Darwin is so sure that his theory is correct that he is ready to accuse the Creator of trying to deceive man if the theory is not sound.  On page 41 he says:  “To take any other view is to admit that our structure and that of all animals about us, is a mere snare to entrap our judgment;” as if the Almighty were in duty bound to make each species so separate from every other that no one could possibly be confused by resemblances.  There would seem to be differences enough.  To put man in a class with the chimpanzee because of any resemblances that may be found is so unreasonable that the masses have never accepted it.

If we see houses of different size, from one room to one hundred, we do not say that the large houses grew out of small ones, but that the architect that could plan one could plan all.

But a groundless hypothesis—­even an absurd one—­would be unworthy of notice if it did no harm.  This hypothesis, however, does incalculable harm.  It teaches that Christianity 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 development; 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 toward the brute if we dare to substitute the law of love for the law of hate.  That is the conclusion 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 vigorous state of health.  We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the progress of elimination.  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 every one to the last moment.  There is reason to believe that vaccination 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 to the breeding of domestic 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 condemns “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 domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.”  All on a brute basis.