Thursday, July 12, 2018

The facts of creation

The Bible vs. Secular Humanism

Why consider biblical history over other histories

God's existence is factual since He is observed in human history

The theistic evolutionary worldview debunked

The evidence of exegesis is that the bible teaches a literal 6day creation

Creationism is a New Testament doctrine

Why the genesis flood over flood myths?

A scientific commentary on genesis.

Scientific evidence for the doctrine of literal creationism

Evidence for the flood

Noah's Ark

What started the flood?

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

What are dreams? (a passage of prose by Matt Singleton)

What are dreams? Should we have them? Should we rest without feeling? A dream is a painting of hope. Hope is the lottery we want to win. It is the weight of our life. For some it is the cornerstone of our temple. For others it is the anchor drowning us in our watery tomb. Our hopes we wrap up in our virtue. Our virtues light our life like a Christmas tree only before New Years. With all its beauty, the light so bright illuminates the presents now missing. Vestiges of ribbons strewn like a massacre of entrails. So many little shadows to dim us toward the dark. What is the dream? Is it a surrender to the night? Or is it a kiss to the morning? When you dream it can be all night and yet reduced to a minute. But maybe that minute is all day. Are dreams real? Reality is what we feel on our skin. But reality is only skin deep. We relate in reality but only at our skin. We are not in our hearts. Do we really dream or is it just in me? Am I alone, or is that you that's alone? This is why God is in my heart, because He'll never stop listening, and I don't know if I want to listen that much to me! But a dream is more than the echo in the cave of my skull. It is the Radio of my heart. The music of my angels and the talk show of my demons. Some stations are good and others are bad. I keep turning the dial and God keeps the stereo on as long as He wants. But I want a good tune. I hope its a hit. I hope it is heard, Will they dance? I guess I'll have to sleep and find out. I just hope I remember when I awake....

Sunday, June 3, 2018

Why the gospel is not Roman Catholic

1 Corinthians 15:1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

  So we see the declaration of the gospel.
declare:1. To clear; to free from obscurity; to make plain." Websters 1828 Dictionary
verse "by which ye are saved" it is through this gospel that the disciple is saved.

The Gospel has been defined as Good News and God's Word.  Either way it is information.

"I preached unto you"
  Paul is not defining the gospel before he preaches it but after the fact.

"also ye have received"
Paul's audience is already committed to the Gospel

"wherein ye stand"
The gospel is the foundation for the christian.

"by which also ye are saved"
  This gospel is what saves or what has brought salvation to the christian.

"Keep in Memory"
The information or message is thus a proposition to be believed. It must be retained.

"what I preached"
Here he is reinforcing the subject so that there is no confusion. This gospel which people are standing upon is the gospel which is saving there souls and the gospel he is preaching.

"unless ye have believed in vain"
in vain= for nothing
If the gospel is authentic then it saves, if it is a lie then it would not save. If we believe the Gospel then we are saved.

"I received"
Paul's gospel is the original gospel of Christ.

"I delivered"
DELIVERED, participle passive Freed; released; transferred or transmitted; passed from one to another; committed; yielded; surrendered; rescued; uttered; pronounced."
The gospel is a message which can be relayed one to another.

"Christ died for our sins"
The gospel is about Christ, not about us.  He "died for",  His death was neither an accident nor a tragedy. "our sins" Not his sins, as He was not a sinner.  But he died for our sins.

Remember this gospel is saving so His death was to bring us salvation by dying for our sins.
according to the scriptures.
For instance,
Isaiah 53:Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many,"

"and that he was buried"
Deuteronomy 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;"
Galatians 3:
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Hebrews 10:
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

"and that he rose again according to the scriptures:"
psalm 16:
10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;
neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."
Job 19:
25 For I know that my redeemer liveth,and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:26 and though after my skin worms destroy this body,yet in my flesh shall I see God:27 whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another;though my reins be consumed within me.
psalm 110:
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

   As we finish off this exposition,we see the elements of the Gospel quilted throughout the scripture. So what are the elements of the gospels properties?
Romans 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

"not ashamed." Even though the gospel is good news, it is controversial.  however Paul is proud of this very good news.
"it is the power of God unto Salvation" Reiterating  1 Cor. 15, It is the gospel which brings the power of God unto Salvation. The gospel mediates the grace of God unto salvation as opposed to sacramental worship.
"to everyone that believeth"  The Gospel transfers saving Grace to the believer.

"to the Jew first, and also to the Greek"
  This is historical in the Since that Paul's mission had reached Jews first and then Greeks.
"For therein is the righteousness of God"
Righteousness is synonymous with justification in the Greek.  "therein"implicitly within the gospel is our justification.
"revealed ftom faith to faith".  The Gospel is indeed a message and it is revealed and it is transferred from faith to faith.  So if I receive the Gospel i will transfer it to those who believe the same gospel.

"The just shall live by faith"
Habakuk 2:And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables,
that he may run that readeth it.For the vision is yet for an appointed time,
but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith."
 The eternal life we acquire by faith is foretold from among the prophets. "Write the vision, and make it plain"  The revelation of God shown here is set forth rationally.  It is a co-herent message as opposed t an esoteric emotional urge. "Behold, his soul" referring to the internal nature of man. "is not upright in him" the man according to this old testament prophecy is not internally righteous.
"but"  as opposed to self righteousness. "the Just" Those who are righteous.  "Shall live" That life which overcomes the condemnation of sin, which is of course death. "by faith" The means of life and righteousness is in belief or trust.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
"substance" is an archaic expression of economic value.  It is the reward of hope.
faith-beief is the substance-value of things hoped for.  Our hope is christ and his value.  It is the evidence/ proof of the spiritual world.

Galatians 1:I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

"removed from him"  these disciples had had been evangelized with the gospel, and yet were not longer holding to it.  By implication they were no longer holding onto Christ.
"Grace of Christ"  grace is a free gift we do not deserve.  Since they are removed,  it is apparent that the true gospel offered grace, while this false gospel does not.
"another gospel; which is not another" This indicates that the false gospel mimics the true gospel.
"pervert the gospel"  The false gospel twist the true gospel
"we"=The apostles   "angel" Spirits specifically f God, essentially no religious authority can alter the gospel.
"let him be accursed" anathema meaning damned to hell. This penalty is to those who preach the false gospel.
verse 9 is repeating this message to double the emphases. "any other" There ARE NO ALTERNATIVES!!!!
This is the message of God and regardless of man's disapproval His Word Stands and is infallible.

What is the catholic gospel?

Gospel and Gospels - The word Gospel usually designates a written record of Christ's words and deeds" Catholic Encyclopedia

"1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.
1983 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression above all in the Lord's Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to communicate grace to us.
1984 The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.
1985 The New Law is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.
1986 Besides its precepts the New Law includes the evangelical counsels. "The Church's holiness is fostered in a special way by the manifold counsels which the Lord proposes to his disciples in the Gospel" (LG 42 # 2)."
Catechism of the catholic church
  Here we see that the New Law is an extension of the gospel in Catholicism. Instead of Christ alone being the good news the good news includes those who follow the new law!  thus this is a gospel not of just Jesus but of the church and the saints and whatever their doctrine happens to be.  However, there is only one mediator.
1 timothy 2:For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
There is only one sacrifice and one offering for that sacrifice.
Hebrews 10:
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

   There are probably many ways to go about this but I decided to deal with the "Nicene Ceed" and the "Athanasian Creed" and it's use of "Catholic Faith" which demands exclusive salvation based upon accepting the creed and is authoritative in the Roman Catholic Church.
"Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God's works."
---the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 198

Catholic belief is succinctly expressed in the profession of faith or credo called the Nicene Creed:

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
  So many people would understand this classic creed as the gospel especially given the Catholic ever expanding gospel.
  Now emphases moves slighty from Christ act on cross for our salvation to Christ nature for our salvation. "for us men and for our salvation.
   This seems a small point but The nature of Christ, though it empowers Christ to be our Savior, is not the act or cause of our salvation.  It is his act upon the cross.  He nottice that in this creed we are asked to place faith in the apostolic church.  This is the bridge over to faith in man.  Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, points to salvation through man instead of christ.
Paul makes a clear division between the gospel and baptism.
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
   We see that the Nicene has shifted the gospel especially in light of Catholic doctrine.

The Athanasian Creed

  1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
  2. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
  3. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance
  4. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.
  5. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
  6. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.
  7. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
  8. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
  9. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
  10. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
  11. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
  12. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;
  13. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
  14. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
  15. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
  16. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
  17. And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.
  18. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;
  19. so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.
  20. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
  21. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
  22. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
  23. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
  24. And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.
  25. But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.
  26. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
  27. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
  28. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  29. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
  30. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.
  31. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
  32. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
  33. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
  34. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.
  35. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
  36. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
  37. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
  38. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
  39. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
  40. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
  41. And shall give account of their own works.
  42. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
  43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
So here the Athanasian Creed is very explicit as to the Catholic gospel and as we nottice there doctrine we can see that there doctrine is not the doctrine which we recieved from the Apostle Paul.
This is speeled out in point 1 and 43.
2. "We worship" worship is a work so there faith is a work not just propositional
7. The Son "uncreated" would be more accurate to be The Word uncreated.  Jesus is the Son and was born on a certain day.
8. incomprehensible, but if God has revealed himself can he not be comprehensible?
1 John 1:That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ"
John 1:
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Christ must be comprehensible.  If we can not comprehend God then we can not know God.
1 john 5:
20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
16. Lord is a personal title focused on Christ among the persons of the godhead.
2 Cor. 13:
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
21. The Son is begotton and the logos is uncreated.
john 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
luke 2:
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
When is Jesus begotten before all worlds?  He is the eternal logos and to be eternally begotten is less than eternal.
34 "
taking of the manhood into God." sounds like adoptionist heresy
42 A clear expression of works based salvation.

Of course there will be more creeds and an ever expanding gospel as a result. Bur whatever the roman catholic gospel becomes, it was already a separate gospel because it is an every growing series of teachings to be followed, instead of succinct group of propositions to be understood.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

The fate of the pseudo-Kentucky Academic common core standards

To the Kentucky board of education,
   As a product of the Jefferson County, Kentucky public school system with an environmental science diploma, the son of an award winning Jefferson County Public School Teacher, and an experienced minister of youth and children a great deal of my life's energy is devoted to what is happening in my communities public school system.

My experience

   I make no apologies for being a concerned citizen and activist for conservative political values.  There are massive movements to "fundamentally change" my country.  But the fundamentals of my country produced a superior society that has with stood some of the most powerful and dangerous empires, that overcame immoral institutions from within, that has brought society modern technology and economic prosperity and a common altruism to unite us all.
   Public school education is not and will not be prefect, so it is only natural to acknowledge the mistakes of the past.  But the change in public education has become an ideological tool and the "next generation science standards" and "common core curriculum", Has made a fundamental shift from a secular public school system to a sectarian socialist institution. Which is not legal.

 School money not to be used for church, sectarian, or denominational school
  No portion of any fund or tax now existing or that may hereafter be raised or levied, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aide of, any church, sectarian, or denominational school."

    The movement of this legislation was not well advertised, and much of it was already set in motion. So it was a desperate and short time to respond.   But a congregation of dissenters spontaneously emerged and offered a remarkable sound and cogent response.
    Myself and my associate Clint Hardy recorded the meeting on our internet radio program KY-Grassroots Radio.
    Then I preserved my speech in written form. (click link)
   This may seem tedious but it was obviously not in vain.  There was a quote from my speech taken slightly out of context and removed from my main point..
It was reported in the Louisville courier Journal and then picked up by the Cincinnati Inquirer and the Miami Herald and finally on the Huffington Post. (click link)

    It was carried and commented on by other papers and bloggers.  Receiving national attention was a thrill but extremely short lived.  Because the platform I had as a citizen was impugned.  You see the "journalists" all took from the one reporter.  They would repeat the story without a response from me.  One day, I found that I had received an email from a representative of the Huffington post the week earlier.  They claimed that if I possessed camera equipment and could link satelite equipment to them within 2 hours of the email then I could be on their television program. Obviously being a week later I could not.  Although I wonder if they had access to my email why could they not have access to my number or Facebook page?
  Thousands of people responded negatively on their program from San Francisco, and people ignorant of what I actually said were attacking a caricature of my speech. If I had a high paid job or position of leadership at that time, it would have been in serious danger.  But due to God's providence I had fallen on hard times.  Yet I had no platform to respond while my quote was being capitalized on.
   I had 2 main points in my speech. 1. That the evolutionary paradigm is based not in observation of the past, but in conjecture of an unrecorded "pre-history" or "deep time".  This causes the logical fallacy of induction and nullifies certainty as to label this theory a "fact".  So the "next generation science standards" elevating the theory to a "fact" is false and illogical.
    Secondly, the program was a federal government push that had no basis in the citizens of KY and contradicts the intent of the 10th amendment.  The program is inspired by elite billionaires such as Bill Gates controlling the education of KY Youth and removing the input of the citizens.
   Aug 8 I made the trip to Frankfort seeking one last chance to plead my case.  But there was no discussion allowed anymore.  There was only a unanimous decision by the board of education.  There was a report that claimed that all 4,000 questions were thoroughly answered, refuted and responded to.  I have no clue to this day what their response was.  Steve Beshear entered the room to a standing ovation and said it was time for KY to move "forward".
     Some time later I voiced my concerns to the board of directors by E-mail.  I received a letter by Dr. Pruitt.  Now this issue has become a great cause for me in my life.  I have since invested much of my life's energy over the creation evolution debate as I believe it is the intellectual center of this tension. I have researched and written about 70 articles regarding all the issues of science and philosophy since.   (click link)
   So as I read the response by Pruitt, I see a lot of standard propaganda and so I carefully went through the letter and refuted it line by line.  I go through much scientific literature as well as deal with the many court cases cited by Dr. Pruitt to justify curriculum.  I will hope that you will further examine my response as the issues are carefully dealt with.  (click Link)
  I was given no response to this letter.

Evolution is not a valid working hypothesis.

If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation. The Creator must have created the first organism, or a few first organisms, from which all others are derived,....."
The History of Creation, Vol. I (of 2), by Ernst Haeckel Ch. 13
  Ernst Haekel was one of the forefathers of evolution and Darwin's apostle to the German people.  Not only was he influential to the germans his material has been used by pubic schools for decades. In his magnum opus "History of Creation" he searches for a philosophically consistent naturalism.  He then makes this prediction, either spontaneous generation(life from non life) or special creation by God.  (For more context read the chapter click)
Now evolutionary theory is based in the idea that all life is connect by ancestry and Haekel conrtucted this in the now famous "Evolutionary Family Tree" illustration, the branches at some point must be united and spontaneous generation is the natural option.

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with forty thousand naughts after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Nature, vol. 294:105, November 12, 1981.
    The results came in! Here in the Scientific Peer reviewed journal "Nature" it is mathematically demonstrated to be impossible for a life to form from nonlife.  It is even admitted that this would demostrate that this was enough to devastate the the entire theory of evolution!  This statement was subjected to a peer review process.
Not only so,  but this was published before the nation  just 2 months before the conclusion of the  Maclean vs Arkansas trial(creation) November 12, 1981!
The trial lasted 5 months so Justice Overton should have been quite aware of this issue.  So what was his decision?
"The emphasis on origins as an aspect of the theory of evolution is peculiar to the creationist literature. Although the subject of origins of life is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider origins of life a part of evolutionary theory. " (Overton's memorandom)
  Thus modern evolutionists to this day will make the claim.  So the darwinian theory is now only limited to biology.  Now this would not make sense as we do not have evidence for all life being related. And Haekel has already demonstrated where the Evolutionary idea was originally.
However, Overton makes yet another claim. (rejecting scientific creationist act)
""The Act is self-contradictory and compliance is impossible unless the public schools elect to forego significant portions of subjects such as biology, world history, geology, zoology, botany, psychology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, physics and chemistry. Presently, the concepts of evolutionary theory as described in 4(b) permeate the public textbooks."
   Now PAY ATTENTION AS WE SEE THE BAIT-N-SWITCH FALLACY EMPLOYED.  If evolution is only referring to biology then why is he claiming that evolution permeates all these fields!? ??

   But certainly we have found more evidence to refute my contention since 1981 correct?
This was long before we understood DNA and micro biology the way we do today.  For instance we did not understand how the DNA molecule contains coded information.  How much information does it contain?
SCIENTISTS STORE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION ON DNA THROUGH THE PROCESS OF BLIND CHANCE (Friday Church News Notes, December 19, 2014,,, 866-295-4143) - Two scientists have successfully stored 700 terabytes of data on DNA, including a copy of a multimedia book, breaking the previous record by a thousand times. George Church and Sriram Kosuri of the Wyss Institute at the Harvard Medical School stored this massive amount of information on about one gram of DNA (“Harvard cracks DNA storage,” Extreme Tech, Aug. 17, 2012). The stored information is equivalent to 233 3TB hard drives. As a test, the scientists made 70 billion copies of the DNA containing the information. They can foresee the day when “the entirety of human knowledge--every book, uttered word, and funny cat video--can be stored in a few hundred kilos of DNA.” Now, let us address the title of this report: “Scientists Store Massive Amounts of Information on DNA through the Process of Blind Chance.
  These advances in the understanding of microbiology are only magnifying what was already a hopeless proposition.
Now to save valuable time I will refer you to my concise article demonstrating through the evidence how Darwinism is no longer a scientifically viable option. (click on link)

So how does "next generation/KY standards deal with this topic?
  First of all the curriculum not only teaches Darwinian evolution but it's popular companion the big bang theory as historical fact.
(click on link
"Students who demonstrate understanding can:
HS-ESS1-2.Construct an explanation of the Big Bang theory based on astronomical evidence of light spectra, motion of distant galaxies, and composition of matter in the universe."
 So the Child is taught to defend the big bang theory and understand it as history.(HS)  

   Now Judge Overton made some rules to what was and was not religious and at the time the big bang seemed to not contradict his conclusion.
"Both the concepts and wording of Section 4(a) convey an inescapable religiosity. Section 4(a)(1) describes "sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing." Every theologian who testified, including defense witnesses, expressed the opinion that the statement referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by God."So here judge Overton is chiding the creationist.
    However, later on the big bang theory took a turn into the concept of cosmic inflation.  Which teaches that within a period of 2 seconds 99% of the universe formed.
Popular physicist Lawrence Krauss explains the current concept of the big bang.
"If we live in a universe full of stuff, how did it get here? And many people think that very question implies the need for a creator. But what's truly been amazing, and what the book's about is the revolutionary developments in both cosmology and particle physics over the past 30 or 40 years that have not only changed completely the way we think about the universe but made it clear that there's a plausible case for understanding precisely how a universe full of stuff, like the universe we live in, could result literally from nothing by natural processes." Lawrence Krauss
Now His theory is illogical sense nothing does not have nature and no explanation for laws of nature processing anything. More importantly He has admitted to the cosmic inflation big bang defying Overton's Axiom.  And what is the law for one group must be the law for another!

"While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation." Overton's memorandom
""Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it." ibid
   I couldn't agree more.
Remember to look at my refutation of Dr. Pruitt as I there deal with the fallacy of induction and the issue of religiousity.

Moving Forward in dealing with the false Academic Standards.
Dear Board members,
My agenda is not promote religion at the expense of tax payers, my agenda is to stop it.
I focus on the evolutionary topic because it is an area I have developed a level of expertise in over the years.
But equally we see the sectarian encroachment in other areas such the promotion of Global Warming.  The ideological doctrines have cultural and political implications and more to the point we are wasting valuable time that could be used on topics with universal appeal.
   We must be careful to screen out topics with metaphysical speculations and develop topics with universal practical applications.
    Why are our science departments so weak in the field of electronics and technology?
Could not we stand more education dealing with survival skills?  Economics/business? Civics? First aid/medicine?

I therefore beseech the Board to re-evaluate the controversial and doubted common core curriculum and next generation science standards  that have pretended to be KY Academics Standards and together we can come together as a State and find real solutions for the next generation.
Warmest regards, Sincerely
Rev. Matt Singleton

Saturday, March 31, 2018


   God is real, His existence is necessary.  Many Christians and non-Christians assume that we must  wait to receive enough evidence as to whether God exists. However, life happens.  This is a basic presupposition to all of life's actions. Whether there are morals, whether life will escape death,  whether there is objective order, are all basic presuppositions that we must have and respond to.  That is the purpose of parents, we need to have a temporary worldview for simple survival.
  Traditionally,  Atheists have demanded that Christians or theists must prove to atheists on atheistic terms that God indeed exists. They have assumed a home field advantage because their position is negative and you can not prove a negative.  This seems to be an argument from silence.   God, Jehovah, was not historically a hypothesis to be tested, but instead a historical factual figure who was observed.
The Bible is a historic record of God.
God is a historic character
The Bible is the most trustworthy history of the ancient world.

   Since Jehovah is not a predicted observation but instead a claimed observation, it is the responsibility of the unbeliever to show just cause for disputing the fact of God.
   In contemporary times secular humanists(a.k.a atheists), have moved to evangelize others towards the naturalistic/atheistic/secular humanist worldview.  As a result, modern atheist forfeit their right to sit as prosecutor and judge. When they attack the believer's faith, it is the believer who stands in judgement over their arguments. 
  Now one of the more seductive evidences of our Lord is the faith he gives us.  It is typically dismissed as crazy by the radical anti-religious.  However, I want to reveal the hidden intellectual weight behind faith starting from simple arguments to the more complex and show how belief is both right and essential before even conducting science.

Existential argument "We need God"
    The purely naturalistic worldview actually reveals to us that mankind desperately needs God.
  The atheistic worldview can be rewarding for the elite darwinist. Those who happen to be the highest of achievers can live a long life. 
But among those who are weaker the doctrine is a handicap. There is no recovery from failure because there is no hope. We may have hope for the future generations but they will end up as fruitless as us.
    The Secular generations are a broken record, repetitiously playing the song as if brand new, only to come to a shattering crash and skip back to the beginning.  Without the spiritual life with God, mankind falls rather easily into despair.  Is it from the numerous socialist(facist,communist, nazi) dictatorships?  Is it the millions of lives lost due to drug abuse?  The multitudes of suicides?  Is it the dissolution of the family leading to sexually transmitted diseases, traumatized children? Or is the a half a billion unborn babies dying as a result of such rampant fornication? The desperation of secular society is amazing. I remember working at a gas station watching customers grimly spend all their money on lottery tickets, quite often spending away their checks. I kept hoping they would win assuming they would stop and be happy.  But sadly, they often would spend all their winnings right there without leaving. I knew one man who actually did hit the jackpot. But instead of investing his money he would simply buy more tickets; over a thousand dollars of tickets every couple days.
But the levels of depravity on drug addiction are clearly amazing. it is enough to speak of the evils of regular drugs, then we get to see the addiction of dr. prescribed painkillers. But this is nothing to the digesting of toxic cleaning fluids. Whether it be furniture polish or tide-balls. the need for self mutilation just for some sort of high takes more and more sickening levels and the death tolls soar!
  People find themselves desperate for more than the secular world has to offer quite easily.  Even the rich and famous often breakdown after realizing that they will never be satisfied. It doesn't matter if you live in a cardboard box, an apartment box, a housing box, working at a warehouse or office box going to the hospital box to die in a coffin box you still will be boxed in and caged in the materialistic worldview!  That is probably why we invest trillions of dollars in hopes living in an outer space with no oxygen, food and water but yet plenty of freezing and radiation.
It is quite appealing to fool over-sheltered christian kids who want to leave home.  But in reality, when the going gets tough secular humanism offers nothing to survive.  It may not make total sense to me or you, but it does not have to! Because our ideal of what makes sense has not proven itself completely true. And this truth is one of our essential needs.
     This argument is typical proposed as existentialism. It does not prove the truth and it does not establish a complete worldview. However, it has a universal appeal to point us to the need for spiritual and inner truth. So while I may indeed argue against it if it were isolated.  I think this is the first reasoning to start a journey especially with the novice.

reformed epistemology
Faith is my right
 I believe in God, I am in a covenant relationship with God and He makes total sense to me.  Contemporary "fundy atheists" are reacting that they could not make sense of God as if this can convince me that what I know as true can not be. The authority of their opinion stops at their own wills and not mine.  How can their rejection negate my acceptance? They may retort "you don't know..." But in order to set limits on my knowledge they have to concede limits on their own knowledge.
The one thing they don't have is MY KNOWLEDGE!  So they Don't Know if I know God other than my testimony which says that I do know God. ( I have had several experiences spiritual sensations answers to prayer miraculous deliverance etc.)
So essentially this is nothing more than a bluff and in fact it reveals an insecurity on the part of the atheist. What motivation does the atheist have for targeting and pressuring the believer to abandon faith?  Could it be that seeing someone confident in their knowledge and relationship with God brings them doubts of their naturalism?
You see their premise is that God has failed because he has not provided them a means of communication.  They have to rest in the assumption that God is not knowable for them to justify not knowing God.
But if they find a true believer then it becomes apparent that God does allow people to become convinced and believe in Him.  It begs the unbeliever why they have failed to produce the required faith.
Now this line of reasoning is typically understood more as defensive and not used for positive argumentation. Yet the defense is stronger than it appears. Their are also issues of epistemology but they are more better classified in the section on pre-suppositionalism.

subjective empiricism
Our faith is evidence
  There is a universal need for mankind to transcend itself. There is a need for meaning not found in the animal kingdom.  This need motivates us and yet if it is not met then the result is often death and destruction. 
So what has been the answer?  What has worked to fulfill this need? The vast majority of the World operates under monotheism, the belief in one God. We see this in Judaism, christianity, Islam, deism and Sikhism.The vast majority also focuses their faith in a messianic mediator.  This includes the pagans and the Buddhist.  The Person of Christ is the most respected of all religious figures, even among non-christians. Muslims see him as a prophet, Hindus see him as a deity and the Jews and Atheist see him as a revered teacher.  It is then not a surprise that Christianity which combines these principles is the worlds most popular religious option.
Within Christianity we see people from about every nation on earth.  We see every social class represented. Overcoming thousands of cultural and linguistic barriers and transcending generations for two thousand years stacked upon several thousand years of Judaism.
So in summary we see millions upon millions of testimonies giving weight to the reality of Christ as the solution for life's problems. As the number of believer's tends to build; the evidence for faith in Christ grows in objectivity.
  So then as we see the evidence of the stability of the christian witness, what we are observing is the effect.  The effect(Christianity) is evidently true in the subjective experience of billions of people. If the effect is true then it implies that the cause is true.  What is the cause of christianity? The gospel is the cause of christianity and the christian faith.  Without the gospel there is nothing for the christian to have faith in.  The gospel is enshrined in the Holy Bible.
   So, now  we have gravitated from a god, to the christian God Jehovah. While this evidence is subjective, it is still true that we have evidence for God and this God is rooted as a historical fact.

Ontological argument
You don't know my God!
Some of the "fundy atheist" arguments are seriously insulting.  Not because they are hard to answer, but because they show a complete ignorance of basic theology.
The 2 arguments put for most often are really not informed arguments as much as straw-men.  "The flying spaghetti monster" and "Where did God come from?"
This is offensive in the sense that God by definition is eternal and is not a created being. This is not just a christian principle either but essential to EVERY form of monotheism even Aristotelian! Theologians have spelled out this doctrine for thousands of years, So it is very blatantly false.
The only purpose for the argument I imagine would be to disrupt the theist in anger, boost the confidence of the fellow atheist through boasting and ridicule and to intimidate the novice.
    If this were an honest tactic it would reveal quite a level of ignorance as to the definition of God.
But this reveals the fact that atheists not only lack the proper understanding of the doctrine of God but are intellectually prohibited from properly understanding it as they would have to concede the Lord's existence!
Now the Ontological argument was first proposed by the theologian Anselm, but I prefer the way Rene Descarte organized this argument and I will give my rendition of that.
 Rene was dealing with the conundrum of Skepticism.  What can survive doubt?  Couldn't reality just be a dream or illusion?  How do we know what is ultimately true?
Descarte pondered this deeply and was headed for a logical breakdown when he realized that since he was thinking about the subject it was obvious that he had to be real or he wouldn't really be thinking.
 Now I wouldn't be absolutely sure that one could not be imagining they were somebody else who wasn't real.  However, in practical terms it was obvious that he was real and there was reality. However, most people only hear this much without the reasoning as to how this became a concrete logic. Admitting His existence was admitting to himself the existence of a limited person.
What do we know about limited people?
Well, in every way they are limited!
But if there existed a concept of limitation it is only understood verses the concept of unlimitation.
For How do we know if we have a limit unless there exist a thing which unlimited to compare the measurement with?  For instance how do you know if a glass is half full?  By knowing that there is a half of full.
Thus we have the concept of the infinite.
Atheism can not harmonize with the concept of infinity. the materialistic worldview is limited and yet has not concept of unlimited and so ultimately will retire to the concept of theism or pantheism.
When we consider the question of God's existence there are only three possibilities.
1.God does not exist, because God is a contradictory concept.
2. God does not exist because God is a figment of the imagination.
3. God does exist.

   In recent years, many "new atheist" Have resorted to the argument that God is impossible.
  This has been easy to debunk in the sense that there is an entire field of study called theology. For several centuries men have studied this field and even obtained masters degrees and doctorates. (including myself).  So you have a large historic institution where men are trained and instructed to understand God, and in fact where men are recognized and rewarded for their studies in this field.  To be frank you would think that these people would nottice if in fact they had no comprehension of God at all.
The only people who are claiming to not understand God are those who impose the doctrine of agnosticism upon everyone else.  But generally even atheist do not want to claim to be ignorant of a topic, they can not live with the self inflicted insult that they are not even capable of defining the God which they are denying.
  So then the obvious resort is to claim that God does not exist because He is a myth/figment of our imagination.
So is the definition of God a figment of our imagination??
Look at God's attributes
1. God is eternal
2. God is immutable (unchanging)
3. God is all powerful
4. God is all knowing
5. God is Holy
6.  God is everywhere
7. God is transcendent
If God were a product of man's imagination he would have none of these attributes! In fact God would possess not only none of them, but he would not have any scale of them genuinely.  To the point that to refer to the imagination is not to refer to God in any sense.  This is why it is common practice to lowercase pagan "gods" and uppercase Jehovah God, because they are entirely different concepts.
God is not a oblivion, God is the plenum or maximum. God is not zero, God is infinity. now many would argue that this is only a mental trick and that you could replace the perfect God with the "perfect Island" and this concept also applies to pantheism where everything is infinite god.  However neither are by definition omniscient because neither are even intelligent.  Thus the definition of God is peculiar to God.
 If God is not by nature irrational and not by nature a fantasy, then God is existent.  But not simply existent, and this is where the fallacy begins.  God is not limited to the universe, but indeed transcends it. Thus when rules are placed upon the existence of God they often do not apply.  God is not just "existent"  He is "necessarily existent".  In other words the universe not only does not support God's existence, but instead the universe is upheld by God's existence. Who wrote the laws of nature? What makes things the same or different? God establishes that reality and therefore the universe is contingent upon Him.

Moral Argument: God is good, all the time!
Morality is self evident and a necessity. Some may assume "Let's not argue over morality but instead focus on the truth."
If truth is not good, then why does truth matter? And if truth is doubted then how would we go about logic? or dialogue?
In order for mankind to get along there must be an agreed moral base. Because the moral base will be the authority to drive the basis of truth.  Some Atheist have began to argue against the notion that they lack morality. While even the bible agrees that the gentile is capable of moral actions.
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: "
However, they are handicapped having no moral base.
jonah 4:
11 and should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"
The reason that atheists and other secularist do not have a moral foundation is the fact that they can not prove whether there morality is moral!
If morality is not good how can it be moral?
If morality is not subjective then what is it subjective too?
John 18: 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?"
And so the circle of life ends in death.

 Now typically the greatest intellectual threat to christianity has always been the problem of Evil.  If God is a Good God why to evil thing happen to good people? Or innocent people? Or Why is there Evil at all?
In dealing with this I am confronting the logic of the argument. Obviously emotions and experiences if traumatic can take years to heal from.
God is Transcendent)  Many times this accusation is made implying God's Direct involvement.  Yet God is not doing any evil immanently in the world  So the suggested punishment often does not fit the crime.
God created a very good world) God created earth as a paradise. The evil death and suffering we see in the present world was not the work of His actions.
God and free Will)  Creation is superior if it has a Will to show the greatness of the creator.  In order for the Will to be free The wrong answer must be present and possible.
God is Sovereign)  All creation is God's property, He has a write to destroy all that is unrightesous and Set up the Laws to govern the World. 
Satan and Adam)  Lucifer brought evil upon Adam and Adam perpetuted evil and death to the rest of creation
God's Middle Knowledge)  There are an infinite amount of possibilities God Caused the reality that would be most productive.
Christus Victor)  All Evil is going to be reconciled

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
How can we wander the earth trying to weigh out every option of every decision we have to make? More importantly how do we prove that we searched out every option without proof that we did that?
In all of the universe how much of it do we actually know?
There are parts of the earth we have still never explored.
We are completely incapable of objective judgements.
God is objective, He does know all things and so His revelation in scripture should not be doubted.
Thus the christian worldview then is presupposed.
But how does that connect to the unbeliever?
 The unbeliever carries their own presuppositions and worldview.  They judge everything by their worldview.  If you give them evidence they are typically going to reject your conclusion only because it is not matching their worldview.
So the final solution to interacting is appealing to the law of non-contradiction.  Revealing that their worldview is incapable of certainty.
In polytheism there are multiple gods.  At Which point one must ask "Which god possesses objective truth?"
In hinduism/Buddhism reality is an illusion, but isn't then your understanding an illusion as well?
In Atheistic materialism, everything in the universe breaks down to matter. How does matter provide us with the laws of science?
Many religions rely on mystical and ecstatic experiences, But when they contradict, which ones are true?
In rationalism how are we certain that our logic is flawless? What if we have a mental or neurological defect?
In empiricism we often observe things by sight alone but sight is ultimately 2 dmensional. When this is the case how do we know the distances?
When making measurements we have no absolutely perfect standard of measurements.
For instance if we take two 12inch rulers side by side they may seem identical, but under a microscope, we will find much difference.  If you could place rulers in order all the way to Neptune(which is actually impossible due to rotation!) Then the differences would be many miles. and of course that would magnify as we try to measure stars.  All our mathematics are reduced to estimations and all mathematical certainty falls apart.
The scientific method is useful in debunk various theories.  But it is subjective in the sense that it starts with a hypothesis which is an educated guess.  We could come up with the wrong hypothesis and simply repeatedly offer the wrong hypothesis?
Even if an experiment works it is still Subjective because the explanation may be correct in that particular circumstance and yet a competing hypothesis could pass the same experimental results and offer a better explanation in other areas.
Remember, this is all assuming the moral integrity of science.  It is not counting false reports or fudged data which can alter future assumptions.
If objectivity or absolute truth can not be attained then certain truth ultimately has no base.  All man's knowledge is thus a house of cards and it collapses into nihilism.
By presupposing biblical Christianity, we have the only worldview with a case for objective truth. If no other worldview has certainty then what authority does it have to debunk Christianity?
This is the most powerful base for Christian philosophy and theology.  Yet it communicates poorly.  if theoretically the Heathen has poor logic then why would they concede christian truth? Plus, it requires an educated person to know that the other worldviews true have not obtained this level of certainty. Thus requiring a great amount of patience, which the public does not have.  Thus the preceding arguments operate as a chain to finding this base.

The following arguments move from faith presupposing God to faith presupposing science.   There are 3 major arguments that I have not pursued because they are post propositional science.  The cosmological argument

Unmoved mover
If God were not real then nothing would be.
All reality bows down to time, it all changes, and it eventually wears down.  But when we deal with God or the infinite godhead(substance of God) we are dealing with timelessness.  If there is not an infinite base, then there is no frame of reference to know that all else is temporal and thus we have the concept of "things"  things that have limits.  This is the reality we live in.  Otherwise we have no understanding.  This is the flaw of monism within eastern pantheism and it ultimately breaks down in western pantheism as well.
Science studies things.  It divides things up and classifies things by divisions of other things. the destruction of differences is the destruction of science.

Evidence as evidence
We live in reality because God is real,  In order to trust reality enough to understand it we must place faith in it being understandable.  We know there are things undetected by one and even all our senses and we have developed tools to detect this.  But what if we never had the tools?  What if there things through which we will never have the tools to make such detection
 All the major branches of science started from a creationist perspective.  I believe this was part of that process... by design!
The Gamble
Time is limited, There is no study long enough to be certain without faith and doing the study only waste a life guaranteed to end.  Typically the atheist world offers liberation but only until consequences reveal reality.  beyond that it offers no foundation for hope, morality or justice. Atheism has no hell accept for the fact of death.  But he can not punish the unbeliever.  So only unbelief bears consequences in eternity.
logically applied, belief is inevitable.

Friday, February 23, 2018

What was evolution like originally? looking at Ernst Haeckel's "History of creation Vol. 1" chapter 13

As more evidence supports creationism our contemporary evolutinists have been putting up " smoke screens and bait-n-switch definitions of evolution in hopes of skating by the fact that evolution was already debunked.  However as we look back in the past we see the forefathers of evolution like the german evolutionary forefather ernst haekyl singing a different tune.
Here is the 13th chapter in full and uninterrupted.

The History of Creation, Vol. I (of 2), by Ernst Haeckel



History of the Development of the Earth.—Kant’s Theory of the Development of the Universe, or the Cosmological Gas Theory.—Development of Suns, Planets, and Moons.—First Origin of Water.—Comparison of Organisms and Anorgana.—Organic and Inorganic Substances.—Degrees of Density, or Conditions of Aggregation.—Albuminous Combinations of Carbon.—Organic and Inorganic Forms.—Crystals and Formless Organisms without Organs.—Stereometrical Fundamental Forms of Crystals and of Organisms.—Organic and Inorganic Forces.—Vital Force.—Growth and Adaptation in Crystals and in Organisms.—Formative Tendencies of Crystals.—Unity of Organic and Inorganic Nature.—Spontaneous Generation, or Archigony.—Autogony and Plasmogony.—Origin of Monera by Spontaneous Generation.—Origin of Cells from Monera.—The Cell Theory.—The Plastid Theory.—Plastids, or Structural Units.—Cytods and Cells.—Four Different Kinds of Plastids.
In our considerations hitherto we have endeavoured to answer the question, “By what causes have new species of animals and plants arisen out of existing species?” We have answered this question according to Darwin’s theory, that natural selection in the struggle for existence—that is, the interaction of the laws of Inheritance and Adaptation—is completely sufficient for producing mechanically the317 endless variety of the different animals and plants, which have the appearance of being organized according to a plan for a definite purpose. Meanwhile the question must have already repeatedly presented itself to the reader, how did the first organisms, or that one original and primæval organism arise, from which we derive all the others?

This question Lamarck(2) answered by the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, or archigony. But Darwin passes over and avoids this subject, as he expressly remarks that he has “nothing to do with the origin of the soul, nor with that of life itself.” At the conclusion of his work he expresses himself more distinctly in the following words:—“I imagine that probably all organic beings which ever lived on this earth descended from some primitive form, which was first called into life by the Creator.” Moreover, Darwin, for the consolation of those who see in the Theory of Descent the destruction of the whole “moral order of the universe,” appeals to the celebrated author and divine who wrote to him, that “he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that he required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of his laws.”
Those to whom the belief in a supernatural creation is an emotional necessity may rest satisfied with this conception. They may reconcile that belief with the Theory of Descent; for in the creation of a single original organism possessing the capability to develop all others out of itself by inheritance and adaptation, they can really find much more cause318 for admiring the power and wisdom of the Creator than in the independent creation of different species.
If, taking this point of view, we were to explain the origin of the first terrestrial organisms, from which all the others are descended, as due to the action of a personal Creator acting according to a definite plan, we should of course have to renounce all scientific knowledge of the process, and pass from the domain of true science to the completely distinct domain of poetical faith. By assuming a supernatural act of creation we should be taking a leap into the inconceivable. Before we decide upon this latter step, and thereby renounce all pretension to a scientific knowledge of the process, we are at all events in duty bound to endeavour to examine it in the light of a mechanical hypothesis. We must at least examine whether this process is really so wonderful, and whether we cannot form a tenable conception of a completely non-miraculous origin of the first primary organism. We might then be able entirely to reject miracle in creation.
It will be necessary for this purpose, first of all, to go back further into the past, and to examine the history of the creation of the earth. Going back still further, we shall find it necessary to consider the history of the creation of the whole universe in its most general outlines. All my readers undoubtedly know that from the structure of the earth, as it is at present known to us, the notion has been derived, and as yet has not been refuted, that its interior is in a fiery fluid condition, and that the firm crust, composed of different strata, on the surface of which organisms are living, forms only a very thin pellicle or shell round the fiery fluid centre. We have319 arrived at this idea by different confirmatory experiments and reasonings. In the first place, the observation that the temperature of the earth’s crust continually increases towards the centre is in favour of this supposition. The deeper we descend, the greater the warmth of the ground, and in such proportion, that with every 100 feet the temperature increases about one degree. At a depth of six miles, therefore, a heat of 1500° would be attained, sufficient to keep most of the firm substances of our earth’s crust in a molten, fiery, fluid state. This depth, however, is only the 286th part of the whole diameter of the earth (1717 miles). We further know that springs which rise out of a considerable depth possess a very high temperature, and sometimes even throw water up to the surface in a boiling state. Lastly, very important proofs are furnished by volcanic phenomena, the eruption of fiery fluid masses of stone bursting through certain parts of the earth’s crust. All these phenomena lead us with great certainty to the important assumption that the firm crust of the earth forms only quite a small fraction, not nearly the one-thousandth part of the whole diameter of the terrestrial globe, and that the rest is still for the most part in a molten or fiery fluid state.
Now if, starting with this assumption, we reflect on the ancient history of the development of the globe, we are logically carried back a step further, namely, to the assumption that at an earlier date the whole earth was a fiery fluid body, and that the formation of a thin, stiffened crust on the surface was only a later process. Only gradually, by radiating its intrinsic heat into the cold space of the universe, has the surface of the glowing ball become condensed into320 a thin crust. That the temperature of the earth in remote times was much higher than it is now, is proved by many phenomena. Among other things, this is rendered probable by the equal distribution of organisms in remote times of the earth’s history. While at present, as is well known, the different populations of animals and plants correspond to the different zones of the earth and their appropriate temperature, in earlier times this was distinctly not the case.

We see from the distribution of fossils in the remoter ages, that it was only at a very late date, in fact, at a comparatively recent period of the organic history of the earth (at the beginning of the so-called cænolithic or tertiary period), that a separation of zones and of the corresponding organic populations occurred. During the immensely long primary and secondary periods, tropical plants, which require a very high degree of temperature, lived not only in the present torrid zone, under the equator, but also in the present temperate and frigid zones. Many other phenomena also demonstrate a gradual decrease of the temperature of the globe as a whole, and especially a late and gradual cooling of the earth’s crust about the poles. Bronn, in his excellent “Investigations of the Laws of Development of the Organic World,” has collected numerous geological and palæontological proofs of this fact.
These phenomena and the mathematico-astronomical knowledge of the structure of the universe justify the theory that, inconceivable ages ago, long before the first existence of organisms, the whole earth was a fiery fluid globe. Now, this theory corresponds with the grand theory of the origin of the universe, and especially of our planetary system, which,321 on the ground of mathematical and astronomical facts, was put forward in 1755 by our critical philosopher Kant,(22) and was later more thoroughly established by the celebrated mathematicians, Laplace and Herschel. This cosmogeny, or theory of the development of the universe, is now almost universally acknowledged; it has not been replaced by a better one, and mathematicians, astronomers, and geologists have continually, by various arguments, strengthened its position.
Kant’s cosmogeny maintains that the whole universe, inconceivable ages ago, consisted of a gaseous chaos. All the substances which are found at present separated on the earth, and other bodies of the universe, in different conditions of density—in the solid, semi-fluid, liquid, and elastic fluid or gaseous states of aggregation—originally constituted together one single homogeneous mass, equally filling up the space of the universe, which, in consequence of an extremely high degree of temperature, was in an exceedingly thin gaseous or nebulous state. The millions of bodies in the universe which at present form the different solar systems did not then exist. They originated only in consequence of a universal rotatory movement, or rotation, during which a number of masses acquired greater density than the remaining gaseous mass, and then acted upon the latter as central points of attraction. Thus arose a separation of the chaotic primary nebula, or gaseous universe, into a number of rotating nebulous spheres, which became more and more condensed. Our solar system was such a gigantic gaseous or nebulous ball, all the particles of which revolved round a common central point, the solar nucleus. The nebulous ball itself, like all the rest, in consequence322 of its rotatory movement, assumed a spheroidal or a flattened globular form.
While the centripetal force attracted the rotating particles nearer and nearer to the firm central point of the nebulous ball, and thus condensed the latter more and more, the centrifugal force, on the other hand, always tended to separate the peripheral particles further and further from it, and to hurl them off. On the equatorial sides of the ball, which was flattened at both poles, this centrifugal force was strongest, and as soon as, by increase of density, it attained predominance over the centripetal force, a circular nebulous ring separated itself from the rotating ball. This nebulous ring marked the course of future planets. The nebulous mass of the ring gradually condensed, and became a planet, which revolved round its own axis, and at the same time rotated round the central body. In precisely the same manner, from the equator of the planetary mass, as soon as the centrifugal force gained predominance over the centripetal force, new nebulous rings were ejected, which moved round the planets as the latter moved round the sun. These nebulous rings, too, became condensed into rotating balls. Thus arose the moons, only one of which moves round our earth, whilst four move round Jupiter, and six round Uranus. The ring of Saturn still shows us a moon in its early stage of development. As by increasing refrigeration these simple processes of condensation and expulsion repeated themselves over and over again, there arose the different solar systems, the planets rotating round their central suns, and the satellites or moons moving round their planets.

The original gaseous condition of the rotating bodies of323 the universe gradually changed, by increasing refrigeration and condensation, into the fiery fluid or molten state of aggregation. By the process of condensation, a great quantity of heat was emitted, and the rotating suns, planets, and moons, soon changed into glowing balls of fire, like gigantic drops of melted metal, which emitted light and heat. By loss of heat, the melted mass on the surface of the fiery fluid ball became further condensed, and thus arose a thin, firm crust, which enclosed a fiery fluid nucleus. In all essential respects our mother earth probably did not differ from the other bodies of the universe.
In view of the object of these pages, it will not be of especial interest to follow in detail the history of the natural creation of the universe, with its different solar and planetary systems, and to establish it mathematically by the different astronomical and geological proofs. The outlines of it, which I have just mentioned, must be sufficient here, and for further details I refer to Kant’s 5 “General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens.”(22) I will only add that this wonderful theory, which might be called the cosmological gas theory, harmonizes with all the general series of phenomena at present known to us, and stands in no irreconcilable contradiction to any one of them. Moreover, it is purely mechanical or monistic, makes use exclusively of the inherent forces of eternal matter, and entirely excludes every supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious action of a personal Creator. Kant’s Cosmological Gas Theory consequently occupies a similar supreme position in Anorganology, especially in Geology, and forms the crown of our knowledge in that department, in the same 324way as Lamarck’s Theory of Descent does in Biology, and especially in Anthropology. Both rest exclusively upon mechanical or unconscious causes (causæ efficientes), in no case upon prearranged or conscious causes (causæ finales). (Compare above, p. 100-106.) Both therefore fulfil all the demands of a scientific theory, and consequently will remain generally acknowledged until they are replaced by better ones.
I will, however, not deny that Kant’s grand cosmogeny has some weak points, which prevent our placing the same unconditional confidence in it as in Lamarck’s Theory of Descent. The notion of an original gaseous chaos filling the whole universe presents great difficulties of various kinds. A great and unsolved difficulty lies in the fact that the Cosmological Gas Theory furnishes no starting-point at all in explanation of the first impulse which caused the rotary motion in the gas-filled universe. In seeking for such an impulse, we are involuntarily led to the mistaken questioning about a “first beginning.” We can as little imagine a first beginning of the eternal phenomena of the motion of the universe as of its final end.
The universe is unlimited and immeasurable in both space and time. It is eternal, and it is infinite. Nor can we imagine a beginning or end to the uninterrupted and eternal motion in which all particles of the universe are always engaged. The great laws of the conservation of force(38) and the conservation of matter, the foundations of our whole conception of nature, admit of no other supposition. The universe, as far as it is cognisable to human capability, appears as a connected chain of material phenomena of motion, necessitating a continual change of325 forms. Every form, as the temporary result of a multiplicity of phenomena of motion, is as such perishable, and of limited duration. But, in the continual change of forms, matter and the motion inseparable from it remain eternal and indestructible.
Now, although Kant’s Cosmological Gas Theory is not able to explain the development of motion in the whole universe in a satisfactory manner, beyond that gaseous state of chaos, and although many other weighty considerations may be brought forward against it, especially by chemistry and geology, yet we must on the whole acknowledge its great merit, inasmuch as it explains in an excellent manner, by due consideration of development, the whole structure of all that is accessible to our observation, that is, the anatomy of the solar systems, and especially of our planetary system. It may be that this development was altogether different from what Kant supposes, and our earth may have arisen by the aggregation of numberless small meteorides, scattered in space, or in any other manner, but hitherto no one has as yet been able to establish any other theory of development, or to offer one in the place of Kant’s cosmogeny.
After this general glance at the monistic cosmogeny, or the non-miraculous history of the development of the universe, let us now return to a minute fraction of it, to our mother earth, which we left as a ball flattened at both poles and in a fiery fluid state, its surface having condensed by becoming cooled into a very thin firm crust. The crust, on first cooling, must have covered the whole surface of the terrestrial sphere as a continuous smooth and thin shell. But soon it must have become uneven and hummocky; for,326 since during the continued cooling, the fiery fluid nucleus became more and more condensed and contracted, and consequently the diameter of the earth diminished, the thin cold crust, which could not closely follow the softer nuclear mass, must have fallen in, in many places. An empty space would have arisen between the two, had not the pressure of the outer atmosphere forced down the fragile crust towards the interior, breaking it in so doing. Other unevennesses probably arose from the fact that, in different parts, the cooled crust during the process of refrigeration contracted also itself, and thus became fissured with cracks and rents. The fiery fluid nucleus flowed up to the external surface through these cracks, and again became cooled and stiff. Thus, even at an early period there arose many elevations and depressions, which were the first foundations of mountains and valleys.

After the temperature of the cooled terrestrial ball had fallen to a certain degree, a very important new process was effected, namely, the first origin of water. Water had until then existed only in the form of steam in the atmosphere surrounding the globe. The water could evidently not condense into a state of fluid drops until the temperature of the atmosphere had considerably decreased. Now, then, there began a further transformation of the earth’s crust by the force of water. It continually fell in the form of rain, and in that form washed down the elevations of the earth’s crust, filling the depressions with the mud carried along, and, by depositing it in layers, it caused the extremely important neptunic transformations of the earth’s crust, which have continued since then uninterruptedly, and which in our next chapter we shall examine a little more closely.327
It was not till the earth’s crust had so far cooled that the water had condensed into a fluid form, it was not till the hitherto dry crust of the earth had for the first time become covered with liquid water, that the origin of the first organisms could take place. For all animals and all plants—in fact, all organisms—consist in great measure of fluid water, which combines in a peculiar manner with other substances, and brings them into a semi-fluid state of aggregation. We can therefore, from these general outlines of the inorganic history of the earth’s crust, deduce the important fact, that at a certain definite time life had its beginning on earth, and that terrestrial organisms did not exist from eternity, but at a certain period came into existence for the first time.
Now, how are we to conceive of this origin of the first organisms? This is the point at which most naturalists, even at the present day, are inclined to give up the attempt at natural explanation, and take refuge in the miracle of an inconceivable creation. In doing so, as has already been remarked, they quit the domain of scientific knowledge, and renounce all further insight into the eternal laws which have determined nature’s history. But before despondingly taking such a step, and before we despair of the possibility of any knowledge of this important process, we may at least make an attempt to understand it. Let us see if in reality the origin of a first organism out of inorganic matter, the origin of a living body out of lifeless matter, is so utterly inconceivable and beyond all experience. In one word, let us examine the question of spontaneous generation, or archigony. In so doing, it is above all things necessary to form a clear idea of the principal properties of the two chief328 groups of natural bodies, the so-called inanimate or inorganic, and the animate or organic bodies, and then establish what is common to, and what are the differences between, the two groups. It is desirable to go somewhat carefully into the comparison of organisms and anorgana, since it is commonly very much neglected, although it is necessary for a right understanding of nature from the monistic point of view. It will be most advantageous here to look separately at the three fundamental properties of every natural body; these are matter, form, and force. Let us begin with matter. (Gen. Morph. iii.)
By chemistry we have succeeded in analysing all bodies known to us into a small number of elements or simple substances, which cannot be further divided, for example, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, and the different metals: potassium, sodium, iron, gold, etc. At present we know about seventy such elements or simple substances. The majority of them are unimportant and rare; the minority only are widely distributed, and compose not only most of the anorgana, but also all organisms. If we compare those elements which constitute the body of organisms with those which are met with in anorgana, we have first to note the highly important fact that in animal and vegetable bodies no element occurs but what can be found outside of them in inanimate nature. There are no special organic elements or simple organic substances.
The chemical and physical differences existing between organisms and anorgana, consequently, do not lie in their material foundation; they do not arise from the different nature of the elements composing them, but from the different manner in which the latter are united by chemical329 combination. This different manner of combination gives rise to certain physical peculiarities, especially in density of substance, which at first sight seems to constitute a deep chasm between the two groups of bodies. Inorganic or inanimate natural bodies, such as crystals and the amorphous rocks, are in a state of density which we call the firm or solid state, and which we oppose to the liquid state of water and to the gaseous state of air. It is familiar to every one that these three different degrees of density, or states of aggregation of anorgana, are by no means peculiar to the different elements, but are the results of a certain degree of temperature. Every inorganic solid body, by increase of temperature, can be reduced to the liquid or melted state, and, by further heat, to the gaseous or elastic state. In the same way most gaseous bodies, by a proper decrease of temperature can first be converted into a liquid state, and further, into a solid state of density.
In opposition to these three states of density of anorgana, the living body of all organisms—animals as well as plants—is in an altogether peculiar fourth state of aggregation. It is neither solid like stone, nor liquid like water, but presents rather a medium between these two states, which may therefore be designated as the firm-fluid or swollen state of aggregation (viscid). In all living bodies, without exception, there is a certain quantity of water combined in a peculiar way with solid matter, and owing to this characteristic combination of water with solid matter we have that soft state of aggregation, neither solid nor liquid, which is of great importance in the mechanical explanation of the phenomena of life. Its cause lies essentially in the physical and chemical properties of a simple, indivisible,330 elementary substance, namely, carbon (Gen. Morph. i. 122-130).
Of all elements, carbon is to us by far the most important and interesting, because this simple substance plays the largest part in all animal and vegetable bodies known to us. It is that element which, by its peculiar tendency to form complicated combinations with the other elements, produces the greatest variety of chemical compounds, and among them the forms and living substance of animal and vegetable bodies. Carbon is especially distinguished by the fact that it can unite with the other elements in infinitely manifold relations of number and weight. By the combination of carbon with three other elements, with oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen (to which generally sulphur, and frequently, also, phosphorus is added), there arise those exceedingly important compounds which we have become acquainted with as the first and most indispensable substratum of all vital phenomena, the albuminous combinations, or albuminous bodies (protean matter).
We have before this (p. 185) become acquainted with the simplest of all species of organisms in the Monera, whose entire bodies when completely developed consist of nothing but a semi-fluid albuminous lump; they are organisms which are of the utmost importance for the theory of the first origin of life. But most other organisms, also, at a certain period of their existence—at least, in the first period of their life—in the shape of egg-cells or germ-cells, are essentially nothing but simple little lumps of such albuminous formative matter, known as plasma, or protoplasma. They then differ from the Monera only by the fact that in the interior of the albuminous corpuscle the cell-kernel, or nucleus, has331 separated itself from the surrounding cell-substance (protoplasma). As we have already pointed out, the cells, with their simple attributes, are so many citizens, who by co-operation and differentiation build up the body of even the most perfect organism; this being, as it were, a cell republic (p. 301). The fully developed form and the vital phenomena of such an organism are determined solely by the activities of these small albuminous corpuscles.

It may be considered as one of the greatest triumphs of recent biology, especially of the theory of tissues, that we are now able to trace the wonder of the phenomena of life to these substances, and that we can demonstrate the infinitely manifold and complicated physical and chemical properties of the albuminous bodies to be the real cause of organic or vital phenomena. All the different forms of organisms are simply and directly the result of the combination of the different forms of cells. The infinitely manifold varieties of form, size, and combination of the cells have arisen only gradually by the division of labour, and by the gradual adaptation of the simple homogeneous lumps of plasma, which originally were the only constituents of the cell-mass. From this it follows of necessity that the fundamental phenomena of life—nutrition and generation—in their highest manifestations, as well as in their simplest expressions, must also be traced to the material nature of that albuminous formative substance. The other vital activities are gradually evolved from these two. Thus, then, the general explanation of life is now no more difficult to us than the explanation of the physical properties of inorganic bodies. All vital phenomena and formative processes of organisms are as directly dependent upon the332 chemical composition and the physical forces of organic matter as the vital phenomena of inorganic crystals—that is, the process of their growth and their specific formation—are the direct results of their chemical composition and of their physical condition. The ultimate causes, it is true, remain in both cases concealed from us. When gold and copper crystallize in a cubical, bismuth and antimony in a hexagonal, iodine and sulphur in a rhombic form of crystal, the occurrence is in reality neither more nor less mysterious to us than is every elementary process of organic formation, every self-formation of the organic cell. In this respect we can no longer draw a fundamental distinction between organisms and anorgana, a distinction of which, formerly, naturalists were generally convinced.
Let us secondly examine the agreements and differences which are presented to us in the formation of organic and inorganic natural bodies (Gen. Morph. i. 130). Formerly the simple structure of the latter and the composite structure of the former were looked upon as the principal distinction. The body of all organisms was supposed to consist of dissimilar or heterogeneous parts, of instruments or organs which worked together for the purposes of life. On the other hand, the most perfect anorgana, that is to say, crystals, were supposed to consist entirely of continuous or homogeneous matter. This distinction appears very essential. But it loses all importance through the fact that in late years we have become acquainted with the exceedingly remarkable and important Monera.(15) (Compare above, p. 185.) The whole body of these most simple of all organisms—a semi-fluid, formless, and simple lump of albumen—consists, in fact, of only a single chemical combination, 333 and is as perfectly simple in its structure as any crystal, which consists of a single inorganic combination, for example, of a metallic salt or of a silicate of the earths and alkalies.
As naturalists believed in differences in the inner structure or composition, so they supposed themselves able to find complete differences in the external forms of organisms and anorgana, especially in the mathematically determinable crystalline forms of the latter. Certainly crystallization is pre-eminently a quality of the so-called anorgana. Crystals are limited by plane surfaces, which meet in straight lines and at certain measurable angles. Animal and vegetable forms, on the contrary, seem at first sight to admit of no such geometrical determination. They are for the most part limited by curved surfaces and crooked lines, which meet at variable angles. But in recent times we have become acquainted, among Radiolaria(23) and among many other Protista, with a large number of lower organisms, whose body, in the same way as crystals, may be traced to a mathematically determinable fundamental form, and whose form in its whole, as well as in its parts, is bounded by definite geometrically determinable planes and angles. In my general doctrine of Fundamental Forms, or Promorphology, I have given detailed proofs of this, and at the same time established a general system of forms, the ideal stereometrical type-forms, which explain the real forms of inorganic crystals, as well as of organic individuals (Gen. Morph. i. 375-574). Moreover, there are also perfectly amorphous organisms, like the Monera, Amœba, etc., which change their forms every moment, and in which we are as little able to point out a definite fundamental form as in334 the case of the shapeless or amorphous anorgana, such as non-crystallized stones, deposits, etc. We are consequently unable to find any essential difference in the external forms or the inner structure of anorgana and organisms.
Thirdly, let us turn to the forces or the phenomena of motion of these two different groups of bodies (Gen. Morph. i. 140). Here we meet with the greatest difficulties. The vital phenomena, known as a rule only in the highly developed organisms, in the more perfect animals and plants, seem there so mysterious, so wonderful, so peculiar, that most persons are decidedly of opinion that in inorganic nature there occurs nothing at all similar, or in the least degree comparable to them. Organisms are for this very reason called animate, and the anorgana, inanimate natural bodies. Hence, even so late as the commencement of the present century, the science which investigates the phenomena of life, namely physiology, retained the erroneous idea that the physical and chemical properties of matter were not sufficient for explaining these phenomena. In our own day, especially during the last ten years, this idea may be regarded as having been completely refuted. In physiology, at least, it has now no place. It now never occurs to a physiologist to consider any of the vital phenomena as the result of a mysterious vital force, of an active power working for a definite purpose, standing outside of matter, and, so to speak, taking only the physico-chemical forces into its service. Modern physiology has arrived at the strictly monistic conviction that all of the vital phenomena, and, above all, the two fundamental phenomena of nutrition and propagation are purely physico-chemical processes, and directly dependent335 on the material nature of the organism, just as all the physical and chemical qualities of every crystal are determined solely by its material composition. Now, as the elementary substance which determines the peculiar material composition of organisms is carbon, we must ultimately reduce all vital phenomena, and, above all, the two fundamental phenomena of nutrition and propagation to the properties of the carbon. The peculiar-chemico-physical properties, and especially the semi-fluid state of aggregation, and the easy decomposibility of the exceedingly composite albuminous combinations of carbon, are the mechanical causes of those peculiar phenomena of motion which distinguish organisms from anorgana, and which in a narrow sense are usually called “life.”
In order to understand this “carbon theory,” which I have established in detail in the second book of my General Morphology, it is necessary, above all things, closely to examine those phenomena of motion which are common to both groups of natural bodies. First among them is the process of growth. If we cause any inorganic solution of salt slowly to evaporate, crystals are formed in it, which slowly increase in size during the continued evaporation of the water. This process of growth arises from the fact that new particles continually pass over from the fluid state of aggregation into the solid, and, according to certain laws, deposit themselves upon the firm kernel of the crystal already formed. From such an apposition of particles arise the mathematically definite crystalline shapes. In like manner the growth of organisms takes place by the accession of new particles. The only difference is that in the growth of organisms, in consequence of their semi-fluid state of336 aggregation, the newly-added particles penetrate into the interior of the organism (inter-susception), whereas anorgana receive homogeneous matter from without only by apposition or an addition of new particles to the surface. This important difference of growth by inter-susception and by apposition is obviously only the necessary and direct result of the different conditions of density or state of aggregation in organisms and anorgana.

Unfortunately I cannot here follow in detail the various exceedingly interesting parallels and analogies which occur between the formation of the most perfect anorgana, the crystals, and the formation of the simplest organisms, the Monera and their next kindred forms. For this I must refer to a minute comparison of organisms and anorgana, which I have carried out in the fifth chapter of my General Morphology (Gen. Morph. i. 111-160). I have there shown in detail that there exist no complete differences between organic and inorganic natural bodies, neither in respect to form and structure, nor in respect to matter and force; and that the actually existing differences are dependent upon the peculiar nature of the carbon; and that there exists no insurmountable chasm between organic and inorganic nature. We can perceive this most important fact very clearly if we examine and compare the origin of the forms in crystals and in the simplest organic individuals. In the formation of crystal individuals, two different counteracting formative tendencies come into operation. The inner constructive force, or the inner formative tendency, which corresponds to the Heredity of organisms, in the case of the crystal is the direct result of its material constitution or of its chemical composition. The form of the crystal, so far as337 it is determined by this inner original formative tendency, is the result of the specific and definite way in which the smallest particles of the crystallizing matter unite together in different directions according to law. That independent inner formative force, which is directly inherent in the matter itself, is directly counteracted by a second formative force. The external constructive force, or the external formative tendency, may be called Adaptation in crystals as well as in organisms. Every crystal individual during its formation, like every organic individual, must submit and adapt itself to the surrounding influences and conditions of existence of the outer world. In fact, the form and size of every crystal is dependent upon its whole surroundings, for example, upon the vessel in which the crystallization takes place, upon the temperature and the pressure of the air under which the crystal is formed, upon the presence or absence of heterogeneous bodies, etc. Consequently, the form of every single crystal, like the form of every single organism, is the result of the interaction of two opposing factors—the inner formative tendency, which is determined by the chemical constitution of the matter itself, and of the external formative tendency, which is dependent upon the influence of surrounding matter. Both these constructive forces interact similarly also in the organism, and, just as in the crystal, are of a purely mechanical nature and directly inherent in the substance of the body. If we designate the growth and the formation of organisms as a process of life, we may with equal reason apply the same term to the developing crystal. The teleological conception of nature, which looks upon organisms as machines of creation arranged for a definite purpose, must logically acknowledge the same also338 in regard to the forms of crystals. The differences which exist between the simplest organic individuals and inorganic crystals are determined by the solid state of aggregation of the latter, and by the semi-fluid state of the former. Beyond that the causes producing form are exactly the same in both. This conviction forces itself upon us most clearly, if we compare the exceedingly remarkable phenomena of growth, adaptation, and the “correlation of parts” of developing crystals with the corresponding phenomena of the origin of the simplest organic individuals (Monera and cells). The analogy between the two is so great that, in reality, no accurate boundary can be drawn. In my General Morphology I have quoted in support of this a number of striking facts (Gen. Morph. i. 146, 156, 158.)
If we vividly picture to ourselves this “unity of organic and inorganic nature” this essential agreement of organisms and anorgana in matter, form, and force, and if we bear in mind that we are not able to establish any one fundamental distinction between these two groups of bodies (as was formerly generally assumed), then the question of spontaneous generation will lose a great deal of the difficulty which at first seems to surround it. Then the development of the first organism out of inorganic matter will appear a much more easily conceivable and intelligible process than has hitherto been the case, whilst an artificial absolute barrier between organic or animate, and inorganic or inanimate nature was maintained.
In the question of spontaneous generation, or archigony, which we can now answer more definitely, it must be borne in mind that by this conception we understand generally the non-parental generation of an organic individual, the339 origin of an organism independent of a parental or producing organism. It is in this sense that on a former occasion (p. 183) I mentioned spontaneous generation (archigony) as opposed to parental generation or propagation (tocogony). In the latter case the organic individual arises by a greater or less portion of an already existing organism separating itself and growing independently. (Gen. Morph. ii. 32.)
In spontaneous generation, which is often also called original generation (generatio spontanea, æquivoca, primaria etc.), we must first distinguish two essentially different kinds, namely, autogeny and plasmogeny. By autogeny we understand the origin of a most simple organic individual in an inorganic formative fluid, that is, in a fluid which contains the fundamental substances for the composition of the organism dissolved in simple and loose combinations (for example, carbonic acid, ammonia, binary salts, etc.). On the other hand, we call spontaneous generation plasmogeny when the organism arises in an organic formative fluid, that is, in a fluid which contains those requisite fundamental substances dissolved in the form of complicated and fluid combinations of carbon (for example, albumen, fat, hydrate of carbon, etc.). (Gen. Morph. i. 174, ii. 33.)
Neither the process of autogeny, nor that of plasmogeny, has yet been directly observed with perfect certainty. In early, and also in more recent times, numerous and interesting experiments have been made as to the possibility or reality of spontaneous generation. Almost all these experiments refer not to autogeny, but to plasmogeny, to the origin of an organism out of already formed organic matter.340 It is evident, however, that this latter process is only of subordinate interest for our history of creation. It is much more important for us to solve the question, “Is there such a thing as autogeny? Is it possible that an organism can arise, not out of pre-existing organic, but out of purely inorganic, matter?” Hence we can quietly lay aside all the numerous experiments which refer only to plasmogeny, which have been carried on very zealously during the last ten years, and which for the most part have had a negative result. For even supposing that the reality of plasmogeny were strictly proved, still autogeny would not be explained by it.

The experiments on autogeny have likewise as yet furnished no certain and positive result. Yet we must at the outset most distinctly protest against the notion that these experiments have proved the impossibility of spontaneous generation in general. Most naturalists who have endeavoured to decide this question experimentally, and who, after having employed all possible precautionary measures, under well-ascertained conditions, have seen no organisms come into being, have straightway made the assertion, on the ground of these negative results: “That it is altogether impossible for organisms to come into existence by themselves without parental generation.” This hasty and inconsiderate assertion they have supported by the negative results of their experiments, which, after all, could prove nothing except that, under these or those highly artificial circumstances created by the experimenters themselves, no organism was developed. From these experiments, which have been for the most part made under the most unnatural conditions, and in a highly artificial341 manner, we can by no means draw the conclusion that spontaneous generation in general is impossible. The impossibility of such a process can, in fact, never be proved. For how can we know that in remote primæval times there did not exist conditions quite different from those at present obtaining, and which may have rendered spontaneous generation possible? Indeed, we can even positively and with full assurance maintain that the general conditions of life in primæval times must have been entirely different from those of the present time. Think only of the fact that the enormous masses of carbon which we now find deposited in the primary coal mountains were first reduced to a solid form by the action of vegetable life, and are the compressed and condensed remains of innumerable vegetable substances, which have accumulated in the course of many millions of years. But at the time when, after the origin of water in a liquid state on the cooled crust of the earth, organisms were first formed by spontaneous generation, those immeasurable quantities of carbon existed in a totally different form, probably for the most part dispersed in the atmosphere in the shape of carbonic acid. The whole composition of the atmosphere was therefore extremely different from the present. Further, as may be inferred upon chemical, physical, and geological grounds, the density and the electrical conditions of the atmosphere were quite different. In like manner the chemical and physical nature of the primæval ocean, which then continuously covered the whole surface of the earth as an uninterrupted watery sheet, was quite peculiar. The temperature, the density, the amount of salt, etc., must have been very different from those of the present ocean. In342 any case, therefore, even if we do not know anything more about it, there remains to us the supposition, which can at least not be disputed, that at that time, under conditions quite different from those of to-day, a spontaneous generation, which now is perhaps no longer possible, may have taken place.
But it is necessary to add here that, by the recent progress of chemistry and physiology, the mysterious and miraculous character which at first seems to belong to this much disputed and yet inevitable process of spontaneous generation, has been to a great extent, or almost entirely, destroyed. Not fifty years ago, all chemists maintained that we were unable to produce artificially in our laboratories any complicated combination of carbon, or so-called “organic combination.” The mystic “vital force” alone was supposed to be able to produce these combinations. When, therefore, in 1828, Wöhler, in Göttingen, for the first time refuted this dogma, and exhibited pure “organic” urea, obtained in an artificial manner from a purely inorganic body (cyanate of ammonium), it caused the greatest surprise and astonishment. In more recent times, by the progress of synthetic chemistry, we have succeeded in producing in our laboratories a great variety of similar “organic” combinations of carbon, by purely artificial means—for example alcohol, acetic acid, formic acid. Indeed, many exceedingly complicated combinations of carbon are now artificially produced, so that there is every likelihood, sooner or later, of our producing artificially the most complicated, and at the same time the most important of all, namely, the albuminous combinations, or plasma-bodies. By the consideration of this probability, the deep chasm which was343 formerly and generally believed to exist between organic and inorganic bodies is almost or entirely removed, and the way is paved for the conception of spontaneous generation.
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 frequently mentioned, and which are not only the simplest of all observed organisms, but even the simplest of all imaginable organisms. I have already described these wonderful “organisms without organs,” when examining the simplest phenomena of propagation and inheritance. We already know seven different genera of these Monera, some of which live in fresh water, others in the sea (compare above, p. 184; also Plate I. and its explanation in the Appendix). In a perfectly developed and freely motile state, they one and all present us with nothing but a simple little lump of an albuminous combination of carbon. The individual genera and species differ only a little in the manner of propagation and development, and in the way of taking nourishment. Through the discovery of these organisms, which are of the utmost importance, the supposition of a spontaneous generation loses most of its difficulties. For as all trace of organization—all distinction of heterogeneous parts—is still wanting in them, and as all the vital phenomena are performed by one and the same homogeneous and formless matter, we can easily imagine their origin by spontaneous generation. If this happens through plasmogeny, and if plasma capable of life already exists, it then only needs to individualize itself in the same way as the mother liquor of crystals individualizes itself in crystallization. If, on the other hand, the spontaneous generation344 of the Monera takes place by true autogeny, then it is further requisite that that plasma capable of life, that primæval mucus, should be formed out of simpler combinations of carbon. As we are now able artificially to produce, in our laboratories, combinations of carbon similar to this in the complexity of their constitution, there is absolutely no reason for supposing that there are not conditions in free nature also, in which such combinations could take place. Formerly, when the doctrine of spontaneous generation was advocated, it failed at once to obtain adherents on account of the composite structure of the simplest organisms then known. It is only since we have discovered the exceedingly important Monera, only since we have become acquainted in them with organisms not in any way built up of distinct organs, but which consist solely of a single chemical combination, and yet grow, nourish, and propagate themselves, that this great difficulty has been removed, and the hypothesis of spontaneous generation has gained a degree of probability which entitles it to fill up the gap existing between Kant’s cosmogony and Lamarck’s Theory of Descent. Even among the Monera at present known there is a species which probably, even now, always comes into existence by spontaneous generation. This is the wonderful Bathybius Hæckelii, discovered and described by Huxley. As I have already mentioned (p. 184), this Moneron is found in the greatest depths of the sea, at a depth of between 12,000 and 24,000 feet, where it covers the ground partly as retiform threads and plaits of plasma, partly in the form of larger or smaller irregular lumps of the same material.6

Only such homogeneous organisms as are yet not differentiated, and are similar to inorganic crystals in being homogeneously composed of one single substance, could arise by spontaneous generation, and could become the primæval parents of all other organisms. In their further development we have pointed out that the most important process is the formation of a kernel or nucleus in the simple little lump of albumen. We can conceive this to take place in a purely physical manner, by the condensation of the innermost central part of the albumen. The more solid central mass, which at first gradually shaded off into the peripheral plasma, becomes sharply separated from it, and thus forms an independent, round, albuminous corpuscle, the kernel; and by this process the Moneron becomes a cell. Now, it must have become evident from our previous chapters, that the further development of all other organisms out of such a cell presents no difficulty, for every animal and every plant, in the beginning of its individual life, is a simple cell. Man, as well as every other animal, is at first nothing but a simple egg-cell, a single lump of mucus, containing a kernel (p. 297, Fig. 5).
In the same way as the kernel of the organic cell arose in the interior or central mass of the originally homogeneous lump of plasma, by separation, so, too, the first cell-membrane was formed on its surface. This simple, but most important process, as has already been remarked, can likewise be explained in a purely physical manner, either as a chemical deposit, or as a physical condensation in the uppermost stratum of the mass, or as a secretion. One of the first processes of adaptation effected by the Moneron originating by spontaneous generation must have been the condensation346 of an external crust, which as a protecting covering shut in the softer interior from the hostile influences of the outer world. As soon as, by condensation of the homogeneous Moneron, a cell-kernel arose in the interior and a membrane arose on the surface, all the fundamental parts of the unit were furnished, out of which, by infinitely manifold repetition and combination, as attested by actual observation, the body of higher organisms is constructed.
As has already been mentioned, our whole understanding of an organism rests upon the cell theory established thirty years ago by Schleiden and Schwann. According to it, every organism is either a simple cell or a cell-community, a republic of closely connected cells. All the forms and vital phenomena of every organism are the collective result of the forms and vital phenomena of all the single cells of which it is composed. By the recent progress of the cell theory it has become necessary to give the elementary organisms, that is, the “organic” individuals of the first order, which are usually designated as cells, the more general and more suitable name of form-units, or plastids. Among these form-units we distinguish two main groups, namely, the cytods and the genuine cells. The cytods are, like the Monera, pieces of plasma without a kernel (p. 186, Fig. 1). Cells, on the other hand, are pieces of plasma containing a kernel or nucleus (p. 188, Fig. 2). Each of these two main groups of plastids is again divided into two subordinate groups, according as they possess or do not possess an external covering (skin, shell, or membrane). We may accordingly distinguish the following four grades or species of plastids, namely: 1. Simple cytods (p. 186, Fig. 1 A); 2. Encased cytods; 3. Simple cells (p. 188,347 Fig. 2 B); 4. Encased cells (p. 188, Fig. 2 A). (Gen. Morph. i. 269-289.)

Concerning the relation of these four forms of plastids to spontaneous generation, the following is the most probable:—1. The simple cytods (Gymnocytoda), naked particles of plasma without kernel, like the still living Monera, are the only plastids which directly come into existence by spontaneous generation. 2. The enclosed cytods (Lepocytoda), particles of plasma without kernel, which are surrounded by a covering (membrane or shell), arose out of the simple cytods either by the condensation of the outer layers of plasma or by the secretion of a covering. 3. The simple cells (Gymnocyta), or naked cells, particles of plasma with kernel, but without covering, arose out of the simple cytods by the condensation of the innermost particles of plasma into a kernel, or nucleus, by differentiation of a central kernel and peripheral cell-substance. 4. The enclosed cells (Lepocyta), or testaceous cells, particles of plasma with kernel and an outer covering (membrane or shell), arose either out of the enclosed cytods by the formation of a kernel, or out of the simple cells by the formation of a membrane. All the other forms of form-units, or plastids, met with, besides these, have only subsequently arisen out of these four fundamental forms by natural selection, by descent with adaptation, by differentiation and transformation.
By this theory of plastids, by deducing all the different forms of plastids, and hence, also, all organisms composed of them, from the Monera, we obtain a simple and natural connection in the whole series of the development of nature. The origin of the first Monera by spontaneous generation348 appears to us as a simple and necessary event in the process of the development of the earth. We admit that this process, as long as it is not directly observed or repeated by experiment, remains a pure hypothesis. But I must again say that this hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation, that it has absolutely nothing forced or miraculous about it, and that certainly it can never be positively refuted. It must be taken into consideration that the process of spontaneous generation, even if it still took place daily and hourly, would in any case be exceedingly difficult to observe and establish with absolute certainty as such. With regard to the Monera, we find ourselves placed before the following alternative: either they are actually directly derived from pre-existing, or “created,” most ancient Monera, and in this case they would have had to propagate themselves unchanged for many millions of years, and to have maintained their original form of simple particles of plasma; or, the present Monera have originated much later in the course of the organic history of the earth, by repeated acts of spontaneous generation, and in this case spontaneous generation may take place now as well as then. The latter supposition has evidently much more probability on its side than the former.
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation. The Creator must have created the first organism, or a few first organisms, from which all others are derived, and as such he must have created the simplest Monera, or primæval cytods, and given them the capability349 of developing further in a mechanical way. I leave it to each one of my readers to choose between this idea and the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. To me the idea that the Creator should have in this one point arbitrarily interfered with the regular process of development of matter, which in all other cases proceeds entirely without his interposition, seems to be just as unsatisfactory to a believing mind as to a scientific intellect. If, on the other hand, we assume the hypothesis of spontaneous generation for the origin of the first organisms, which in consequence of reasons mentioned above, and especially in consequence of the discovery of the Monera, has lost its former difficulty, then we arrive at the establishment of an uninterrupted natural connection between the development of the earth and the organisms produced on it, and, in this last remaining lurking-place of obscurity, we can proclaim the unity of all Nature, and the unity of her laws of Development (Gen. Morph. i. 164)"