your family tree without more evidence than has yet been produced. I
object to the theory for several reasons. First, it is a dangerous
theory. If a man links himself in generations with the monkey, it then
becomes an important question whether he is going toward him or coming
from him--and I have seen them going in both directions. I do not know
of any argument that can be used to prove that man is an improved monkey
that may not be used just as well to prove that the monkey is a
degenerate man, and the latter theory is more plausible than the former.

It is true that man, in some physical characteristics resembles the
beast, but man has a mind as well as a body, and a soul as well as a
mind. The mind is greater than the body and the soul is greater than the
mind, and I object to having man's pedigree traced on one-third of him
only--and that the lowest third. Fairbairn, in his "Philosophy of
Christianity," lays down a sound proposition when he says that it is not
sufficient to explain man as an animal; that it is necessary to explain
man in history--and the Darwinian theory does not do this. The ape,
according to this theory, is older than man and yet the ape is still an
ape while man is the author of the marvelous civilization which we see
about us.

One does not escape from mystery, however, by accepting this theory, for
it does not explain the origin of life. When the follower of Darwin has
traced the germ of life back to the lowest form in which it appears--and
to follow him one must exercise more faith than religion calls for--he
finds that scientists differ. Those who reject the idea of creation are
divided into two schools, some believing that the first germ of life
came from another planet and others holding that it was the result of
spontaneous generation. Each school answers the arguments advanced by
the other, and as they cannot agree with each other, I am not compelled
to agree with either.

If I were compelled to accept one of these theories I would prefer the
first, for if we can chase the germ of life off this planet and get it
out into space we can guess the rest of the way and no one can
contradict us, but if we accept the doctrine of spontaneous generation
we cannot explain why spontaneous generation ceased to act after the
first germ was created.

Go back as far as we may, we cannot escape from the creative act, and it
is just as easy for me to believe that God created man _as he is_ as to
bel