The materialists deny the existence of God and seek to explain man’s presence upon the earth without a creative act.  They go back from man to the animals, and from one form of life to another until they come to the first germ of life; there they divide into two schools, some believing that the first germ of life came from another planet, others holding that it was the result of spontaneous generation.  One school answers the arguments advanced by the other and, as they cannot agree with each other, I am not compelled to agree with either.

If it were necessary to accept one of these theories I would prefer the first; for, if we can chase the germ of life off of this planet and out into space, we can guess the rest of the way and no one can contradict us.  But, if we accept the doctrine of spontaneous generation we will have to spend our time explaining why spontaneous generation ceased to act after the first germ of life was created.  It is not necessary to pay much attention to any theory that boldly eliminates God; it does not deceive many.  The mind revolts at the idea of spontaneous generation; in all the researches of the ages no scientist has found a single instance of life that was not begotten by life.  The materialist has nothing but imagination to build upon; he cannot hope for company or encouragement.

But the Darwinian doctrine is more dangerous because more deceptive.  It permits one to believe in a God, but puts the creative act so far away that reverence for the Creator—­even belief in Him—­is likely to be lost.

Before commenting on the Darwinian hypothesis let me refer you to the language of its author as it applies to man.  On page 180 of “Descent of Man” (Hurst & Company, Edition 1874), Darwin says:  “Our most ancient progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata, at which we are able to obtain an obscure glance, apparently consisted of a group of marine animals, resembling the larvae of the existing Ascidians.”  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, he connects us with the European branch of the monkey family.

It will be noted, first, that he begins the summary with the word “apparently,” which the Standard Dictionary defines:  “as judged by appearances, without passing upon its reality.”  His second sentence (following the sentence quoted) turns upon the word “probably,” which is defined:  “as far as the evidence shows, presumably, likely.”  His works are full of words indicating uncertainty.  The phrase “we may; well suppose,” occurs over eight hundred times in his two principal works.  (See Herald & Presbyter, November 22, 1914.) The eminent scientist is guessing.

After locating our gorilla and chimpanzee ancestors in Africa, he concludes that “it is useless to speculate on this subject.”  If the uselessness of speculation had occurred to him at the beginning of his investigation he might have escaped responsibility for shaking the faith of two generations by his guessing on the whole subject of biology.