ess weight by scientists.
Darwin himself admits that he "perhaps attributed too much to the action
of natural selection and the survival of the fittest" (page 76). John
Burroughs, the naturalist, rejects it in a recent magazine article. The
followers of Darwin are trying to retain evolution while rejecting the
arguments that led Darwin to accept it as an explanation of the varied
life on the planet. Some evolutionists reject Darwin's line of descent
and believe that man, instead of coming from the ape, branched off from
a common ancestor farther back, but "cousin" ape is as objectionable as
"grandpa" ape.

While "survival of the fittest" may seem plausible when applied to
individuals of the same species, it affords no explanation whatever,
of the almost infinite number of creatures that have come under man's
observation. To believe that natural selection, sexual selection or any
other kind of selection can account for the countless differences we see
about us requires more faith in _chance_ than a Christian is required to
have in God.

Is it conceivable that the hawk and the hummingbird, the spider and the
honey bee, the turkey gobbler and the mocking-bird, the butterfly and
the eagle, the ostrich and the wren, the tree toad and the elephant,
the giraffe and the kangaroo, the wolf and the lamb should all be the
descendants of a common ancestor? Yet these and all other creatures must
be blood relatives if man is next of kin to the monkey.

If the evolutionists are correct; if it is true that all that we see is
the result of development from one or a few invisible germs of life,
then, in plants as well as in animals there must be a line of descent
connecting all the trees and vegetables and flowers with a common
ancestry. Does it not strain the imagination to the breaking point to
believe that the oak, the cedar, the pine and the palm are all the
progeny of one ancient seed and that this seed was also the ancestor
of wheat and corn, potato and tomato, onion and sugar beet, rose and
violet, orchid and daisy, mountain flower and magnolia? Is it not more
rational to believe in _God_ and explain the varieties of life in terms
of divine power than to waste our lives in ridiculous attempts to
explain the unexplainable? There is no mortification in admitting that
there are insoluble mysteries; but it is shameful to spend the time that
God has given for nobler use in vain attempts to exclude God from His
own universe and to fi