Part 8

It is impossible to believe that the minute fertilized ovum when divided into a million pieces, selects the atoms, generates, guides and controls the forces and motions which build up the two hundred and seventy-eight bones in the infant body. It is preposterous to suppose that the millionth part of the germ-cell can determine the point in the embryo body, in which the skull bones, the ear bones, the spinal column, the arm-buds, leg-buds, etc., shall appear. Nor can we believe that this little cell or any of its daughter-cells can spontaneously and automatically produce any of the vital phenomena, manifested by the human skeleton.

Every one knows that neither the father nor the mother has any voluntary power, nor any control over the development and growth of the embryo.

Does the embryo develop and grow by accident or chance? Surely not; for each embryo develops and grows precisely as every other does, in every age and country, thus showing that the same ubiquitous creative force makes all of them.

“We must not assume any original creation, nor repeated creations,” says Haeckel, “to explain this, but a natural, continuous and necessary evolution.” (Evolution of Man, p. 26.) He argues that there is no personal God.

Writing in the Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 8, p. 746, 9 ed.) Professor Huxley says:

“No exception is, at this time, known to the general law, established upon an immense multitude of direct observations, that every living thing is evolved from a particle of matter, in which no trace of the distinctive characters of the adult form of that living thing is discernible. This particle is termed a _germ_.…

“The definition of a germ as ‘matter potentially alive, and having, _within itself_, the tendency to assume a definite living form,’ appears to meet all the requirements of modern science … And the qualification of ‘potential’ has the advantage of reminding us that the great characteristic of the germ is not so much _what it is_, but _what it may, under suitable conditions, become_.…

“In all cases, the process of evolution consists in a succession of changes of the form, structure and functions of the germ by which it passes, step by step, from an extreme simplicity, or relative homogeneity, of visible structure to a greater or less degree of complexity or heterogeneity; and the course of progressive differentiation is generally accompanied by growth, which is effected by intussusception,” [interstitial deposit.]

“… And so far from the fully developed organism’s being simply the germ _plus_ the nutriment, which it has absorbed, it is probable that the adult contains neither in form, nor in substance, more than an inappreciable fraction of the constituents of the germ, and that it is almost wholly made up of assimilated and metamorphosed nutriment.”

This being true, it cannot be said that the germ (fertilized ovum) ever develops into a man or woman. On the contrary it is annihilated; and its identity is wholly lost among the daughter-cells which are made of the mother’s food.

Herbert Spencer invented what he calls “physiological units” or “constitutional units,” and “structural proclivity.” But neither he nor any other man ever saw one of these “units,” they being wholly imaginary. In his Principles of Biology (vol. 1, p. 368) under “Genesis, heredity and variation,” he says:

“So that though all parts are composed of physiological units of the same nature, yet everywhere, in virtue of local conditions and the influence of its neighbors, each unit joins in forming a particular structure appropriate to its place.”

Could anything be more absurd?

For Spencer’s view of “physiological units” and “structural proclivity” see Principles of Biology 1, pp. 226, 361, 362, 365, 368, 372, and vol. 2, pp. 612-618.

The effect of the above quotations is that the atoms and cells of which the embryo body is composed, do spontaneously and automatically assemble and group themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements, which are necessary to build up the human body, without the aid of any extraneous psychic or creative force whatever. This is necessarily the theory of the evolutionist and materialist; for they deny that there was ever any such thing as special creation. Besides, every one knows that neither the father nor the mother has any power, nor any control over the development and growth of the embryo.

It follows that the blind, unthinking, fertilized ovum and daughter-cells arising from it, spontaneously and automatically assemble themselves together in the form of the two hundred and seventy-eight bones of the embryo skeleton; or that the Creator generates, guides, and controls the forces and motions which build up the embryo body. Which theory is most plausible?

We cannot even imagine the dead atoms of carbon, chlorine, hydrogen, lime, etc., which compose the bones, assemble and group themselves into the twenty-two bones of the skull; nor into the thirty-three joints of the spinal column; nor into the bones of the arms, hands, legs and feet with all their pores, foraminæ, cavities, processes, joints and sutures.

But the evolutionist says that “heredity” produces the embryo; and another says “nature” does this wonderful work. I reply that whatever “heredity” and “nature” may do toward the production of the embryo must necessarily be done by and through the fertilized ovum, and I have already argued that this little atom is powerless to do any such thing. See index, infra, “Heredity.”

Each bone in the skeleton, and all of them as a whole, testify that they were designed and made by the Creator!

Sec. 41. Proposition 8. Each Human Eye is a New, Direct and Special Creation

Two new eyes must be made, out and out, for each embryo.

The eye is formed before birth. This fact makes it clear that the alleged factors of evolution have nothing to do with its production.

It is obvious that the father takes no part in the construction of the child’s eyes; for he contributes the spermatozoön, only; and the formation of the eye begins a considerable time after the spermatozoön fuses with the ovum. It is equally clear that the mother has no voluntary agency in the production of the child’s eyes. In brief, the child develops and grows in the mother’s womb, as a parasite, she being merely its host. Moreover, the reader will readily admit that all the scientists on the earth, acting in concert, could not make a living eye for a toad.

Each human eye has the same parts, the same construction, form, and substantially the same size that every other such eye has; and performs the same functions. So all human eyes occupy the same relative position in the face. We are, therefore, compelled to believe that human eyes are not produced by accident nor by chance; but they develop and grow by force of a universal law; or that they are made by the Creator.

But the almost universal belief is that “heredity” or “nature” causes the child’s eyes to grow, as those of the parents grew.

A cause is described as: “An antecedent, upon which an effect follows according to the law of nature.” (Cent. Dic. 1, p. 868.)

Ordinarily, the word “cause” is understood to mean a force or agency which produces a given effect or result, which could not happen without that force or agency. Such a force or agency is termed an efficient cause. (Cent. Dic. 3, p. 1849.)

It would be absurd to suppose that the eyes of the father and mother cause or produce the eyes of the child. It follows that there is no causative relation between the eyes of the parents and those of the child. The most that could be said in this direction is that the same force or agency which produced the eyes of the parents, namely: the Creator, also caused and produced those of the child.

The fact that the father and mother have eyes is no reason why the child should have them; for the forces and motions which made the eyes of the parents ceased to exist long before the formation of the germ-cell from which the child is produced.

Each human eye is a new combination of the atoms and cells of which it is composed. No atom, in it, was ever a part of an eye of either parent. The atoms and cells, of which it is made, are grouped into new chemical combinations; and these are mechanically arranged in such a manner as to construct the human eye for the first and last time. The forces and motions, which build up each eye are peculiar to it. The work done in making the eyes of the parents, has nothing to do with the making of the eyes of the child; for the atoms and cells which are employed in constructing the child’s eyes must be assembled and grouped into the necessary chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements as if the father and mother had no eyes. In other words, each eye must be made anew, without regard to the eyes of the father and mother or any other person. If a man make a million bricks, it requires the same work to make the last one that it did to make the first one; so if a hundred million silver dollars are coined at a mint it requires, identically, the same work to coin each of them that it did to make every other; and so of the eyes.

While discussing “organs of extreme perfection,” and referring to the imaginary evolution of the human eye, in his Origin of Species (vol. 1, p. 228), Darwin says:

“Let this process go on for millions of years, and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds, and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might be thus formed, as superior to one of glass as the works of the Creator are to those of man?”

In brief, Darwin’s theory is that the eyes of each individual are better than those of his parents; and that he transmits to his child all the improvements made on his eyes during his life and so on to the latest generation. In other words, according to Darwin, the eyes of today are the “accumulated improvements” of millions of years.

Apparently Darwin thinks that each individual gets the benefit of all improvements made in the eyes of every other individual of all other species without regard to genetic relations, for he says, “on millions of individuals of many kinds,” etc. According to this view, a man would avail himself of any improvement that might be made in the eye of a fly, which is preposterous.

There would be some force in Darwin’s argument if it were possible to transfer the father’s or the mother’s eyes, bodily, to the child. But such a thing is too absurd to be dreamed of.

Every one knows that each eye, and every part of it, grows anew, as if the parents of the embryo had no eyes. Neither Darwin, nor any other man has ever shown how it is possible for the eyes of the father or mother to modify or affect the development, growth, form, size, color, qualities or characteristics of the child’s eyes. According to Darwin’s theory of “gemmules” the eyes of the father and mother give off gemmules which get into his or her blood and thence into the spermatozoön and the ovum and thence into the fertilized ovum and these produce eyes, in the child, like those of its parents. But everybody saw that these “gemmules” would have great difficulty in finding the spermatozoön and ovum, and in getting into them when found; and that after they reached the fertilized ovum, which divides into two, four, eight, sixteen or a million daughter-cells, these gemmules would have great difficulty in finding the orbit where the new eye is to grow; and that they were as apt to land in the back, heel or toe of the embryo as in the orbit.

Besides, if there were any such thing as Darwin’s gemmules there would have to be at least one for each coat, muscle, artery, vein, nerve and part of the eye; and it would be impossible for them to arrange themselves in the proper order in the embryo eye. Moreover, there might be too many or too few gemmules; some of them might get lost and leave the embryo eye without one or more of its coats or parts; then the gemmules from the father’s ayes might clash with those from the mother’s.

No other man has ever suggested any more plausible theory, than Darwin’s “gemmules,” of the manner in which the organs and parts of the parents’ bodies may be supposed to modify and affect those of the child. But this theory was rejected by every one, but Darwin, as absurd and impossible.

Every human being begins life as fertilized ovum, in which there is no eye. No part of the eyes of the father is transferred, bodily, to those of the child; nor is any part of the eyes of the mother. Every part of each eye must be made anew; each part must have the proper structure, form, and size; must be adjusted to and correlated with every other; finally, the several parts must be arranged in the proper order in the eye. In other words, two entirely new eyes must be made for each child.

Either the blind unthinking atoms and cells, of which the several parts of the eye, namely: the several coats, the aqueous humor, the lens, the vitreous body, the optic nerve, the muscles, arteries, veins, nerves, etc., are built up, do, spontaneously and automatically, and without the aid of any extraneous, supernatural, psychic and creative force, assemble and group themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements necessary to construct the embryo eye; or the Creator, directly and specially, makes it. Which hypothesis is most plausible?

Sec. 42. Proposition 9. Each Human Ear is a New, Direct and Special Creation

Two new ears must be made, out and out, for each embryo.

The ear is a complex acoustic apparatus; is more complex, and has more parts, than the eye; and every part of it is well fitted to perform the function assigned to it. What was said in the two preceding sections, of skeleton and eye, as tending to establish the theory of special creation, applies equally to the construction of the ear.

Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion are required to form the chemical combinations and make the mechanical arrangements necessary to construct the ear; and every part of it testifies that it was contrived and made by the Creator!

Sec. 43. Proposition 10. Each Human Brain is a New, Direct and Special Creation

An entirely new brain must be made for each embryo. What has been said of the several parts of the skeleton and of the eye, (section 40 and 41, supra), applies equally to the size, form, structure, position and number of the several parts of the brain.

Sec. 44. Proposition 11. The Sexual Organs of Each Individual are New, Direct and Special Creations

Every human being begins life as a fertilized ovum, in which there are no sexual organs whatever. It follows that a new set of such organs must be made, out and out, for each individual embryo.

Who or what determines whether the child shall be a male or female? For several weeks after the formation of the fertilized ovum there is nothing to indicate whether the child is to be a boy or girl. If it is finally decided that it shall be a male, a full set of male sexual organs is made for him. On the other hand, if it is to be a female, a set of female organs is made for her. But the production of male organs for the one, or female organs for the other is not the only thing to be done; for every organ and part of the body is modified, adjusted to and correlated with, the sexual characters whether male or female. The reader will readily recall all the distinctive differences between a man and woman, including the secondary sexual characters. In other words, if it is determined that the child shall be a male, every non-sexual organ and part of his body must be so differentiated and modified as to make a man of him, in both mind and body. On the other hand, if the child is to be a female, all of her non-sexual organs and parts must be so differentiated and modified as to make a woman of her, with all of the qualities, characteristics and traits that belong to woman.

Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion--creative force--are necessary to convert a sexless embryo body into a male or female child. This cannot be done by accident nor by blind chance; nor by the alleged “factors” of evolution; for this work is done before the birth of the child and before the “factors” have had an opportunity to do their “work;” besides, we cannot believe that the blind “factors” can metamorphose a sexless embryo into a male or female child.

Neither the father nor the mother has any power to determine the sex of their child; nor has the fertilized ovum any such power; for it has no intellect, memory nor will-power, nor any knowledge of sexual organs nor of anything else. Moreover, before the sex of the child has been determined this ovum has been annihilated by division among a million of daughter-cells, which are made of animal and vegetable food eaten by the mother, which was never a part of any other human body.

Can we believe that the blind, unthinking atoms and cells of which the embryo body is built up, do, spontaneously, automatically and without the aid of any extraneous psychic force, group themselves into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements, necessary to construct the sexual organs of a male or female child? How can these atoms and cells elect whether it shall be a boy or a girl? If they do so elect, how can they differentiate and modify all the non-sexual organs and parts of the body so as to correlate them with the sexual organs?

The evolutionist and materialist will say that “heredity” or “nature” determines the sex of the embryo. I reply that the force and power of “heredity” and of “nature” are identical with those the fertilized ovum because they can act, only, by and through it; and it has no intellect, memory nor will-power to determine the sex of the child; nor to construct the male nor the female sexual organs after electing between them, even if such a thing were possible; nor any power to correlate the non-sexual organs and parts, with the male or female sexual organs so as to produce a man or a woman. In fact the germ-cell has no knowledge of sexual organs, nor of their form, size, structure nor functions. It follows that neither “heredity,” nor “nature” has any power to determine the sex of the child, nor to correlate its non-sexual organs with its sexual ones.

We are, therefore, compelled to believe that the sex of every human being is determined by the Creator; and that all sexual organs are directly and specially made by him.

For like reasons, we are compelled to believe that the heart, lungs, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, arteries, veins, nerves, and other organs and parts of the body are directly and specially made by the Creator.

Sec. 45. Proposition 12. Form, Size, Structure and Position of the Several Organs and Parts of the Body and Their Number are Conclusive Evidence that Each Human Body is a New, Direct and Special Creation

For example, the form, size, structure and position of the several bones in each skeleton, and the number of them, are proof that they are all made by the Creator.

So, the form, size, structure, and position of the several parts of the brain, eye, ear, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc.; and their number cannot be explained on any hypothesis, other than that of special creation. The same is true of the muscles, arteries, veins, etc.

Sec. 46. Proposition 13. Universal Sameness of all Human Bodies, is Conclusive Evidence that Each of Them was Directly and Specially Made by the Creator

Every human body that ever lived in any age or country was composed of identically the same chemical elements that were or are found in every other such body, in whatever age or country such other body may have lived. So, each normal body, in whatever age or country it may have lived, had the same chemical combinations; the same mechanical arrangements; the same structure, the same organs and parts, and substantially the same form and size, that every other such body, of the same sex, had, whenever, and wherever such other body may have lived.

How could this universal sameness of chemical elements, chemical combinations, mechanical arrangements, etc., in all human bodies have happened? Could it have happened by accident or chance; or by force of the blind factors of evolution; or did the blind, unthinking atoms and cells, of which each human body was built up, spontaneously, and automatically, group themselves into identically the same chemical combinations, and mechanical arrangements that the atoms and cells in every other human body had grouped themselves; thus making chemical elements, chemical combinations, the mechanical arrangements, the organs and parts in each human body, identically the same as those in every other such body, whenever and wherever it may have lived? Such a thing is impossible; specially when we consider that each body grew anew, for itself.

But the evolutionist may say that this universal sameness in all human bodies is caused by “heredity.”

I reply that each human body begins life as a fertilized ovum; that it develops and grows anew for itself, independently of the development and growth of any other body; it is a new combination of the atoms and cells--“organic bricks”--of which it is composed; it was made by new forces and motions of new materials, peculiar to itself. In order to build each body the atoms and cells, of which it was composed, must have been selected, assembled at the building site and there grouped into the necessary chemical combinations and mechanical arrangement. Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion were necessary to do this work, in each instance.

Heredity is only a name for certain vital phenomena. It it not a material entity; it has no weight, length, breadth nor thickness; no constructive force; no intellect, memory nor will-power; nor any power to generate force nor motion. Nor has it any power to assemble the atoms and cells; nor to group and arrange them in such a manner as to form the body, its organs and parts. Nor can “heredity” “breathe the breath of life” into the fertilized ovum nor create a soul for the embryo body.

“Heredity” does all its work by and through the fertilized ovum. It has identically the same properties and potentialities that this ovum has, no more nor less. Surely this ovum has no knowledge of the bodies of its parents, nor of their organs and parts; nor can it have any memory of a thing that it never knew; nor has it any inherent power to reproduce the bodies of its parents or either of them.

It is impossible to explain and account for this universal sameness of all human bodies without assuming that each of them was made by one and the same hand, namely: Almighty God. We cannot doubt that He directly and specially created every human being that ever lived on our planet.

Sec. 47. Proposition 14. Creator’s Supervision of the Development and Growth of the Embryo is Necessary to Produce the Human Body

The watchmaker makes one piece of a watch at a time; but every organ and part of the embryo body grows all the time. Thus the body and all its internal organs and parts; and both arms, hands, legs and feet are growing continuously until it is grown. If the growth of each organ and part of the body were not so regulated as to keep pace with every other organ and part, there would be no proper proportion among them. One arm and hand would be larger and longer than the other; one leg larger and longer than the other; the five segments in the femur would not meet and unite to form the complete bone. (Johnson’s Cyclopedia 7, p. 553.)