The Reformed Presbyterian Standard and also 0\ir ... - Rparchives.org

December 9, 1914.
A FAMILY PAPER.
stroyed the Y. M. C. A. building, we had gone
back to the hall for our services, but halls and
churches were scarce, and we were only permitted
to occupy the hall for a short time, so
Vfe adjojumed to the old University Auditorium
on the old campus near Fifth Avenue and
Seneca Street. Eev. J. K. McClurkin being
present was asked to take part in the services
and he was added to the Commission. Thursday
evening at 7:30, in the University Chapel,
Kev. N- M. Johnston preached and the congregation
was organized vrith 21 members. The
following officers were chosen: Elders, David
S, Elsey and Charles E. Downie. Deacons, Oliver
W. Hemphill and Charles L. Smith. Before
the communion services were over 13 more
members were received, making the total 34.
Friday evening, after a sermon by Dr. Mc­
Clurkin in the University Chapel, the pastor
and officers were duly ordained and installed.
Saturday evening the services were held in the
dining room of the home of Mrs. McGavin, on
the University grounds. Sabbath morning the
services were held in the Pike Street Hall.
That evening Dr. McClurkin preached in the
First Baptist Church. Thus we were organized
under difSculties and driven from place
to place. The following were the charter
members of the congregation: Dr. W. H. Ewing,
Mrs. M. C. Ewing, Miss Winnifred Ewing,
Henry C Ewing, Samuel Pinkerton, Mrs. Margaret
Pinkerton, Mrs. Jennie Nicol, William
F. Cook, Mrs. Fancy Cook, Miss Jennie Cook,
Miss Susie E. Cook, John A. Cook, 0. W.
Hemphill, James Colvin, David S. Elsey, Mrs.
Ellen Elsey, Charles E. Downie, Miss Mary L.
Downie, James E. Chisholm, Mrs. Martha
Chishohn, Mrs. Mary J. McGavin, John K.
Montgomery, Charles L. Smith, William Spilker,
Miss Margaret McGavin, Mrs. Katie
Smith, E. McKeil, Mrs. Jennie Yiesley, James
A. Cathcart, William Anderson, Mrs. Jane Anderson,
Mrs. Nancy Colvin, Mrs. Sarah Graham,
and Miss Mary Cook.
!*•; "My resignation was accepted by the congregation
July 15, 1891. My relationship with
the congregation has always been most pleasant.
They were a faithful and devoted people,
and there have always been in its membership
many persons of ability and a willingness to
work. There were received into the congregation
during my pastorate 62 persons. Lost
through death and removals 6, leaving on the
roll July, 1891, 56 names."
Before turning this page of our history one
incident should be mentioned in connection
with the great fire of 1889. With the burning
of the old Y. M. C. A. building on First
Avenue, our people not only lost their place
of meeting and had to go forth seeking another,
but also came very near losing the one and
only equipment apart from the Bible used in
all their meetings—their Psalm books. The
one person responsible for their preservation
is still living and is a much beloved member
with us; and w'hile the last person in the world
to seek notoriety, and in true humble modesty
may shrink from this publicity, yet her
act in saving the Psalm books was so characteristic
of her whole life and the spirit with
which she has always stood by the church, that
acquaintance with it will do the rest of us
good.
It seems that while the fire was raging in
the lower part of town and sweeping northward,
Mrs. Cook came down to the Wallingford
home at the corner of Third Avenue and
Union Street, to look after the effects of her
daughter Mary, who was then rooming there
and attending the University. Finding that
everything was safe there she asked a policeman
if the fire was likely to come up as far as
the Y. M. C. A. "Most certainly it will," was
the answer. She had already thought of the
Psalm books and knew that they would be lost
unless some one looked after them. Going
across to First Avenue and finding the street
almost filled with the effects of those who were
moving out she spoke to another policeman,
telling him that there were some books in that
building which she wanted. "Go right in and
get them," was her only answer. So entering
the building toward which the fire was coming,
she found a box in which she stored the
books, which she carried and pushed and dragged
along the floor until she reached the street.
Then finding a man outside she asked him to
carry it for her across to the Denny home on
Second avenue. This he did, pitching it up on
the bank that then stood several feet above
the street. Finding it here, she pushed it
along on a plank till the porch was reached
and finally stowed it in a safe place. On the
next Sabbath morning when the people met
again in the Pike Street Hall for worship and
the question arose what they would do for
Psalm books, Mrs. Cook was the oly one who
knew where they could get them, and two men
were at once dispatched to the Denny home to
bring them over. Thus the cause of the Psalms
in this city has passed through the firein more
ways than one. Before its have been those
who would have sung the Psalms from memory
and without books, rather than give them
up.
IS EVOLUTION TRUE—NO. 2.
By Rev. J. M. Coleman.
A previous article sought to establish the fact
that Evolution is unscriptural. This article seeks
to make plain that Evolution is also unscientific
and unhistorical. I hold that these three points
admit of proof. Darwin's main thesis was the
origin of species. Nature, he said, was prodigal
in the production of life and in this countless
life variations occurred in the individual specimens.
In the struggle for the means of existence
which took place among the myriad individuals
of a species the variations which were best suited
to that particular environment survived, while
those not so well suited perished. The surviving
individuals perpetuated their variations in
their offspring, according to Darwin, and the'se
variations became so distinct from the parent
stock that entirely new species evolved. In this
way he explained the great number of species hi
plant and animal life and finally man as the
great variation. I shall not stop to make clear
that Darwin's explanation of the process has been
given up for a dozen years by the exponents of
Eypjution, aad some other explanation sought.
But the various schools of science have not been
able to agree on any explanation to take the plan
of Darwinianism and it still holds sway in the
classes where our children get their conceptions
of the world.
I claim and propose to prove that new species
of plants, or animals, are not produced in this
way, nor in any other way. And one reason wh-/
I make this claim is because there has not been
any species produced by natural or by artificial
selection which would not intermingle with the
parent stock. In no case has the alleged new species
failed to propagate with the species from
which it was derived. It is an established scien
tific fact that a cross between species is barren.
Therefore, if a new species had been derived, it
would not 'cross with the former species. The
living proof of that fact is the mule. It is a
product of the crossing of two species, and while
the mule has ancestors, he has no descendants.
If you cross any two species you get such a result,
and since no alleged new species has be^n
found which -would not cross with the parent species
and still be fertile, the proof against any
derivation of species seems final. I claim that tbe
whole Evolution theory falls down when it runs
against the mule. If you doubt my conclusion
at this point, perhaps you will listen to what
scientists have to say. Winchell writes, "Doctrines
of Evolution,' p. 54, "The great stubborn
fact which the theory encounters at the start
is that notwithstanding variations, we are ignorant
of a single instance of the derivation of one
good species from another." The world has been
ransacked for an example, and occasionally it
has seemed for a time as if an instance had
been found of the origination of a species by socalled
natural agencies, but we only give utterance
to the admissions of all recent advocates of
derivation theories when we announce that the
long-sought experimentum crucls has not been
discovered. Professor Conn, in "Evolution of Today,"
p. 23, says: "It will be admitted at the
outset on all sides, that no unquestioned instance
has been observed of one species being derived
from another." Huxley writes, "Lay Sermons,"
p. 295: "As the evidence now stands, it is
not absolutely proved that a group of animals,
having all the characteristics exhibited by a species
in nature, has ever been originated by selection,
whether natural or artificial." All the above
quotations are from well-known evolutionists. Di.
Etheridge, examiner of the British Museum,
writes: "In all this great museum there is not a
particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.
This museum is full of proofs of the utter
falsity of these views." Now it seems fair to
ask if a scientific theory which finds no substantial
support in the largest collection of natural
history in the world, has a right to demand our
acceptance of it as a basis for interpreting no*.
only the facts of natural history, but also in all
other departments of human knowledge
What is the argument for it that is most frequently
met It is that all scholars accept it.
Let us look into that for a little. Haeckel is the
great exponent of materialistic evolution in Germany.
Paulsen says that Haeckel's reasoning is a
disgrace to Germany, and Haeckel himself admits
that he manufactured some of his proofs. Ernst
von Baer came near to accepting Haeckl's views,
but later rejected them. Dubols-Raymond at
first sided with Haeckel's views and later turned
against them. Virchow, the great pathologist ot
Berlin, at firstaccepted Evolution, but later rejected
it. Perhaps the greatest distress to
Haeckel is that Romanes, on investigation, refused
to accept Haeckel's conclusions. A rece,-i;
graduate at Leipsic took for the title of bis
thesis, "The Deathbed of Darwinism."
Evolution claims that all existing species have
come from a single, or a few original sources.