enemies. Leuba has
discarded belief In a personal God
He as
serts that belief in a personal God
and personal immortality is declining
in the United States, and he Airnishes
proof which, as long as it is unchal
lenged, seems conclusive. He takes
a book containing the names of 55,000
scientists the names of practically
all American scientists or prominence,
he affirms and sends them questions.
Upon the answers received he as
serts that more" than one-half of the
prominent scientists of the United
States, those teaching biology, psy
chology, geology and history espe
cially, have discarded belief In a per
sonal God and in personal immor
tality. This is what the doctrine of
evolution is doing for those who teach
our children. They first discard the
Mosaic account of man's creation, and
they do it on the ground that there
are no miracles. Thts in itself con
stitutes a practical repudiation of the
Bible; the miracles of the Old and
New Testaments cannot be cut out
without a mutilation that is equiva
lent to rejection. They reject the
supernatural along with the miracle,
and with the supernatural the in
spiration of the Bible and the
authority that rests upon inspiration.
It these believers ' in evolution are
consistent and have 'the courage to
carry their doctrine to its : logical
conclusion, they reject the virgin
birth of Christ and the resurrection.
They may still regard Christ as an
unusual man, but they will not make
much headway in converting people
to Christianity if they declare Jesus
to be nothing more than a man and
either a deliberate impostor or a de
luded enthusiast.
Fnlth Held Undermined.
To show how these evolutionists
undermine the faith of students, let
me give you an Illustration tBat re
cently came to my attention: A stu
dent in one of the largest state uni
versities of the nation recently gave
me a printed speech delivered by the
president of the university, a year
ago this month, to 3500 students and
printed and circulated by the Student
Christian association of the institu
tion. The student who' gave me the
speech marked the following para
graph: "And again religion must not
be thought of as something that is
inconsistent with reasonable, scientl
fic thinking in .regard to the nature
of the universe. I go so far as to say
that, if you cannot reconcile religion
with the things taught in biology,
in this university, then you should
throw your religion away. Scientific
truth is here to stay." What about
the Bible? Is it not here to stay?
1 he had stopped with the first sen
tence, his language mig-ht not have
been construed to the injury of re
ligion, because religion is not "incon
sistent with reasonable, scientific
thinking in regard to the nature of
the universe." There is nothing un
reasonable about Christianity, and
there is nothing unscientific about
Christianity. No scientific fact, no
fact of any other kind, can disturb
religion, because facts are not in con
flict with each other. It is guessing by
scientists and so-called scientists that
is doing the harm. And it is guess
ing that is endorsed by this distin
guished college president (a D.D too.
as well as an LL. D.) when he says:
I go so far as to say. that, if you
cannot reconcile religion with the
things taught in biology, in psychol
ogy, or in other fields of study in
this university, then you should throw
jour relig'on away." , What does this
mean, except that the books on biol
ogy and on other scientific subjects
used in that university are to be pre
ferred to the Bible in case of con
flict? Is any other proof needed to show
the irreligious influence exerted by
Darwinism applied to man? At the
University of Wisconsin (so a Meth
odist preacher told me) a teacher told
his class that the Bible was a collec
tion of myths. When I brought the
matter to the attention of the presi
dent of the university he criticised
me, but avoided all reference to the
professor. At Ann Arbor a professor
argued with students against reli
gion and asserted that no thinking
man could believe in God or the Bible,
At "Columbia (I got this from a Bap
tist preacher) a professor began his
course in geology by telling his class
to throw away all that they had
learned In the Sunday school. There
is a professor in Yale of whom it is
said that no one leaves his class
believer in God. (This came from a
young man who told me that his
brother was being led away from the
Christian faith by this professor.) A
father (a congressman! tells me that
a daughter on her return from Wel
lesley told him that nobody believed
in the Bible stories now. Another
father (a congressman) tells me, of
son whose faith wag undermined
by this doctrine in a divinity school.
Three preachers told me of having
their interest in the subject aroused
by the return of their children from
college with their faith shaken. The
Northern Baptists have recently, after
a spirited contest, secured the adop
tion of a confession of faith; it was
opposed by the evolutionists.
What is to be done? Are the mem
bers of the various Christian churches
willing to have the power of the pulpit
paralyzed by a false, absurd and ridic
ulous doctrine which is without sup
port in the written word of God and
without support also irt nature? Is
thus saith the Lord to be supplanted
by guesses and speculations and as
sumptions? I submit three propos'-
tions for the consideration of the
Christians of the nation.
First The preachers who are to
break the bread of life to the lay
members should believe that man has
in him the breath of the Almighty,
as the Bible declares, and not the
blood of brutes, as the evolutionists
affirm. He should also believe in the
virgin birth of the Saviour.
Second None but Christians in
good etanding and with a epiritual
conception of life should be allowed
to teach in Christian schools. Church
schools are worse than useless If they
bring students under the influence of
those who do not believe in the reli
gion upon which the church and
church schools are built. Atheism and
agnosticism are more dangerous when
hidden under the cloak of religion
than when they are exposed to view.
Third In schools supported by tax
ation we should have a real neutral
ity wherever neutrality in religion Is
desired. If the Bible cannot be de
fended in these schools it should not
be attacked, either directly or under
the guise of philosophy or science.
The neutrality which we now have is
often but a sham; it carefully ex
eludes the Christian religion, but per
mits the use at the schoolrooms for
the destruction of faith and for the
teaching of materialistic doctrines.
Avoid DarTrinigm, Advice.
It is not sufficient to say that some
believers in Darwinism retain their
belief in Christianity. Some survive
smallpox. As we avoid smallpox be
cause many die of it, so we should
avoid Darwinism because it leads
many astray.
If it is contended that an instruc
tor has a right to teach anything he
likes, I reply that the parents who
pay the salary have a right to de
cide what shall be taught. To con
tinue the illustration used above, a
person can expose himself to small
pox if he decides to do so, but he
has no right to communicate it to
others. So a man can believe any
thing he pleases, but he has no right
to teach it against the protest of his
employers. .
Acceptance of Darwin's doctrine
tends to destroy one's belief in im
mortality asi taught by the Bible. If
there has been no break in the line
between man and the beajsts no time
when by the act of the heavenly
father man became "a living soul,"
at what period In man's development
was ljk endowed with, the hope of a
u 1
WARNING! Always say "Bayer when you buy Aspirin.
Unless you see the name "Bayer" on tablets, you are not getting
genuine Aspirin prescribed by physicians over 21 years and proved
safe by millions for ;
Golds .
Toothache
Headache
Neuritis
Neuralgia
Lumbago
Rheumatism
Pain, Pain
Accept only "Bayer" package which contains proper directions.
-, Handy "Bayer" boxes of 12 tablets cost only few cents. Druggists also sell bottles of 24 and 100.
Aspirin la the trade mark of Bayer Manufacture of MocoacoUeaclCleater of Sillcylicacid
future life? And, if the brute theory
leads to the abandonment of belief
in a future life with its rewards and
punishments, what stimulus to right
eous living is offered in its place?
Darwinism leads to a denial of God.
Nietzsche carried Darwinism to its
logical conclusion and it made him
the most extreme of anti-Christians.
Many Instances could be cited to
show how the theory that man de
scended from the brute has, when de
liberately adopted, driven .reverence
from, the heart and made young Chris
tians aenostics and sometimes athe
ists, depriving them of the joy and
society of the service that come from
altruistic effort inspired by religion.
As many believers in Darwinism are
led to reject the Bible, let me, by way
of recapitulation, contrast that doc
trine with the Bible:
Darwinism deals with nothing but
life; the Bible deals with the entire
universe with its masses of inani
mate matter and with its myriads of
living things, all obedient to the will
of the great law giver.
Darwin concerns himself with only
that part of man's existence which is
snent on earth while the Bible's
teachings cover all of lite, Dotn nere
and hereafter.
Darwin begins by assuming life
upon the earth; the Bible reveals
the source of life and chronicles its
creation. .
Darwin devotes nearly. all his time
to man's body and to the points at
which the human 1 frame approaches
in structure though vastly different
from the brute; the Bible empha
sizes man's god-lilce qualities and the
virtues which reflect the goodness of
the heavenly father.
Darwinism ends in self-destruction.
As heretofore shown, its progress is
suspended and even defeated, by the
very genius which it is supposed to
develop; the Bible invites us! to en
ter fields of inexhaustible opportu
nity wherein each achievement can
be made a stepping-stone to greater
achievements still. "
Darwin's doctrine is so brutal that
it shocks the moral sense the heart
recoils from it and refuses to apply
the "hard reason" upon which it rests;
the Bible points us to the path that
grows brighter with the years.
Darwin's dostrine leads. logically To
war and to the worship of Nietzsche's
"superman"; the Bible tells us of the
Prince of Peace and heralds the com
ing of the glad day when ewords
shall be beaten into plowshares and
when- nations shall learn war no
more.
Darwin's teachings drag industry
down to the brute level and excite a
savage struggle for selfish advan
tage; the Bible presents the-claims of
an universal brotherhood in which
men will unite their efforts in the
spirit of friendship.
As hope deferreM maketh the heart
sick, so the doctrine of, Darwin be
numbs altruistic effort by prolong
ing indefinitely the time needed for
reforma; the Bible assures us of the
triumph of every righteous cause, re
veals to the eye of faith the invisible
hosts that fight on the side of Jehovah
and proclaims the swift fulfillment of
God's decrees.'
Darwinism puts God .far away; the
Bible brings God near and establishes
the prayer line of communication be
tween the Heavenly Father and his
.children; t
Darwinism enthrones selfishness;
the Bible crowns love as the greatest
force in the world.
Darwinism offers no reason for ex
istence and presents no philosophy of
life; the Bible explains wrhy man is
here and gives us a code of morals
that fits Into evefy human need.
The great need of the world today is
to get back to God back to a real be
lief in a living Godv-to a belief in
God as creator, preserver and loving
heavenly father. When one believes
in a personal God and considers him
self a part of God's plan he will be
anxious to know God's will and to do
it, seeking direction through prayer
and made obedient through faith.
the Southern Pacific railroad. Lower
prices on other articles include a cut
cf nearly 40 per cent on paper articles.
one of 35 per cent on computing ma
chines and one of 20 per cent on
paraffine wrx. The new tariffs are
effective as Boon as permdssion i'
granted by the interstate commerce
commission.
David Duil ley Hine Dead.
LOS ANGELES. Dudley Baldwin
Hine, American railroad engineer in
Guayaquil, Ecuador, who died Janu
ary 18 at the age of 53, had been em
ployed by the Guayaauil & Quito rail
road of Ecuador for the last IS years.
His family live her
' Freight Rates Reduced.
SAN FRANCISCO. Reduction of
freight r'ates on oil well supplies av
erag-ing IS per cent is announced by
j?-5ue.l- Tae no Chances!
Clean Chjld's Bowels
of Poisons Tonight!
Give "California Fig Syrup"
Harmless Laxative for Your Child's Liver and Bowels
Hurry mother! A teaspobnful of "California
Fig Syrup" today may prevent a sick child to
morrow'. If your child is constipated, bilious,
feverishj fretful, has cold, colic or if stomach is
sour, tongue coated, remember a good "physic-
laxative" is often all that is necessary.
Children love the "fruity" taste of genuine
"California Fig Syrup" which has directions
for babies and children printed on bottle. Say
"California" or you may get an imitation..
For Constipated Bowels, Sick Headache, Upset Stomach,
Colds, Bilious Liver
The nicest cathartic-laxative in the world
for grown-ups or ' children is candy-like
"Cascarets." One or two tonight will clean
3'our bowels right. By morning all the con
stipation poison, and sour bile will move out
thoroughly! "They work while you sleep."
Cascarets will not sicken you like salts, oil,
calomel or harsh pills. They physic fully, but
never gripe or inconvenience. Ten, twenty
five, fifty-cent boxes at any drug store.
1 :'"' ' . ' - r ' ' -