Chapter III: Part 3

This is absurd, for the cells which build up the embryo, are new combinations of the atoms of which they are composed; each embryo develops and grows anew for itself; neither the germ-cell nor any of its daughter-cells has any knowledge of the father, nor of the mother; nor of their mode of development and growth; nor of their organs and parts; nor has the embryo any power nor control over its own development and growth, nor to imitate the development and growth of its parents, even if it knew how they developed and grew.

Sec. 27. Differentiation (Metamorphosis) of Simple-Cells Into Bone-Cells, Muscle-Cells, Nerve-Cells, Vascular-Cells, Gland-Cells, Etc.

A cell is said to be “a simple-cell,” when it is composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, with a possible trace of phosphorus and sulphur,--when it consists of plain protoplasm--and before it has been differentiated into a bone-cell, muscle-cell, nerve-cell or the like. To convert a simple-cell into one of these specialized cells certain atoms must be added to it, or taken from it; or certain atoms must be taken away and others added to it; or the chemical combination of atoms in it must be broken down and new ones formed. There is no change in the properties of the chemical elements, which compose the human body. For example, the nature and properties of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen remain the same whether they are in or out of the body, and the same is true of every other element.

The differentiation of simple-cells into bone-cells, muscle-cells, nerve-cells, vascular-cells, gland-cells, etc., is effected by changing the chemical elements, which enter into their composition; or by changing the proportion of these elements to one another and altering their molecular structure. In fact, it appears that every differentiation and specialization of any animal, or of any organ or part of one, is accomplished by changing its chemical constituents; or by changing their relative proportions to one another and thereby modifying its molecular structure, and by changing the mechanical arrangement of its atoms and cells.

The entire work of building up the embryo body is done by making new chemical combinations and new mechanical arrangements of the atoms and cells of which it is composed.

Referring to the residue of the dry bone, which remains after calcining it (burning away the soft parts of it), Professor Martin says:

“The residue forms a white, very brittle mass, retaining, perfectly the shape and structural details of the original bone. It consists of normal calcium (lime) phosphate or _bone-earth_ (CA₃, 2PO₄); but there is also present a considerable proportion of calcium [lime] carbonate (CaCO₃) and smaller quantities of other salts.” (Martin, Human Body, p. 90.)

Under the head: “The Chemistry of Muscular Tissue,” he says:

“Muscle contains 75 per cent of water; and among other inorganic constituents, phosphates and chlorides of potassium, sodium and magnesium.” (Human Body, p. 123.)

According to this statement there is no lime in the muscles; and we cannot believe there is any of this substance in any tissue of the body except the bones; for every other tissue is soft and flexible. It is clear that the purpose of putting lime into the bones, is to make them rigid and stable in order to support the body and keep all its organs and parts in place.

What force or agency assembles the atoms of lime, phosphorus, carbon and oxygen, and combines them into the phosphate of lime, and the carbonate of lime, to make the bones rigid and stable? Surely, it is not the father, nor the mother, nor the embryo itself. It would be preposterous to suppose that the atoms of lime, phosphorus, carbon and oxygen, of their own motion, and automatically, assemble and combine themselves, chemically, in such proportions as to form the phosphate of lime, and the carbonate of lime in the bones; and that these atoms of the phosphate and carbonate of lime group themselves, automatically, into such mechanical arrangements as to form the bones with all their processes, joints, cavities, perforations, etc., and fit them together in the form of the skeleton.

The formation of bones in the body of a single animal, might, possibly happen by accident or chance. But when bones are formed in the bodies of all animals of the same species for thousands, or millions, of years and when all of them, in the bodies of each species, have the same chemical composition, the same structure, form and size; we are compelled to assume that the same cause, force or agency, which produces bones in each body, also produces them in every other body; in brief that all bones are made by the same supernatural psychic and creative force. The same is true of every other tissue.

But the evolutionist says that “heredity” works this miracle. In other words, that this metamorphosis of simple-cells into bones, muscles, nerves, etc., happens because certain similar cells in the bodies of the father and mother were changed in the same manner. He overlooks the fact that the cells, bones, etc., in the embryo body are new and altogether different from those which were metamorphosed in the bodies of its parents and that the forces which did that work were exhausted in doing it. He forgets or ignores the fact that neither the germ-cell nor any of its daughter-cells has any intellect, memory, will-power or creative force; that they have no knowledge of chemistry, nor of lime, phosphorus, carbon, oxygen, nor of their affinities; nor of bones; nor of their forms, sizes and functions.

The differentiation and specialization (metamorphosis) of cells and tissues; and their mechanical arrangement and grouping into the several organs and parts of the embryo body are not the work of blind mechanical forces; nor of chance; nor of accident; nor of unthinking cells; but of the Almighty Creator.

Sec. 28. Waste of Cells

So soon as the embryo begins to grow, the waste of cells begins; and continues until the death of the individual, however long he may live. “The knowledge is wanting,” says the Britannica, “which would tell us, when a certain limit has been attained, the process of income and expenditure balance and growth ceases.”--(Encyc. Brit. 17, p. 686.) “During life,” says Professor Martin, “all the formed elements of the body are constantly being broken down and removed; either molecularly, (that is bit by bit, while the general size and form of the cell or fibre remains unaltered) or in mass, as when the hairs and the cuticle are shed.” (Martin, Human Body, p. 670.)

See Encyc. Brit. 17, pp. 686-687; Martin, Human Body, pp. 451-476, 670-671; New International Encyc. 9, pp. 312-315.

The waste of cells affects the growth of the body, only so far as it tends to neutralize and offset the increase of the body by the multiplication of cells.

Sec. 29. Embryo Body is Built up of Inanimate Atoms Except the Germ-Cell

The germ-cell (fertilized ovum) is the physical basis of every human body. Such an ovum is said to be potentially alive because it may, with the aid of the Creator, develop into a living individual. Excepting this tiny bit of flesh-like substance, which is barely visible to the naked eye, and which is not one trillionth part of the infant at birth, every part of the human embryo is built up of inanimate atoms, which are carried and distributed to the growing embryo by the blood of the mother. These dead atoms are then assimilated by the embryo and incorporated into its growing body.

The fertilized ovum is soon split and divided into millions of pieces, by the division of cells, and lost in the general mass of the embryo body like a drop in the sea. It appears that the chief office of the fertilized ovum is to inaugurate the growth and multiplication of cells, which are, finally, differentiated and specialized into the several organs and parts of the embryo body.

These facts serve to show the extent of the supernatural creative work done in the embryo body. It is a new living body, with all its organs and parts made of inanimate matter, except the germ-cell.

Sec. 30. Embryo Body; Each is Produced Anew

The embryo is built of certain chemical elements, namely: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. See sec. 3, supra, and index, infra, “Chemical elements.” It derives its properties and potentialities from certain chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements of these elements, and from life. All of these combinations and arrangements are made after the formation of the fertilized ovum. Even if this ovum and its daughter-cells could build up the embryo body, automatically, yet it must grow anew for itself, independently of the growth of the bodies of its parents, or any other person; for it must have its own body, and not that of its father, mother, nor of any other person. It is composed of new materials, except the fertilized ovum, which is too small to be considered in comparison with the body of the embryo, as a whole. These new materials are derived from the blood of the mother.

No embryo ever takes or uses any organ or part of the body of its father, or mother, except the spermatozoön and the ovum, which form the germ-cell and serve as a germ to start the growth of the body. Each embryo is a new combination and a new arrangement of the atoms and cells of which it is composed. It is produced by new forces and motions peculiar to itself, which are similar to, but different from, those which produce every other embryo body. It is admitted on all sides, that every human being begins life as a fertilized ovum. It is well known that this infinitesimal cell has no organs, whatever, it being a mere atom. In no sense can it be called an embryo body. Each person must have his or her own body. No one ever takes or uses the body of any other person, nor any organ or part of such a body, such a thing being unthinkable. It follows, necessarily, that each embryo body and every organ and part of it, is produced anew, independently of every other human body.

Do the atoms and cells of which the embryo body is built up, spontaneously and automatically, form the chemical combinations and make the mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to build up the embryo body; or is it made by a supernatural psychic and creative force? Which hypothesis is most plausible?

Sec. 31. Heredity has no Power to Generate a New Human Being; nor to Evolve One from the Germ-Cell

Heredity is defined as: “The influence of parents upon offspring; transmission of qualities or characteristics, mental or physical, from parents to offspring.” (Cent. Dic. 4, p. 2802.)

Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion are necessary to group two or more atoms into a prescribed chemical combination or into a specified mechanical arrangement. It is a well-known fact that each normal human body is composed of the same chemical elements; has the same chemical combinations and the same mechanical arrangements that are found in every other such body. Therefore, we may well say that the atoms and cells in the body are grouped into prescribed chemical combinations and into specified mechanical arrangements; and that intellect, memory and will-power are necessary to make these combinations and arrangements.

It is also well-known that every human being, begins life as a germ-cell, stem-cell, or fertilized ovum, all of these phrases meaning the same thing; that every such body develops and grows anew for itself. Each body is a new combination of the atoms and cells, of which it is composed. The forces and motions, which assemble and group these atoms and cells into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements, which build up a body, are new, unique and peculiar to that body.

The theory of heredity is based on these facts: The father contributes the spermatozoön and the mother the ovum, which form the germ-cell; this cell and its daughter-cells develop and grow to be a man or a woman, who has substantially the same form, size, structure, organs and parts that one of its parents has, and generally has some of their qualities, characteristics and traits.

But these facts do not prove that the child inherits anything from either parent; they do not prove that the parents, or either of them, caused the child to develop, grow and resemble them in any of these particulars. The existence of a fact and the cause of that fact are two different things. Thus, every body knows that a stone falls to the ground; but nobody knows why. The child resembles its father--but why? Do the parents cause this resemblance? Can they, or either of them, cause their child to have blue eyes or black; a long or short nose; a large or small foot?

Neither Darwin, nor any other man has ever shown how it is possible for the bodies of the parents, or any part of either of them, to affect, modify or determine the form, features, size, structure, qualities, characteristics or traits of their children. It is admitted on all sides that the parents have no voluntary control over these things. Darwin, (Origin of Species, 1, p. 15), says: “The laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown.” Haeckel is voluminous in describing the phenomena of reproduction, heredity, etc. But has nothing to say about the cause, nor the mechanism of heredity.

It is undoubtedly true that the human body is a compound physical structure; that each organ and part of every such body has to be made, anew, of fresh materials, for that body; that the child does not “take over,” bodily, any organ nor part of either parent, but has its own new organs, unique and peculiar to itself; that neither the father nor the mother has any voluntary power to select, assemble nor group the atoms and cells, of which the embryo body is made; nor to generate, guide, nor control the forces and motions by which this work is done. All this being true, how is it possible for the parents, or either of them, to transmit any of their qualities, characteristics or traits to their child?

The notion of mankind in general appears to be the body of the child is a sort of offshoot or branch of the bodies of the parents, as if the child had budded out on the trunk of the mother; and finally dropped off and become a distinct individual. But this view is wholly erroneous. The embryo becomes a separate and distinct entity the moment the germ-cell is formed; and it develops and grows, anew, for itself independently of the bodies of its parents, which have no more to do with its development and growth than the body of any other person has.

If we assume that each human being is a new direct and special creation by Almighty God, we can readily understand the mysterious phenomena called “heredity.”

At first, the germ-cell does not resemble either parent nor even a human being, it being too small, even to suggest a human body, at all. An infant at birth, is too rudimentary to resemble either parent more closely than it does any other person of the same sex.

Whether the germ-cell and its daughter-cells are to develop and grow to be a man, resembling its father; or a woman resembling its mother, the same forces and motions are required to assemble and group the necessary atoms and cells into the proper chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements in order to construct its body. The fact that the child may resemble its father or its mother or both of them, does not dispense with the assembling of the atoms and cells; nor with the grouping of them into the necessary combination and arrangements. It is clear that the same or similar forces and motions are necessary to construct any animal body, whatever its form, size or sex may be.

According to the evolutionist and materialist, the fact that the child resembles its parents is adequate to account for, and explain all the phenomena of reproduction. But the existence of this resemblance, and, the cause of it, are two wholly different things. The fact that the child resembles its parents only deepens the mystery; for it would require less knowledge, skill and creative force to construct a body with the qualities and characteristics of mankind in general, than it would to group the atoms and cells of the body in such a manner as to produce a body in the image of a particular man or woman. Thus a portrait painter could make a fancy sketch of an imaginary person, without any striking features, more easily than he could paint a particular man with all his peculiarities; as, for example, his bald head, high forehead, blue eyes, long aquiline nose, wide mouth, massive lower jaw and tall, slender body. The closer the resemblance, between the child and its parents, the greater the mystery.

It being a fact that the body of the child has identically the same organs and parts that are formed in the body of its father, or in that of the mother; and that the child closely resembles one or both of them, we naturally inquire: “What force or agency causes the germ-cell and its daughter-cells to develop and grow until they become a man, like its father; or a woman like its mother?” We cannot even imagine that this sameness of organs and parts, of structure, form and size, and this close resemblance happens by chance or accident.

Every man has conscious knowledge that he had no voluntary part in the production of his child, except that he placed the spermatozoön at a point from which it could reach the ovum. The mother knows that she had no voluntary part nor agency in the production of her child except that she permitted the father to place the spermatozoön in reach of the ovum. Neither of them has any voluntary power, nor any control over the formation of the spermatozoön nor of the ovum; nor over the development and growth of the child, nor over its structure, form, size nor over its features.

The spermatozoön is a microscopic cell, 1/500th of an inch in length, (Martin, Human Body, p. 651), the head, which is the largest part of it, being, apparently about 1/10,000th of an inch in diameter, (Haeckel, Evolution of Man, p. 53, fig. 22.) It consists of a homogeneous mass of protoplasm, composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen; and sometimes has a trace of phosphorus and sulphur. (Cent. Dic. 6, p. 4799; Huxley, Anat. Invert. An., pp. 9, 14.) See index infra, “Spermatozoön.” Although the spermatozoön is not visible to the naked eye, and has certain vital properties and potentialities, yet it is a physical body with all the attributes of a brick or stone.

If any quality, characteristic or trait of the father passes from him to his child, it is transmitted by, and through the spermatozoön, for that is the only thing that passes from the one to the other. So, if any quality, characteristic or trait of the mother passes from her to her child, it is transmitted by and through the ovum, that being the only thing that passes from her to it.

Whatever power or influence the father’s body, or any organ or part of it, may have to affect or modify the body of his child or any part of it, must be effected by and through the spermatozoön before it leaves his genital organs; for it is clear that neither the father’s body, nor any organ nor part of it, has any power to affect, modify or differentiate the spermatozoön, nor any part of it, after it leaves his body.

It is absurd to suppose that the father’s body, or any organ or part of it, can affect, modify or differentiate the spermatozoön, or any part of it, in such a manner that it shall cause the child to have qualities, characteristics and traits resembling those of the father. In fact he could not possibly know whether there is one, many, or none in his genital organs, at any given time, for a stronger reason no single organ nor any part of his body could possibly affect, modify nor differentiate the spermatozoön in such a manner as to cause the child, which arises from it to have organs and parts resembling those of the father. Thus, suppose the father has blue eyes. How could the father, or his eyes, possibly affect the spermatozoön in such a way as to cause the child’s eyes to be blue? How could the father, or his nose, modify the spermatozoön in such a manner as to cause the child’s nose to resemble the father’s nose. It would be absurd to suppose that the father’s brain and his vocal organs can affect the spermatozoön in such a manner as to cause the child to be a notable singer.

Professor Weismann says:

“It is well known that many mental and physical qualities of parents are transmitted to their children, such as the color of the eyes and hair, the shape and size of the finger nails; and not only these, but as everyone knows, even such minute and indefinable physical and mental characteristics as likeness of features, bearing, gait, handwriting, a mild and equable or passionate and irritable temperament.”--(Weismann on Heredity, 2, p. 14.)

The color of the eyes depends on the coloring matter or pigment in the irises. How could the father’s eyes possibly affect the spermatozoön in such a manner as to make the child’s eyes blue? How could the father’s red hair differentiate the spermatozoön so as to give the child red hair? Can we imagine that the father’s finger nails can affect the spermatozoön in such a way as to make the child’s nails of the same “shape and size” as those of the father? How could such a thing be? Can we believe that a man’s brain, nerves and muscles, can so affect the spermatozoön that the child’s handwriting shall be like that of the father? How could this be? How could the father’s brain modify the spermatozoön in such sort that the child shall have the same temperament that the father has?

Most of the resemblances between the child and its parents result from education, association and environment. If a child’s parents die when it is six months old; and it be placed in the hands of a stranger and his wife; it is easy to see that many of the child’s qualities, characteristics and traits would be borrowed from the man and his wife with whom the orphan lives.

The infant, at birth, is merely a living creature without any physical qualities, characteristics or traits peculiar to itself; nor has it any mental qualities, characteristics nor traits, whatever. In fact, it has scarcely any intellect, at all. It follows that most of the physical qualities and characteristics of each person are acquired; and that all of the mental qualities, characteristics and traits of every one are acquired, they being the result of education, association and environment. No doubt most of the resemblance between a child and its parents are caused by education, imitation and association.

The evolutionist has invented divers theories to account for, and explain the phenomena of reproduction on material and mechanical principles, without the aid of any supernatural psychic or creative force. For example, Darwin invented the theory of “gemmules” and “pangenesis;” Spencer advanced the hypothesis of “physiological units” or “constitutional units,” “structural proclivity,” or “proclivity towards the organic form of the species;” Cope suggested “bathmism (go-ism)” “simple growth-force,” “grade-growth-force” and “excess-growth;” Weismann invented the “continuity of germ-plasm,” “ids,” “iddants” and “determinants.” But none of these words or phrases explain anything. If there is anything in nature corresponding to these words none of these writers ever saw them, nor did they know anything about them. These “gemmules,” “units,” “proclivities,” “ids,” “bathmisms,” etc., are purely hypothetical--mere figments of the imagination. Every body has rejected Darwin’s theory of “gemmules,” and “pangenesis;” no one but Spencer ever adopted his hypothesis of “physiological units” and “proclivities;” Cope was the only man that over used “bathmism,” etc.; Spencer, Romanes and others gave many reasons why Weismann’s “continuity of germ-plasm,” “ids,” “iddants” and “determinants” were absurd and impossible. No two of them agreed on anything, except the supposed fact of organic evolution. Spencer, somewhere says, in substance, that there is a general belief that organic evolution has occurred; but great diversity of opinion as to the manner in which it has been effected.

The theory of the evolutionist is that the genital organs of a man generate spermatozoä, with all their properties and potentialities, spontaneously and automatically, without the aid of any extraneous, psychic or creative force, and that those of a woman produce ova in the same manner. He maintains that a spermatozoön and an ovum unite and fuse into a germ-cell (fertilized ovum) and that this cell (germ) then becomes, automatically, a living being; that it develops and grows spontaneously and automatically, to be a man or a woman, without the aid or guidance of any extraneous psychic or creative force, whatever.

As a fact the fertilized ovum does not develop into a man or woman at all, but a vast number of daughter-cells are produced from it, which are metamorphosed and molded by the Creator into a man or woman. The evolutionist holds that the fertilized ovum inherits all its properties and potentialities from its parents. In other words, he contends that the germ-cell develops and grows as it does because its father and mother developed and grew in the same manner. Is there any apparent reason why the germ-cell should develop and grow at all? Why should it develop and grow, spontaneously and automatically, as its father and mother grew? The germ-cell is a new combination of the atoms of which it is composed; the embryo is built up of new materials; wholly different from those which compose the bodies of its parents; and by new forces and motions, altogether different from those which built up the bodies of its parents. How could the mode, in which the bodies of the father and mother developed and grew, possibly affect the development and growth of the child?

The fact that each normal body develops and grows in the same manner that the bodies of its parents grew, and as every other normal body grows, is conclusive evidence that the development and growth of each human body is caused, guided and controlled by an extraneous supernatural psychic and creative force, which is ubiquitous, all over the earth. No other hypothesis can explain the uniform mode of development and growth, which we observe, among all the mammals in every age and country.

The fact that the child resembles its father or mother, or both of them, is strong evidence that the same creative force made all three of them. We cannot believe that the blind, unthinking cells, which build up the body of the child, automatically, group themselves in such a manner as to make the child in the image of the father or mother.

Everyone knows that each human body is built of atoms and cells, which are assembled and grouped into certain chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements by force and motion, and that there cannot be any such thing as force and motion without, at least two physical bodies, the one to transmit the force and the other to move. The word, “heredity,” does not denote a physical body nor a physical force. It is a mere name for a group of vital phenomena. How could heredity bring two or more atoms or cells together? Such a suggestion is too absurd even for the imagination.

Perhaps the orthodox churchman would maintain that the Creator endowed Adam’s genital organs with the power to generate spermatozoä; and also endowed those of Eve with the power to produce ova; that He endowed these spermatozoä and ova with the power to produce new men and woman, automatically; and that He ordained that they should have the power to produce new spermatozoä and new ova, with the same properties and potentialities that were possessed by the original spermatozoä and ova, that were generated in the bodies of Adam and Eve and so on forever.

This brings us back to the proposition that every human body is a compound physical structure, composed of atoms and cells, which are grouped into certain chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements; and that intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion are necessary to make these combinations and arrangements. To do this work, automatically, these atoms and cells must be endowed with divine intellect, memory, will-power and creative force; and this is equivalent to a special creation. So if it be said that each fertilized ovum is endowed with the power to produce a new man or woman, the answer is that this endowment is equivalent to a special creation.

The reader may argue that the Creator endowed Adam’s spermatozoä and Eve’s ova with the power to develop men and women, who were endowed with the power to produce new spermatozoä and new ova, with the same properties and potentialities that were possessed by those of Adam and Eve and so on forever to the nth. generation.

There are several insuperable objections to this theory:

_First._--It is inconceivable that a man could be endowed with the power to produce spermatozoä before he is born; nor could a woman produce ova before her birth; nor is it possible to endow a fertilized ovum with the power to produce a man or woman before it is formed. When Adam’s spermatozoä and Eve’s ova were made the men and women to be produced from them had not come into being; and it was impossible for even the Creator to endow them, at that time, with the power to produce spermatozoä and ova. Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion were necessary to group the atoms and cells of which the bodies of these new men and women were to be composed, into the necessary chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements in order to construct their bodies. Neither the spermatozoä, the ova nor the germ-cells produced from them, had intellect, memory, will-power nor the necessary force. Therefore it was impossible for Adam’s spermatozoä and Eve’s ova, or germ-cell, resulting from their fusion, to produce Adam and Eve’s children, automatically.

_Secondly._--Neither the children of Adam and Eve nor of any other man or woman ever had the power to generate spermatozoä and ova, voluntarily. It is inconceivable that the blind unthinking genital organs of Adam’s children or of any other man or woman ever produced spermatozoä and ova spontaneously and automatically. We are compelled to believe that the Creator always generates, guides and controls the forces and motions which assemble and group the atoms into the form of the spermatozoä and ova; and that he directly and specially endows each spermatozoön and ovum with such properties and potentialities as it may possess.

_Thirdly._--Life is not a property of matter. If it were, there would be no such thing as death; for matter and all its attributes and properties are eternal. The atoms, of which a man’s body is composed, are as old as the earth. But during his life, they are grouped together; and this group of atoms is endowed with the properties and potentials of a living being. The human body has identically the same physical properties, whether it be living or dead. Thus, it has the same weight, length, breadth and thickness after death that it had while living, until disintegration sets in. Apparently, the living human body is similar to a piece of iron, when charged with electricity or magnetism. Neither of these adds anything to the weight of the iron; nor do they change its structure, form, size, nor its appearance. When they leave the iron it remains as it was before it was charged with them. So it is with the human body for a time after life leaves it.

Life not being a property of matter, it must be directly and specially conferred, by a supernatural creative force, upon the body in which it resides.

It is agreed by all biologists that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation of animals, nor of plants at this time. As Huxley puts it: “_Omne vivum ex vivo_,” “all life comes of life.” (Encyc. Brit. (9 ed.) 8, p. 746.)

Now, if there be no such thing as spontaneous generation of animals, nor of plants, why should there be spontaneous generation of life? Neither the spermatozoön, nor the ovum can live alone. But when united and fused together, under proper conditions, this combination takes on the manifestations of life; and these manifestations continue until death.

Any good chemist can analyze a fertilized ovum and learn, exactly, the chemical elements of which it is composed, and the proportions in which they are combined. He could then make a new combination of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen in the same proportions, in which these substances were combined in the fertilized ovum; and if life were a property of that combination of atoms, this new chemical compound, ought to become a living creature. But no such thing could ever happen.

As already remarked, neither the spermatozoön nor the ovum can live alone. But when fused together, the combination becomes a living creature. The atoms in the combination are identically the same that were in the spermatozoön and ovum before the fusion occurred. Why should the combination live when the two component parts of it could not?

It is clear that no man can, voluntarily nor involuntarily endow a spermatozoön with the power to develop, alone, into a human being; for every one of them dies in a day, or within a few days, after it matures; unless it be so fortunate as to unite and fuse with an ovum. It is equally clear that no woman can endow an ovum with the power to become a human being. Every ovum soon dies, unless it unite and fuse with a spermatozoön under conditions favorable to growth. Haeckel says: “there are calculated to be 72,000 [ova] in the sexually mature maiden.” (Evolution of Man, p. 347.) The number of spermatozoä, generated in the sexual organs of a man greatly exceeds the number of ova produced by a woman. It follows that countless trillions of spermatozoä and ova die daily, and disintegrate.

Now, if no man can endow a spermatozoön with the power to develop into a new human being; and if no woman can endow an ovum with power to do so; how is it possible for either parent to endow the fertilized ovum with that power, when it is no part of the body of either of them?

But the evolutionist maintains that the child has in fact, many of the qualities, characteristics and traits, both physical and mental, of its parents; that the parents transmit these qualities, characteristics and traits, to their child, by and through the spermatozoön and the ovum; that this is the only means by which the child could acquire the qualities, characteristics and traits of its parents. Hence, the evolutionist infers that heredity is based on the physical qualities and properties of the spermatozoön and ovum.

But, as I have already argued (Sec. 15) the spermatozoön and the ovum are, themselves, new, direct and special creations, and so is the embryo body. While the physical qualities and characteristics of the spermatozoön may affect the body and mind of the child, to some extent; yet the child remains a new, direct and special creation.

Neither Darwin, nor any other man, has ever shown how it is possible for the father, his body or any part of it, to impress, modify or affect the spermatozoön, or any part of it, in such a manner as to cause the child to resemble him in any particular; nor has it been shown how it is possible for the mother, her body or any part of it, to impress, modify or affect the ovum, or any part of it, in such a manner as to cause the child to resemble her. When we consider the great number of spermatozoä and ova that are produced; their small sizes and short lives; their location in the genital organs; and the lack of intellect, memory and will-power in every organ and part of the bodies of the parents, and the fact that the “gemmules” must reach the spermatozoön and the ovum through the blood, we are compelled to believe that it is impossible for the spermatozoön and ovum to transmit, unaided and alone, any quality, characteristic or trait of a parent to the child; and we are forced to infer that the Creator, directly and specially, endows the spermatozoön and ovum with power to convey to the child such qualities, characteristics, and traits of its parents as they do, in fact, carry to it.

Assuming for argument that certain qualities, characteristics and traits of the father and mother are transmitted to the child by and through the spermatozoön and ovum; this fact does not militate against my theory of special Creation; for it seems reasonable to suppose that the spermatozoön and ovum are specially endowed by the Creator, with such powers and potentialities as they possess. Moreover, the evolutionist and materialist are in this attitude; they cannot show how it is possible for the germ-cell (composed of the spermatozoön and ovum) to produce, unaided and alone, a child with the qualities, characteristics and traits of its parents; nor can they prove that the germ-cell and its daughter-cells do, in fact, automatically, produce the child without the aid of the Creator.

Assuming for argument that the spermatozoön, ovum, germ-cell and its daughter-cells appear to do automatically all the wonderful things that the evolutionist and materialist say they do, the question remains: do these senseless, unthinking atoms and cells, spontaneously and automatically build up the embryo body with all its organs and parts, or does the Creator, in fact, generate, guide and control the forces and motions, which group these cells into the embryo body? In other words: when the atoms and cells, which go to build up the embryo body, appear to act spontaneously and automatically, are they, in fact, moved, guided, controlled and grouped into the form of the embryo body by the Creator?

The facts in relation to the development and growth of the embryo are easily described and understood. But the real question is this: “What force or agency causes this development and growth?”

What force or agency causes the child to resemble its parents? Do the germ-cell and its daughter-cells spontaneously and automatically cause this resemblance; or does the Creator cause it?

Referring to the origin of life in the individual, Professor Martin says:

“At present we know nothing in physiology answering to the match which lights the furnace; those manifestations of energy we call life are handed down from generation to generation, as sacred fire in the temple of vesta from one watcher to another. Science may at some time teach us how to bring the chemical constituents of protoplasm into that combination in which they possess the faculty of starting the oxidations under those conditions which characterize life; then we shall have learnt to strike the vital match.” (Martin, Human Body, p. 312.)

I do not believe that life is handed down from generation to generation. On the contrary the Creator strikes “the vital match” when each fertilized ovum is formed; and every such human ovum is directly and specially endowed by the Creator, with the power to develop into a man or woman.

Sec. 32. Nature has no Power to Generate a New Human Being; nor to Evolve one from the Germ-Cell

Nature is defined as: “The forces or processes of the material world conceived of as an agency intermediate between the Creator and the world, producing all organisms and preserving the regular order of things; as in the old dictum, ‘nature abhors a vacuum.’ In this sense, _nature_ is often personified.” (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3943.) It follows that “nature” is not a substantial nor a material entity or thing, like a man, a tree, or a stone; but is only a name for certain real or imaginary “forces or processes.” The word does not indicate by what agency these “forces or processes” are generated, guided nor controlled. But we use the word to indicate or describe certain phenomena, which we do not understand, in the same manner that we use the word “gravitation.”

The naturalist or materialist would say that nature generates the spermatozoön and ovum; that it unites and fuses them into the germ-cell; and that it develops this cell into a man or woman. One might as well say, historically, that the spermatozoön and ovum are generated and fused; and that a man or woman is produced from it. But this statement does not explain anything. It does not tell us what force selects, assembles and groups the atoms into the spermatozoön and ovum; nor what endows it with life; nor who nor what creates its soul; nor what force or agency causes the embryo to develop and grow to manhood or womanhood.

To say that “nature” generates and evolves new men and women, is no explanation of the phenomena of reproduction. Nature has no physical body, no weight, length, breadth, nor thickness, no intellect, memory nor will-power; nor can it voluntarily generate force nor motion. It follows that “nature” cannot form the spermatozoön nor the ovum; cannot cause them to unite and fuse into a germ-cell; nor cause the necessary atoms and cells to assemble and group themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements required to build up the embryo body, its organs and parts.

In other words, “nature” works by and through the spermatozoön, the ovum and germ-cell or fertilized ovum. It has identically the same powers and potentialities that they have--no more nor less. It follows that nature cannot, automatically, generate nor evolve, a new man, nor a new woman.

Sec. 33. Every Human Being is a New, Direct and Special Creation by Almighty God; this Question to be Determined, How

To determine this question it is necessary: _first_, to ascertain what work has to be done in order to create a new human being; _secondly_, to consider whether this work can be done, spontaneously and automatically, by the germ-cell or fertilized ovum and its daughter-cells, or whether a supernatural psychic and creative force is necessary to do it.

Darwin ought to be accepted by the evolutionist and materialist as high authority on any biological question, and specially on the subject of special creation. I call him as my first witness. In his Origin of Species, last edition, 1872, (vol. 2, p. 298) he says:

“I believe that [all] animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype.”

Again, on page 299, he says:

“If we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organic beings, which have ever lived on this earth may have descended from one primordial form.”

The last ten lines in his Origin of Species (vol. 2, pp. 305-306) are in these words:

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one, and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on, according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful, have been and are being evolved.”

Thus, the reader will see that Darwin, himself believed that the first one, or the first few, animals and plants were directly and specially created by Almighty God.

I base the theory that every Human being is a new, direct and special creation by Almighty God, on the following propositions:

Sec. 34. Proposition 1. Animals and Plants First Appeared on the Earth at a Certain Time

There was a time when there were no animals, nor plants on our planet. Therefore, they must have appeared at a definite period.

The rocks tell us that animals and plants first appeared on the earth in the archæozoic or primordial geological age, which, according to Haeckel, began 100,300,000 years ago. (Last words on Evolution, p. 165.) He also says that “life began to exist at a definite period,” “on our planet;” that “no organism can exist or discharge its functions without water. No water, no life!” and that the surface of the earth had to cool down so as to convert “the envelope of steam into water” before animals and plants could live. (Evolution of Man, p. 200.)

Sec. 35. Proposition 2. First Animal and Plant were Either Specially Created; or Arose by Spontaneous Generation from Inorganic Matter

Mysterious and miraculous as it may seem, animals and plants have lived on the earth during this eternity of time. The earth is now covered with countless millions of them. We know that we, ourselves, are here. How did they happen to be here? How did we get here? How did life originate on the earth?

It is obvious that the first animal or plant that appeared on the earth was either directly and specially made, by a supernatural psychic and creative force, of inorganic matter; or that it arose, by spontaneous generation, from such matter; for it must necessarily have originated in the one manner or in the other. How else could it have come into existence?

So far as I know, there are only two theories, among educated and scientific men, as to the origin of animals and plants. The one is that they were directly and specially made by the Creator; the other is that they arose by spontaneous generation, from inorganic matter. Which of these is most plausible? (Spencer, Principles of Biology, vol. 1, pp. 415-416.)

The evolutionist and materialist maintain that the course of nature is “uniform, continuous and everlasting;” that the earth is now behaving identically, as it has been ever since it came into existence; that animals and plants are now being evolved, as in the past, while others are becoming extinct, and that every animal and plant is merely a co-ordinated term in natures “great progression.” (Huxley, Man’s Place in Nature, p. 151.)

According to this view, if an animal or a plant was ever spontaneously generated from inorganic matter, we would naturally expect to find them arising in the same manner today, for there is no reason to suppose that the nature of the “inorganic matter,” which they say produced the first animal or plant, has been exhausted; nor that it has changed; nor that the conditions have changed, nor that the forces which are supposed to have caused the spontaneous generation of the first animal and plant have ceased to exist.

Sec. 36. Proposition 3. No Spontaneous Generation of Animals; nor of Plants

Professor Huxley (1825-1905) was a scientist and philosopher of the first magnitude. He was an intimate friend to Darwin; an evolutionist and materialist of the strictest sect and fully competent to speak for these schools of philosophy. Among other works on evolution, he wrote, “Man’s Place in Nature” (1863), in which he argued at great length that man is a descendant of an ape. Hence the following quotations from his works may be taken as authoritative admissions on the part of the evolutionist and materialist.

He says:

“The fact is that at the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis [spontaneous generation] does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which the existence of life on the globe is recorded.” (Huxley, Anat. Invert. An., pp. 40-41.)

Writing in the Encyclopedia Britannica (9 ed., vol. 8, p. 746) he says, in substance, that the aphorism: “omne vivum ex vivo” (“all life comes of life”) is a “well established law of the existing course of nature.”

The theory of spontaneous generation assumes that certain inorganic elements, spontaneously and automatically grouped themselves together in such proportions and in such a manner, chemically and mechanically, as to produce one or a very few animals or plants; and that all other animals and plants have descended from this one, or these few primordial forms. No one pretends to say that there is any direct evidence that any such thing ever happened. On the contrary every fact within our knowledge tends to negative the theory of spontaneous generation. But, in order to dispense with the theory of special creation, the evolutionist and materialist invented the theory of spontaneous generation. There is not only no evidence to support the theory of spontaneous generation, but after many trials scientific men have wholly failed to produce any living substance, whatever. On this point Professor Huxley says:

“To enable us to say that we know anything about the experimental origination of organization and life, the investigator ought to be able to take inorganic matters, such as carbonic acid, ammonia, water and salines, in any sort of inorganic combination, and be able to build them up into protein matter [nitrogenous or albuminoid bodies] and that protein matter ought to begin to live in an organic form. That, nobody has done as yet; and I suspect it will be a long while before anybody does it.” (Huxley, Origin of Species, p. 69.) After discussing the theory of spontaneous generation at length, and describing the experiments which are supposed to have destroyed that theory, he says:

“For my part, I conceive that with the particulars of M. Pasteur’s experiments before us, we cannot fail to arrive at his conclusions; and that the doctrine of spontaneous generation has received a final _coup de grace_” [stroke of mercy or death blow.]

After describing the experiments of a number of scientists the New International Encyclopedia, published in 1905, (vol. 1, p. 463) says:

“The result of these experiments and conclusions is that the view that spontaneous generation takes place at the present day, has been entirely discarded.”

If there was ever any such thing as spontaneous generation of animals and plants, from inorganic matter, why should it not continue to happen, down to the present time?

We are therefore compelled to believe that there never was any such thing as spontaneous generation from inorganic matters; and we know that all the men of the earth, acting in concert, could not produce a single live worm!

Sec. 37. Proposition 4. Creator Could Have Made a Million Animals or Plants as Well as One

If it be admitted, as Darwin does, that the Creator made “one or a few” animals and plants, in the beginning, we may well suppose that He could have made a million, or a million of millions, as easily as one.

Sec. 38. Proposition 5. If the Creator Made the First Animal and the First Plant He Made All Others

If it be admitted that He created the first one, or the first few, animals and plants, why should we doubt that He created all of them? If He began to create them, why should He cease to do so? His works are uniform, continuous and everlasting.

But in his “Origin of Species” (vol. 2, p. 304-305) Darwin says:

“Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.”

What are “the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,” that have anything to do with the reproduction of animals and plants? What laws “impressed on matter” have any bearing on the question whether animals and plants have arisen from inorganic matter, by spontaneous generation or by special creation? Perhaps Darwin means to say that he supposes the Creator would naturally make one or a few primordial forms of animal and plant and turn them loose upon the earth to shift for themselves subject to “secondary causes,” namely, the factors of evolution. But he does not profess to have any special knowledge of the Divine Mind; nor does he pretend to know more of it than any other man does.

Perhaps Lamarck (1744-1829) was the first to suggest the theory of spontaneous generation, in the sense in which these words are now used, and the evolution of species. (Encyclopedia Britannica 14, p. 232.) Down to his time, no one doubted the Mosaic story of the creation. Belief in the theory of special creation was well nigh universal down to the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, in 1859. This belief was shared alike by both scientists and laymen. But shortly after the publication of that work, belief in the theory of organic evolution became a fad among educated people; and that belief was supposed to indicate intellectual power and independence of thought.

Sec. 39. Proposition 6. Human Body is Either Specially Created or Spontaneously Generated, Which?