Part 1

Smithson’s Theory _of_ Special Creation _by_ NOBLE SMITHSON

KNOXVILLE: _Victor Publishing Company_ _1911_

_Copyright 1911_ By NOBLE SMITHSON

_All rights reserved, including that of translation into foreign languages_

PUBLISHER’S NOTICE A copy of this book will be mailed, postage prepaid, upon receipt of $1.00 VICTOR PUBLISHING CO. KNOXVILLE. :: TENNESSEE

_To the Memory of my Father and Mother John Greene Smithson and Ann Ladd Smithson_

_To the Reader:_ If you care to write me your view of my theory as set forth in the following pages, I shall be pleased to hear from you.

NOBLE SMITHSON.

Preface

A critical reader of the works of Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, Haeckel, Romanes, Weismann, Mivart, Cope and other writers, on organic evolution, will find that there is much diversity in the views of these writers. Darwin believes that the first one, or the first few, animals and plants were directly and specially made by the Creator; Haeckel says the primordial forms arose “by spontaneous generation from inorganic matter.” Referring to the origin of life, Romanes says that “science is not in a position to furnish so much as suggestion upon the subject.” Neither Huxley, Weismann, Mivart nor Cape has anything to say on the origin of life. No two of these writers agree as to the work of the “factors” of evolution. According to Darwin, Romanes and Weismann, natural selection did substantially the entire work of evolving all the species of animal and plant. But Cope, and other evolutionists of the Lamarckian school, hold that use, disuse, pressure, friction and motion did it.

Weismann argues that the inheritance of “acquired characters” is impossible; while Spencer, Romanes and other evolutionists say that Weismann’s views are highly absurd and would entirely destroy the theory of evolution; and I think they are correct in this view. There are many evolutionists for and against Weismann’s theory of heredity. Writers on evolution differ as widely on other important questions, as on these.

Many of the theories of the evolutionists are quite absurd. Among these may be mentioned the theory of “protective mimicry” and “sexual selection.” So their belief that the blind “factors,” working by chance and accident, have differentiated one part of a minute individual into a set of male sexual organs, and another part of the same individual into a set of female sexual organs, as in hermaphroditic animals and plants, appears to be quite preposterous. So it is impossible to believe these “factors” have differentiated one-half of the individuals of each species of mammal into males and the other half into females, for example into men and women. If time and space permitted me, I could easily point out divers other absurdities in the views of the evolutionists.

To be consistent, every evolutionist must maintain that characters, acquired by the parent, are transmitted by heredity to their offspring; for the whole theory of evolution is based on the hypothesis of accumulated “adaptations and variations.” Thus, suppose a pair of snakes have ten vertebræ (joints) in their spinal columns; that each of them acquires one, making eleven; that their offspring start with eleven and acquire one, and so on until the ninetieth generation, which would have a hundred vertebræ. Such a thing might happen, according to the evolutionist; but I do not believe any such thing ever did happen.

But no evolutionist has ever shown how or why the offspring happen to resemble one or both of their parents. In brief, the mechanism of heredity is wholly unknown. The evolutionist tells us that “heredity and adaptation” have evolved all the species of animal and plant. Having done this, he appears to think that he has explained all the phenomena of reproduction, heredity and life. But his solution of the vital equation contains an unknown quantity, namely: “heredity;” and it is, therefore, no solution at all.

The evolutionist and materialist maintain that the blind unthinking atoms and cells, of which the embryo body is made, do, spontaneously and automatically, without the aid or guidance of any extraneous, psychic or creative force, group themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to build up the embryo body with all its organs and parts--its brain, eyes, ears, heart, lungs, etc. This is the most preposterous of all their propositions.

I have worked out this proposition:

“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.”

Thus, if the reader were required to group ten silver dollars into a triangle with three dollars in each side and one in the center, he must have intellect to understand the nature and properties of a triangle; and to know how to construct it; and to know when it is completed; must have memory to bear these things in mind while doing the work; must have will-power to begin and continue the work until it is completed; must generate such force and produce such motions as are necessary to assemble and group the coins into the prescribed figure.

Can the reader discover any flaw in this proposition?

There is no trace of the coming embryo in the germ-cell (fertilized ovum); nor of any organ or part of it. It follows that each embryo and every organ and part of it must be made, anew, of fresh materials; that the atoms and cells of which it is composed must be selected, assembled and grouped into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements which are necessary to construct the embryo body and each organ and part of it; each organ and part of it being a new combination of its component atoms and cells.

Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion--supernatural, psychic and creative force--are necessary to make each embryo body and every organ and part of it. Let us suppose that a hundred million silver dollars were coined last year, at the mint in Philadelphia. It is clear that each of these coins was made, anew; that it was a new combination of the atoms of silver and copper contained in it; that it required the same work to make each of them, that it did to make every other--the same to make the last that it did to make the first. The same is true of each man and woman.

The purpose of this little work is to present some of the facts, and make some of the arguments, which tend to prove that each human being is a new, direct and special creation by Almighty God!

NOBLE SMITHSON.

Knoxville, Tennessee. Nov. 1, 1911.

Sec. 1. Personal God

I believe there is a personal God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. If this is not true, matter, force and the motion of matter constitute the Universe. There is no middle ground between these two propositions.

The first animal that ever lived on our earth was directly and specially made by the Creator; or it arose by spontaneous generation from inorganic matter. How else could it come into existence? The same is true of the first plant. Which of these two theories is most reasonable?

Every human being that ever lived was either directly and specially made by the Creator; or the blind unthinking atoms and cells of which his body was, and is, composed, spontaneously and automatically grouped themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements necessary to build up his body. How else could a human body be made? Which hypothesis is most plausible?

Can we believe that intellect, memory and will are merely properties of matter, like length, breadth, thickness and weight; or are these faculties the attributes of a spiritual entity?

I believe that the Creator has been manifesting His knowledge, wisdom, power and goodness ever since the first man appeared on the earth; that He has been performing miracles before the eyes of men during all this time; that He has been speaking to mankind through these manifestations and miracles throughout the ages. But they have failed to read His messages.

Most educated persons are familiar with the phenomena of life, reproduction and heredity. But the real question is: whether the Creator causes these phenomena, or whether the blind, unthinking atoms and cells, of which the body is composed, produce them, spontaneously and automatically, without the aid of any extraneous psychic or creative force. The fact that these phenomena are manifested, and the cause of them, are two wholly different things. Everybody knows that a stone falls to the ground, but nobody knows why.

Sec. 2. Whence and Whither

Has man descended from worms, fishes, lizards, opossums, hedgehogs and apes as Haeckel says? Is he a son of an ape? No! A Son of God!

Does death annihilate both soul and body; or does the soul live after the death of the body? Shall we see and know our children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, and friends after death? Shall we enjoy forever, the society of the good, the true and the beautiful? Shall we be free from want, pain and sorrow? Shall we be happy throughout eternity? This is my belief and hope!

Darwin (Origin of Species, vol. 1, p. 228) says: “Have we any right to suppose that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?” On the same page he refers to “the works of the Creator” as being superior to those of man. In the same work (vol. 2, p. 304) he refers to “the laws impressed on matter by the Creator.” Again (p. 306) he refers to life as “having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,” animal, at the beginning of life on the earth. In his Descent of Man (p. 95) he says: “There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of the omnipotent God.” Referring to the question: “Whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe.” On the same page he says: “And this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.” In the same work (p. 627) he says: “The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long continued culture.” On the same page he says: “Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period, in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being.” Again (pp. 627-628) he says: “The birth, both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion.” Thus it appears that Darwin believed in the existence of a personal God and in the immortality of the human soul. But he also believed “that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world” have been “due to secondary causes, like these determining the birth and death of the individual.” (Origin of Species, 2, p. 304.) In brief, Darwin maintained that the Creator directly and specially made one or a few primordial forms, and turned them loose upon the earth to shift for themselves, subject to the “factors of evolution.”

Although Darwin appears to believe in the special creation of the first one, or the first few, animals and plants, and in the immortality of the human soul, yet his theory of evolution is highly materialistic; and the publication of this Origin of Species gave materialism an immense impetus.

The Encyclopedia Britannica (9 ed., vol. 2, p. 109), referring to “thinkers, who hold materialistic views,” says:

“According to this school, man is a machine, no doubt the most complex and wonderfully adapted of all known machines, but still neither more nor loss than an instrument whose energy is provided by force from without, and which, when set in action performs the various operations, for which its structure fits it, namely: to live, move, feel and think.”

The materialist maintains that there is no substance in man, which is alone conscious, distinct and separable from the body; that matter is the only substance in existence; and that matter and its motions constitute the universe. (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3658.) This work, on the same page quotes J. Fisk (Evolutionist, p. 277) as saying that “Philosophical materialism holds that matter, and the motions of matter, make up the sum total of existence; and that what we know as psychical phenomena in man and other animals, are to be interpreted, in an ultimate analysis as simply the peculiar aspect, which is assumed by certain enormously complicated motions of matter.” (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3658)

According to this view, if one should meet a friend, the sight of him would set certain atoms in his eyes and brain in motion; and these atoms would inform the Ego that the man is his friend, Smith or Jones.

So, if one be required to find the square root of 3,600, his eyes or ears would see or hear the problem; and the sight or hearing of it would set certain atoms in motion; and by this motion they would ascertain that 60 is the square root required. But the theory is too absurd for discussion, in this place.

I assume that every evolutionist is logically a materialist. Referring to “Man and the rest of the living world,” Huxley, (Man’s Place, etc., p. 151), says:

“I can see no excuse for doubting that all are co-ordinated terms of nature’s great progression, from the formless to the formed--from the inorganic to the organic--from the blind force to conscious intellect and will.”

So far as I know he does not mention the Creator nor the human soul in any of his works; but he strenuously maintains that man is a son of an ape; and believes that all the phenomena of life are the result of chemical and mechanical forces.

Herbert Spencer does not use the word “God,” “Creator” nor “Soul” in the index to his Principles of Biology; but after discussing the theory of special creation at length, he says:

“The hypothesis of special creation turns out to be worthless by its derivation; worthless in its incoherence; absolutely without evidence; worthless as not supplying an intellectual need, worthless as not supplying a moral want.” (Principles of Biology 1, p. 430.)

This quotation is full of bosh and nonsense. For example: In the same book (pp. 415-416), referring to the hypothesis of special creation and to that of evolution, Spencer says:

“Both hypotheses imply a cause. The last, certainly as much as the first, recognizes this cause as _inscrutable_. The point at issue is, how this inscrutable cause has worked, in the production of living forms. This point, if it is to be decided at all, is to be decided only by examination of evidence.”

The word “inscrutable” is synonymous with “impenetrable,” “undiscoverable,” “incomprehensible,” “unsearchable,” “mysterious.” (Cent. Dic. 4, p. 3114.)

Now, if the Cause which produces animals and plants is impenetrable, incomprehensible, etc., Spencer could not possibly know whether each animal and plant is directly and specially made by the Creator or not; nor could he say, logically, that there is no evidence of special creation; for he admits that the Cause is “inscrutable” to him. But there is abundant evidence that each animal and plant is a new direct and special creation, for the obvious reason that no other hypothesis can explain and account for the admitted facts.

Haeckel, (Evolution of Man, p. 26), says the first one, or the first few, animals that appeared on our earth arose “by spontaneous generation from inorganic matter.” On the same page he says:

“Life is only a physical phenomenon. All the plants and animals, with man at their head, are to be explained in structure and life, by mechanical or efficient causes, without any appeal to final causes, just as in the case of minerals and other inorganic bodies. This applies equally to the origin of the various species. We must not assume any original creation … to explain this, but a natural, continuous and necessary evolution.”

Prior to the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, belief in the theory of special creation was well nigh universal among scientists as well as laymen. But immediately after the publication of that work the scientific world accepted Darwin’s theory as absolute truth, not only as to animals and plants, but extended the Darwinian principle of materialism to all other branches of science. Materialism permeated all literature and became a fad. It fostered “higher criticism,” agnosticism, infidelity and atheism. It destroyed human hope and enthroned despair. It shook and rent the church from the corner stone to the spire.

According to the materialist, there is no such thing as a personal God, nor a human soul. He maintains that life, intellect, memory and will-power are mere properties of the human body as a physical structure; and that death works the absolute annihilation of the body and the Ego. In his view, there is no life, punishment nor pleasure after death. He, therefore, resolves to make the most of his life, and to get all the ease, comfort and pleasure that it affords, without regard to anything that may happen after death. He has no fear of any final judgment, nor of God. He is not restrained by any moral law, nor by any religious obligation. He fears nothing but publicity, public opinion, and the criminal statutes. Hence, lying, cheating, fraud, perjury, theft, robbery, murder, suicide.

I admit that heredity, environment and other forces, which the evolutionist denominates, “the factors of organic evolution,” may affect, modify, or differentiate an animal or a plant, or its organs and parts, to a certain extent. But I deny that heredity, environment or any, or all, the “factors” combined, are adequate to evolve a new species of animal or plant; or even a new organ or part of one. On the contrary I maintain that heredity, environment and all other factors of evolution combined, are inadequate to produce a single animal or plant, without the aid of the Creator; and that each animal and plant is a new, direct and special creation by Almighty God.

In this little work, I shall make an humble effort to prove that there is a living personal God; that He directly and specially creates each human being; makes its body and endows it with life and with an immortal soul. If the reader shall think that I have made a creditable effort to accomplish this purpose, I shall have done my fellow man a good service by pointing the way to hope and happiness.

Sec. 3. Chemical Elements Composing the Human Body

“Of the elements known to chemists,” says Professor Martin, “only sixteen have been found to take part in the formation of the human body. These are (1) calcium, (2) carbon, (3) chlorine, (4) fluorine, (5) hydrogen, (6) iron, (7) lithium, (8) magnesium, (9) manganese, (10) nitrogen, (11) oxygen, (12) phosphorus, (13) potassium, (14) silicon, (15) sodium, and (16) sulphur. Copper and lead have sometimes been found in small quantities, but are probably accidental and occasional.” (Martin, Human Body, p. 7.)

It is clear that neither the nature nor the properties of these elementary substances, are changed by the fact that such substance has become a part of the body. For example, iron is iron whether in or out of the body.

It is probable that the chemical composition of the human body is substantially the same as that of the body of every other mammal.

Sec. 4. Atoms

The words “atom” and “atoms” will be often used in the following pages. Therefore, it is deemed proper to state the nature and properties of an atom, so far as known. It is defined as: “An extremely minute particle of matter; a hypothetical particle of matter, so minute as to admit of no division; an ultimate indivisible particle of matter. (Cent. Dic. 1, p. 365.) The Encyclopedia Britannica says: “Atom is a body which cannot be cut in two. The Atomic theory is a theory of the constitution of bodies, which asserts that they are made up of atoms.” (Encyc. Brit. 3, p. 36.) A molecule is the smallest mass of any substance, which is capable of existing in a separate form; that is the smallest part, into which the substance can be divided without destroying its chemical identity. A molecule of any substance is conceived of as made up of two or more atoms. (Cent. Dic. 5, p. 3822.)

In biology a cell is defined, first, as the fundamental form-element of every organized body. Secondly, as a nucleated, capsulated form element of any structure or tissue; one of the protoplasmic bodies, which build up an animal fabric; a body consisting of cell-substance, cell-wall and cell-nucleus, as bone-cell, etc. (Cent. Dic. 1, p. 878.) The body of every animal and plant is made of cells; and each cell is composed of many atoms.

For a full discussion of “The Atomic Theory,” see Encyc. Brit. 3, pp. 36-49, (9th ed.); New Int. Encyc. 13, pp. 683-685.

Sec. 5. Cells and Cell Theory

In Biology, the word “cell” denotes the fundamental form-element of every organized body. It is a bioplastic mass of protoplasm, varying in size and shape, generally of microscopic dimensions, capable, under proper conditions, of performing the functions of sensation, nutrition, reproduction and automatic or spontaneous motion, and constituting in itself an entire organism, or being capable of entering into the structure of one.

Such a cell, as a rule, has a nucleus and is usually also provided with a wall or definite boundary; but neither cell-nucleus nor cell-wall necessarily enters into its structure. In ultimate morphological analysis, all organized tissue is resolvable into cells or cell products. See “Protoplasm,” and “Cell Theory,” infra.

Specifically, the word “cell” denotes a nucleated capsulated form-element of any structure or tissue one of the independent protoplasmic bodies which build up an animal fabric. A body consisting of cell substances, cell-wall and cell-nucleus, as bone cells, cartilage-cells, muscle-cells, nerve-cells, fat-cells, cells of connective tissue, of mucous and serous membrane, etc., of the blood, lymph, etc. This is the usual character of cells in animals, and is the ordinary technical anatomical sense of the word.

“However complicated one of the higher animals or plants may be,” says Huxley, “it begins its separate existence under the form of a nucleated cell.”--Huxley, _Anatomy Invert. An. p. 19_.

See Haeckel, Ev. Man, chap. 6. “_Ovum and amœba_,” pp. 36-50; Spencer, _Principles, Biology, Index, “Cell,”_ 2 p. 630; Romanes, _Darwin, etc._, 1, pp. 104-134; _Encyc. Brit. 12_, pp. 5-10, “_Histology_;” _New Int. Encyc. 4_, p. 400.

Professor McMurrich, of the University of Michigan, says:

“It has been estimated that the number of cells entering into the composition of the body of an adult human being is about twenty-six million five hundred thousand million.” (McMurrich, _Development, Human Body_, p. 18.) This number is equivalent to twenty-six and a half trillions.

The “cell theory” is the doctrine that the bodies of all animals and plants consist, either of a cell, or of a number of cells, and their products; and that all cells proceed from cells, as expressed in the phrase _omnis cellula e cellula_: a doctrine foreshadowed by Kasper Freidrich Wolff, who died in 1794, and by Karl Ernst Von Baer (born 1792.) It was established in botany by Schleiden in 1838, and in zoology by Theodor Schwann about 1839.