O-SD-3-Unintelligent Evolution vs.God and the Bible

Unintelligent Evolution vs.
God and the Bible (Friday evening, Aug. 16, 1929)

Proposition:

"All Things Exist as the Result of Evolution, Directed by No Intelli­gence."

Affirmative: Charles Smith.

Negative: W. L. Oliphant.

Chairman—F. L. Paisley.

Smith’s First Affirmative (Duration 50 minutes) Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Honored Opponent:

I wish my opponent were in the lead. Since he is not, I ask him to let us know as soon as he has taken the floor, whether or not he is a Funda­mentalist—whether or not he believed this earth and all that is in it, all the planets and stars were made some six thousand years ago, or whether he, too, has a little of that modernism that twists "days" to mean "periods." I ask also, if he has any questions that I have not sufficiently replied to, that he restate them; because I have only one more speech.

I am to present to you the case for Evolution, which, if established, proves that the Bible is not true. But I shall show you by the Bible itself that you cannot accept that book as the inspired word of God.

HISTORY OF EVOLUTION

I have not the time to give you the history of Evolution. It is sufficient to say it is an old doc­trine. The Greeks knew of it when the Jews were ignorant barbarians in Asia Minor. In 1859 Charles Darwin established the truth of evolution by his "Origin of Species."

GEOLOGY The star witness among the sciences for evolu­tion is geology. Nature’s museum, the earth’s sur­face, contains incontrovertible evidence of the truth of evolution. In the stratified rocks one finds the remains of animals and plants which lived in the period when these rocks were formed. In the lower layers, there are no fossil remains. In the succes­sive higher layers appear, first, the remains of the lower forms of life—early shell fish, snails, and coral, then fish, and on, in graduation, up to and including primitive man. The close relation be­tween the fossil remains of successive layers cannot be accounted for except by direct descent. Will my opponent explain why the fossil re­mains are found in that order? I give you Dr. Gladman’s explanation. He is a Fundamentalist; and if the the Rev. Oliphant has a better theory, let him give it to us.

"When God made Adam and Eve and the animals," says Dr. Gladman, "He made many models before he got just what he wanted, and these rejected models or skeletons were found lying around Eden. When the flood came they were scat­tered all over the world and became mixed with the uni­versal mud, which hardened into rock, with the bones en­closed."

Coal is the fossil remains of dense forests. Who denies it, when the impressions of leaves and ferns are plainly visible? Who believes that coal veins a mile underground have formed within six thousand years? A lump of coal contains enough factual dynamite to blow the Bible to pieces. Chalk beds, some a mile thick, are the skeletons of small forms of life laid down on the bottom of the sea at the yearly rate of the thickness of a sheet of tis­sue paper, or one inch in a thousand years. The Mississippi River has a delta where the mud has settled hundreds of feet thick in places. A hundred centuries was required for the forma­tion. The Mississippi River once emptied into the gulf where Cairo, Illinois, now stands.

Niagara Falls has worn away twenty miles of rock. At the measured rate of three feet a year, that action would require thirty thousand years, not six thousand, as given in the word of God. The Grand Canyon, a mile deep, has been carved through solid rock. Ages were required. Geology alone establishes evolution.

EMBRYOLOGY—DEVELOPMENT BEFORE BIRTH The second proof of evolution it "Develop­ment Before Birth." In the course of development in the body of the mother, the unborn child passes through the various stages through which its ancestors evolved. At one stage it has the gill slits of the fish; at another, a tail longer than its hind legs; and at six months a thick coat of hair covering its body. In succession, the human em­bryo has the two-chambered heart of the fish; the three- chambered heart of the reptile, and the four-chambered heart of the mammal, which includes man.

I quote from Encyclopedia Britannica. Under the heading of Evolution, we read:

"The fact that a fowl or a man passes through a stage in which its organization is essentially like that of a fish is meaningless, save on the assumption that land verte­brates (animals with a backbone) evolved from fish-like aquatic (water) ancestors." The unborn baby undergoes changes in form as revolutionary as those of the frog, which, through cell and tadpole, reclimbs its line of des­cent. I ask my opponent why he denies descent from tailed beings of millions of years ago, when all persons, including my opponent, had a tail when in the embryonic stage. Why do not the Funda­mentalists organize an Anti-Embryology Society? They could secure followers, and could perhaps get a charter in Arkansas or Mississippi.

VESTIGIAL (USELESS) ORGANS The third proof of Evolution is the existence of useless organs within the human body. There are more than one hundred organs used by lower animals that are useless in man; including the ap­pendix, the tonsils, the muscles for moving the scalp and ears. Every one has these; and some of you can use them—can move your ears and your scalp.

Every normal man has on his breast useless nipples. I ask my opponent to explain their pres­ence, if they are not the remains of that which was once useful.

Every farm boy has seen the unused small toes of the hog, just back and above its big used toes. They were once useful. Charles Darwin compared these useless organs to the "b" in doubt, which is silent, but reveals something of the word’s past, which at one time was sounded; just as the toe on the back of the hog’s foot was once used.

SIMILARITY OF STRUCTURE The fourth proof of Evolution is "Similarity of Structure." I quote Charles Darwin:

"How inexplicable is the similar pattern of the hand of man, the foot of a dog, the wing of a bat, the flipper of the seal, on the doctrine of independent acts of crea­tion! How simply explained on the principle of natural selection of successive slight variations in the diverging descendants from a single progenitor."

You will find the same general structure in man and the lower animals, which is easily ex­plained on the principle of Evolution.

GEOGRAPHICAL GROUPING The fifth proof is "Geographical Grouping." The animals in a region have the same general character; but when a barrier of an ocean or a mountain is passed, new forms of life are found. This fact cannot be reconciled with Special Crea­tion. It necessarily follows from evolution. Until recently, Australia had none of the higher animals. Why? Because one hundred million years, ago, when the kangaroo was the highest form of life, Australia became an island. If my opponent be­lieves the story of the flood, I ask him whether the kangaroo swam across the ocean to get to the ark.

MAN-MADE SPECIES The sixth proof of Evolution is "Man-made Species." Man has created new species. The Bur­bank potato, grapefruit, and spineless cactus have been developed by artificial selection. The same process has produced two hundred breeds of tame pigeons. Ladies, I appeal to you especially, with this obvious and undeniable proof of evolution: Cabbage, kale, kohlrabi, collards, cauliflower and brussel sprouts have evolved from a common stock. You know the difference in these vegetables. They have been developed by man. What man does on a small scale, within a narrow range of time, Nature does on a large scale during geological epochs. Man’s action is planned; Nature’s is blind.

GRADATION OF ORGANISMS The seventh proof of Evolution is "Grada­tion of Organisms." The divisions, or classes, are artificial. Species fade into species. Varieties are the beginning of new species. There is no definite line between plants and animals. I quote Huxley:

"Certain questionable forms of sea life belong to a sort of biological no-man’s land."

Two kinds of animals live today, the echidna and the duckbill, which lay eggs and yet suckle their young. Flying fish can stay in the air for one hundred yards. These are transitional forms.

Each organ of the body has an interesting history. Our arms and legs have developed from the belly fins of the ancient fishes. The Eustachian tube, connected with the ear, is the remnant of the gill-slits of the fish. The wrists are modified ankles of the forelegs.

Snakes are lizards without legs. Birds are flying reptiles, their feathers being modified scales. I appeal to you farm boys: Ask your Sunday School teacher and your preacher to explain why hens’ legs are still covered with scales. These scales came through the reptile from the fish. The earliest bird, the Archeopteryx, of which a well preserved fossil has been found, had teeth in both jaws and a long tail like a lizard and a wing with toes at the end. The wing is an evolved front leg. The whale once had four legs and walked on land. It is a mammal—not a fish. The history of the horse has been traced from a small five-toed ancestor, about the size of a fox. He walks today on the nail of his big middle toe.

Certain snakes have traces in their body of feet. Are these inherited from the snake which deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden? If so, per­haps someday traces of vocal organs will be found in the snake; for, according to the Scriptures, that animal talked, as well as walked.

MAN’S APE ANCESTRY

Now I come to a rather delicate subject: "Man’s Ancestry." We atheists hold with Charles Darwin that man descends from the monkey. I quote from Darwin’s "The Descent of Man," chap­ter six, next to the last paragraph:

"The simiadae (ape family) then branched off into two great stems, the New World and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded."

Timid scientists or modernist clergymen who say Darwin never taught that man descends from the monkey, either are ignorant or they lie. That does not apply to my opponent; because he will admit, I suppose, that Charles Darwin taught monkey descent for man. If I had the time I would quote at length from the leading scientists within the last fifty years statements to the effect that man has evolved from the monkey. We issue a special leaflet on the subject, entitled "The Ape Ancestry of Man."

I have time to quote only a few of the au­thorities.

Haeckel:

"From the half apes or lemurs, a direct line leads, through the baboons, to the anthropoid apes, and through these on to man."

Sir Arthur Keith, who, as an authority, dwarfs Moses to nothing:

"Was Darwin right when he said that man, under the action of biological forces, which can be observed and measured, has been raised from a place among the an­thropoid apes to that which he now occupies? The answer is ’Yes’!" Presidential Address, 1927.

Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 30, page 143, "Anthropology," by G. Elliott Smith:

"Comparative pathology, as well as the conclusive tests of blood relationship, has definitely established the fact of man’s close kinship with the anthropoid apes, and especially with the gorilla."

See also "Man, Evolution of," in the New Supplement. The Jewish-Christian Bible is not to be compared with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Look up what the Encyclopedia Britannica says on the "Bible" and "Genesis," as well as "Evolution," "Anthropology," and Biology."

Ferris of Yale University:

"It is pretty well agreed that the anthropoid apes and man come from a common ancestor, and he in turn from some primitive, broad-nosed ape."

Huxley:

"Whatever organ we take, the difference between man and the anthropoid apes is less than the corresponding difference between the latter and the lower apes." The difference are in degree only. There are similar differences between human beings.

Lull of Yale University:

"The gorilla and the chimpanzee are our next of kin"

Whoever denies kinship with animals should visit the Hall of the Age of Man in the American Museum of Natural History in New York, where, with his own eyes, he may see, arranged in rising order, the physical proof of that kinship, which far outweighs the stale hearsay of the Bible.

Why this violent dislike of ape ancestry? To have a criminal as a father is embarrassing; but who bothers about the character of his fiftieth grandfather?

Man is not yet fully adjusted to walking on his hind-legs. The frequent breaking down of the arches, the numerous cases of hernia and the diffi­culty with which children learn to walk, show that the upright position is new to man. The in-turned toes and the grasping and climbing ability of babies indicate monkey kinship.

Harelips, cleft palates, and the tails in human beings are throwbacks to earlier ancestral types. Cases are recorded of women with several pairs of breasts, with the nipples arranged in two rows, as in many lower animals. THE BLOOD TEST The strongest proof of man’s ape ancestry is the blood test. If the bloods of two animals of the same family, such as the dog and fox, are mixed, no injury follows; but if the blood of a dog is mixed with that of a rabbit, the two kinds of blood cells fight for life. Human blood poisons and de­composes the blood of the lower monkeys and other mammals, but flows peacefully with that of the higher monkeys, or apes. The blood of man and the ape have the same chemical reactions. In other words, the orang, the chimpanzee, and the gorilla are not only the same as we are in structure, but are our blood relatives. In order to put this matter to a test, I challenge my opponent to have injected into his veins the blood of one of the lower animals; and I will have the blood of an ape injected into my veins. He will not accept, for he knows that I would live to preach his funeral.

How many of you here believe that the China­man, the negro and white man are descended from two Jews of six thousand years ago? Such differ­ences would require one hundred thousand years to develop. Every normal person looks more like an ape than the Russian greyhound looks like a poodle dog. If man is made in the image of God, so is the monkey. If you doubt it, take a trip to the zoo. Why don’t the Fundamentalists close up zoos? It should be against the law in anti-evolution states to exhibit monkeys.

Darwin, closing words of "The Descent of Man":

"Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." In the beginning was matter, which begat the ameba, which begat the worm, which begat the fish, which begat the amphibian, which begat the reptile, which begat the lower mammal, which begat the lemur, which begat the monkey, which begat man, who imaged God. This is the genealogy of man. NO MISSING LINKS The gap between man and ape has been bridged by fossils, of which the following, in the order of their discovery, are the more important: Neanderthal Man, 1856; Java Man, or Pithecan­thropus erectus, 1891; who was so near midway that scientists debated whether he was a man or an ape; the Heidleberg Man, 1907; the Piltdown Man, 1911; and the Taungs skull or Australopi­thecus Africanus, discovered some fifty feet under­ground in South Africa, in 1924. There are no missing links.

Consider for a moment the alternative to the ape anceestry of man offered by the Fundamental­ists. I wish I had the exhibits with me that I some­times use. In a number of debates I have had a chimpanzee on the platform. If you don’t like the ape as your ancestor; then, according to the Bible, you are descended from mud. Of course, you ladies would not like that, so we will give you something different. According to God’s Word, you are de­scended from the rib of a man.

NATURAL SELECTION

What is causing all this religious hullabaloo over evolution? Natural Selection, the Great Theory of Descent. It is a mechanical process. It has five factors, as follows:

5. Inheritance of Favorable Variation. If in­dividuals reach maturity because of a favorable variation, those of their offspring which most in­herit that variation will live to continue the race. In time this process of natural selection produces such differences in structure and use that the re­sulting forms must be regarded as new species, genera, and finally, higher groups.

Whatever causes variation, natural selection determines survival.

I don’t have time to give you in detail the working of selection. You can learn how the gi­raffe came to get its long neck, and how the other animals acquired various organs.

CONSEQUENCES OF EVOLUTION

What are the consequences of evolution? In the first place: Evolution bankrupts the Bible. It discredits the Word of God. The Law Scheme and the Scheme of Redemption do not go together. If descended from apes, we don’t need a Saviour. The second consequence of Evolution is to ban­ish God from the universe. Prior to Darwin the clergy denounced this theory as the godless Law Scheme. Evolution is atheism; it substitutes natural law for supernatural intelligence. I quote Gladstone, the great English statesman—or poli­tician, whichever you want to call him:

"Upon the grounds of what is termed ’evolution,’ God is relieved from the labor of creation; in the name of unchangeable laws, he is discharged from governing the world."

I think if you are honest you will agree with Gladstone. If you accept evolution, you must give up the Bible and God. I might say, in passing, that most Catholics reject evolution. The Catholic Church is practically a Fundamentalist organizat­ion, although it has few heretics. The Catholic Church has gone on record as saying man has not evolved; but in some Catholic schools evolution is taught as applied to the lower animals, though that’s as contrary to the story of creation in Genesis, as is the evolution of man.

DISCREDITS DESIGN ARGUMENT The principal consequence of evolution is that it discredits the only plausible argument the clergy ever had for the existence of God. I refer to the famous design argument. The animals in the North have a thicker fur than those of the South. Is it not more reasonable to hold with the atheist and evolutionist that this difference in thickness of fur is the result of the difference in climate than to imagine, with the clergy, that a heavenly tailor regulates the wearing apparel of the various ani­mals? The old woman who thanked God for mak­ing rivers to run by populous towns had a theol­ogical mind. The clergy might as well praise their deity for making the bed of the river to fit the river, or making their legs just long enough to each the ground. Of course, there is fitness in nature. The continued existence of the unfit is inconceivable. The unfit must perish. The priest or preacher reads his own feelings into nature. A tape-worm inside a human body night as well glorify God because his surroundings are so pleasant. A priestly worm would thank God for making man.

Goethe ridiculed the design argument by praisi­ng God for foreordaining the cork tree to furnish toppers for wine bottles.

If you believe in design, please observe how well God designed the diphtheria germ for killing babies. They nearly always kill when not defeated by man, and it is only in recent years that man can handle the situation.

I appeal to my opponent to tell us whether or not Caesarian operations discredit the design argu­ment. It seems to me that a designer who would make a woman so she could become with child and yet be unable to give birth to the child; so that a doctor must cut the woman open to take the child out, is a poor designer.

Most organs in the body are imperfect. If God is a beginner, and this is his first world, I hope He improves with His next. Who designed God?

DARWIN AN ATHEIST Darwin, in a letter to Dr. Asa Gray, said:

"I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and kill it. I do this designedly. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe (and I should really like to hear) that God designedly killed that man? Many or most persons believe this: I can’t and don’t. If you believe so, do you believe when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that particular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant? I believe that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat is designed, I see no reason to believe that their first birth of production should be necessarily de­signed." That is sound atheism.

If the Rev. Oliphant should fall into the sea; I don’t hope he will do anything like this—but if he should, and should discover a man-eating shark headed his way, would he thank God for giving that shark so large a mouth? He probably would, but I suspect that he would wait until he reached shore. You ask a savage, "What makes a watch go?" and he will say, "A Spirit." You ask the preacher what makes the world go and he says, "A Spirit." The idea of design arose when man’s ignorance of nature permitted no other explanation. From Charles Darwin:

"The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered."

Charles Darwin was an atheist. He did not care for the term and did not use it. He preferred the term "agnostic"; but he said to the great Ger­man Atheist, Buchner:

"I am with you in thought, but prefer the word ag­nostic to atheist." The agnostic is an atheist. See the definition of "Atheism," in the Encyclopedia Britannica, or any unabridged dictionary. Darwin had no God; he was an atheist.

BIBLE EXAMINED So much for Evolution. I shall now take up the Bible. When you begin to examine that Book with an open mind you run across some startling facts. If you investigate, you will find that the Bible is one of twenty-seven books for which divine origin is claimed. Christians deny the divinity of all books except their own. We deny only one more than they. I would like to tell you how the Bible originated, how in part it was copied from heathen myths; and how the church fathers decided how many books should go into the Bible. They voted on the matter. There were three Christian Bibles. The Catholic Bible has more books than the Protes­tant. You have sixty-six in the one you use, and the Catholics have seventy-two. The Greek Cath­olics have more than that.

Here is something that preachers don’t tell you. Martin Luther, who began the Reformation, and is the founder of Protestantism, rejected six books in the Bible. He rejected Esther, Jonah, He­brews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

I quote from Thomas Jefferson concerning the book of Revelation:

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse (Revelation) and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac—what has no meaning admits of no explanation." The first five books of the Bible were not writ­ten by Moses. Their language did not exist in his age, and they also record his death and burial. Will Rev. Oliphant explain how a man can write up his own funeral? A biography of George Washington, wherein Lincoln is named could not be written by George Washington; and, by such proof, it is shown that the so-called books of Moses were not written by that individual.

I have not time to tell about all the myths, such as the Tower of Babel and the Creation—and where they came from. The Jews got them from the Egyptians and Babylonians almost word for word. The Babylonian first man was named Adami. After the book of Genesis, you find no reference to Adam and Eve. The Higher Critics have won. Their victory makes the Fall of Man a fiction and the Atonement an absurdity. The descendants of apes don’t need a saviour.

CONTRADICTIONS The Bible contains two thousand contradic­tions:

"Thou shalt not steal." Exodus 20:1-26; Exodus 15:1-27, "Ye shall spoil the Egyptians." Exodus 3:22.

You know what the word "spoil" means. They spoiled them—stole their property.

"The wicked prosper." In another place that is denied.

Satan provokes David to number Israel. 1 Chronicles 21:1; and in another place God moves him to number them. 2 Samuel 24:1. Both accounts can­not be true; unless God and Satan are the same person. Whichever is true, God punishes neither Satan or David, but slays seventy thousand Is­raelites for the crime of being counted. (2 Samuel 24:17):

"Lo, I have sinned—but these sheep, what have they done?"

Here is another contradiction:

"There is no respect of persons with God." (Romans 2:11.) But in Deuteronomy 14:21, God authorizes the selling of diseased meat to strangers. If you have a hog that dies of cholera you can sell its meat to the stranger within your gates. Is not that "respect of persons"?

DOCTORED PASSAGES

There are quite a number of doctored passages in the Bible. It begins with a forgery. "In the beginning God," should read, "In the beginning the gods." In Hebrew it is "elohim," and those who have been through the primary grades know "im" is the plural ending in Hebrew. Cherubim is the plural of "cherub."

I could give you a number of mistranslated passages. Matthew 3:2 is translated by Protestants: "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The Catholics render it:

"Do penance." The controverted word occurs fifty times in the New Testament. Which is right? How are you going to know?

ABSURDITIES

I want to give you an absurdity taken from the Word of God. The sun obligingly backs ten degrees to guarantee a fig poultice for Hezekiah. (2 Kings 20:7-11.) In the Bible you will find that the "Sons of God" cohabit with the "Daughters of Men," produc­ing giants. (Genesis 6:4.) Who believes it? Hill­billies and uneducated persons. In the new Testament you find another absurd­ity. Mark 11:12-22, records that Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing figs when it was not the season for figs. What would you think of a man who, in the early Spring, came to your orchard and finding there a barren fruit tree, should beat it down and curse it because it had no fruit on it? That is what your God did. Let the Rev. Oliphant explain the passage.

There are quite a number of impossibilities in the Bible. The Jews in Palestine were divided into small tribes. There were not many people. Yet, according to the Bible (2 Chronicles 13:17), five hun­dred thousand men, to say nothing of the women and children, were killed in one day, on one side. You know that could not have happened. At the great battle of Gettysburg in the Civil War, the dead numbered five thousand. That the Jews lost five hundred thousand men in one battle is pre­posterous.

BIBLE SCIENCE

Now, for the science of the Bible. Heaven is a solid roof supporting reservoirs of water. (Genesis 1:8.) The earth has foundations (Psalms 104:5), pil­lars (1 Samuel 2:8), and four corners (Revelation 7:1). The rainbow is given as a pledge that the world would not be drowned again (Genesis 9:13). If you know anything about the nature of a rainbow, you know that it is as old as rain and sunshine. The Bible writer was ignorant of the nature of the rainbow.

Joshua stopped the sun and moon. I quote from Martin Luther:

"The fool (Copernicus) wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy. But sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

FULFILLED PROPHECY

You hear much about fulfilled prophecy. Jesus predicted his return within the lifetime of some of His hearers. (Matthew 16:28.) He is nineteen hun­dred years late. I ask my opponent when he thinks Jesus will return. Most of the true prophecies were written after the event. The Bible ends with an unfulfilled prophecy.

There are two stories of the creation in Gene­sis. They contradict each other. In the first story, trees are created before man; in the second, after man. I could give you other discrepancies, but have not the time.

There are two flood stories. In one, the ani­mals went into the ark by twos; and in the other, by sevens. I ask the Rev. Oliphant which is true. May­be two and seven are the same; three and one are the same in the New Testament, and perhaps in the Old Testament two and seven are the same.

CHARACTER OF BIBLE GOD In the remaining few minutes let us consider the character of the Bible God. As Fundamental­ists, you do not believe in a God who works through evolution. He is an impossibility. A god who would operate through countless centuries to produce a world such as ours shows a lamentable lack of intelligence. But can we accept the God of the Bible? If you will turn to Exodus 12:29-30, you will find that Jehovah (the Bible God) assassinates at midnight the first born of every Egyptian family. In 2 Samuel 12:1-31; 2 Samuel 14:1-33, you read that He kills a baby to punish its father for murder. David kills Uriah and God punishes David by killing a baby.

I read from 1 Samuel 2:3, Jehovah speaking:

"Now go and smite the Amalekites, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

Why this cruelty? Because the Amalekites had wronged the Israelites four hundred years before. In the fifth chapter of Numbers you will find God authorizes trial by ordeal. When a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful to him, he shall take her before the priest, who will give her bitter water to drink and if her belly swells and her thigh rots; she is guilty. That is the divine method of determining whether or not a woman is virtuous.

Oliphant’s First Reply Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, Ladies and Gentle­men:

I am really pleased with the way my opponent starts off on this proposition. This is the first time, in my opinion, that he has presented a series of arguments really worth considering. I shall show my appreciation by refuting his arguments, one by one.

I shall notice first a few things said by Mr. Smith in former speeches, which I have overlooked. I want to answer now, because this is the last speech to which he will have a reply.

SINS OF BIBLE CHARACTERS

Reference has been made to sins committed by Abraham, David, and other Bible characters. In­stead of these things proving the Bible to be an uninspired book, they are points on my side of the question. Books of fiction do not attribute crimes to their heroes. Even historians "color" their nar­ratives according to their likes or dislikes. An un­inspired historian does not tell the bad filings about his hero. A biography written by a friend of the subject tells the good things; one written by an enemy stresses the weak points.

It is said that Hannibal, the powerful Cart­haginian general who lived about 200 B. C., lost an eye in one of his perilous campaigns. Later, two artists were engaged to paint his portrait. They were anxious to please the general, and thought to do so they should hide his physical defect. One of them painted him full-faced, but gave him two good eyes; the other produced a profile view, carefully selecting the side which had the good eye. Their intentions were kind, but the result was in both cases a deception.

How different are the pictures given in the Bible! God does not shield even "faithful Abra­ham." The biographies of the Bible are true; if men committed sins, their sins are recorded. The fact that a book tells the truth should not be used as an argument against it. The Bible nowhere con­dones sin; where wrong is found in a life, God con­demns it, regardless of who is the guilty party.

HOPE AND LOVE, ABSTRACTIONS

Mr. Smith criticizes my reference to hope and love being accepted by faith. I understand that these are abstract principles; but they exist, never­theless. Why cannot faith exist, on the same basis? I also showed that we accept historical characters by faith. I again ask my opponent if he accepts the facts of history? If so, he exercises faith.

SIN AND DISEASE

Mr. Smith quotes me as saying that God sends disease as a punishment for sin. He misquotes me. God did not send disease into the world. Disease is one of the results of violation of law. Fire is a blessing to man, but it can also cause suffering. Some medicines are beneficial, if taken in proper quantities, but will produce death if too much is taken. The germ theory (with reference to certain diseases) is now generally accepted by the medical fraternity. However, it is only a theory. We can­not afford to disregard facts, simply because they seem to conflict with theories—however general may be the acceptance of the theories. Physicians tell us that while they do not now know of any beneficial service done by certain bacteria; still, they are not willing to affirm that these germs, however parasitical they appear to be, have no beneficial purpose.

INNOCENT SUFFERS FOR GUILTY

We may not be able to understand exactly why the innocent must sometimes suffer for the guilty. Nature is such an intricate, complicated affair—every part so closely interwoven with every other part; that when "one member suffers," others must also suffer. The bearing of one another’s burden sometimes requires the suffering of the innocent; and what a world this would be if none were wil­ling to bear the burdens of others! The atonement embraces this principle. Jesus did not have his life taken from Him; He voluntar­ily laid down, in the interest of humanity. (See John 10:18). The majesty of Divine Law must be maintained; and, at the same time, man needs mercy. As the loving parent willingly suffers for his child; so, the Christ voluntarily gave his life for mankind.

EVIL SPIRITS

Mr. Smith has much to say about the existence of witches, evil spirits, etc. That there were in Bible times, such things as evil spirits, no Bible be­liever can deny. I am of the opinion that they still exist. The Old Testament condemns witches. Wheth­er these characters actually had the power to com­municate with departed spirits, I do not know. It is possible that they only claimed such power. In either case, such persons stood in open rebellion to the law of God; and were to be punished for this wrong.

Modern Spiritualists make the same claim that was made by "witches" of Old Testament times, if any of them are able to do the things they pretend to do, such phenomena cannot be accounted for ex­cept as the work of evil spirits. We are not now living under the law of Moses, which prescribed the death penalty for witchcraft. Christianity is in no way to blame for the fanatical witch-burners of the Dark Ages.

FUNDAMENTALIST OR MODERNIST?

Mr. Smith asks whether I am a Fundamental­ist or a Modernist. I answer, I am neither; I am a Christian, only. I am not obligated to defend Fun­damentalism, Modernism, or any other "ism." As a "Christian only," I am at liberty to accept truth and reject error, wherever they are found. If Mr. Smith means to ask whether I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, I gladly answer, that I do.

He asks whether I believe the earth was cre­ated six thousand years ago. Where does the Bible say the earth is only six thousand years old? We are told that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." So far as I know, the Bible does not tell us just how long ago the "be­ginning" was. Scientists do not know the age of the earth; it is certain that they do not know that it was created before "the beginning!"

DR. GLADMAN AND NEGRO REVIVAL

Mr. Smith seems to find it easier to constantly refer to his atheist-made Dr. Gladman than to deal in sensible arguments. For the same reason, he prefers to argue against the silly practices of a negro sectarian revival, instead of considering the intelligent worship of God, according to the New Testament. This is just an evasion of the issue.

He asks me to restate my questions and argu­ments, to which he has not replied. I could not pos­sibly do that in the time I have; there are too many of them. I must now deal with his arguments for evolution.

EMBRYOLOGY—DEVELOPMENT BEFORE BIRTH The recapitulation theory (that the embryos of higher animals pass through the various steps of development from lower animals) is a deduction from the theory of evolution, rather than a proof of the theory. Adam Sedgwick, Professor of Zo­ology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, says that it is even less than a mere "de­duction." Hear him:

"Thus the explanation ordinarily given to the em­bryonic structures referred to is purely a deduction from the evolution theory. Indeed, it is less than this, for all that can be said is something of this kind; if the evolution theory is true, then it is conceivable that the reason why the embryo of a bird passes through a stage in which its pharnyx presents some resemblance to that of a fish is that a remote ancestor of the bird possessed a pharnyx with lateral apertures such as are at present found in fishes...’ (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Ed., Vol.. 10, pg. 322.) The argument runs in a circle. It can be ac­cepted only on the basis that evolution is true. Re­capitulation is used to prove evolution, and then evolution is used to prove recapitulation! It re­minds me of a conversation I once heard. One man said: "It will not rain until the weather gets cooler." Another said: "The weather will not get cooler until it rains."

Suppose we assume the theory that man evolved from the ape, how are we to explain, the fact that the shape of the embryonic ape’s skull is more like that of a man’s skull, than is the skull of the grown ape? If this proves anything, it is not that man evolved from the ape, but the con­verse; that the ape descended from man. Why are there no teeth in the embryo of the bird, since it is supposed to have evolved from animals which had teeth? There is no reason for calling the pharyn­geal arches in the human embryo gill arches; they never develop into gills, such as the fish has.

While there are points of similarity between the embryos of various animals, these embryos are clearly distinguishable from each other at any period in their development. Furthermore, the em­bryo of each species always produces "after its kind." However similar they may appear, the em­bryo of the monkey develops into a monkey; and the human embryo into the human species.

There are certain organs in embryos that are distinctively embryonic and could never have func­tioned in adult forms. Prof. T. H. Morgan says:

"It was recognized that many embryonic stages could not possibly represent ancestral animals. A young fish with a huge yolk sac attached could scarcely ever have led a happy, free life as an adult individual." (Critique of the Theory of Evolution, pg. 16.) The recapitulation theory is rapidly falling into disrepute among scientists. The writer just quoted (an eminent evolutionist) says the idea that the embryo climbs its ancestral tree "is in principle false." (Evolution and Adaptation, pg. 83.)

Dr. W. B. Scott, of Princeton, in his "Readings in Evolution," pg. 173, speaking of this so-called "fundamental biogenetic law," says:

"Nowadays, that ’fundamental law’ is very seriously questioned and by some high authorities is altogether denied." No less an authority than Professor A. Weber, of the University of Geneva, speaks of the "almost unanimous abandonment" of the theory. (Scien­tific American Monthly, February, 1921.) Karl Vogt, Geneva atheist, says:

"This law, which I long held as well founded, is absolutely and radically false. Attentive study of embry­ology shows us, in fact, that embryos have their own conditions suitable to themselves, and very different from those of adults." (Quoted by G. B. O’Toole, Ph. D., S. T. D., in "The Case Against Evolution," page 276.)

Haeckel was perhaps the strongest advocate of the recapitulation theory. I showed you last night how he used fraud in his effort to prove the theory. Du Bois-Reymond made this caustic comment:

"Man’s pedigree, as drawn up by Haeckel, is worth about as much as is that of Homer’s heroes, for critical historians." (Revue Scientifique, vol. 1, pg. 1101.)

It is manifest that embryos of the different species are not the same. Granting that they have points of resemblance; does this prove that one animal evolved from another? Is it not more reas­onable to account for these similarities by suppos­ing the Creator’s work to be harmonious?

USELESS ORGANS

Mr. Smith contends that there are useless organs in man’s body, and that these organs are holdovers from his animal ancestry. Before this argument is of any value, he must prove two things: First, he must prove that some of the organs in man’s body are useless; and, Second, that the ex­istence of such organs cannot be explained on any other hypothesis. He makes no effort to prove either of these propositions. This argument has no foundation except in man’s ignorance. The fact that the use of an organ is not known does not prove that it is useless. Sir Arthur Keith, one of England’s foremost scien­tists, and an evolutionist, says that "our list of ’useless’ structures decreases as our stock of knowl­edge increases." ("Nature." December 12, 1925.) Huxley said, regarding these supposedly vestigial organs:

"A cautious reasoner will probably rather explain such cases deductively from the doctrine of evolution than endeavor to support the doctrine of evolution by them. For it is almost impossible to prove that any, structure, however rudimentary, if it is in the slightest degree use­ful, there is no reason why, on the hypothesis of direct creation, it should not have been created." (Encyclopedia Britannica.)

Pineal Gland The pineal gland is a little organ located in the roof of the third ventricle of the brain. Evolution­ists have contended that it is the rudiment of a third eye, such as is found in certain lizards. However, it is now known that this organ is not useless. Arthur Keith, in his address as president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, said:

"We have hitherto regarded the pineal gland, little bigger than a grain of wheat and buried deeply in the brain, as a mere useless vestige of a medium or parietal eye, derived from some distant human ancestor in whom that eye was functional, but on the clinical and experi­mental evidence now rapidly accumulating we must as­sign to it a place in the machinery which controls the growth of the body." (Smithsonian Report, 1919, pg. 448.)

Dr. Swale Vincent, professor of Physiology, University of London, in his book, "Internal Secre­tion of the Ductless Glands" (1922), shows that the pineal gland has a very important function. He says that it seems to control the inflow and outflow of the cerebrospinal fluid of the third ventricle. (pages 385-393.)

Pituitary Body Of this so-called useless organ, Dr. Vincent says:

"For a long time the pituitary body was looked upon as a ’vestigial relic’ and of no importance in the animal economy." The writer then shows that it was discovered in 1906, that "the organ is essential for life." If it does not properly function it may cause what is known as "giantism" or overgrowth, or it may cause "infantilism" or small and defective growth. (Internal Secretion and the Ductless Glands, pgs. 264, 265.)

Thyroid Glands The thyroid glands, located on either side of the windpipe just below the larynx, have been presented by evolutionists, as vestigal organs.

Dr. G. H. Parker, Zoologist of Harvard, says:

"These have often been passed over as unimportant functionless organs whose presence was to be explained as an inheritance from some remote ancestor. But such a conception is far from correct." (Biology and Social Problems, 1914, pg. 43.)

It is now known that they perform an essential work in the body. In the dog and cat, their com­plete removal causes death. Dr. C. W. Salesby shows that the thyroid "creates a unique substance, mostly consisting of iodine," and that "without it, none can live." Without enough of this substance in the blood of an expectant mother, her life is imperiled, and her baby cannot be born normal. Dr. Salesby contends that if we will restore the missing iodine to our food, so that the thyroids "can live and work for us as they should," we will thereby "save a vast amount of ugliness, idiocy, deaf mutism, and possibly, cancer." (Quoted by F. E. Allen, in "Evolution in the Balances," pgs. 82, 83.) Dr. Vincent says:

"Defective thyroid function in the mother is the essential factor in the production of cretinism." (Glands, pg. 284.)

Dr. O’Toole says that these glands generate a hormone known as "thyroxin," which regulates the body temperature, growth of the body, etc. He also says:

"Without a sufficient supply of this hormone„ the normal exercise of mental powers in human beings is im­possible." (Case Against Evolution, pg. 294.)

Why doesn’t Mr. Smith have some evolution­ist doctor remove his thyroids? Or, has he already had them removed?

Mr. Smith likes to quote Thomas Huxley. It would do him good to heed Huxley’s advice:

"The recent discovery of the important part played by the thyroid gland should be a warning to all pecu­lators about useless organs." (Quoted by F. E. Allen, in "Evolution in the Balances," pg. 86.) The Thymus The thymus, which is located in front of the heart and behind the breastbone, in the region be­tween the two lungs, is a transitory organ. It is well developed at birth, but degenerates with the growth of the body. This has been considered a useless organ, but is now understood to have an influence on the growth of the bones. Ernest H.

Starling, Professor of Physiology, University Col­lege, London, says:

"In certain cases of arrested development or of gen­eral weakness in young people, the thymus has been found persistent." (Physiology, Third Edition, 1920, pg. 1245.) Dr. Albert Mathews says:

"That they have an important function in the young animal, can hardly be doubted." (Physiological Chemistry, 1916, pg. 675.) Islands of Langerhands

Until a few years ago it was thought by some that a part of the tissue in the pancreas composed of little projections about the size of a pin-head, and known as the Islands of Langerhands, was useless tissue. It was argued that this was vestigial structure left over from the lower animals. The work of Banting and MacLeod, of Toronto, proved that this tissue plays an important part in the regulation of sugar in the blood, and thus in the prevention of diabetes. This discovery has led to the preparation of an insulin from the pancreas of animals, which is used in the treatment of diabetes. The conclusions of Banting and MacLeod were verified in 1925 by the investigations of Drs. E. C. Dodds, F. Dickens and Swale Vincent. They say:

"The result of this investigation was to provide further evidence that, as MacLeod states, the source of insulin is, in fact, the islet tissue." (Chemical and Physiological Properties of the Internal Secretions, pg. 53.) The Appendix

Mr. Smith says the appendix is a useless organ. However, he is not an authority on this question. We shall hear Howard A. Kelly, M. D., LL. D., John Hopkins University; than whom there is no greater authority on surgery in America today. Dr. Kelly shows that the appendix is a valuable organ; that its secretion helps to lubricate the intestines. He says:

"It increases the extent of the intestinal mucuous surface for secretion and absorption." (Vermiform Ap­pendix, pg. 78.) The Coccyx My opponent contends that the coccyx in man is a remnant of a tail, and is, therefore, evidence of man’s development from tailed beings. W. W. Keen reasoned this way in his book, "I Believe in God and in Evolution." In this book, he printed a picture of a "Head Hunter" of the Philippines, with a tail. He later learned and stated that the picture was a fake, "the tail having been added to the original by a photographer, I suppose as a joke." (Science, April 2, 1926, pg. 360.) It is to the credit of Mr. Keen that he was honest enough to correct the mistake. However, this honesty cannot be credited to atheism; Mr. Keen believes in God. The coccyx serves for the attachment of several small muscles, which could not possibly function without it. Even Darwin admitted this. He con­fesses that the four vertebrae of the coccyx "are furnished with some small muscles." (Descent of Man.) Professor A. Wilford Hall offers this testi­mony:

"Now, as regards the ’little tail of man,’ about which Prof. Haeckel and Mr. Darwin have so much to say, and which is regarded by all evolutionists as such a powerful proof of man’s descent from tailed ancestors, I wish to remark that a more manifest and inexcusable mis­conception was never harbored by men." (The Problem of Human Life, pg. 134.) This author then explains that the spine of all vertebrates develops first, and the end protrudes until the fleshy portion develops to cover it. This explains the fact that this so-called tail is manifest in the embryo, and gradually disappears as the flesh grows over it.

I ask Mr. Smith how he accounts for the fact that the fish, which is not supposed to have de­veloped from a tailed ancestor, also has this em­bryonic tail.

Extra Mammary Glands

It is cited that there are known cases of women having extra mammary glands, similar to lower animals. Professor D. Carazzi, in his Address of Inauguration in the Chair of Zoology and Compara­tive Anatomy at the University of Padua, says that these "supernumerary mammary glands are not a reversion to type." He says they have been known to develop "upon the median line, upon the deltoid, and even upon the knee, regions far-distant from the `milk-line’." (Quoted by G. B. O’Toole, "The Case Against Evolution," pgs. 304, 305.)

Some of the evolutionist’s "vestigial organs" are simply abnormalities. I once knew a boy who had an extra finger on one hand. Of what organ of the beast is this a relic?

MAN RIGHT-HANDED As far back as we know anything about man, the right hand has, in general, been used in pref­erence to the left. G. Elliot Smith says:

"The superiority of one hand is as old as mankind." (Smithsonian Report, 1912, pg. 570.) On his theory that organs deteriorate with dis­use, until, in course of time, they become mere remnants; how does Mr. Smith explain the fact that man’s arms are equally developed? Bones, muscles, nerves, ligaments, tendons, blood vessels, and all parts are of equal size in both arms and both hands. The fact is that excessive exercise of a certain part of the body may overdevelop it, but this is an ac­quired characteristic; and is never transmitted to the offspring. The strength of the blacksmith’s arm is not passed on to his children.

SIMILARITY OF STRUCTURE

Mr. Smith’s next argument for evolution is on the similarity of structure between certain animals and man. We freely admit that there are many points of resemblance; but we insist that there are more differences between any species of animal and man than there are similarities. Dr. O’Toole quotes from Ranke, a long list of outstanding dif­ferences between the body of an ape and the body of a man. ("Case Against Evolution," pgs. 271- 273.) What do these radical differences prove? Does the similarity of structure between the ape and man prove that man developed from the ape? When Mr. Smith sees a Ford and a Cadillac, does he think one developed from the other? There are many points of resemblance.

Frequently I read a book which reminds me of other books I have read. Do I conclude that this book must have evolved from the others? No; I decide that perhaps they were written by the same author. When I see that men and animals are made on more or less the same plan, I am reminded that they were all created by the same God. Is it not reasonable to suppose that, knowing animals and man were to breathe the same air, eat largely the same food and live under pretty much the same environment, a wise Creator would have made them somewhat alike in physical structure?

DIFFERENCE IN MENTAL CAPACITY

Man’s superiority over the animal is very marked when we consider the difference in their capacity for mental development. For this reason man has been able to "subdue" the animal kingdom, as God commanded (Genesis 1:28). Animals do not make progress; the monkey has lived the same "monkey life" since the beginning of his existence. Man dwells alone in the field of advancement.

Speaking of the difference in man’s brain and that of an ape, Dr. O’Toole says:

"In the ape the brain weighs only 100th part of the weight of its body, whereas in man the brain has a weight equivalent to the 37th part of the weight of the human body. The cranial capacity of the largest apes ranges from 500 to 600 c. cm., while the average cranial capacity in man is 1500 c. cm. Moreover, the human brain is far more extensively convoluted within the brain-case than that of an ape, so much so that the surface or cortical area of the human brain is four times as great as that of the ape’s brain." (Case Against Evolution, pg. 274) NO MAN-MADE SPECIES

Mr. Smith says: "Man has created new species," and then offers the Burbank potato, grape­fruit, spineless cactus, cabbage, collards, two hun­dred breeds of pigeons, etc., as examples. These are not new species; the Burbank potato is still a potato, the spineless cactus is still a cactus and the two hundred breeds of pigeons are all pigeons. None of these things have evolved out of their original species. Furthermore, these developments within species have been accomplished by intelligence. Does he think the accomplishments of Mr. Burbank were without intelligence? Sir, you should remember that you are affirming that evolu­tion, "directed by no intelligence," is the creator. If the intelligence of man is necessary for develop­ment of plants and animals, even within their spe­cies; why do you contend that man developed from the lowest form of life without the direction of mind? He says that man’s action is planned; while nature’s is blind. Is it not strange that Nature has been able to accomplish so much more with her blind action, than man with his intelli­gent planning? We are told that there is "fitness in nature." Can there be fitness without intelli­gence?

If Mr. Smith’s so-called man-made species are left without the care of man they degenerate—re­vert to original type. By selective breeding the small pony may be developed into the large Per­cheron horse; but when man ceases to guide the de­velopment, he reverts back to the common stock. We see that even development within species must be directed by intelligence.

Man’s effort to cross different species has not resulted in the formation of new species, capable of reproducing themselves, and developing into still other species. The mule stands squarely across the path of the evolutionist at this point. Anah, grand­son of the Horite Seer, reported the finding of mules in the wilderness of Horeb before the time of Moses. Thus, we see that the mule is not something "new under the sun." Why has not the mule con­tinued in the process of species development? When species are crossed by man’s work the hy­brid, such as the mule, which cannot reproduce himself, is the result.

GRADATION OF ORGANISMS My opponent’s assertion that certain animals of the present time are transitional forms—connect­ing links between species, has no foundation in fact. Leading evolutionists admit that they know of no transitional forms. Professor Lull, in speaking of the evolution of mammals, says:

"The record of the actual transition is as yet unre­vealed." In speaking of the evolution of birds, the same author says:

"There is again no fossil record of transitional forms." (Evolution of the Earth, pages 128, 129.) Even Darwin admitted,

"There are two or three millions of species on the earth.... but it must be said today that in spite of all the efforts of trained observers, not one change of one species into another is on record." (Life and letters, vol. 3, pg. 25.)

If Mr. Smith has discovered connecting links between species, he has accomplished a feat at which evolutionist scientists, from Darwin to the present time, have balked.

I answered most of Mr. Smith’s assertions along this line while discussing so-called vestigial remains, man-made species, etc. His gradations are purely fanciful. Take one of the examples he gives—the horse. He tells us that the horse has been traced from a small five-toed animal about the size of a fox. Even if this be true, it cannot be shown that the small animal, from which our pres­ent type of horse developed, was not a horse. How­ever, the "tracing" to which he refers has been done very largely in the field of man’s imagination.

James D. Dana, renowned geologist, in naming some of the animals found in what he terms the Cham­plain geological period, says that "the modern spe­cies of the horse was among them." He refers to them as "horses of large size." (The Geological Story, pgs. 267, 269.) Why has not the horse de­veloped any since that time? Where is the proof that the horse was ever anything but a horse?

APE ANCESTRY

Evolutionists are not at all agreed as to just what animal is man’s nearest relative. Darwin assigned to man and the ape a common ancestor, "the early progenitor of the whole simian stock, in­cluding man." (Descent of Man, pgs. 239, 240.) He said we might "imagine three lines of descent proceeding from a common stock."

I could quote from a number of evolutionists who do not think the ape is man’s ancestor, but do not consider it worthwhile. One line of animal ancestry is as acceptable as another; the first step in tracing any of them is to (with Darwin) "imag­ine." There is absolutely no reliable proof of a bestial ancestry for humanity.

Mr. Smith says that if we do not accept the ape as an ancestor, we are descended from mud. Well, it might be interesting for him to learn that science has discovered almost every element of man’s body in the earth. Oxygen, hydrogen, mag­nesium, sodium, phosphorus, silicon, carbon, etc—elements of the "dust," are also parts of man’s body. Is this not evidence of the fact that "the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground?" (Genesis 2:7.) God said to man:

"Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Genesis 3:19.)

We constantly see this truth demonstrated. We know that the body, after death, "returns to the dust." Can Mr. Smith give us such clear proof of man’s having come from the ape?

Man is more than a material body. While his body is made of the dust, and returns to the dust, his spirit (that which God "breathed into him") returns to "God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7.) SIMILARITY OF BLOOD

Mr. Smith says the strongest proof of man’s ape ancestry is the blood test. Suppose we examine this "strongest proof." In the first place—as Dr. Arthur I. Brown, surgeon, shows in his book, "Evo­lution and the Blood-Precipitation Test"—the so-called "blood tests" are not really tests of blood. He says:

"It is necessary constantly to remember that what scientists are using in their so-called blood tests is nothing but serum—a small part of blood. If the blood cells are taken out of the blood, we have withdrawn a most im­portant group of chemicals, in the absence of which, we are not testing blood at all."

According to the reports of evolutionists, the qualitative tests and the quantitative tests do not agree. The qualitative tests reported by Prof. Nuttall, Lecturer in Bacteriology and Preventive Medicine at Cambridge, showed no difference between the blood of the crab and the lemur. Are we to con­clude that the lemur (related to the ape tribe) is a close relative of the crab? The quantitative tests also showed some very peculiar results. For instance, if these tests show relationship; the otter, jackal, sheep, ox, etc., bear considerable relationship to man. The ox, sheep and baboon produced the same results; while the whalebone whale, one species of baboon, the tiger, the African antelope and man all showed the same relationship. Does not this reduce the whole theory to an absurdity? Even Prof. W. B. Scott admits:

"It could hardly be maintained that an ostrich and a parrot are more nearly allied than a wolf and a hyena, and yet that would be the inference from the blood tests." (Theory of Evolution, page 79.)

Dr. Erich Wassman, an authority on the blood, tells us that the blood-relationship between man and chimpanzee cannot be proved by similarity of blood until it has been shown that similarity of blood depends solely upon direct blood-relation between two animals possessing this blood. He then adds, "And no one can maintain this to have been estab­lished."

Dr. Wassman points to the fact that, according to Friedenthal’s experiments, the blood of the com­mon crab, or that of a lug-worm, did not destroy the red blood-corpuscles of a sea-mew or a rat. He then concludes:

"But surely no one would infer that for this reason rats must be descended from lug-worms, or sea-mews from crabs." (Modern Biology, pg. 458.)

Dr. Brown says the serum of the horse can be used with safety on a human being, but that this does not prove relationship between the horse and man; nor on the other hand, would incompatibility disprove it. He shows that there are no two men whose blood is of the same chemical composition.

Prof. H. Newman, who testified in favor of evolution at the Scopes trial, gives considerable time to the blood similarity argument; but admits that "there is no exactness about this parallel."

Dr. Brown also calls attention to the fact that asses’ milk is more like human milk than is that of any other mammal. What does Mr. Smith think this similarity proves? The truth of the matter is, that similarity of blood (or milk) proves nothing for my friend’s position. Dr. H. C. Morton, well says

"Ultra-microscopical examination of human and all animal blood has revealed difference of structure in the red blood corpuscles. No doubt this matter will be pursued; and meantime all that these blood—reaction tests prove (if indeed they prove anything) is blood similarity: and similarity does not involve relationship. It amounts to just this: That the blood of certain Primates and other mammals, share certain chemico-physiological properties. But chem­ical resemblance and identity of origin are quite distinct." (The Bankruptcy of Evolution, pg. 191.)

GEOLOGY

We come now to Mr. Smith’s "Star Witness." What has geology to say for evolution? Nothing. Prof. George McCready Price, in his textbook, "The New Geology," shows that the arrangements of different kinds of rocks by older geologists was purely artificial and arbitrary. Facts that have since been emphasized, completely overthrow these artificial arrangements.

Some of the supposedly oldest strata of rocks are sometimes found above some of the youngest strata. Dr. Price gives numbers of instances of this reverse order, both in Europe and America. This reversal of order is found over areas contain­ing as much as 20,000 square miles of territory. One of these areas begins in^-New York State, and stretches up into Canada. From these facts, Dr. Price has formulated what he calls, "the great law of conformable stratigraphic sequence," which he says may be stated as follows:

"Any kind of fossiliferous bed whatever, ’young’ or `old’ may be found occurring conformably on any other fossiliferous beds, ’older’ or ’younger.’ "

He then adds that, this:

"Forever puts an end to all evolutionary speculations about the order in which the various plants and animals have developed.—This law alone is sufficient to relegate the whole theory of organic evolution to the lumber room of science, there to become the amusement of the future students of the history of cosmological speculations." (Page 638.)

Thus we see that geology cannot tell us any­thing about the age of the earth. It does indicate that at some time in the distant past this old earth passed through some terrible catastrophe, which wrought a great change in its formation and life. In northern Siberia there have been found the bodies of elephants frozen in the ice, so well pre­served that dogs and wolves eat their flesh. Some of them have undigested food in their stomachs, and even bits of tropical plants in their mouths. Certainly there must have been some great change in the earth. Elephants do not live in frozen regions. The geologist Dana says that "the en­casing in ice of huge elephants, and the perfect preservation of the flesh, shows that the cold finally became suddenly extreme, as of a single winter’s night, and knew no relenting afterwards." (Man­ual, pg. 1007.)

Dr. Price accepts the Genesis account of the Flood as an explanation of this great change in the climate, life and surface of the earth. It seems that a universal flood would also account for cer­tain ocean deposits now found between mountain ranges. How can they be explained in any other way? Certainly not on the basis of a gradual, evo­lutionary development!

Thus geology adds its testimony of the flood to that of history. Almost every nation has a tra­dition concerning the flood.

Geology Proves Degeneration

Instead of geology being a witness of evolu­tion, it witnesses to a degeneration. Dana tells us that elephants, bears, hyenas, lions, etc., of the Champlain period were much larger than the pres­ent species. He says "these modern kinds are dwarfs in comparison." He says, "the Irish deer, skeletons of which have been found in Irish bogs, had a height to the tip of the antlers of 10 to 11 feet, and the span of the antlers was sometimes 12 feet." He tells of elephants "a third taller than the largest of modern elephants," and of rhinoceros eleven and a half feet long. He sums the matter up by saying

"Thus the brute races of the middle Quaternary pe­riod on all the continents greatly exceeded the modern races in magnitude." (Geological Story, pg. 270.) Where is the evidence for evolution in Mr. Smith’s "Star Witness?"

MISSING LINKS

Evolutionists teach there have been classified as different species, 600,000 invertebrates and 36,000 vertebrates. If this is true, there are 636,000 unbridged gaps between distinct species. None of these gaps have ever been bridged. My opponent says "the gap between man and ape has been bridged by fossils." He offers first: The Neanderthal Man This is a creature constructed on the basis of a few bones discovered in 1856. It has incited from competent authorities, a dozen or more different opinions concerning itself. Some have said it was a "human idiot," some "an old celt," "an old Hollander," etc., etc. (Case against Evolution: pg. 324.) James Dana says the capacity of the Neanderthal skull was seventy-five cubic inches "which is greater than in some existing men" (Geological Story, pg. 273).

Sir Arthur Keitl says:

"We were compelled to admit that men of the modern type had been in existence long before the Neanderthal type." (The Antiquity of Man.)

Huxley said:

"In no case can the Neanderthal bones be regarded as the remains of a human being intermediate between men and apes." (Evidence of Man’s place in Nature, pg. 253.) Dr. Thomas D. Parkman, Professor of Anat­omy at Harvard, said:

"The Neanderthal Man is not a specimen of a race arrested in its upward climb, but rather of a race thrown down from a still higher position." (Quoted by Dr. J. R. Stratton, in "Fundamentalist-Modernist Debates," pg. 96.) Pithecanthropus Erectus This name has been given to the creature man­ufactured from a part of a skull, part of a femur bone and a tooth, supposed to have been found by Dr. Eugene Dubois.

They were found scattered far apart in a gravel pit, along a rushing stream. (Smithsonian Report, 1898, pg. 447.) The femur bone was found a year after the finding of the bit of skull. Vir­chow, Dana, Klaatch, and other scientists rejected these bones as evidence of a "missing link." In the 1922 Edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 30, pg. 146), you will find in one short paragraph, three different opinions by three famous men, conc­erning these bones. In 1894, twenty-four scientists met at London and made a critical examination of this so-called "missing link." Ten said they were the bones of an ape; seven declared they were the bones of a nan; while the remaining seven thought they were A some intermediate creature. Mr. Smith is cer­tainly correct when he says that "scientists debated whether he was a man or an ape." Why, I ask, does he try to make us believe that he was neither?

Dr. Cunningham, of Dublin, one of the world’s greatest authorities on Comparative Anatomy, said the bones could not have belonged to the same in­dividual.

Heidelberg Man Of this man (?) only one piece of a jaw-bone was found. He is one-half of one percent genuine, and ninety-nine and one-half percent restoration. As Mr. Francis D. Nichol remarks:

"Evolutionists make great sport of the Genesis story that tells how a woman was made of a rib; and now, be­hold, they turn about and construct a whole man out of a jawbone!" (The San Francisco Debates on Evolution, pg. 76.) Dr. Lull, of Yale University, says of the Heid­elberg specimen:

"The teeth are regularly placed and the canines are not in any way beastial in their development, less so, indeed, than in some modern men." (Quoted.by J. F. Herget, in "Questions Evolution Does Not Answer," pg. 65.)

Piltdown Man This is but another specimen of the extrava­gant guesses of evolutionists. Four fragments of a skull-bone, a nasal-bone, a tooth and a bit of a jaw-bone were discovered. It was immediately "reconstructed" into a man. This first reconstruction was by Drs. Dawson and Woodward. The gave him a skull capacity of 1070 c.c. Later, he was "re-reconstructed" by Prof. Keith, who declared that his brain capacity should be something like 1500 c. c. This would raise him above some modern men in brain capacity. No "missing link" here.

Taungs Skull Of the last named of Mr. Smith’s "missing links," a skull found in Africa, Dr. Smith-Wood­ward says:

"The skull is in some features the most primitive one that has ever been found; at the same time it has many points of resemblance to (or even identity with) that of modern man." (Science, quoted in Case Against Evolu­tion, pg. 341.)

MAN NOT EVOLVED After considering the various fossil remains of man, Professor Hugues Obermaier, says:

"With absolute certainty, we can only say that man of the Quatenary period differed in no essential respect from man of the present day." (The Oldest Remains of the Human Body.) Dr. Austin H. Clark, of the Smithsonian In­stitution, United States Museum, Washington, D.C., says:

"So we see that the fossil record, the actual history of animal life upon the earth, bears us out in the assump­tion that at its very first appearance, animal life in its broader features was in essentially the same form as that in which we now know it." (The Quarterly Review of Biol­ogy, Animal Evolution.) In the beginning God made man in His image, says the Bible; science has discovered nothing to indicate that this is untrue.

NATURAL SELECTION

Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection has been discounted by modern science. John Burroughs, great Naturalist, says:

"Darwin has already been shorn of his selection doc­trines as completely as Samson was shorn of his locks." (Atlantic Monthly, Aug., 1920, pg. 237.) The factors of selection mentioned by Mr. Smith fail him. "The survival of the fittest" doc­trine does not take into account mental power; nor, does it consider the work of self-sacrifice. The "fittest" sometimes fails to survive because of sac­rifice in the interest of those less fit. The World War destroyed many of the "most fit" men of the world. The famous giraffe illustration fails. If only the giraffes with the longest necks had survived, the females would have all died; the male’s neck is several inches longer than the female’s.

If the inheritance of favorable variation aids evolution, what about unfavorable variation? That unfavorable variations have been inherited is shown by the larger specimens found in earlier periods.

CONSEQUENCES OF EVOLUTION

We are not interested in the consequences of evolution. Mr. Smith must first prove that evolu­tion is true. If not true, it can be of no conse­quence. However, evolution—if true—would not eliminate the need of a Creator. It cannot account for the beginning of life, and there are evidences everywhere of intelligent design.

Mr. Smith compares the savage’s answer that "A Spirit" made the watch with my belief that "A Spirit" made the world. Correct. The spirit of man designs the watch; but there must be a higher Spirit to design a world. THE BIBLE An honest comparison of the other twenty-six books which claim inspiration, with the Bible will convince anyone that they do not have the same grounds for their claim. The charge that the books of the Bible were first selected by the vote of a Church Council, is false. The Pentateuch

It is charged that Moses could not have writ­ten the first five books of the Bible, since men, could not write in Moses’ age. This is false. In Egypt we find that as early as 1385 B. C., letter-writing was in common practice among govern­ment officials, and there is a presumption that it was practiced even earlier. The Tell-el Amarna Letters are the correspondence of Egyptian allies in various places in Syria, embodying reports on the conditions of the various dependencies in their several districts. These letters cover a period from about 1385 to 1365 B. C. So we see that the art of writing was known in Egypt at least a hun­dred and fifty years before the Israelites left there. ("The Exploration of Egypt," pgs. 233-245)

Beginning shortly after the time the first five books of the Bible were written, we have quota­tions from them made by other writers. For cen­turies they were quoted, and every author of which we know anything attributed them to Moses. We prove that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, and that it was written at the time claimed, in the same way we prove authorship and date of any other book. The account of Moses’ death may have been added by Joshua, or some other inspired man; or it may be a prophecy.

Creation, Flood, etc.

It is granted that other nations than the Hebrews have traditions concerning many things in Genesis; but is it not reasonable to suppose that these traditions were handed down from a com­mon parentage—Adam and Eve? How does Mr. Smith account for the records of the various nations being so similar? The fact that the Babylonians’ first man was "Adami" merely shows that they learned about him from the same source as the Hebrews.

So-called Contradictions

Exodus 20:15; Exodus 3:22 do not contradict. The Israelites did not steal the goods of the Egyp­tians. The American Standard Version translates Exodus 3:22 : "Every woman shall ask of her neighbor," instead of borrow, as the King James version gives it. That this is a correct translation is indicated by the Lord’s statement in the 21st verse:

"I will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyp­tians: and it shall come to pass that, and when ye go, ye shall not go empty." The Israelites had been working for the Egyptians for centuries, without pay. God told them to "ask" remuneration for this service, and He put it into the hearts of the Egyptians to "give" it. Romans 2:11 and Deuteronomy 14:21 are not contradictory. God prohibited His chosen people from eating such meat; others were not prohibited from eating it. Then, possibly these animals were to be used in sacrifice. Jehovah would not accept such sacrifices; the heathen could sacrifice animals which "died of themselves," without violation of con­science. Anyway, God does not become a respector of persons in permitting men to buy what they want, with a full knowledge of what they are buy­ing.

There is no contradiction between the creation stories of Genesis 1:1-31 and Genesis 3:1-24. The second account does not pretend to give the order of crea­tion, but is simply a rehearsal of the creation his­tory, without regard to order of occurrence.

Mr. Smith’s supposed contradiction in the flood narrative is born of his failure to distinguish be­tween clean and unclean animals. When my opponent gives the passages which say that the wicked prosper, and that they do not prosper, we shall reply to this supposed contradic­tion.

Mistranslation

Mr. Smith says, "In the beginning, God," should be translated, "In the beginning, the gods," because the plural, "Elohim" is used. In the early Hebrew there was no distinction between the plural and singular form of a word. The plural of "maj­esty" occurs more than two thousand times in the Old Testament. In many instances the connection shows that it refers to only one. In Exodus 4:4, God said to Moses, "Thou shalt be to him (Aaron) as God." Here the plural is used, but will my opponent contend that Moses was more than one person? We also have evidence of the use of the plural form for the singular in meaning in the Tell-el Armana Letters.

However, the plural form may have been used in Genesis 1:1-31 with reference to the Trinity—God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.

There is very little difference in the meanings of the words "repent" and "penance." I am not responsible for the fact that the Catholics, in order to justify, their practices, have "colored" some passages in their translation.

I should like to ask how much Mr. Smith knows about the Hebrew language. Is he qualified as a critic of its translation?

Absurdities The matter of the shadow on the sun dial going back, is not absurd when God is admitted. The man who makes a watch has the power to stop or start it, at will. The Bible does not say giants were produced by the co-habitation of sons of God and daugh­ters of men. It merely says, "There were giants in those days." (Genesis 6:4.) Geological records indicate the existence of a race of large men in some period of the past. We occasionally see giants now.

Mark 11:12-22 does not say why Jesus cursed the fig tree. The reason was supplied by Mr. Smith. We reject him as an authority!

Mr. Smith thinks it impossible that the Jews could have lost five hundred thousand men in bat­tle. He should inform himself on the history of the Jews. Volney says that the population of Judea in the time of Titus must have been about four millions. ("Travels," Ch. 32). The comparison between the battles of Israel and our battle of Gettysburg, is foolish. It should be remembered that Israel was a nation of great antiquity, while the United States was at the time of the Civil War, comparatively speaking, but an infant.

Science of the Bible The Bible was not written as a textbook on any of the physical sciences. It makes no effort to explain things in the terms of science. Its lan­guage is the language of the people to whom it was written. However, where matters of science are incidentally mentioned, the statements are true.

It is now understood by scholars that the Hebrew word from which we get "firmament" in Genesis 1:8, means "expanse." The passage does not indicate that the heavens are a solid roof.

Modern writers speak of the earth’s "founda­tion," "pillars," etc., without being charged with ignorance of science. These are every-day expres­sions in the language of any people. The word from which we get "corners" in Revelation 7:1 is not so translated in any other instance. It was used with reference to the four general directions, and does not signify literal "corners."

Genesis 9:13 does not say God made the rain­bow at the time of the flood, but that he "set" it as a reminder of his covenant with man.

It is urged that the sun’s standing still at Joshua’s command is unscientific. A literal rendi­tion reads, "Sun, be silent (or inactive.)" How­ever, the Bible writer expressed that which, from the standpoint of the people, occurred. Mr. Smith has no hesitancy in speaking in that manner. He would say, "I saw a beautiful sunrise (or sunset)" while in fact he saw no such thing. What he really saw was an "earth-roll." That such an incident as Joshua’s long day really occurred in the history of the world is fully proven from sources other than the Bible.

I now give Mr. Smith a few citations concern­ing the science of the Bible. Genesis 1:3 says there was light before the creation of the sun. For a long time infidels scoffed at this. Now scientists know that the sun is not the only source of light. The rotundity of the earth is a comparatively new doctrine with us. The Bible says:

"He set a circle upon the face of the deep." (Prov­erbs, 8:27.)

Isaiah speaks of God as one, "Who sitteth upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). Jesus did not discuss matters of science per se; He came to teach people of a higher realm. However, that he knew of the globular shape of the earth, is shown in Luke 17:34-36. He says that at the time of his second coming—which will be instantaneous, one person will be sleeping, another will be grinding at the mill, while another will be working in the field. In other words, at the moment of His com­ing it will be night upon one part of the earth, early morning on another, and broad daylight in a third section of the earth. This could not be true except on the basis that the earth is round, and that it revolves. Job knew that the earth is poised in space (Job 26:7). Job also refers to the "empty place" in the north (26:7). At a comparatively recent date the Washington Observatory discovered that this is literally true. I ask Mr. Smith: How did Job know these scientific truths centuries be­fore they were discovered by men of science? The author of the 65th Psalm knew that light is vocal (verse 8). How did he know it? Job re­fers to the "way in which light dwells" (38:19). This reference is scientifically accurate. Why did not the Bible writer speak of the "place" in which light dwells? Because light does not dwell in a fixed place, but is due to the vibration of waves in the ether; traveling at the rate of one hundred eighty-six thousand miles per second, it may be said to dwell in a "way."

I should like to hear Mr. Smith explain how these Bible writers knew of these scientific prin­ciples thousands of years before they were discov­ered by scientists. We cannot account for this "advance information," in any other way than that the writers were not speaking from their own knowledge, but were giving a revelation from God.

Fulfilled Prophecy The Bible abounds in prophecies which have been fulfilled. I might cite those concerning the perpetuity of the Jews. God said they would never be destroyed. (See Leviticus 26:44; Numbers 23:9, Genesis 28:15; Jeremiah 30:11; Jeremiah 46:28.) In spite of the fact that the Jew has no nation which he can call his own; no flag he can point to as the flag of his peo­ple; still, there are more Jews in the world today than there were in Christ’s time The infidels, Volney, Gibbon, and others, bear witness to the ful­fillment of the prophecies concerning Babylon, Tyre, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Ninevah, and many other Old Testament cities. Jesus, during His life on the earth, fulfilled more than four hun­dred prophecies of the Old Testament.

Mr. Smith says Jesus prophesied His return during the life of some of the disciples. A compar­ison of Matthew 16:28 with Mark 9:1 and John 14:15; John 14:20 shows that Jesus referred to His return in the per­son and power of the Holy Spirit. This was ful­filled on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-47). When Mr. Smith scoffed at the idea of Christ’s return, he did not know that he—an atheist, was acting in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Listen to this prophecy:

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying: Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the be­ginning of the creation." (1 Peter 3:3-4.) God’s Character

We can no more judge the righteousness of the acts of God than a three-year-old child can under­stand all the actions of his parents. I do not know why God sometimes destroys nations. Probably the destruction of the Amalekites was a good thing for the world; I must leave that matter to the judg­ment of God.

Before Mr. Smith can justly charge God with punishing David’s baby for the sins of David, he must see the other side of death, and know whether death was punishment to the baby. We know that it was a punishment to David to lose the child; while, in view of the Bible’s teaching about life after death, it was a blessing to the baby.

Mr. Smith does not know that there was no scientific principle involved in the trial prescribed in Numbers 5:1-31. Scientists believe the "truth serum" may reveal the guilt or innocence of a person. However, in this Bible case, the power need not have been in the "bitter water." The Lord operated in this case; if He chose to reveal guilt or innocence in this manner, puny man has no reason to object.

There are no conflicts between true science and true religion. Conflicts are the result of sci­ence misunderstood, or religion misinterpreted. The Bible is true; it has stood the test of time. If I had a title to property, and this title had been re­peatedly tested for more than 1900 years, I should think my title good. The Christian’s title "to man­sions in the sky" has been contested for all the centuries of the Christian age: still it stands!

Smith’s Second Affirmative Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: The Rev. Oliphant has repeated the statement that we accept on faith historical persons and char­acters, such as Napoleon and other great men. We have evidence of a different character for the ex­istence of those individuals than we have for that of Jesus. There are contemporary records of those great men, but you cannot find a single passage (that is not admitted to be a later forgery) in a historian of the time Jesus was here, containing a single reference to that man. The gospels were written long after the time of Jesus.

It has been repeated that disease is caused by sin. If that is the way God works, why does he not so arrange that only the guilty should suffer. The Rev. Oliphant has never answered the question, "Did God make disease germs?" I ask for a def­inite answer. Either God made them or they evolved. Which happened?

He says there is no law without a lawmaker. That may appear to you to be profound. Did you ever know a lawmaker who did not have a father? Who is the father of your lawmaker?

I am not at all surprised to find my opponent, in defending that old book of his, professes a be­lief in Spiritualism. I have not time to refute that. I can only describe spiritualism as one of the great­est frauds ever perpetrated upon unsuspecting hu­manity.

He asks me to state where it says in the Bible that the world was created six thousand years ago. If you have studied your book, you know that the genealogy of Joseph, called the genealogy of Jesus, tells how long each man lived before begetting the next in the genealogical line. If you add the years, you get 4004 years back to Adam, who was made on a certain day of a certain week. Adam was made approximately six thousand years ago, and there were only so many days before that. My op­ponent has become a scripture-twisting Modernist. He stretches "days" into "periods." He knows that the world and the stars have been here longer than six thousand years. We now see the light from stars hundreds of billions of miles away. Those stars may have gone out of existence. They must have existed long before the time of Adam, or we could not see them today. Their light would not have reached us. My opponent seeks to give the impression that scientists have rejected evolution, that they don’t believe in it any more. He misleads you. There is not a scientific association in the more enlightened countries whose members are not almost unanimous in accepting evolution. They disagree only as to details and methods. The American Association for the Advancement of Science came out squarely for evolution at its convention in 1922. It was meeting in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the home of the Harvard University. The association official­ly declared:

"No scientific generalization is more strongly sup­ported by thoroughly tested evidence than is that of organic evolution." The scientists quoted by my opponent are either dead men or living nobodies. Who is Arthur Brown? And this man Price? What position do they hold? Why does he not show you some learned opponents of evolution? He picks out a man here and there and yonder of whom we have never heard.

He quotes Sir Arthur Keith. The quotation is correct; but did he tell you that Keith is one of the foremost advocates of the ape ancestry of man? He was President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Almost the entire scientific world champions evolution. And what has my opponent to show? An individual here, and a professor there, and a man dead long ago—and not known well when alive.

I have not time to go into the controversy con­cerning Haeckel; but it is conceded that the scien­tists exonerated him. If you want to know the truth of the matter, read the pamphlet by Haeckel —his answer to the Jesuits.

Evolution is the universal question—answered. Why can some persons wiggle their ears? Why do we have buttons on our coats? Why does every person have hair on his body? Why are there silent letters in the English language? Only evo­lution answers. Why do the Jews refuse to eat pork? Because at one time they worshipped the wild boar. Why do Christians shut their eyes while praying? Because their religion has evolved from sun worship, and they naturally closed their eyes while facing the sun. The Rev. Oliphant tells you Evolution left to itself proceeds by degeneration. I want to ask him whether, in his opinion, any species have dis­appeared. If his theory be true, there were more species at the beginning than there are today. I wonder if he believes that. The Rev. Oliphant asks if you can have fitness without intelligence. In the nature of the case, unfitness cannot continue to exist. I tear here a piece of paper. (Here the speaker picked up a piece of paper, tore it in two, and then put the pieces together.) I put it back. Does it not fit? Of course. Was there any intelligence in the tear­ing of the paper? Certainly not. The clergy might as well say that intelligence made my legs just long enough to reach the floor. My opponent does not believe the books of the Bible were accepted by vote. Will he tell us how they were accepted? When the church councils were held, maybe the meetings were Bolsheviki. No, they accepted them by vote. He says the spoiling of the Egyptians was not stealing. It was getting money under false pretenses. What is the difference? He asks for the citation about the wicked prospering. See Job 21:37. Ecclesiastes 8:13 teaches the contrary. He asked for other passages. I cannot give them now, for lack of time.

It is denied that there is a contradiction in the flood story. If you will look that up you will find that according to the so-called Word of God, the animals went into the ark by twos and sevens —both the clean and the unclean; and it is not true as he explained. There is no argument. Look it up. Genesis 7:2; Genesis 7:8-9.

Certain passages have been quoted from Job trying to show that the Jews knew that the world was round. The author of Job may have so known; but I doubt it. Job is not a Jewish book, and is so recognized by the scholars in the seminaries.

I ask those of you who believe that the book of Job is inspired, to read the 7th chapter, 9th verse:

"As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away; so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more." The doctrine of immortality was unknown to the Jews until the time of the New Testament. It is not in the Old Testament. Why was it Job did not know he would live after he died? Hear the wise man, Ecclesiastes 9:5 :

"The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward."

Let’s hear Ecclesiastes again, the inspired word of God:

"There is no knowledge or wisdom in the grave, where man goeth." My friend has referred a number of times to Professor Millikan, and other scientists, as holding that there is no conflict between science and reli­gion. Does he mean the Christian religion? Does he seek to give you the impression that such men as Millikan and other scientists whom he named, believe such tales as the virgin birth, the resurrec­tion, the story of Adam and Eve, the Flood, and all those fables in the Old Testament? They do not, and he should have told you.

I have only a moment or so in which to con­clude. My opponent has admitted he cannot com­prehend God nor explain him; that he does not know where Heaven is; how far it is, or in what direction it lies. He is selling you a gold brick. What did this God of his do? How does he help you? Where did he ever do anything? The action of God in this world is very much like that of the stone with which you can make white stone soup. Here is the recipe for making this delicious dish: To the white stone, add some meat and some vegetables, together with the right seasoning. Cook properly and you have a wonder­ful soup. Do everything needed to be done, and then credit God with the results—that’s religion!

Oliphant’s Second Reply Brother Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Smith: This is the last speech in this discussion. I cannot, of course, introduce any new arguments. Although we have no rules governing this debate, I shall not be unfair to my opponent. I wish that we had more time; there are so many more arguments I should like to have made. In the few minutes at my command I can do no more than give you a brief reiteration of the things to which you have already listened. In our first proposition, I showed that we can­not explain the origin of life, the origin of con­sciousness, or the beginning of man’s moral nature, without God. In fact, atheism does not account for the beginning of anything. My friend has offered tonight the only alternative to my conten­tion that God is creator. What is this alternative? It is chance—evolution "directed by no intelli­gence." His substitute fails; first, because he has not proved that it is true; and second, because—if true—it does not account for things as they are. How can any intelligent person believe that the orderly universe which man beholds, is the result of the working of blind chance—a mere "fortuitous concourse of atoms?"

Referring to his paper-tearing illustration, Mr. Smith says this is an example of "fitness without intelligence." He declares there was no intelligence back of the tearing of the paper. Perhaps not, since he did the tearing; if you had done it, there would have been intelligence used. However, Mr. Smith also used intelligence. He tore the paper ac­cording to design previously fixed in his mind. It had to be fitted back together according to plan; otherwise it would not fit. This would be all the more evident had the paper been torn several times; the various pieces, in order to fit, must be put to­gether intelligently. Can we believe that such a harmonious fitting together of all the "pieces" of the universe is without the work of mind?

I quoted a number of imminent scientists who say that science cannot account for the beginning of life. We are unable to imitate the original life-producing process. If it could be shown that evo­lution explains the intricate forms of life we now have, it would still be at a loss to show how the original germ of life came to exist.

It is true that I cannot comprehend God; nor can I comprehend the principle of life. The most ignorant man can plant a seed in the earth, and watch it grow into a plant; while the wisest man in the world cannot explain the life-germ in the tiny seed.

It is charged that I have not introduced any real scientists who do not believe in evolution. To say one believes in evolution does not necessarily mean that he believes what Mr. Smith is advocat­ing. We all believe in evolution, in one sense of the word. We know that there is development within species. What we are denying is that one kind of life develops into a distinctly different kind.

It is true that the American Association for the Advancement of Science passed resolutions in favor of the evolution hypothesis. These men also engaged in some very unscientific, and undignified language concerning W. J. Bryan, and his "Round Head" adherents. Dr. O’Toole says the meeting at which these resolutions were passed "was but sparsely attended, and packed, for the most part, with the ultra-partisans of transformism." (Case against Evolution, pg. 343.) Even this "ultra-partisan" group did not claim that evolution is more than a theory.

Honest scientists are often wrong. The theor­ies of science are constantly changing. Dr. Frank Allen, head of the Department of Physics, Uni­versity of Manitoba, recently said:

"There is scarcely a theory of science which is gen­erally accepted today, of which I would be ready to affirm that it may not be abandoned within a few years. Nearly all of the theories which were regarded as satisfactory a few years ago, are now either modified or discarded by scientists." (Evolution in the Balances, pg. 182.)

It is not true that all scientists accept the theory of evolution. I mention Dr. Clark Wissler, Curator-in-Chief of the Anthropological section of the American Museum, New York City; Prof. W. Brance, Director of the Institute of Geology and Palaentology, University of Berlin; Sir Wm. Daw­son, President, McGill University; Dr. Howard A. Kelly, John Hopkins University; Prof. L. S. Beale, King’s College, London; Dr. Etheridge, Curator of the Natural History Museum; Dr. Austin H. Clark, Smithsonian Institution, United States Museum. These eminent scientists, and many others that could be named, reject the theory of evolution. The last named, Dr. Clark, who is probably second to no other scientist in ability, says:

"Thus so far as it concerns the major groups of ani­mals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argu­ment. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other." (Quarterly Re­view of Biology.)

Many of those who accept evolution regard it as no more than a theory, which can be accepted only by faith. Dr. L. T. Moore, of the University of Cincinnati, says:

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." (Prince­ton Lectures, pg. 160.)

Mr. Smith charges that Dr. Price is a "no­body," and that no scholars agree with his geolog­ical theories. Mr. Price is a member of the Amer­ican Society for the Advancement of Science. His theory of geology was introduced in his book, "Il­logical Geology." I know of the following scholars who endorsed the book:

• Prof. William C. Wilkinson, University of Chicago: C. W. Hall, Professor of Geology and Mineralogy, University of Minnesota;

• Wm. G. Moorehead, President, Xenia Theological Seminary;

• Prof. Luther T. Townsend, Boston University;

• Prof. James Orr, United Free Church College, Scot­land;

• Prof. George H. Parker, Department of Zoology, Harvard University;

• Prof. A. H. Sayce, Oxford University, England; and

• Prof. Franklin Johnson, University of Chicago.

I am sure many more endorsed it. Even Dr. David Starr Jordan, President, Leland Stanford University, said: "It is a very clever book." Those who do not accept Mr. Price’s position find it easier to laugh at his arguments than to answer them. Scientists do not agree in their conjectures about the age of the earth. It has been estimated all the way from six or seven thousand years, up to 10,000 million years. If you ask: Does the Bible agree with science as to the age of the earth? I ask: What science? It is evident that the Bible could not agree with all these estimates.

However, the Bible does not tell us the earth’s age. I do not know whether the six days of Genesis were six literal days, or six long periods of time. The term "day" is frequently used to designate an indefinite period. This may have been the sense in which it was used in Genesis. I do not think it does the Bible record any injury to think they were long periods of time. I do not know that the six days of Genesis even relate to the original creation. It may be that all we know of the creation is that which we are told in the first verse of the Bible. The work of the six days may have been done long after the creation. There is no need to argue these questions. Opponents of the Bible have nothing to offer but a guess. No scien­tist will contend that he knows anything about the age of the earth. I believe the Bible account, re­gardless of what period of time is meant by "day." Nothing has been offered to shake our faith in the Bible record.

Mr. Smith repeats the charge that we do not know what books the Bible should contain, except by the vote of a church conference. The earliest church assembly to catalogue the books of the New Testament was the Council of Carthage, which met in A. D. 397. Catalogues of the New Testament had been made by numbers of individuals before this date. Athanasius, who was Bishop of Alexandria from 326 to 373 A. D., lists all the books of the New Testament as we have them today. Cyril, who was Bishop of Jerusalem, catalogued the books of the New Testament. He lived from 315 to 386 A. D. Several other men who lived before any church council passed on the genuineness of Bible books, prepared lists of the books of our New Test­ament.

Christians of the first four centuries quoted from the books of the New Testament. These quo­tations were so many and so copious that if the New Testament were lost, it could be reproduced from these writings. Some of these early writers were: Eusebius (207-340 A. D.), Origen (185 to 254), Clement of Alexandria (165 to 230), Irenaeus (135 to 200), Polycarp (disciple of the Apostle John). All these, and many others, quoted from the books of the New Testament, and attributed them to the authors whose names they now bear. When the church councils, later, made catalogues, they were governed by the acceptance and use of the books from the time of the apostles.

Mr. Smith seems to insinuate that Jesus is not a historical character. Not even an infidel of any standing has ever questioned the facts that Jesus lived at the time the gospel writers say He did, and that He did many of the things ascribed to Him in the gospels. Tacitus, a reputable Roman historian, who was born about 58 A. D. tells us that Christians "derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate." (Annals, XV, 44).

Pliny, who was born about 62 A. D., tells of the punishment of Christians, and indicates that he understood Christianity to have originated with Christ. (Letter to the Emporer Trajan, Quoted by Gibbon, Vol. 2, Pgs. 26, 27).

Suetonius, Secretary under the Emperor Ad­rian, was born about 68 A. D. This writer says that Christians were punished, and that Chrestus (Christ) was their leader. (Lives of the Twelve Caesars).

Celsus was an early opponent of Christianity. He wrote a book, "The True Word," in which he not only admits that Jesus lived, but that He per­formed miracles.

We might also refer to the celebrated passage from Josephus:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had fore­told these and ten thousand other wonderful things con­cerning him: and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities, Bk. 18, chap. 3).

I am aware that the genuineness of this pass­age has been questioned, However, there have been infidels in all ages who have accepted it. Ernest Renan said: "I think the passage on Jesus authen­tic" (Life of Jesus, pg. 13). Even the atheist, Joseph McCabe, thinks Josephus mentioned Christ, but that the passage was altered by some Christian hand at a later date. Mr. McCabe, though a radical atheist, accepts the historicity of Jesus. (See his book, "Did Jesus Ever Live?"). If we grant that this passage is spurious, we still have a reference to Jesus by Josephus. In his Antiquities, book 20, chapter 9, while discussing the death of James, Josephus refers to "Jesus, who was called the Christ."

If it were conceded that Jesus did not live, we would have to attribute Divinity to the gospel writers. Men who could imagine such a character must have been more than mere men. He who denies the life of Jesus as given by the Evangelists has more to account for than we, who accept their accounts. It would take a "Christ" to imagine the Christ of the gospels.

All the evidence I have offered is from men who were not favorable to Jesus. The testimonies of many Christian historians could be offered.

Mr. Smith says Job may have known the sci­entific truths which he stated. I again ask, how could Job have known these things, without inspi­ration? The passage my opponent quoted from Job in regard to the resurrection is a part of Job’s com­plaint, which runs throughout the first part of the book. After the Lord "answered Job out of the whirlwind," his attitude was completely changed. Hear his confession:

"Then Job answered the Lord, and said, I know that thou canst do everything (even to raising the dead—Oli­phant) and that no thought can be withholden from thee..... I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.... where- fore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:1-6). The Bible is an inspired book; its record of facts is correct. There are quotations in the Bible, which do not state the truth. The fact that the statements were made, is recorded by Inspiration. For instance, the words of Satan are sometimes quoted. The Holy Spirit does not vouch for the truthfulness of the statements; but the writer was inspired in his telling of Satan’s having made them. So, we have in the book of Job, some state­ments made by Job, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, which may not be true. Job realized that he had made some false statements; hence, made the con­fession I quoted from him. The charge that Job did not know of the resurrection is false. Read the nineteenth chapter, verse twenty-six:

"Though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."

Mr. Smith quotes Solomon’s statement that there is no knowledge in the grave. Certainly, there is not. Who has ever contended that there is knowledge in the grave. Only the body of man goes to the grave. The same writer says, "the spirit shall return unto God." (Ecclesiastes 12:7) The part of man that "knows" is never in the grave. My friend quotes a part of Ecclesiastes 9:5 "The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward." Why did he not quote the rest of the passage? The sixth verse closes with a qualifying clause: "in anything that is done under the sun." In other words, the dead know nothing, have no reward, etc., "under the sun" (upon the earth). You can take any book, and make it teach any­thing; provided you cut its sentences up in such manner. Infidels do not deal honestly with the Bible.

God did not introduce slavery (Exodus 21:1-36), as my opponent has charged; on the contrary, God here limits slavery, and provides a way for a slave to become a free-man. All nations of that ancient time practiced slavery. God showed His displeas­ure at the practice, by gradually leading His people out of it. It would have been unwise to have at­tempted to suddenly abolish such a universal cus­tom. God reveals Himself and His laws to man as rapidly as man is capable of receiving them. Man’s receptive capacity limits God’s revelation. When Stanley was in the jungle of Africa, the pigmies asked him where he came from and how he got there. Having never seen a ship or an ocean, their vocabulary contained no words for ships or oceans. Hence Stanley was unable to an­swer their question. His inability was not due to his lack of knowledge, but to, the natives’ lack of understanding. So, if our revelation of God is not clear, it is because of our lack of receptive capac­ity.

Job 21:1-34 and Ecclesiastes 8:1-17 do not contradict. Job does not teach that the wicked prosper, in the long run. Verse 30 says that the wicked are "reserved to the day of destruction." The passage teaches that, though the wicked may seem to prosper, tem­porarily; they must eventually reap what they sow. Ecclesiastes teaches the same truth. I am re minded of this story: An infidel wrote an article for a country newspaper, in which he said: "Your God does not punish men for wrong. I plowed my land on Sunday, planted my corn on Sunday and harvested it on Sunday. This October, I have as much corn as any of my neighbors, who went to church on Sunday." The editor printed the arti­cle, and followed it with this brief reply: "God does not settle all His accounts in October."

There is no contradiction in the Genesis ac­count of the flood. In Genesis 7:2, God is telling Noah how many clean and unclean animals to take into the ark. The eighth and ninth verses tell how they went in, "by twos and twos"—not how many went in.

Throughout the debate yesterday afternoon, I challenged my opponent to give us the atheist’s standard of morality. I charged that, according to the only rule he offered, it would not be wrong to rob or kill. He never denied my charge. I asked him to offer any reason why it would be wrong for me to take his life; he offered none. Why? Be­cause, according to atheism, it is no more wrong to kill a man than it is to kill a beast. I charged that atheism is brutal, savage and immoral; he did not so much as deny the charge. It, therefore, stands, as I made it.

I charged that atheists have never built a school or a hospital. He denied the charge. I asked him to name such an institution, which was built by atheists. The debate now closes without his having named a single one. He could not do so, for the simple reason that, there is no such institution. I showed that even the school Mr. Smith attended was built by religion. Sir, you are biting the hand that feeds you!

I wish it to be remembered that Mr. Smith does not deny that his position means the killing of persons who are physically weak. Such is the brutal theory he wants to establish in the place of God and His word. So long as there are intelligent men and women in the world, he cannot succeed.

There are no contradictions in the Bible. I think I have shown that none of his supposed con­flicts are real; but suppose I cannot prove that there are no contradictions in God’s word: what does that indicate? Merely that I do not under­stand all about Infinite things. God has nowhere said that, from man’s viewpoint, there are no con­tradictions in His word. Nature is made up of opposites and contraries. We have opposite sexes; opposite forces (centripetal and centrifugal), con­stantly pulling against each other; cold and heat; darkness and light; etc. If I fail to harmonize all the statements of the Bible, it still looks much like God’s other Book—Nature.

Music is made up of notes; but if these notes are jumbled and mixed, without design, hideous and contradictory sounds are produced. So, the Bible sings a beautiful song of eternal life to the man who conscientiously studies it; to the disbeliever who distorts its notes, it presents a discord. It is not the Bible scholar who finds contradictions in the Bible. The Bible has builded itself into the very warp and woof of our being. Its influence on our litera­ture is remarkable. Take Shakespeare: I found 138 references to Bible characters, and 53 refer­ences to Bible incidents, facts, places, etc., in his works. He also has about 190 passages which are parallel with Bible statements. If the Bible were destroyed, it could probably be reproduced from the literature of our day. A ten-year-old book on science is hard to find; books of fiction are out-of-date in a few years; but the Bible is still the "best seller." During 1927, the American Bible Society distributed 10,034,797 copies of the Bible. This society is 112 years old. Since the date of its organization it has averaged three volumes a minute, night and day—making a total of 194,063,757 volumes distributed since its work began. This is an average of 197 copies an hour for 112 years. Its average production now is 27,492 copies a day, 1,145 an hour, or 19 a min­ute. This society has circulated the Scriptures in 250 languages and dialects. It has been estimated that if all the persons who have received copies of the Scripture from this one agency were to stand in line, the line would reach four times around the world. Does this look like the Bible is losing its popularity. The Bible has been bitterly fought in every century of its life; still it lives. It is adapted to the needs of humanity; it furnishes guidance, hope and cheer to, an otherwise, cheerless world. All the hope the infidel has in life comes, indirectly, from its pages. Col. Ingersoll, at his brother’s grave, said:

"Life is a narrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities. We, strive in vain to look beyond the heights. We cry aloud, and the only answer is the echo of our wailing cry. From the voiceless lips of the unreplying dead there comes no word; but in the night of death hope sees a star and listening love can hear the rustle of a wing. He who sleeps here, when dying, mis­taking the approach of death for the return of health, whispered with his latest breath, ’I am better now.’ Let us believe, in spite of doubts and dogmas and tears and fears that these dear words are true of all the countless dead." (Col. R. G. Ingersol’s Great Speeches, pg. 67.)

There is no conflict between the Bible and true science. Theories of science may sometimes differ from the Bible. Science must theorize; and her theories of today are, many times, discarded to­morrow. We are learning all the time. If the time ever arrives when men of science have a per­fect knowledge of the world, all apparent conflicts will disappear; and on the title page of every sci­ence textbook may be written:

"IN THE BEGINNING GOD."

Decision of the Audience At the close of this, the last session of the de­bate, the chairman, F. L. Paisley, stated that a vote had been taken at the close of the first session, be­cause of Mr. Smith’s desire. Mr. Smith had later requested that no more votes be asked. "But now," said Mr. Paisley, "we are going to give the audi­ence a chance to vote, by request of the Christian side of the discussion." The vote stood: Two for Smith; the rest of the audience for Oliphant.