nbroken series of generations from the lowest Silurian
stratum to the present day."--_Origin of Species, pp. 293, 294, 428._

Darwin's "theory" claims that the first forms of all life still exist,
and are known and named. The ape, if it could talk like a man, would
boast of a history reaching all the way back to time prior to the
existence of the greater number of the mammals. To get rid of the
difficulty of first forms still existing, Mr. Darwin cuts off his unit
from the law of "the survival of the fittest," or "the inevitable
destruction of the parent form." He says: "A very simple form, fitted
for very simple conditions of life, might remain for indefinite ages
unaltered, or unimproved; for what would it profit an infusorial
animalcule, or an intestinal worm, to become highly organized?"--_Animals
and Plants, vol. 1, p. 19._ "Under very simple conditions of life a
higher organism would be of no service."--_Origin of Species, p. 100._

How are we to reconcile the conflicting ideas in this speculation? At
one time we are taught that all forms of life were, originally, very
simple forms, existing under very simple conditions. At another time we
are taught that "new and improved forms _inevitably_ supplant and
destroy parent forms." At another we are taught, at great length, the
doctrine of the survival of the fittest.

At another we are taught that all things have worked, and do work,
without designs upon the part of a present intelligence.

At another we are taught that very simple forms of life, under the very
simple conditions of life, have continued to the present day, because of
the fact that it would be of NO SERVICE for them to become highly
organized. No service to whom? To what end?

Out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee. What! Is there an end in
view that has governed in the great question of evolution of species,
and the survival of the fittest? Darwin seems to think so. The
wonderful "machine" that Strauss talked about in connection with the
"smashing" and "crashing" that destroys parent forms did not smash the
simplest forms of life. Why? The answer is, "It would be of no service
for them to become highly organized." Then all the smashing and crashing
known in the doctrine of "the survival of the fittest" and in "the
destruction of the parent form" was under the supervision of some
controlling power, having an end to accomplish.

* * * * *

If we see a member of t