EVOLUTION is not development, as the chicken from the egg, as the oak from the acorn, as the stalk from the grain of corn, as the frog from the tadpole.

Evolution is not the improvement of the species, development within the species. Everybody believes in that; that is the reason we educate our children; that is the reason we line-breed our hogs and our poultry. The man who calls these things Evolution is either a hypocrite or an ignoramus.

Evolution means that all species, from the first living cell up to man, evolved by very slight changes, through many generations for millions of years, from lower species to higher, up to man.

The man who will stand before the common people and say that he believes that God created the first man in His own image from the dust of the ground, knowing the meaning that those words have in the minds of the people, and yet mean to himself that God created him through vast millions of years by evolving him through many species from the first living cell, is as base a hypocrite as Judas Iscariot, or as ever graced a deacon's corner. Judas for his thirty pieces of silver; this man for his salary paid by the hood-winked people.

But let the Evolutionists themselves tell us what Evolution is:

"All the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form into which life was first breathed." -- "Origin of Species" First Edition Ch. 14, p 484.

In other words, "the higher out of the lower animals, and man out of brutes;" that "all the forms of animal and vegetable life, including man himself, with all his special and distinctive faculties, have been slowly, but successively and gradually developed from the earliest and simplest organisms;" that "not alone the exquisite and wonderful mechanism of the human body, but the human mind itself; emotions, intellect, will, and all their phenomena * * * * * all our philosophy, all our poetry, all our science, and all our art -- Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, Raphael," (Prof. Tyndall) were wrapt up in that first living cell, smaller than the point of a fine needle.

But Mr. Darwin changed this: "I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors and plants from an equal or lesser number." -- "Origin of Species" p 452.

Again: "All species of animals and plants (including man) existing today have been derived from others living in the past, by direct descent, and they will themselves give rise in the future to other still different species. The essential idea which underlies the whole theory is that species have had a natural rather than a supernatural origin." -- Prof. H. W. Conn, in "Evolution of Today."

Again: "Evolution means that, whatever the ultimate origin of life, the plants and flowers and grasses and trees which clothe the earth, were not made at once, as we behold them now, but began in the simplest and fewest germs; and by gradual changes under varying conditions, attained the variety, luxuriance and beauty which wreathes the brow of the planet. It means that the members of the animal kingdom in all its departments, were not, each kind, called into being in a moment, and in fixed and definite and unvarying and unchanging species, but that the whole (animal) kingdom began countless ages ago in a shapeless mass of jelly, and has developed from one form to another up to man." -- Marion D. Shutler, in "Applied Evolution."

"At first there existed on earth only a few forms of simple life similar to the amoeba, and from these acted on by the rapid changes of climate, soil, water and food, have arisen all the varied forms of animal life." -- Davison's "Practical Zoology," p. 354.

Hence, "Evolution means that a single protoplasmic cell, by a process of multiplying forms through an almost infinite number of species, extending through an almost infinite number of ages, produced, with no supernatural interpositions, all the forms of life that have existed on earth."

Where did this teaching come from? Here are the facts (See "Evolution or Creation," by Townsend, pp. 72-75) :

"This view of the evolution of things is, however, far from being a recent speculation. The old Egyptian myth that all things sprang from a mundane egg, and the teachings of the early Greek philosophers that matter originally sprang from water or from a fluid state, and that plants, animals, and worlds came from atoms which are infinitely numerous and eternal, are at least foregleams of all that has been claimed for Evolution in these later years.

"Professor Tyndall frankly acknowledged that he finds the atomic philosophy and the survival of the fittest in Democritus. Aristotle likewise was an experimenter in these same fields. Lucretius was a clearly pronounced Evolutionist. The Arabian scientists most emphatically taught the evolution of the universe from atoms and germs. Dismissing from the universe a personal Creator, Epicurus placed back of his scheme of Evolution what may be called spontaneous chance. Evolution as a method was almost as explicitly set forth by St. Augustine as by Charles Darwin. Giordano Bruno, in 1580, read papers before the most cultivated people of his times on Evolution and spontaneous generation. About the same time Francisco Saurez adopted and greatly extended the evolution views of Augustine, and made such application of them as to deprive modern thinkers of their claim to originality. In 1640 Professor Pierre Gassendi, though not rejecting the superintendence of an infinite intelligence, defended the doctrine of development from atoms. In 1748 De Maillet advanced the theory that plants and animals are spontaneously modified forms of nature. Comte De Buffon, about 1780, announced the theory of transmutation of species. Lord Monboddo, in 1778, suggested the possible origin of man from the ape. Jean Baptiste Lamarck, a distinguished French naturalist, proposed, in 1809, the hypothesis of the elevation of an animal 'to a higher range of faculties and appropriate organs by the prolonged and repeated efforts made by it to obtain to conditions and advantages just within or at first just beyond its reach.' Erasmus Darwin, as early as 1795, published views that contain the fundamental principles of the most pronounced Darwinism of the present time.  Dr. W. C. Wells, in 1813, used the term 'Natural selection' and applied it to the development of man. Professor William Herbert, in 1822, published the theory of the 'transmutation of species in plants,' and about the same time Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire announced the hypothesis of 'transmutation in the animal kingdom.'   Hugo von Mohl and Max Schultze, in 1850 or a trifle later, spoke of a protoplasmic material or substance from which all things originate. Herbert Spencer, nearly fifty years ago, connected the theory of development with both cosmology and biology.   Dr. Alfred R. Wallace and Charles Darwin, in 1858, separately announced the hypothesis of the 'origin of the species by spontaneous variation, and the survival of the fittest through natural selection and the struggle for existence.'"

"Such is the history of Evolution down to the time of its announcement by Dr. Wallace and Mr. Darwin. So far from being something new, it would better be regarded a revival and enlargement of views, entertained by philosophers and church fathers, skeptics and scientists, during the last twenty centuries."

How did the first protoplasmic cell, the first living thing above the non-living, come into existence? They have had four theories:

First, "spontaneous generation," that when there was no life on the earth chemical combinations were formed that produced the first life, the first living thing. Hear a Professor of Chicago University, that slaughter-house of faith, where they do as the old negro preacher said he was going to do, "Bredderin and sisterin, tonight I'se gwine to dispense wid the gospil and confound de scriptures" -- is reported from his lecture room to have said, "The Divine creation of life is a pure humbug. Life originally happened. Life is made up of certain organic compounds; certain organic compounds were made by nature. The compounds came together in some manner and the result was life."

But listen to the scientists:

"I affirm that no shred of trustworthy experimental evidence exists to prove that life in our day has ever appeared independent of antecedent life." -- Prof. Tyndall, in "The Nineteenth Century."

"Dead matter cannot become living without coming under the influence of matter previously alive. This seems to me as sure a teaching of science as the law of gravitation." -- Sir Wm. Thomson.

Prof. Huxley brought out the theory that the constant lashing of the ocean against its bed in some way pounded dead matter into life. But he confessed his mistake in the article on "Biology" in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Ninth London Edition, he says, "At the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy evidence that abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which life on the globe is recorded. ...Of the causes that have led to the origination of living matter, then, it may be said we know absolutely nothing."

Louis Pasteur, the great Catholic scientist of France, by thorough exhaustive experiments, forever crushed the teaching of spontaneous generation. In his lecture in Paris where he gave the results of his experiments before the most atheistic body of scientists in the world, with all the great scientists of that country present, he said: "There is no circumstance known at the present day which justifies the assertion that microscopic organism came into the world without germs, or without parents like themselves. Those who maintain the contrary have been the dupes of illusions and of ill-conducted experiments tainted with errors which they know not how to avoid." Then the permanent secretary of the French Academy of Science, Mr. Flourens, a scientist of note, pronounced these words before the whole Academy: "As long as my opinion was not formed I had nothing to say. Now it is, and I can speak. The experiments are decisive. If spontaneous generation be a fact, what is necessary for the production of germs? Air and fermentable liquids. Now Pasteur puts together air and fermentable liquids and nothing is produced. Spontaneous generation has no existence. Those who still doubt have failed to grasp the question." -- Life of Pasteur, p. 109.

Second, that the first living germ came to our earth from some other planet, possibly on a meteorite. Isn't that science! An old negro in the South, preaching on the Creation of man, said, "My brudderin, when God made de fust man, he made him out o' mud and leant him up agin de fence ter dry!" An old negro in the audience said, "Who made dat fence, brudder?" The nonplussed preached scratched his head a moment and said, "Dem kind o' questions will spile all de theology in dis worl'!" One question, if the first protoplasmic cell, the first living thing on this earth, came here from some other planet, on a meteorite or otherwise, how did the first one get to that other planet? How did the first of all the living cells of the universe come into existence? You cannot get rid of God!

The third theory is that God brought that first living cell, the first living thing above the non-living, into existence and endowed it with all the capabilities of evolving through millions of generations, through millions of ages, from lower species to higher up to and including man.

The fourth theory is that God created the first tiny living cell, and has, down through the millions of years, actively directed its evolution from generation to generation through millions of generations up through all the species up to and including man.

It is claimed that these last two theories make God as great and as wise and as all-powerful as the Bible account of creation. Granted: but that Bible account says ten times that everything brought forth "after his kind" and Evolution says these are ten lies, that everything did not bring forth "after his kind." The Bible account says that God created man in His own image; Evolution says that that is another lie; that the first man was midway between the anthropoid ape and modern man. The Bible account says that the first man spoke a plain language. Evolution says that that is another lie, that the first man did not have a plain language, but only exclamations of pain and pleasure, as animals in trees. Now the Saviour endorsed Genesis as the word of God. Any schoolboy knows that Deity would not endorse these twelve lies as the word of God. If, then, Evolution is true, and the High School books and teachers say that it is true, then the Saviour was not real Deity; then we have no real Redeemer, and only hell is left as the eternal home of all responsible human beings. That is the issue.

Prof. Tyndall before an audience said: "If to any one of us were given the privilege of looking back through the aeons across which life has crept towards its present outcome, his vision would ultimately reach a point where the progenitors of this assembly could not be called human. From that humble society through the interaction of its members and the storing up of their best qualities, a better one emerged; from this again a better still; until at length by the integration of infinitesimals through ages of amelioration, we come to be what we are today." Every Evolutionist believes that; and no honest man can believe that and believe the Bible to be the word of God.

Hence, Prof. Huxley said, "Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible."

E. G. Conklin, Professor of Biology in Princeton University, in "The Direction of Human Evolution," p. 176: "From primitive protoplasm has developed all the multitudes of living things which inhabit the globe, including man, the paragon of animals, the climax of Evolution."

E. G. Conklin again, p. 176: "From the primitive faith of the child or the savage has developed the highest type of religion and ethics that the world has ever known. . . . The mystery of mysteries is how the egg cell or the original protoplasm or savage society, or primitive religion came to contain all the marvellous potencies of development which they possess."

It is no wonder that Wm. Jennings Bryan questions: "Is it conceivable that the hawk and the humming bird, the spider and the honey bee, the turkey gobbler and the mocking bird, 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 lamb should all be the descendants of a common ancestor?"

Some of Napoleon's officers were airing their skeptical views and Napoleon said, "It seems to me that you make amends for not believing the Bible by believing everything else."

Mr. Bryan, in exposing the dangerous teachings in the University of Wisconsin, charging that Pres. E. A. Birge was fostering the teaching of Atheism and ridiculing the belief in God and the divinity of Jesus Christ, said, "I think the mothers and fathers and the grandmothers and grandfathers who believe in God and believe that Jesus Christ was more than an unusual man and a child of disgrace, ought to know what the President of the University is teaching and fostering."

According to the Associated Press, President Birge's reply was, "Bryan is crazy; he is seeking notoriety and I refuse to engage in a newspaper argument with him (wise, discreet man! -- T. T. M.). No one pays any attention to what Bryan says, anyhow," He'll see!

When Bryan speaks on Evolution why do "the demi-gods of the scientific Olympus forsake their philosophic calm for the irritating gusto of irascible acerbity?" Why? "There's a reason."

E. G. Conklin says, p. 4: "There is no longer any doubt among scientists that man descended from animal ancestors." We shall see about that in Chapter V.

The issue is plain; as sure as Evolution is taught in our schools, many will believe it. As sure as they do, they, if consistent, cannot believe the Bible and will go to hell. Your half-baked, pseudo-scientists will sneer at this, but they will never answer it.