If we could divide the human race into two distinct groups we might allow evolutionists to worship brutes as ancestors but they insist on connecting all mankind with the jungle.  We have a right to protect our family tree.

Having given Darwin’s conclusions as to man’s ancestry, I shall quote him to prove that his hypothesis is not only groundless, but absurd and harmful to society.  It is groundless because there is not a single fact in the universe that can be cited to prove that man is descended from the lower animals.  Darwin does not use facts; he uses conclusions drawn from similarities.  He builds upon presumptions, probabilities and inferences, and asks the acceptance of his hypothesis “notwithstanding the fact that connecting links have not hitherto been discovered” (page 162).  He advances an hypothesis which, if true, would find support on every foot of the earth’s surface, but which, as a matter of fact, finds support nowhere.  There are myriads of living creatures about us, from insects too small to be seen with the naked eye to the largest mammals, and, yet, not one is in transition from one species to another; every one is perfect.  It is strange that slight similarities could make him ignore gigantic differences.  The remains of nearly one hundred species of vertebrate life have been found in the rocks, of which more than one-half are found living to-day, and none of the survivors show material change.  The word hypothesis is a synonym used by scientists for the word guess; it is more dignified in sound and more imposing to the sight, but it has the same meaning as the old-fashioned, every-day word, guess.  If Darwin had described his doctrine as a guess instead of calling it an hypothesis, it would not have lived a year.[1]

[Footnote 1:  Dr. Etheridge, Fossiologist of the British Museum, says:  “Nine-tenths of the talk of Evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts.  This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.”

Prof.  Beale, of King’s College, London, says:  “In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man’s origin, there is not at this time a shadow of scientific evidence.”

Prof.  Fleischmann, of Erlangen, says:  “The Darwinian theory has in the realms of Nature not a single fact to confirm it.  It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.”

The January issue of “Science,” 1922, contains a speech delivered at Toronto last December by Prof.  William Bateson of London before the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  He says that science has faith in evolution but doubts as to the origin of species.]

Probably nothing impresses Darwin more than the fact that at an early stage the foetus of a child cannot be distinguished from the foetus of an ape, but why should such a similarity in the beginning impress him more than the difference at birth and the immeasurable gulf between the two at forty?  If science cannot detect a difference, known to exist, between the foetus of an ape and the foetus of a child, it should not ask us to substitute the inferences, the presumptions and the probabilities of science for the word of God.