Yet some of these investigators are the very | pressed a desire to have his father see it. I took men who pass judgment on Evolution of Sound | the liberty of granting him the privilege of sendwithout even reading a single argument it con- ing it to him; so your letter is now on its way to tains; and then egotistically condemn the ego- Otterbein University, but will be returned to me tism" of the author, and brand him a sciolist again. Pardon this liberty, as I have acted with and "lunatic," as a number of recent letters from a desire to aid your work. colleges bear witness, because he had the temerity to call in question a theory which undeniably teaches that an insect possesses the physical energy of more than a million horses!

66

I wish now to say that your letter has fully satisfied me that the pebble" problem is false, as well as the "tank " problem. Your reasoning is perfectly conclusive to my mind that the authorities which teach such principles of philosophy and physical science are wrong; and consequently I have no hesitation in admitting that, in my opinion, the undulatory theory of sound is hopelessly shattered.

Indeed, I wish to state, right here, that your first letter to me, after you had received the prob lems, in which you so positively asserted your abil ity to prove them false, set me to thinking on the matter. Previously I had, as I suppose most stu dents do, simply taken what the books taught respecting these things as science and fact, without stopping to question their correctness. But, as already stated, your letter set me to thinking, as to the correctness of the "tank" problem; and on the evening of the day before I received your explanation, I had arrived at the conclusion that it must be false; and so expressed myself to my son, who is now a senior in the classical course of Lebanon Valley College. In discussing the mat

I do not deny that it seems egotistical in the extreme for any one man to pit himself against the whole scientific world" by attempting to break down an established theory of science which has held undisputed sway for hundreds of years. But then, what is to be done about it, supposing the one man" should happen to be right, and the whole scientific world wrong? Would it still be "egotism?" Such a thing has occurred before, and might possibly occur again, which makes it a risky business for professors of physical science to call names, in lieu of a candid investigation of the new hypothesis and the arguments advanced to sustain it. For should these physicists, who make such undue haste to commit themselves on the popular side, happen to be mistaken in the present case, as good judges are beginning to acknowledge them to be, they can ill afford to face their record in the future, while the "one man can very well afford to go into history as the tist," lunatic,' or even idiot,' who, single-ter with him, I entered into a careful calculation handed and alone, succeeded in overturning a theory which had received the unanimous endorsement of the scientific world for centuries. afford to wait for the final verdict. Hoping that the explanations here given of your problems of the "pebble" and "tank" may prove satisfactory, I am, very truly yours,

"

ego

I can

WILFORD.

LEBANON, Pa., Jan. 28.

WILFORD (Care of HALL & Co.)

Dear Sir: Your kind and highly interesting letter, containing your answer to my inquiry, was received two days ago, and read with great pleasure and with entire satisfaction. I would have replied sooner, but I desired, before doing so, to consider your letter thoroughly. I also took the liberty of showing it, with your other letter to me, to Prof. L. McFadden, of Lebanon Valley College, and fully acquainting him with the whole matter of our correspondence. He is a young man whose father is Professor of Natural Science in Otterbein University, at Westerville, Ohio (my alma mater). The young Professor purchased one of your books (through my recommendation), read it hastily through, and during a short vacation visited his father, and left the volume with him to read. He is very much interested in it; and, on reading your last letter, containing your solution of the tank" and "pebble" problems, he ex

of the physical and mechanical questions involved; and I assure you that my method of explaining the falsity of the "tank "problem, and the actual change effected by inserting the cubic foot of lead, was in many respects exactly like your own. I am, therefore, fully satisfied that your reasoning is sound; and that the works on physical science which teach the contrary are wrong. I am consequently now prepared to drop the undulatory theory of sound as a monstrous absurdity.

I will be pleased to aid you in your fight, so courageously inaugurated; and, if at any time you see where I can be of service to you, please inform me, and command my services. Most respectfully yours,

I. L. KEPHART. In another letter to WILFORD, dated Feb. 11th, Prof. KEPHART says:

"I am glad to learn that there are a few inves tigators of physical science who can lay aside their prejudices, and give your arguments a candid reading. All such must be convinced that the undulatory theory of sound is a scientific delusion, and wholly without foundation in fact. I am still reading Evolution of Sound, and the more I examine it the greater is my astonishment that the wave-theory should ever have been accepted as correct, much less that it should have been believed in for centuries by so many eminent men. Sincerely yours,

*

**

I. L. KEPHART."

CHAPTER VII.

Review of Prof.
Prof. Haeckel.

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, EMBRYOLOGY, ETC., ETC.

[SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.]

Darwin entitled to the credit of Modern Evolution as a System.-Brief statement of the views of Darwin and Haeckel.—Spontaneous Generation the start of Evolution according to Haeckel.— This hypothesis examined.―The Moneron, the simplest of all animals, the first generated organism. -Haeckel's contradiction of himself, Darwin, and Huxley, pointed out.-Philosophical objections to Spontaneous Generation.-The_Reign of Law in Nature.-Variously illustrated.-Intelligent design in Nature demonstrated.-Examination of Prof. Haeckel's Great Laws of Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Their self-contradictory character pointed out.-Similarity of Embryological Development examined.-The Little Human Tail and Human Gills examined.-Haeckel's unfortunate Plates against him.-The Cut of the Embryonic Fish suicidal.-Haeckel's Infinite and Unlimited Law proves that a God might develop from a Worm.-Haeckel's arguments fully met by his own subsequent admissions. --Another Fundamental Law (Biogeny) introduced and examined.-Shown to be full of self-contradictions. -Serious difficulties proposed on the origin of Unisexual from Bisexual Organisms.-Shown to be impossible but by Special Creations.-Darwin's Theory of Sexual Selection examined.-It demonstrates the existence of a Personal God.-Conclusion.

cate of the system who has written on the subject, and by many is regarded as the ablest. In reviewing the arguments of these eminent scientists, I shall not undertake to follow any particular order, aiming only to make sure that not one class of facts cr fair inferences, relied upon by these authorities, shall escape critical examination.

As a suitable commencement of this general review, I have deemed it advisable to devote one chapter principally to the two great works of Professor Haeckel

In attempting a refutation of the evolu- | tion hypothesis, no more satisfactory or. effective method presents itself than a critical examination of the writings of the highest representative authorities on the subject. Such authorities-acknowledged universally to stand pre-eminently foremost are the three great scientistsDarwin, Huxley, and Haeckel-chosen for special review in this work. If their positions can be shown to be untenable, and their arguments fallacious and self-contradictory, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution, as advocated by any other and all other writers, must fall to the ground. Mr. Darwin is, in the strictest sense, the father of modern evolution, though the general principles of the hypothesis have been urged by many previous naturalists, The chief difference between these two while Professor Haeckel, of the University eminent representatives of the new philosoof Jena, who was among the first to adopt phy, relates to the manner in which the Mr. Darwin's views, is now considered the primordial form of life (from which all boldest, most radical, and advanced advo-other forms are supposed to have devel

The History of Creation, published some seven years ago, and The Evolution of Man, just issued, with incidental references to Mr. Darwin's views as occasion may suggest.

tive testimony, that bacteria, or living animalcules, have not been produced in the decoctions already tried, and under the conditions alluded to, though well enough, as far as it goes, does not meet the case of Prof. Haeckel's ingenious method of reasoning. That sort of evidence requires to be answered in kind, its very logic and philosophy need to be overthrown, if they can be, and the principles involved in the hypothesis demonstrated to be self-contradictory and absurd. This accomplished, and the negative testimony of experiment will then come into play and clinch the logical nail. If the philosophy or scientific possibility of spontaneous generation, as urged by its ablest living advocate, shall fairly break down, with the evidence of all the crucial experiments on record corroborating its fallacy, then surely this method of accounting for the origin of life and the commencement of evolution must be abandoned as a hopeless failure.

may result differently. Hence, the nega- | works and starting evolution without the aid of supernatural intervention. Although this eminent savant could see these little creatures voluntarily move their bodies, pick up and absorb atoms of nutrition and assimilate them into their own organic structure, thrust out their so-called false feet, or pseudopodia, which he calls "finger-like processes," nothwithstanding he observed that the moneron grows by food assimilation, the same as a more complex organism, and that it propagates its species by a division of its body into two equal parts, each part again, by nutrition and growth, becoming an exact duplicate of the former whole,-yet, so intent was he upon the elimination of God from the universe, and of establishing an orderly and consistent harmony between Kant's Cosmogony and Lamarck's and Darwin's Theory of Descent, that the life and mental powers of this animal were belittled almost to nothing, while the inherent laws, properties, and forces of inorganic matte: were exalted almost to the level of intellectuality itself. Yet this desperate effort to establish what he must have known to be an irrational and impossible hypothesis, is regarded by his materialistic adherents and admirers, as the acme of philosophical reasoning, and the quintessence of impartial scientific investigation.

In order to secure a reasonable basis for his arguments in support of spontaneous generation, Prof. Haeckel was fortunate enough to discover that exceedingly simple class of organic beings, called monera, "the simplest," he declares, "of all known organisms, as well as the simplest of all imaginable organisms," being mere lumps of pure albumen, without organs or heterogeneous parts. This tiny, pelagic animal, no larger than a pin's head, which inhabits the bottom of the ocean, Prof. Haeckel considers so slightly removed from inorganic matter that it must have required but a trifling effort of Nature to usher it into being from anorgana, and requires but a trifling effort of the imagination for us to conceive of the change necessary to produce such a simple organic being from not-living matter. Hence he flatters himself, and tries to flatter his readers that the spontaneous generation of such an imperfect creature out of inorganic matter was not an unreasonable supposition. It never seemed to have entered the mind of this renowned scientist that there is a spanless chasm separating the living, moving, voluntary animal, however simple, from the not-living, inorganic clod. All thought of this bridgeless hiatus was brushed aside by a single stroke of his pen, as of no consequence contrasted with the important object he had in view, of eliminating God from His

I defy, however, any candid man, who has sufficient intelligence to reason logically on a philosophical subject, to carefully examine Prof. Haeckel's arguments for spontaneous generation, based on the moneron, and not come to the conclusion that there lies at the bottom of this whole effort an uncandid and one-sided desire to belittle and misrepresent this living animal, to serve the purpose of spontaneous gencration as an excuse for ignoring God in the works of creation. Permit me then first to quote briefly what he says about this little creature, as a better foundation for my comments:

Of still greater, nay, the very greatest importance to the hypothesis of spontaneous generation are, finally, the exceedingly remarkable Monera, those creatures which we have already so fresimplest of all observed organisms, but even the quently mentioned, and which are not only the simplest of all imaginable organisms. ... Through the discovery of these organisms, which are of the utmost importance, the supposition of a spontanall trace of organization-all distinction of heter eous generation loses most of its difficulties. For as ogeneous parts-is still wanting in them, and as all the vital phenomena are performed by one and