The Antievolution Pamphlets of Harry Rimmer

CREATIONISM IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY AMERICA

Volume 6

THE ANTIEVOLUTION PAMPHLETS OF HARRY RIMMER

Edited by EDWARD B. DAVIS First published in 1995 by Garland Publishing, Inc. This editionﬁrst published in 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 1995 Series introduction copyright Ronald L. Numbers. © 1995 introduction copyright Edward B. Davis All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identiﬁcation and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-367-43553-0 (Set) ISBN: 978-1-00-314991-0 (Set) (ebk) ISBN: 978-0-367-43462-5 (Volume 6) (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-43465-6 (Volume 6) (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-00-300343-4 (Volume 6) (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003003434

Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent. Disclaimer The publisher has made every eﬀort to trace copyright holders and would welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace. New Preface to the re-issue of 2021

This anthology of primary documents related to the early history of creationism in the United States first appeared a quarter century ago, in 1995. My interest in the topic had been aroused by my years of research on creationism, which resulted in The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992). In the meantime, a former student of mine, Edward J. Larson, had published an excellent legal survey, Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). The philosopher of science Michael Ruse had published the edited volume But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988); and the anthropologist Christopher P. Toumey had just released God's Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994). Led by Willard B. Gatewood’s Preachers Pedagogues and Politicians: The Evolution Controversy in North Carolina, 1920-1927 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966), local studies had also begun to appear. Nevertheless, few, if any, research libraries had begun collecting creationist literature; and not one, to my knowledge, possessed even a complete run of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, launched in 1964.

During the past quarter century the landscape of creationism has changed dramatically. Since 1995 the institutional heart of creationism has shifted from the Institute for Creation Research, founded by Henry M. Morris in southern California in 1972, to Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis, headquartered in northern Kentucky. In 2007 the charismatic Australian-born Ham opened a $27- million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, across the Ohio River from Cincinnati. Forty-five miles away, in Williamstown, Kentucky, Ham in July 2016 opened an Ark Encounter featuring a “life-size” replica of Noah’s ark, at a projected cost of $150 million.

Such growth has attracted considerable attention, such as Susan L. Trollinger and William Vance Trollinger Jr., Righting America at the Creation Museum (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), and James S. Bielo, Ark Encounter: The Making of a Creationist Theme Park (New York: New York University Press, 2018).

The literature on the general history of creationism in the twentieth century has exploded, symbolized most dramatically by Edward J. Larson’s Pulitzer Prize- winning volume Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion (New York: Basic Books, 1997). Other significant contributions include Michael Lienesch, In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2007); Adam Laats, Fundamentalism and Education in the Scopes Era: God, Darwin, and the Roots of America’s Culture Wars (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); Jeffrey P. Moran, American Genesis: The Evolution Controversies from Scopes to Creation Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); and Adam R. Shapiro, Trying Biology: The Scopes Trial, Textbooks, and the Antievolution Movement in American Schools (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).

Still, access to creationist sources before the early 1960s remains patchy. To help remedy this condition, Routledge has agreed to reissue the 10-volume set of Creationism in Twentieth-Century America. I thank them for their continuing interest.

Ronald L. Numbers

April 2021

New Preface to the Re-issue of 2021 of The Antievolution Pamphlets of Harry Rimmer

All information in the original editorial introduction and the accompanying table was gathered before the term “Internet” was officially defined in October 1995, just a few weeks after the founding of the online auction site now known as eBay. The original version of the table was almost entirely based on pamphlets in academic libraries that were not always the earliest editions, as the editor now realizes. In the past quarter century, much new information has come to light, mainly from copies offered for sale on the Internet, but also from individuals who have kindly shared images and publication dates with the editor. A special debt is owed to Tennessee pastor Jim Powell, an avid collector of Rimmeriana. Additional information comes from chapters by Rimmer in annual volumes of Winona Echoes that are now available in digitized form, and from articles Rimmer published in several recently located, very scarce issues of a Bible study magazine edited by W. Leon Tucker, The Wonderful Word. Rimmer probably published further articles there and elsewhere that we have not seen. Many pamphlets were reprinted by multiple publishers at various points in time; with more versions now coming to light, it has not been possible to examine them all. This updated table has been prepared for the re-issue of 2021, but readers should regard it as a work in progress rather than a definitive statement. No other changes to the introductory material are necessary.

Harry Rimmer’s Antievolution Pamphlets

Title Date Notes Modern Dec An article (“Modern Science and Science and the 1925 the Youth of Today”) in The Youth of Today Wonderful Word (Dec 1925), pp. 105-10, is identical to the pamphlet version below—except

Title Date Notes the final paragraph is omitted, suggesting that this is the earliest version. 1925? 15 pp Unclear whether this pamphlet was published roughly simultaneously with the version in The Wonderful Word magazine above. All copies we have seen carry a copyright date of 1925 but were part of boxed sets produced around 1935. Earlier printings of the pamphlet may exist. 1937 A sermon (“Modern Science and the Youth of Today”) in Winona Echoes, Notable Addresses Delivered at the Forty-third Annual Bible Conference (Winona Lake, Indiana, August 1937), pp. 248-57, is identical to the pamphlet version. Modern Nov An article (“The Harmony of Science, 1925 Science and the Scriptures”) in Noah’s Ark, The Wonderful Word (Nov 1925), and the Deluge pp. 76-82, bears the title of another pamphlet (below) but is identical to the second “chapter” (“Science and the Deluge”) in the pamphlet listed next—except the newspaper story from March 1929 is obviously omitted, suggesting that this is the earliest version of that material. Presumably the first “chapter” (“Science and the Ark”) appeared in an earlier issue of The Wonderful Word, but if so we

Title Date Notes have not seen it. 1925? 32 pp In 2 “chapters”: “Science and the Ark” & “Science and the Deluge.” All copies we have seen carry a copyright date of 1925 but include the newspaper story from March 1929 found on pp. 366-7 of this volume. Earlier versions of the pamphlet without that story may exist. Aug A sermon (“Noah’s Ark and the 1934 Deluge”) in Winona Echoes, Notable Addresses Delivered at the Fortieth Annual Bible Conference (Winona Lake, Indiana, August 1934), pp. 179- 97, has essentially the same text as the pamphlet listed above. 1936 Chapter 6 in HS (“Modern Science and the Ark of Noah”) is almost the same as the first part of the pamphlet; changes include the number given for the volume of the ark. Chapter 7 in HS (“Modern Science and the Deluge”) is much longer, incl. an excerpt from the Gilgamesh epic and the final 4½ pages. Sept An article in The King’s Business 1951 (“The Ark of Noah—Fact or Fiction?”) reprints most of chapter 6 in HS, with several paragraphs omitted. Monkeyshines: 1926 48 pp, ill.

Title Date Notes Fakes, Fables, 1945 48 pp, ill. Facts Separate tract in TE$ has Concerning essentially the same text as Evolution original pamphlet. The Harmony May Two articles (both entitled “The of Science and & Harmony of Science and the the Scriptures Aug Scriptures”) in The Wonderful 1925 Word (May 1925), pp. 359-62, and (Aug 1925), pp. 511-15, contain material later printed in the pamphlet listed next. Rimmer says in the opening sentence of the May article (p. 359) that, “I am to appear month by month,” and probably there were further articles we have not seen. The May article includes material (listed in the order found there) similar to that found on pp. 433, 437-8, 434-6, and 439-43 of this volume, with additional material omitted in later versions. The August article includes material (listed in the order found there) similar to that found on pp. 444-6 and 447-55 of this volume. 1927 27 pp A shorter version of the pamphlet listed next, pub. by Research Science Bureau (Los Angeles). 1935? 66 pp This much longer version of the pamphlet, pub. by Research Science Bureau (Duluth, Minn.), is identical to chapters 2 (“The Harmony of Science and the

Title Date Notes Scriptures”) and 3 (“Ancient Wisdom, or Revelation?”) in HS. Rimmer moved to Duluth in 1934. All copies we have seen carry a copyright date of 1927 but were part of boxed sets produced around 1935. 1936 Chapter 2 in HS (“The Harmony of Science and the Scriptures”) reprints part of the longer pamphlet. Feb & Two articles in The King’s Mar Business (“Does Science 1951 contradict the Bible?” and “Does the Bible Contain Scientific Error?”) reprint most of chapter 2 in HS, omitting several paragraphs. Modern 1928 18 pp Science and the The earliest known copies lack First several paragraphs in the first Fundamental section found in later editions; they also have a footnote on p. 11 referring to “The Creative Work of Christ,” an otherwise unknown paper by Rimmer. 1928 20 pp A longer version, the one found in this edition. 1928 42 pp A much longer version, extensively rewritten with additional material; the last several pages closely follow original pamphlet. 1936 Chapter 1 in HS (“Modern

Title Date Notes Science and the First Fundamental”) is identical to the longest version of the pamphlet. 1937 A sermon (“Modern Science and the First Fundamental”) in Winona Echoes, Notable Addresses Delivered at the Forty- third Annual Bible Conference (Winona Lake, Indiana, August 1937), pp. 231-47, is similar to the longest version of the pamphlet, with some paragraphs omitted. The Facts of Jan 26 pp Biology and the 1929 Theories of Jan Chapter 1 in TE has 7 paragraphs Evolution 1935 not in original pamphlet. 1945 29 pp Separate tract in TE$ has essentially the same text as original pamphlet. Embryology Feb 22 pp, frontispiece and the 1929 Recapitulation 1935 22 pp, frontispiece Theory Original version reprinted with new publication date. 1935 24 pp, frontispiece Alternate version with different pagination. Jan Chapter 2 in TE has essentially 1935 the same text as original pamphlet but lacks opening photograph of the skeleton of a human fetus at 5½ months. 1945 24 pp, front. Separate tract in TE$ has

Title Date Notes essentially the same text as original pamphlet. The Theories of Mar 32 pp Evolution and 1929 the Facts of Jan Chapter 4 in TE has essentially Human 1935 the same text as original Antiquity pamphlet. 1945 35 pp Separate tract in TE$ has essentially the same text as original pamphlet. The Theories of Apr 32 pp Evolution and 1929 the Facts of Jan Chapter 3 in TE has essentially Paleontology 1935 the same text as original pamphlet. 1945 35 pp Separate tract in TE$ has essentially the same text as original pamphlet. **Modern June 24 pp Science and the 1929 This material was later Prologue of incorporated into the first printing Genesis of “Modern Science and the First Day of Creation.” 1937 30 pp Original version reprinted with new pagination, publication date, and slightly different title (“Modern Science and the Prologue to Genesis”). 1937 Chapter 1 in MS (“The Prologue to Genesis”) has essentially the same text as original pamphlet. **Modern July 26 pp Science and the 1929 This material was later

Title Date Notes First Day of incorporated into the first printing Genesis of “Modern Science and the First Day of Creation.” 1937 Chapter 2 in MS (“Modern Science and the First Day of Creation”) has essentially the same text as original pamphlet. Modern 1929 32 pp Science and the In two parts: First Day of (i) “The Prologue of Creation Genesis,” pp. 3-17 (ii) “Modern Science and the First Day of Creation,” pp. 18-32 Each part has essentially the same text as the two previous titles. 1937 31 pp Part two (lacking part one) reprinted with new publication date. Modern Aug 28 pp Science and the 1929 Second Day of 1930 28 pp Creation Original version reprinted with new publication date. 1937 32 pp Original version reprinted with new pagination and publication date. 1937 Chapter 3 in MS (“Moses and Meteorology”) has one paragraph not in original pamphlet. Modern Sept Printed as two pamphlets in 3 Science and the 1929 parts: Third Day of (i) Part 1 (24 pp) Creation (ii) Parts 2 & 3 (46 pp)

Title Date Notes issued separately in 1929, probably in October. 1930 Version above reprinted with new publication date. 1930 50 pp In 3 parts, paginated consecutively. Aug Printed in 3 parts in Winona 1935 Echoes, Notable Addresses Delivered at the Forty-first Annual Bible Conference (Winona Lake, Indiana, August 1935), pp. 215-64: (i) “Modern Science and the Third Day of Creation” (ii) “The Third Day— The Dry Land Appears” (iii) “The Third Day— The World of Botany is Born.” 1937 94 pp In 3 parts, paginated consecutively. 1937 Chapter 4 in MS (“The Doxology of the Deep”) has essentially the same text as part one of the pamphlet, except that a few sentences on seasickness are deleted. Chapter 5 in MS (“Geology and the Rock of Ages”) has essentially the same text as part two of the pamphlet, except that about five paragraphs are added.

Title Date Notes Chapter 6 in MS (“Botany and the Rose of Sharon”) has essentially the same text as part three of the pamphlet. Modern Nov 32 pp Science and the 1929 Fourth Day of 1937 39 pp Creation 1937 Chapter 7 in MS (“Astronomy and the Bright and Morning Star”) has seven additional paragraphs. A diagram of the solar system, a paragraph explaining the diagram, and a paragraph mentioning James Jeans’ book, The Universe Around Us (1929), are deleted. Modern 1931 Presumably the original version, Science and the this was printed as two separate Fifth Day of pamphlets: Creation (i) Part 1 (32 pp) (ii) Part 2 (24 pp). 1931 39 pp In 2 parts, paginated consecutively. 1937 64 pp In 2 parts, paginated consecutively. 1937 Chapter 8 in MS (“Rapidly Multiplying Creatures”) has essentially the same text as the first part of the pamphlet. Chapter 9 in MS (“The Hum of Wings”) has essentially the same text as the second part of the pamphlet. Modern 1934 47 pp Science and the In 2 parts, paginated

Title Date Notes Sixth Day of consecutively. Creation All copies we have seen have errors on p. 10 (an extra line of text at the beginning of a paragraph) and p. 14 (“bird” instead of “camel” in a quotation). 1937 70 pp In 2 parts, paginated consecutively. 1937 Chapter 10 in MS (“Zoology and the Lamb of God”) follows part one but has two added paragraphs; a paragraph in the pamphlet about sheep in the West is deleted. Chapter 11 in MS (“The Creation of Adam”) follows part two, except that the closing lines are new in the book. **A Scientist 1937 10 pp., ill. Defends the Pp. 37-46 in “The Origin of Man Record of and The Theories of Evolution,” Creation by C.T. Schwarze, Erling C. Olsen, and Harry Rimmer, published by The National Radio and Missionary Fellowship. Essentially a reissue of “Monkeyshines,” reprinted from the Duluth News-Tribune, 4 April 1937.

CREATIONISM IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY AMERICA A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961

Series Editor RONALD L. NUMBERS University of Wisconsin-Madison William Coleman Professor of the History of Science and Medicine

A GARLAND SERIES SERIES CONTENTS

1. ANTIEVOLUTIONISM BEFORE WORLD WAR I

2. CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATES

3. THE ANTIEVOLUTION WORKS OF ARTHUR I. BROWN

4. THE ANTIEVOLUTION PAMPHLETS OF WILLIAM BELL RILEY

5. THE CREATIONIST WRITINGS OF BYRON C. NELSON

6. THE ANTIEVOLUTION PAMPHLETS OF HARRY RIMMER

7. SELECTED WORKS OF GEORGE McCREADY PRICE

8. THE EARLY WRITINGS OF HAROLD W. CLARK AND FRANK LEWIS MARSH

9. EARLY CREATIONIST JOURNALS

10. CREATION AND EVOLUTION IN THE EARLY AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION VOLUM E 6

THE ANTIEVOLUTION PAMPHLETS OF HARRY RIMMER

Edited with an introduction by EDWARD B. DAVIS Messiah College

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Rimmer, Harry, 1890-1952. The antievolution pamphlets of Harry Rimmer / edited with an introduction by Edward B. Davis. p. cm. — (Creationism in twentieth-century America ; v. 6) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8153-1807-3 (alk. paper) 1. Bible and evolution—Sermons. 2. Creationism—United States—Sermons. 3. Fundamentalism—United States— Sermons. 4. Sermons, American. I. Davis, Edward Bradford, 1953- . II. Title. III. Series. BS659.R56 1995 231.7-65—dc20 94-42616 CIP

Printed on acid-free, 250-year-life paper Manufactured in the United States ofAmeric a CONTENTS

Series Introduction vii Volume Introduction ix Harry Rimmer's Antievolution Pamphlets xxix Embryology and the Recapitulation Theory 1 The Facts of Biology and the Theories of Evolution 23 The Theories of Evolution and the Facts of Paleontology 49 The Theories of Evolution and the Facts of Human Antiquity 81 Modern Science and the First Day of Creation 113 Modern Science and the Second Day of Creation 145 Modern Science and the Third Day of Creation 173 Modern Science and the Fourth Day of Creation 223 Modern Science and the Fifth Day of Creation 255 Modern Science and the Sixth Day of Creation 295 Modern Science, Noah's Ark, and the Deluge 343 Modern Science and the First Fundamental 375 Monkeyshines: Fakes, Fables, Facts Concerning Evolution 395 The Harmony of Science and the Scriptures 431 Modern Science and the Youth of Today 459 It's the Crisis Hour in Schools and Colleges 477 Acknowledgments 481

SERIES INTRODUCTION

In recent years creationism has enjoyed a stunning renaissance both in the United States and around the world. Public opinion polls show that 47 percent ofAmericans , including one quarter of college graduates, believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." In the early 1980s two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, passed laws mandating the teaching of"creatio n science"wheneve r "evolution science" was taught in the public schools. The United States Supreme Court subsequently overturned these laws, but creationists actively—and often successfully—continue to promote their cause in local schools and churches. Since the early 1960s creationism has become increasingly identified with a particular nonevolutionary belief known as "scientific creationism" or "creation science." Scientific creationists believe that all life on earth originated no more than 10,000 years ago, and some argue that the entire universe is equally young.T o explain the appearance of age suggested by the fossil record, they typically invoke Noah's flood, which, they claim, deposited virtually the entire geologicalcolum nin the span of a year or so. Before the 1960s relatively fewAmericans ,includin g religious fundamentalists, subscribed to such restrictive views of earth history. At the height of the antievolution controversies of the 1920s, for example, most creationists who expressed themselves on the subject embracedinterpretation s ofth e book ofGenesi s that allowed them to accept the evidence of historical geology for the antiquity of life on earth. They generally did so in one oftw o ways: either byassumin g that the "days" ofGenesi s 1reall y meant "ages" or by interposing a gap of perhaps hundreds of millions of years between the creation "in the beginning" and the relatively recent Edenic creation (or restoration, as some would call it) associated with Adam and Eve. Only a few fundamentalists at the time, mostly Seventh-day Adventists, insisted onth e recent appearance of life and on the geological significance of the deluge. In recent years, however, through the influence of books such as John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris's The Genesis Flood (1961),

Vll viii Series Introduction organizations such as the Creation Research Society (1963) and institutions such as the Institute for Creation Research (1972), the so-called flood geologists, now known as scientific creationists, have co-opted the very name creationist for their once peculiar views. Despite the undeniable importance of antievolutionism in American cultural history, few libraries, academic or otherwise, have collected more than the oddboo ko r pamphlet on creationism, and early creationist periodicals are almost impossible to find. Whether the result of prejudice or indifference, such neglect has made it difficult for students and scholars to explore the development of creationist thought in the twentieth century. This collection of reprinted documents from the first six decades of the century makes available some of the most widely read works on creationism by such stalwarts as Arthur I. Brown, William Bell Riley, Harry Rimmer, Byron C. Nelson, George McCready Price, Harold W. Clark, and Frank Lewis Marsh. It also reprints, for the first time, three of the earliest and rarest creationist journals in America: the Creationist, the Bulletin of Deluge Geology, and the Forum for the Correlation of Science and the Bible. INTRODUCTION

Of all the antievolutionists between the World Wars, none was more visible than Harry Rimmer, an itinerant evangelist and pastor who spoke at several thousand churches, schools, auditori- ums, Bible conferences, youth camps, labor camps, and military bases across the nation for almost forty years until his death at the age of sixty-one in 1952.1 Rimmer often appeared before thousands ofpeopl e at once, sometimes with radio to multiply his audience, so that well over a million different people must have heard him speak, many ofthe m several times. Although combat- ting evolution was hardly his only interest, it was a prominent theme throughout his life and clearly the primary focus of the early years of his ministry, before he accepted a pastorate in Duluth, Minnesota in 1934. The large part of his antievolution writings date from this period, including all fifteen pamphlets in thiscollection . Rimmer was born in San Francisco on September 9, 1890, the second child and only son of William Henry Rimmer,a n English- man who had arrived in California about two years earlier, and his Scottish wife Katherine Duncan.2 Rimmer had no memory of his father, who died shortly after his birth. When Harry was five, his mother married a widowerwit h children, named Stubbs, and lived with him in gold mining territory. Unfortunately Stubbs proved an unfaithful and violent husband, who severely beat Harry and mayhav e sexually abused his sister. Three years later, hoping that a measure ofcivilizatio n wouldhel p keep her husband in check, Harry's mother moved the family to Stockton, where Stubbs leased a hotel but left most of the work for his wife. Continued trouble at home affected Harry's behavior at school, and he was expelled from third grade. When his stepfather abandoned the family, Harry hunted game birds for sale to markets and worked at various jobs in Stockton to help make ends meet. At fourteen, he took a railroad construction job; over the next four years, he also worked in lumber camps, mining camps, saw mills, and on the waterfront. All the while he had not forgotten to read, in spite ofhi s lacko f formal education. Obtaining books from libraries and friends, ix x Introduction often by mail, Rimmer read voraciously. A mining engineer be- friended him, urged him to concentrate on science, outlined a reading course, and advised him to enlist in the service: this would provide a steady income and allow him to attend school at night. Thus in 1908, having turned eighteen, Rimmer joined the Army and was assigned to the Coast Artillery in San Francisco, probably to the unit based at the Presidio. 3 Fairly early in his stint he began boxing in interservice matches and soon found that he was good enough to fight for money,whic h he continued to do after his discharge from the service in 1911o r 1912. Ashor t while later, probably in the fall of 1912, Rimmer enrolled at the Hahnemann Medical College in San Francisco, a homeopathic school that required no college training for admission. 4 Then he had a life-changing experience. The exact date and circumstances are uncertain, but probably it happened on New Year's Day, 1913, while Rimmer was on his way home from another boxing match.5 That evening he stumbled onto a street meeting on the corner of Fillmore and Sutter streets in San Francisco and was astonished to find that the preacher was a fellow student from Hahnemann, Charles Lewis Trout, who later served more than thirty years as a medical missionary in Africa, where he became known for his treatment of leprosy. For once in his life Rimmer did not knowwha t to say. Ash e stood listening, he found himself drawn into the message of the text, 2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." That evening he committed his life to Christ, and the sidewalk evangelist with an interest in science became the model for his own life. When a lack of money forced him to drop out of Hahnemann after one or two terms,6 Rimmer decided to becomea missionary. Probably he spent a few months in 1913 taking classes at San Francisco Bible College before he started preaching himself, first at a waterfront mission, then at lumber camps in northern Cali- fornia.7 A bit later he preached to the Modoc tribe of Native Americans in Lake County, a wilderness where Rimmer spent many hours in solitude with his Scofield Reference Bible. The premillennial dispensationalism he absorbed there stayed with him until he died. It was in the course ofhi s work onth e waterfront that Rimmer met Mignon Brandon, daughter of an Oakland publisher and a student at the Bible College who liked to provide music for the meetings. They fell in love, eloped, and were married on February 13, 1915. Together they had three children: Charles Brandon, an author whose booksinclud e a novel about his father; DuncanRay ; Introduction xi and Kathryn Elizabeth (Braswell), whose brief memoir of her father was printed shortly after his death. In November 1915, Rimmer became pastor of the Friends Church in Lindsay, California. The next year he gave that up to enroll with his wife for the fall semester at Whittier College, a Quaker school.8 That November he became pastor of the First Friends Church ofLo sAngeles , where he remained formally until 1919, although his duties were soon reduced to allow him to take on extensive evangelistic work for the Young Men's Christian Association.9 Both Rimmers transferred for the spring semester to the Bible Institute ofLo sAngeles , where Harry wanted to study with William Evans (1870-1950) and Reuben A. Torrey (1865- 1928), and where he concluded his formal education in 1917 without a degree.10 Toward the end of World War I, Rimmer began to work with servicemen for the YMCA in Los Angeles and San Diego. As a fundamentalist and a former soldier himself, he was never the archetypal Quaker, soi t is hardly surprising that he soon switched his denominational allegiance, joining the Presbytery of Los Angeles in October 1920.nAround that time he became an itinerant speaker for the YMCA, specializing in boys' evangelism, and between 1920 and 1925 he travelled widely in the western states. He also began to develop what would grow into an extensive ministry to students at colleges and high schools. This was precisely when his keen interest in the relation between science and the Bible began to manifest itself. To some extent it was a natural outgrowth of the reading he had done about science as a teenager, coupled with the commitment to the gospel he had made as a young adult. The primary impulse, however, came from his conviction that modern methods of biblical criticism presented contemporaryyout h with challenges to the Christian faith, challenges that had to be met before the gospel could take root in young minds. In the early years ofthi s century, as the conclusions ofth e new biblical scholarship made their way across the Atlantic and into the classrooms of American colleges and universities, many young people found themselves compelled to question their religious beliefs, often with devastating results. We can get a sense ofth e profound anxiety this could produce from the experience of a prominent fundamentalist, D. Paul Rader (1879-1938), pastor of the Moody Bible Church in Chicago from 1915 to 1921 and the first preacher to have a regular radio program. In his youth, Rader had preached the gospel to cowboys in Colorado, but he lost his faith in college when he could not answer the skepticism of a professor. He later told Christian publisher xii Introduction

W. Leon Tucker (1871-1934) that his "heart became sick" at the university. I shall never forget the day when first doubt began to creep into myheart . Wewer ehavin gBibl e studyan d the professor was teaching the Book ofJob . His critical remarks stunned me to the core ofm y being.I protested but my protest was of no avail. He was a suave and highly cultured man. His rationalism was too much for my limited reason. He per- suaded me to read some books that he put into my hands. I consented to it and by these books I got a spiritual upsetting that I sincerely believe was the cause of my subsequent downfalling. . . . Here I was thrust in that class, and I rose up and protested against what he was teaching, and that fellow with his sneering sarcasm called me down. 12 Only a dramatic reconversion years later in a NewYor k City hotel room brought Rader back from the depths. It was this very challenge that Rimmer was prepared to con- front with the aggressiveness ofa boxer, the zeal ofa true convert, and the facts of science. His strategy to use science (or what passed for it) as a tool to combat the higher critics was not innovative in itself. Manyconservativ e Christians were doing this at the turn ofth e century, even though they often mistrusted the claims ofscientists , especially on the topic oforigins . Rimmer and many others nevertheless sought whenever possible to wield the club of science against skeptics (who were more than happy to reciprocate in kind). Sometimes this involved the use of bogus information, such as false stories about the discovery ofa missing day by astronomers and the survival of a man for thirty-six hours in the belly of a whale. These stories, which have been in circula- tion since the early 1890s, have often been used by fundamentalist writers to bolster confidence in the historical accuracy of Joshua and Jonah, two of the most assailed parts of the Bible. Rimmer himself repeated versions of each story in a pair of pamphlets printed in 1927, in his 1936 book The Harmony of Science and Scripture, and in countless sermons given throughout his ministry.13 What made Rimmer different and added significantly to the effect of his message was his attempt to establish himself as a scientist actively doing research that positively supported the Bible. On March 27,1921, Rimmer legally incorporated himself as the Research Science Bureau, explicitly in order "to encourage and promote research in such sciences as have direct bearing on the question of the inspiration and infallible nature of the Holy Bible."14 Anyonewillin g to pay five dollars a year and to pledge to support the Bible was allowed to join — there were more than Introduction xiii three thousand members in the early 1930s15— but Rimmer was the only researcher the Bureau ever had. In a shed next to the garage behind his homei n LosAngeles , Rimmerkep t a centrifuge and test tubes and undertook some embryological dissection.16 But mostly he stored specimens and took photographs for his lectures (which were colorized) and publications, such as those illustrating the differences between human and gorilla skulls that appeared in his 1926 pamphlet, Monkey shines: Fakes, Fables, Facts Concerning Evolution, reprinted in thisvolume . The primary functions of the Research Science Bureau, in reality, were to raise support for Rimmer's ministry, to provide a veneer oflegitimat e scientific expertise, and to hold the copyright for most of his early pamphlets and books. The first publication carrying its name was a pamphlet called How toLive the Christian Life, printed for the Bureau in 1922 by Glendale Printers in Glendale, California. Over the next thirteen years, Glendale would print almost all of his pamphlets, including every one in this collection, although other printers sometimes printed the same material. Ironically, Rimmer's first pamphlets on science were not forthcoming until 1925, four years after the Bureau was founded, and even then only in direct response to a request from Leon Tucker, editor of the Wonderful Word Bible study magazine. Rimmer met Tucker in July 1924 when they appeared together on the program at a Bible conference organizedb y evangelist John E. Brown (1879-1957) in Sulphur Springs, Arkansas. Having heard him speak, Tucker made Rimmer promise to let him publish his message on the virgin birth. According to Rimmer's widow,17 Tucker printed this and three more of Rimmer's sermons (on Jonah, Joshua's long day, and Noah's ark) in his magazine before they appeared as pamphlets, and A Scientist's Viewpoint of the Virgin Birth was in fact issued by Tucker's press as a pamphlet in 1925.18 The same year Glendale printed it for the Bureau, along with Modern Science, Noah's Ark, and the Deluge, part of this collection. Tracts on Jonah and Joshua appeared in 1927. Taken together, the four sermons Tucker requested represent Harry Rimmer doing what he most wanted to do:usin g science as he understood it to defend the veracity of scripture. But his chief targets were biblical critics, not evolutionary scientists. Here he only mirrored his times. Prior to the First World War, conservative Protestants tended to see liberal biblical scholars, not evolutionists, as their worst enemies. Some conservatives had even embraced evolution, others doubted its truth, but few sawi t as the locus of evil. The postwar generation of fundamentalist leaders, xiv Introduction however, began to see the teaching of evolution as an immediate cause of German militarism — the doctrine of the jungle consis- tently applied — as well as a principal cause of unbelief in the Bible and the gospel message it conveyed.19 Rimmer's own story was a microcosm of this whole phenom- enon. He had entertained doubts about evolution since his days at Hahnemann, but did not move evolution to the top of his agenda until the 1920s, when a growing sense ofth e threat it posed to his belief in the harmony of science and the Bible caused him to re- evaluate the content ofhi s message. Early in the decade, his wife later recalled, students at Occidental Collegetol d Rimmer about a science professor who was attacking the biblical creation story. When Rimmer helped the students defend the Bible, he was drawn into a direct confrontation with the professor.20 Soon he took a more aggressive stance toward evolution. Toward the end of 1923 Rimmer placed an announcement in The King's Business, the official organ of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA), stating his plan to present a series of antievolution messages to students on the West Coast, and soliciting invitations to speak at high schools and colleges. His goal was "that the faith ofman y will be strengthened, that wavering backbones will be stiffened, and students who are today being robbed ofthei r faith in God's Word and the Christ oftha t Word may be given the necessary support to ground them in a scientific belief in the Word of God." Citing his own "scientific research," Rimmer said that he was "bringing at this time the results ofthes e intensive studies to the attention of the student classes." Noting that he was "becoming tired" of acting only in defense of the Bible, Rimmer seized the initiative, proclaiming that "wehav e nowbegu n to assail the ridiculous and manifold weakness ofth e evolution theory," the theory which "has brought about the present day apparent contradiction between science and the Scriptures." In reality, Rimmer affirmed, there"i s no difference" between the "infallible and absolute . . . Word of God" and the "correlated body of 'absolute' knowledge" that is science.21 It was precisely this view of science as "absolute knowledge" that Rimmer proclaimed in a little tract from 1925, Modern Science and the Youth of Today, which is reprinted here because it reveals better than any other pamphlet the notion ofscienc e that was soclosel y tied to Rimmer's antievolutionary program. Rimmer described himself as "professionally engaged in scientific research" and a friend of "TRUE SCIENCE" (printed thus in upper case), but quickly added that "There is a difference between science and scientific opinion, and it is the latter that is often meant Introduction xv when we say'modern' science." Repeating his definition of science as "a correlated body of absolute knowledge," Rimmer went on to say that When knowledge on a subject has been refined and is absolute, the knowledge ofthos e facts becomesth e science of that subject. But "modern" science is the opinion of current thought on many subjects, and has not yet been tested or proved. When the test is made, this "modern" science generally fails, and passes on to new theories and hypotheses, but this never hinders a certain type ofdogma - tists from falling into the same error, and positively assert- ing a new theory as a scientifically established fact. The author desires to clearly distinguish in this article between true science, (which is knowledgegaine d and verified) and "modern" science,whic h is largely speculationan d theory. This false kind of science, based on speculative hypotheses rather than absolute knowledgederive d from proven facts, had in Rimmer's opinion undermined the faith ofAmerica n youth, causing many of them to reject Christianity as "not scientific," to "turn their backs on godly living and holiness of conduct, [and] to make shipwrecks of their lives as they drift away from every mooring that would hold in times of stress." Thus Rimmer concluded that "'MODERN' SCIENCE is ANTI-CHRISTIAN!" and leads youth astray.22 The same year in which this tract was printed John Scopes was tried for teaching evolution in Dayton, Tennessee. This event confirmed for Rimmer the importance of taking a highly visible stand against instruction that contradicted the Bible. Soon he came to share William Jennings Bryan's belief that Darwinism bore the blame for the First World War, and he agreed with Bryan that the teaching of evolution in public institutions was fundamentally unfair.23 Restating his views more than twenty years later in the preface to his last antievolution book, Rimmer indeed sounded just like the Great Commoner: The average person, not in touchwit h the so-called"liberal " trend ofmoder n education, has no conception ofth e system- atic, deliberate, and continuousassaul t whichi s madeupo n the Christian faith in many of our tax-supported high schools, colleges, and universities. Although it is against the law to teach or defend the Biblei n many ofth e states of this Union, it is not illegal to deride the Book or condemn it in those samestate s and in their classrooms.Certai ncourse s are planned with the definite purpose of weakening the belief ofth e student in Christianity, and ofrepudiatin g the Christian premise. Many text books contain subtle denials of the sources of our faith.24 xvi Introduction

Put as simply as possible —an d simplicity was somethingRimme r always sought —Rimme rbelieve d that evolution directly contradicted the biblical account of creation, calling into question the basic message of sin and salvation as well as the very status of scripture as the Word of God.Accordin gt o evolution, he liked to point out, human beings had ascended from worms,no t descended into a fallen nature from the sinless nature God had given them at creation. The veracity of the Bible had to be defended against an assault such as this. Once again,jus t as when biblical critics more directly questioned the traditional notion ofinspiration , nothing less than the spiritual future ofAmerica n youth was at stake. Rimmer responded by launching an antievolution crusade with a national scope. In the latter part of the decade, after leaving the YMCA, he struck out on his own,bookin ghimsel f as a speaker at conferences sponsored by one or more local churches while continuing his visits to schools and colleges. He was in demand all over the country, but especially in the South. At the same time he began to accept engagements at summer Bible conferences like Sulphur Springs, where he met Leon Tucker in 1924. In 1934 he made his first appearance at the Winona Lake (Indiana) conference,25 and in future years he would be a regular speaker at Gull Lake (Michigan), Pinebrook(Pennsylvania) , Sandy Cove (Maryland), and other conferences, continuingthi s phase of his activity right up until his death. Sometimes he appeared alongside other well-known fundamentalist speakers; other times he carried the load himself. What is of greatest significance here is that Rimmer inte- grated his antievolution message into his travelling program. Sermons about science and the Bible, including several with creationist themes, came to make up fully half of his repertoire. The schedule for his November 1930 visit to Philadelphia is typical, as much for its energy and logistics as for its unmis- takable scientific focus. Invited for eighteen days by a group of Methodist and Presbyterian pastors, Rimmer spokea t least twentysix times in two large urban churches, actually giving more weight to science than to traditional evangelistic subjects. His first Sunday he delivered a two-part sermon on "Science and the Bible," spread over morning and evening services, saving his famous address on Joshua's long day for the next Sunday after- noon. Most weekdays he gave two messages. At noontime services he delivered a series onth e death and resurrection ofJesus , and in the evenings a series on Genesis and modern science—the substance ofwhich , no doubt, was the set ofpamphlet s on the days of creation reprinted here. Then, to close out his campaign, his Introduction xvii sponsors rented the Metropolitan Opera House, the largest auditorium in the city. Before more than two thousand witnesses, Rimmer won a two-hour debate about evolution against Samuel Christian Schmucker (1860-1943), a local biologist and widely successful popularizer of science.26 It was at conferences such as these that Rimmer sold his pamphlets, which were essentially printed versions of his sermons. As the encounter with Leon Tucker shows, the oral sermon preceded the written word, a fact that is evident in the rhetorical style ofth e pamphlets, which are full ofth e humor and grandiose pronouncements for which Rimmerth e speaker was sowel lknown . Clearly they were intended to serve the same function that today would be met by selling audio tapes of a message: the woman in the pew, the student in the auditorium, or the soldier in the tent could take the message home,withou t taking notes or missing the main points. Priced at twenty-five cents apiece, they were within the means of almost everyone, and were sent free of charge to dues-paying members of the Research Science Bureau. Early in the Depression, Rimmer had not been able to maintain an ad- equate supply, but a donation from a patron rectified the situa- tion. By 1935 he was able to offer for five dollars a boxed set of twenty-five pamphlets, mostly about science. An advertisement for these, giving full titles and an insightful glimpse into Rimmer's ministry, is reproduced as the last item in this collection.Jus tho w many pamphlets Rimmer sold or gave away may never beknown , but there is no reason to question his claim that it was "many hundreds ofthousands." 27 All of the pamphlets found here are listed in that advertisement, which is a nearly complete compendiumo f Rimmer's early pamphlets.28 Some other pamphlets dealing with science more generally also contain antievolutionary statements or arguments, but in ourjudgmen t antievolutionary themes are prominent only in those chosen. The arguments are easily understood, and his moral and spiritual reasons for seeking them come across clearly. Several pamphlets show that he made some attempt to keep up with current findings in several disciplines — a virtually impossible job, and one that led him into some fundamental misunder- standings. He also failed to appreciate the subtlety andcomplex - ity that are inescapable features of modern scientific theories. Rimmer's objections to evolution were numerous, but simple — too simple to convince professional scientists that they even warranted a discussion, a fact that greatly dismayed Rimmer. Indeed the most interesting feature ofth e pamphlets may well be the level offrustratio n they reveal with the scientificcommunit y xviii Introduction of his era. Rimmer really believed that the emperor of evolution had no clothes, and that its defenders were either too blind to see this, orto odishones t to say so.On etim e as a student at Hahnemann, Rimmer thought he had made an anatomical discovery that contradicted evolution. He pointed it out to a professor, only to be ignored by a man who refused to consider the possibility that evolution might be wrong.29 The skeptical attitude this engen- dered never left him. After 1935 Rimmer rarely returned to the pamphlet as a medium for disseminating any of his ideas, and never used it again for attacks on evolution. This is explained by the fact that, beginning in that year, the pamphlets were essentially reprinted in book form, mostly by Eerdmans, a Christian publisher from Grand Rapids, and the Berne Witness Company of Berne, Indi- ana. The titles of three of his earliest books convey the fact that they were clearly intended to replace the antievolution pamphlets on which they were closely based. First to appear was The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (1935), its four chapters corresponding to the tracts on embryology,biolog y (slightly aug- mented), paleontology, and human antiquity, making the tracts themselves superfluous. Indeed a "special" edition of this work, issued in 1945 by Berne Witness, contains just leftover copieso f these four tracts bound together, with the addition of "Monkey- shines," which had not appeared in the 1935 edition. In 1936, Eerdmans and Berne Witness brought out The Harmony of Sci- ence and Scripture, based on six pamphlets from the 1920s but heavily revised. In addition to the title tract of 1927 (reprinted here), Rimmer used material from the pamphlets on Jonah, Joshua, Noah's Ark, Modern Science in an Ancient Book (1927), and Modern Science and the First Fundamental (1928, reprinted here). The next year Eerdmans published Modern Science and the Genesis Record, almost identical to the six tracts on the days of creation that were printed between 1929 and 1934. A chart appended to this introduction details the basic publication history of each pamphlet in this collection, and offers interested readers a summary of the differences between various editions of similar material. The cost ofprintin g the latter two ofthes e books was borne by the parents of John Laurence Frost, a Stanford University student who died from poliowhil e studying in Italy in 1935. Frost had struggled hard with his faith in an academic environment, and Rimmer had been instrumental in bringing him back into the fold of the faithful. His grateful father Howard Frost, a board member of the Bureau, underwrote the costs ofwritin g and printing a six- Introduction xix volume series aimed at undergirding the faith of students, dedicated to the memory of his son.30 The other four books, dealing with archaeology, the inspiration of scripture, and christology, were published between 1938 and 1946, though Rimmer had originally intended for them all to appear within a year of The Harmony of Science and Scripture. The Frosts' generosity made it possible for Rimmer to offer the whole set free of charge to any seminary or Bible-college student who wrote to request them. For others, the cost was two dollars per volume in the 1930s, rising to three dollars after the Second World War, where it remained until his death. Most ofhi s other books were shorter and sold for less. Eerdmans printed more than 140,000 copies of the three early antievolution booksove r a period ofabou t thirty years, and almost 300,000 copies of his books in all; and Eerdmans was just one ofhi s publishers. 31 After the publication of Modern Science and the Genesis Record, Rimmer wrote just one more work about evolution, Lot's Wife and the Science of Physics, a book of 160 pages published in 1947. Although he continued to speak against evolution throughout his life, other concerns moved it away from the center of his attention: biblical inspiration, christology, eschatology and the politics that often accompany it, and the fight against modernism in the Presbyterian denomination he had joined in 1920. The last resulted from his call to be pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Duluth, Minnesota, in 1934, a move that brought some economic and domestic stability to the family of an itinerant preacher. He now had a home church, and almost immediately became involved in the local Presbytery. His activities reflected not only his own views, but those of an important congregation that had sided with the fundamentalists in the recent controversy leading up to the formation ofJ . Gresham Machen's (1881-1937) Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Soon after assuming the pulpit, Rimmer led conservative opposition to ac- ceptance of a liberal pastoral candidate into the Presbytery, and threw himself into other controversial issues on the conservative side. In 1935 he was a delegate to the General Assembly, where he watched in frustration as liberal and moderate forces asserted their control over denominational power structures. Machen's followers broke away from the denomination to form the Orthodox Presbyterian Church the next year, but Rimmer preferred to stay put and was elected moderator ofth e Duluth Presbytery.32 In that same year of 1936, Rimmer's contract was adjusted to allow him to spend up to six months a year on the road; 33 in spiteo f the advantages ofhom e life, he felt the urge onceagai n to carry his xx Introduction message to the masses in person, for which he was superbly suited. His renewed travels included archaeological research trips to London and the Middle East funded by Howard Frost.34 But his increased absences led to problems in his church, and Rimmer left Duluth under a cloud in 1939, movinghi s family to a large apartment in Jackson Heights, Long Island.35 In 1940 he was challenged by the New York humanist publisher William Floyd (1871-1943) to back up an old offer, recently renewed by the Research Science Bureau with national publicity, to pay a reward of $1,000 to anyone who could prove an error in the 3 Bible.6 Although an attempt by a Californian (Ode C. Nichols)t o claim a smaller reward in 1929 had failed miserably, Floyd sued Rimmer with the help ofth e same attorney (Joseph Wheless) whoha d lost the earlier case. Noting that Rimmer had not personally autho- rized the newspaper advertisement Floyd cited and that Floyd had failed to show any contradictions in the Bible anyway, the court dismissed the case on a technicality. Characteristically, Rimmer made the most of it on the lecture circuit and in a little book published by Eerdmans in 1940, That Lawsuit against the Bible.37 With the onset ofWorl d War II, Rimmerreturne d to one of his favorite activities, ministering to servicemen, visiting numerous camps in the role ofth e evangelist. With GeorgeA . Palmer (1895- 1981), a radio preacher from Philadelphia, Rimmer helped to build and operate a Christian recreation center for soldiers near Fort Dix, New Jersey. After the war, Palmer involved Rimmer in his own MorningChee r ministry, includingth e Sandy Cove Bible Conference in North East, Maryland.38 Morning Cheer helped Rimmer raise funds to support the leprosarium that his old friend Dr. Charles Trout was still running in the Belgian Congo, which Rimmer visited twice. Rimmerha d planned a third trip to Africa before retiring in order to write full time, but he had to give that up when he fell ill with lung cancer.39 In early March 1952, Rimmer went home to Pacific Palisades, California, to 40 die. George and Rachel Palmer travelled all the way from Philadel- phia to see him one last time. When he departed this life after a short period of unconsciousness on Wednesday, March 19, his wife and family were by his side.41 His body lies in Inglewoo d Cemetery. Without question, Harry Rimmer was one of the outstanding fundamentalist voices of his generation. His books, pamphlets, and personal appearances reached millions, and his antics caught the attention of many others who never read his literature or heard him speak. What distinguished him from most other leading fundamentalists, however, was his claim to have scientific Introduction xxi expertise, and his willingness to take on the scientific establishment by himself. Byhi s example, Rimmer offered fundamentalist Christians confidence in the literal truth of biblical statements about nature, support forthei r faith in the gospel, and hope for the life to come. How long Rimmerwil l continue to have an influenceo n conservative Protestants remains to be seen. Manyi n the generation who came of age during and after the war never really tuned in to Rimmer's message, particularly that part of it that dealt with science.42 The expansion of American higher education, greatly accelerated by the G.I. Bill but already under way before the war, affected the evangelical and fundamentalist communities no less than the rest of Americans. One result was the presence within those communities of a small but growing number of well-trained, professional scientists, men and womenwh oha d the background to seeth e flaws in Rimmer's arguments and whower e appalled rather than amused byhi s tactics. Rimmer's ideas began to receive strong negative reviews from established evangelical scientists and theo- logians shortly after the war. In 1947, Van Kampen Press asked eight evangelical scientists, memberso fth e recently founded American Scientific Affiliation, to evaluate Rimmer's The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science before they would agree to reprint it. Most of the comments were negative, if not scathing, and the publisher declined to proceed.43 Criticisms only grew louder as younger people moved into positions of responsibility. When the late evangelical Baptist theologian Bernard Ramm (1916-92) began teaching at BIOLA in 1944, the schoolwa s offering a required course on science and the Bible with one of Rimmer's books as the text—indeed, Rimmer himself apparently taught the course at least once, in 1932-33.44 When the teacher left BIOLA two years later, the course was assigned to Ramm,wh oha d begun graduate study in the philosophy of science at the University of Southern California. Tired of spending most ofhi s time criticizing Rimmer's text, Rammstoppe d using it and wrote a letter telling Rimmer what he had done; Rimmer did not reply.45 The course of lectures Ramm developed led to his 1954 study of The Christian View of Science and Scripture, where he stated his misgivings about Rimmer's ap- proach to the Bible and noted some glaring inconsistencies in Rimmer's statements about earth history. The publisher, ironically, was Eerdmans, who continued to print Rimmer's books for another twenty years, although it is Ramm's book that was in print most recently, and its influence on conservative Protes- tants, especially those within the American Scientific Affiliation, has been considerable.46 xxii Introduction

Nevertheless, it is too early to say that Rimmer's ideas, attitudes, and tactics have gone the way ofhi s books. The importance of Rimmer's work for understanding antievolutionism today is impossible to overlook. It is true that most scientific creationists do not share Rimmer's belief in a local flood and the creation-restitution interpretation ofGenesis, 47 but in other ways Henry Morris (b. 1918) and other contemporary creationists owe Rimmer a very significant debt, as Morris himself has acknowl- edged. Morris praises Rimmer for his outspoken defense of biblical creation, and has consciously modeled his own career as an advocate ofcreationis m and fundamentalism on Rimmer's power- ful example.48 But surely nothing would have pleased Rimmer more, had he lived to seeit , than the establishment ofth e Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research, living descendants ofth e Research Science Bureau in that they also seek to promote research to prove the scientific reliability of biblical references to nature. Andthi s is ironic: with its strict requirement that members have postgraduate degrees in science, the Creation Research Society would bar the door to the one man who, more than anyone else, showed how it was possible to be a "scientific" creationist.

NOTES

1 The only complete, scholarly biography of Rimmer is an unpub- lished doctoral dissertation by Roger Daniel Schultz, "All Things Made New: The Evolving Fundamentalism of Harry Rimmer, 1890-1952,"Universit yo fArkansa s (1989),hereafte r called "Schultz." The most important primary source is Fire Inside: The Harry Rimmer Story (Berne, IN: Publishers Printing House, 1968), by Rimmer's widow Mignon Brandon Rimmer, based on his thousands of letters home, which she subsequently destroyed. But her book lacks a coherent chronologyan d gives no account of events before 1913. There is also a biographical novel by his son Charles Brandon Rimmer,I n the Fullness of Time (Berne, IN: The Berne Witness Company, 1948), reprinted as Harry (Carol Stream, IL: Creation House, 1973), which remains the best source of information on his early life. Althoughi t is technically fiction and someo f the characters did not actually exist, it was intended to be an accurate accounto fevents . His daughter Kathryn Rimmer Braswell wrote a long obituary, "Harry Rimmer—Defender of the Faith," The Sunday School Times 95 (28 March 1953):263-64, hereafter Introduction xxiii

"Braswell." Brief outlines of his career were published in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Vol. 41, pp. 21-22, and Who Was Who in America, 1951-1960 (Chicago: Marquis, 1960), pp. 728-89. Various sources conflict on certain points, and some facts may never be established with certainty. This sketch is based on Schultz and all printed sources known to me, as well as my own research on aspects of Rimmer's "scientific" apologetics. 2 It is my inference that his parents met in England, and that his mother was Scottish. Rimmer had an older, natural sister, and his father was an English immigrant who arrived in this country around 1888. Rimmer also claimed Scottish ancestry. In addition to In the Fullness of Time, another good source on Rimmer's early life is Bernard R. DeRemer, "Harry Rimmer, Ardent Defender of Creation,n Fundamentalist Journal 3(11): 44-46 (December 1984), a sensitive portrait by a man whose life was touched by Rimmer's ministry (hereafter "DeRemer"). 3 The exact dates of Rimmer's service have never been established, and the staff of the Military Reference Branch of the National Archives has found no reference to Rimmer among their records. Most likely he enlisted in 1908 and served four years, although some sources indicate that he was discharged in 1911. 4 Nancy Zinn, an archivist at the University of California—San Francisco, has been unable to locate Rimmer's application in the records that still survive from Hahnemann. I am not inclined to doubt that he actually enrolled, but I regard the date he did so as uncertain, though most sources agree that it was 1912. 5 Kathryn Braswell assigned the conversion to 31 December 1913, which cannot be correct, since by then Rimmer had already established himself as a preacher and enrolled at San Francisco Bible College. Schultz follows Mignon Rimmer (pp. 1 and 26), who said (more than fifty years later) that she first met Harry at San Francisco Bible College in the spring of 1912, "several months after his remarkable conversion,"whic h she placed on 1 January 1912. This could be correct, but I think that the circumstances of the conversion make the most sense if it took place after Rimmer had enrolled at Hahnemann, which he probably did in 1912—in which case, he recognized the street preacher as a fellow student— and before he entered the Bible college, which he probably did in 1913. My view is supported by the anonymous obituary that appeared in The King's Business in May 1952, which places the conversion on New Year's Eve 1912. 6 It is possible that Rimmer spent just one term at Hahnemann before leaving. 7 Once again, the chronology is uncertain. I have not been able to confirm when Rimmer enrolled at the Bible college. 8 According to the registrar's office at Whittier, Rimmer and his wife enrolled for the fall semester (1916) and withdrew in December. xxiv Introduction

9 Schultz, pp. 61-73; Fire Inside, pp. 33-34. 10 Fire Inside, p. 28. The registrar's office at Biola University confirmed that the Rimmers enrolled on 16 January 1917, staying only for the spring semester. 11 Fire Inside, p. 40; Schultz, pp. 63-65. 12 W. Leon Tucker, The Redemption of Paul Rader (New York: The Book Stall, 1916), pp. 61-62. Apparently this happened at Hamline University in St. Paul. Although I know of no evidence directly linking Rimmer with Rader, both men knew Leon Tucker very well, and it is inconceivable that Rimmer would have been un- aware of Rader's life story, given Rader's stature in the fundamentalist community. Regardless of whether they actually knew each other, Rader's experience was typical of many in his generation, and it gives voice to concerns that were close to Rimmer's heart. 13 The long list of writers who have used these stories in this way includes both Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., the two leading scientific creationists today, as well as several respected Biblical scholars. For details, see Edward B. Davis, "AWhal e of a Tale: Fundamentalist Fish Stories," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 43 (1991): 224-37. 14 Quoted by Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (NewYork : Knopf, 1992), p. 62. Numbers gives the best overall account of Rimmer's involvement with antievolutionism. 15 Ibid., p. 63. For more on the Bureau, see Fire Inside, p. 98, and Schultz, pp. 117-20. 16 The address for the Research Science Bureau, printed in early editions of his pamphlets, was 5141 Crenshaw Boulevard, Los Angeles. Presumably this was Rimmer's ownaddress . The Rimmers lived in Los Angeles from February 1923 until June 1934, when they moved to Duluth. See Fire Inside, p. 50. 17 See Fire Inside, pp. 68-69, which gives details on the Sulphur Springs conference. 18 I have seen a copy of this pamphlet, in which the author is identified as "Harry Rimmer, Scientist." Having been unable to locate copies of Wonderful Word magazine from the mid-1920s, I cannot verify whether any of Rimmer's sermons were printed there. 19 For excellent treatments of the early years of Protestant fundamentalism, see Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: Birth of American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1970); and George M. Marsden, Fundamen- talism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism (NewYork : Oxford University Press, 1980). Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., Controversy in the Twenties: Fundamentalism, Modernism, and Evolution (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, Introduction xxv

1969), a documentary history of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the 1920s, contains statements on evolution by several leading fundamentalists (though not Rimmer) and a first- rate commentary tying them together. 20 Fire Inside, p. 52. As with so many other events described in this book, a precise date cannot be assigned. 21 Harry Rimmer, "Combating Evolution on the Pacific Coast," The King's Business 14 (11):109. "If you have a large student body," Rimmer wrote, "make arrangements for them to hear this series of lectures." Interested parties were instructed to contact T.C. Horton, a faculty member at BIOLA. 22 Quoting pp. 1-2 and 11 ofthi s tract. 23 On Bryan's key role in the antievolution movement, see Ferenc Morton Szasz, The Divided Mind of Protestant America,1889- 1930 (University: University ofAlabam a Press, 1982), pp. 107-16; for Bryan's influence on Rimmer, see Schultz, pp. 179-92. For short reviews of Bryan's arguments, see Numbers, The Creation- ists, pp. 41-44; and Stephen Jay Gould,"Willia mJenning s Bryan's Last Campaign," Natural History 96(1987): 16-26. 24 Lot's Wife and the Science of Physics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), n.p. 25 Several sermons from the 1934 Winona Lake Conference,includ - ing three by Rimmer (on Jonah, Noah, and Joshua), were printed in Winona Echoes: Notable Addresses Delivered at the Fortieth Annual Bible Conference, Winona Lake, Indiana, August, 1934 (Winona Lake, IN: Victor M. Hatfield, 1934). Rimmer, billed as "President Research Science Bureau," spoke to audiences of several thousand from August 20 through 26. 26 On the debate and the crusade that led up to it, see my essay, "Fundamentalism and Folk Science Between the Wars,"forthcom - ing in Religion and American Culture. 27 Quoting the foreword from The Harmony of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1936), p. 5. 28 How to Live the Christian Life (1922)i s the only one I know of that is missing. 29 In the Fullness of Time, pp. 317-19. 30 On the relationship between Frost and Rimmer, see Fire Inside, pp. 227, 232-34, and 250-51; and Schultz, pp. 310-16, and 459, note 43. Rimmer's own daughter was also a victim ofpolio ; although she is still living, she has used a wheelchair for most of her life. 31 In several footnotes, Roger Schultz gives the information about copies sold that he obtained from the William B. Eerdmans Pub- lishing Company. I obtained the prices of the books from the dust jackets on copies I own. It is not known how many books were sold xxvi Introduction

by his other publishers, the Berne Witness Company,Fundamen - tal Truth, and Van Kampen. According to Schultz (p. 248), in 1947 "Rimmer claimed to have two million booksi n print, and his books sold well for a decade and a half after that." Presumably that figure included pamphlets as well as books, an impressive number in any case. 32 Schultz, pp. 271-307. 33 Schultz, p. 281. 34 Schultz, pp. 312-13. 35 This move took place in 1939 or 1940. The apartment was on the fifth floor of a building called The Towers (Fire Inside, p. 282). Their son Brandon was then studying piano with a faculty member at the Julliard School of Music in New York City, and Mignon Rimmer wanted to be nearby. See Brandon's autobiography, May- hem and Mercy (Carol Stream, 111.: Creation House, 1972), p. 21. 36 Floyd, the author ofman y books and pamphlets about religion and other subjects, published a left-wing magazinecalle d The Arbitra- tor. For a brief statement of his own humanist beliefs, see Chris- tianity Cross-Examined (NewYork :Arbitrato r Press, 1941), pp. 1- 5, 243-50, and 270-73. 37 For more information about the trial, see "Freethinker vs. Pastor: Suit Filed for $1,000 RewardCite s 'Errors' in Bible,"Newsweek, 20 November 1939, p. 33; "Monkey Trial, 1940," Newsweek, 28 Febru- ary 1940, pp. 47-48; Schultz, pp. 323-33; and the book byRimmer' s attorney, James E. Bennet, The Bible Defeats Atheism: The Story of the Famous Harry Rimmer Trial (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1941). 38 Rimmer wrote about his workwit h Palmer in Miracles at Morning Cheer (Philadelphia: MorningCheer , 1943). For a short biography of Palmer, see George A. Palmer, 1895-1981: A Servant of the Lord, a memorial booklet printed about 1982 by Morning Cheer. That booklet opens with a quotation from Rimmer, calling Palmer "the outstanding Christian worker ofth e entire Atlantic seaboard." 39 See Braswell. There are hints in various biographical sources that Rimmer had smoked heavily prior to his conversion, as a large number of servicemen did. 40 The Rimmers had bought a home there, at 1244 RimmerAvenue , about 1949. 41 Fire Inside, p. 362. 42 Here we quote the words of Rimmer's own son Brandon, who studied philosophy at the University of Southern California after the war: "The arguments of one generation do not apply to the next; the battle moves on to other areas. My father had gone to school when the main issues against Christianity were brought out in the Scopes trial and it was to this limited point ofvie w that his apologetics were addressed. In their day, his arguments were Introduction xxvii

very effective, but years later these same arguments could be torn to shreds by an acid-tongued logician twenty-five years his jun- ior." See Mayhem and Mercy, pp. 96-97. 43 See Mark A. Kalthoff, "The Harmonious Dissonance of Evangelical Scientists: Rhetoric and Reality in the Early Decades ofTh e Amer- ican Scientific Affiliation," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 43 (1991):259-72, on pp. 262-63; and Schultz, pp. 335-77. 44 For information on Ramm's life, see Numbers, The Creationists, pp. 184-7; Walter Hearn, "An Interview with Bernard Ramm and Alta Ramm," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 31 (1979), 178-86; and the obituary in Christianity Today 36(10), 76 (14 September 1992). According to a card file in the Biola Univer- sity Archives, Rimmer taught "Science & Bible" in 1932-1933. If so, this was probably during intersession, or else a series of lectures given over a short period oftime , since he was on the road often and not likely to have been in Los Angeles for an entire semester. BIOLA printed no course catalogue for that year, owing to financial exigencies, but a course called "Bible and Science," required of most students, was listed in the catalogue for 1931-32 under the general heading, "Bible History and Criticism." The course description states: "There is no conflict between true science and the Bible. The purpose ofthi s course is to show that 'there is no fact of science that contradicts any statement of Scripture. Since the Creator of the universe is the author of the sacred Scriptures, there can be no conflict between the two/ This course is designed to show the harmony which exists between science and the Bible." The quotation incorporated into this description does not actually come from one of Rimmer's tracts (as far as I know), but it could easily pass for an authentic Rimmerism. In 1941-42, the course was required ofal l students as the last of a series of four courses in apologetics, and the description was changed to empha- size "a careful study of the Genesis account of creation in the light of the original text and in the light of scientific facts." 45 Letter from Bernard Ramm to Edward B. Davis, 1 January 1992. Ramm told me that he began teaching at BIOLA in 1944, but he did not sign the Workers' Register there until September 1945. It is likely that part-time faculty did not need to sign the register, in which case Ramm may well have begun in 1944. He taught full time at BIOLA from 1945 to 1950. 46 Some evidence of the extent of Ramm's influence is the fact that the ASA dedicated an entire issue of their journal to him (in December 1979) to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Contributions include several from distinguished evangelical scholars. 47 That is, the so-called "gap theory," which postulates a gap in time of unknown length between the first and third verses of Genesis, chapter one. Intended to reconcile the creation story with geological evidence for an old earth, this interpretation was popularized xxviii Introduction

by Scofield's edition of the Bible, which Rimmer studied shortly after his conversion. See Numbers, The Creationists, pp. 45-46. Many contemporary creationists reject it. 48 See his remarks in A History of Modern Creationism (San Diego: Master Books, 1984), pp. 80, 88-93, and 111-12. HARRY RIMMER'S ANTIEVOLUTION PAMPHLETS

The following table provides details about the publishing history of each tract in this collection, and a few others (marked **)tha t are related to them in ways described in the notes. The dates given are for the first issues ofth e pamphlets and book chapters, which are listed chronologicallywher e exact dates are known.Wit h just two exceptions (Modern Science and the Youth of Today and Monkey shines), all of the antievolution pamphlets were essentially reprinted as one or more chapters in Rimmer's three early antievolution books. But even this exception has an exception: a "special" edition of The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science assembled in 1945 from leftover copieso findividua l tracts by the Berne Witness Company (Berne, Indiana) contains Mon- keyshines as well as the four tracts found in the regular edition of that book.Th e following key to book titles applies to the information in the table. HS = The Harmony of Science and Scripture (Eerdmans and Berne Witness, 1936) TE = The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, standard edition (Eerdmans, 1935) TE$ = The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, "special edition" (Berne Witness, 1945) MS = Modern Science and the Genesis Record (Eerdmans, 1937) Several chapters from The Harmony of Science and Scripture were reprinted in The King's Business,th e official magazineo f the Bible Institute ofLo sAngeles , between February 1951 and Febru- ary 1952. The final item in the table, "AScientis t Defends the Record of Creation," first appeared in the Duluth News-Tribune on 4 April 1937, where it bore the title, "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution." It was reprinted later that year byth e NationalRadi o and Missionary Fellowship (NewYork ) with other material in a booklet on The Origin of Man and The Theories of Evolution, by C[arl] T[heodore] Schwarze (professor of civil engineering at xxix xxx Harry Rimmer's Antievolution Pamphlets

NYU), Erling C. Olsen (Vice President of Fitch Investors Service, New York), and Rimmer. Olsen hosted a radio program every Thursday evening at 9:45 on WMCA/New York that was carried by six other stations in the Northeast. Schwarze was interviewed by Olsen three times in April-May 1937; transcripts of these interviews precede Rimmer's article. Rimmerwa s not interviewed on the program. The first part of the tract briefly defends the claim that evolution had been disproved in the preceding ten years; the second part is, essentially, a reprint ofth e latter half of Monkey shines, complete with the same eight photographs of ancient men found in the former. It contains almost nothing new, and was apparently not distributed by Rimmer himself, so we have not reprinted it here. We list it only for completeness, as a variant of Monkeyshines. Except for the tract just named, copyright for all pamphlets was held by the Research Science Bureau at Los Angeles until 1934 and then at Duluth. Each tract was printed by Glendale Printers of Glendale, California. Some were also printed by other publishers, such as the five tracts reprinted by the Berne Witness Company and sold together as the "special edition" of The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science. The books listed above, based on the pamphlets, became available starting in 1935. In the same year Rimmer began offering boxed sets of twenty-five pamphlets, including every one reprinted here, for five dollars. These were distributed by the Bureau, and also by Fundamental Truth Publishers (Findlay, Ohio), which prepared the advertisement reprinted as the last item in this collection. This advertisement, which must date from about 1935, claimedtha t "all ofDr . Rimmer's booklets" wouldb e kept in print. This may betrue , but noevidenc e exists that any pamphlets were actually printed after that year, except (perhaps) for the five that were sold as part ofth e collection TE$. The same advertisement has six booklets called Modern Science and the nth Day of Genesis, which were, no doubt, identical to the six in the series, Modern Science and the nth Day of Creation. Harry Rimmer's Antievolution Pamphlets xxxi

HARRY RIMMER'S ANTIEVOLUTION PAMPHLETS Title Date Notes Modern Science 1925 15 pp and the Youth of Today Modern Science, 1925 32 pp Noah's Ark, In 2 "chapters": "Science and the Ark" & and the Deluge "Science and the Deluge." Accordingt o Mignon Brandon Rimmer, this was first printed as an article in the Bible study magazine, Wonderful Word, edited by W. Leon Tucker, in 1924 or 1925. 1934 A sermon in Winona Echoes, 1934 ("Noah's Ark and the Deluge")i s essentially the same text as the original pamphlet. 1936 Chapter 6 in HS ("ModernScienc e and the Ark ofNoah" )i s almost the same as the first part ofth e pamphlet; changes include the number given for the volume of the ark. Chapter 7 in HS ("ModernScienc e and the Deluge")i s much longer, incl. an excerpt from the Gilgamesh epic, and the final 4V2 pages. Sept An article in The King's Business 1951 ("The Ark of Noah — Fact or Fiction?") reprints most of chapter 6 inHS, with several paragraphs omitted. Monkeyshines: 1926 48 pp, ill. Fakes, Fables, 1945 48 pp, ill. Facts Concerning Separate tract in TE$\ essentially Evolution same text as original pamphlet The Theories 1926? ?? pp ofEvolutio n We have never seen a copy ofthi s pamphlet and the Facts bearing a date earlier than 1935, nor dow e ofPaleontolog y know of any libraries claiming to have one. However, accordingt o a letter Rimmer sent his wife in November193 0(Migno n Rimmer, Fire Inside, p. 93), copieswer e available for sale at that time. Schultz assumes a copyright of 1929, placing it with the related tracts on "Biology," "Embryology," and "Human Antiquity"; XXXll Harry Rimmer's Antievolution Pamphlets

Title Date Notes The Theories Tom Mclver, Anti-evolution: An Annotated of Evolution Bibliography (Jefferson, NC:McFarland , and the Facts 1988), assigns it to 1926, presumably on the of Paleontology basis of a copy he has seen. (continued) 1935 32 pp Jan 1935 Chapter 3 in TE\ essentially same text as 1935 pamphlet 1945 35 pp Separate tract in TE$\ essentially same text as 1935 pamphlet The Harmony 1927 26 pp of Science and 1936 Chapter 2 in HS ("The Harmony of Science the Scriptures and the Scriptures") is extensively rewritten, and has many added paragraphs; much ofth e pamphlet is deleted, incl. a table ofth e geological column. Feb Twoarticle s in The King's Business & Mar ("Does Science Contradict the Bible?" and 1951 "Does the Bible Contain Scientific Error?") reprint most of chapter 2 in HS, with several paragraphs omitted. Modern Science 1928 18 pp and the First 1936 Chapter 1i n HS ("ModernScienc e and Fundamental the First Fundamental") is extensively rewritten, with additional material; the last several pages closely follow the pamphlet. The Facts of Jan 1929 26 pp Biology and the Jan 1935 Chapter 1i n TE\ has 7 paragraphs Theories of not in original pamphlet Evolution 1945 29 pp Separate tract in TE$\ essentially same text as original pamphlet Embryology Feb 1929 22 pp and the 1935 23 pp, front. Recapitulation Jan 1935 Chapter 2 in TE\ essentially same text as Theory original pamphlet, but lacks opening photograph of the skeleton of a human foetus at 5V2 months 1945 24 pp, front. Separate tract in TE$\ essentially same text as original pamphlet. Harry Rimmer's Antievolution Pamphlets xocxm

Title Date Notes The Theories Mar 1929 32 pp of Evolution Jan 1935 Chapter 4 in TE; essentially same text as and the Facts original pamphlet of Human 1945 35 pp Antiquity Separate tract in TE$; essentially same text as original pamphlet **Modern June 24 pp Science and 1929 Was incorporated into the first printing the Prologue of Modern Science and the First Day of Genesis of Genesis, and not printed again separately under this title. 1937 Chapter 1 in MS ("The Prologue to Genesis"); essentially same text as original pamphlet **Modern July 26 pp Science and 1929 Was incorporated into the first printing of the First Day Modern Science and the First Day of of Genesis Genesis, and not printed again separately. Later pamphlets with this title were identical to the longer tract below, Modern Science and the First Day of Creation, not to this shorter tract. 1937 Chapter 2 in MS ("Modern Science and the First Day of Creation") is essentially same text as pamphlet Modern Science 1929 32 pp and the First Day In two parts: of Creation (i) "The Prologue of Genesis," pp. 3-17 (ii) "Modern Science and the First Day of Creation," pp. 18-32 Each part essentially the same text as original pamphlets Modern Science 1929 32 pp and the Fourth 1937 Chapter 7 in MS ("Astronomyan d the Day of Creation Bright and Morning Star") has 7 added paragraphs; a diagram ofth e solar system, a paragraph explaining the diagram, and a paragraph mentioning James Jeans' book, The Universe Around Us (1929), are deleted in the book. Modern Science 1930 28 pp and the Second 1937 Chapter 3 in MS ("Moses and Meteorology"); Day of Creation has 1paragrap h not in original pamphlet XXXIV Harry Rimmer's Antievolution Pamphlets

Title Date Notes Modern Science 1930 In 3 parts, bound as twobooklets : and the Third (i) Parti (24 pp) Day of Creation (ii) Parts 2 & 3 (46 pp) 1937 Chapter 4 in MS ("The Doxology of the Deep") is essentially the same text as part one of the pamphlet, except that a few sentences on seasickness are deleted. Chapter 5 in MS ("Geology and the Rock of Ages") is essentially the same text as part two ofth e pamphlet, except that about 5 paragraphs are added. Chapter 6 in MS ("Botany and the Roseo f Sharon") is essentially the same text as part three ofth e pamphlet. Modern Science 1931 37 pp and the Fifth In 2 parts, paginated consecutively Day of Creation 1937 Chapter 8 in MS ("Rapidly Multiplying Creatures") is essentially the same text as the first part ofth e pamphlet. Chapter 9 in MS ("The Hum of Wings") is essentially the same text as the second part of the pamphlet. Modern Science 1934 47 pp and the Sixth In 2 parts, paginated consecutively Day of Creation All copies we have seen have typographical errors on p. 10 (an extra line oftext ) and p. 14 ("bird" instead of"camel") . 1937 Chapter 10 in MS ("Zoology and the Lamb of God") follows part one but has 2 added paragraphs; a paragraph on sheep is deleted in the book. Chapter 11 in MS ("The Creation of Adam") follows part two, except that the closing lines are new in the book. **A Scientist 1937 10 pp., ill. Defends Pp. 37-46 in The Origin of Man and The the Record Theories of Evolution, by C.T. Schwarze, of Creation Erling C. Olsen, and Harry Rimmer, published by The National Radio and Missionary Fellowship. Essentially a reissue of Monkeyshines, reprinted from the Duluth News-Tribune, 4 April 1937. EMBRYOLOGY and the RECAPITULATION THEORY

By HARRY RIMMER, President RESEARCH SCIENCE BUREAU, Inc. 5141 Crenshaw Boulevard Los Angeles, Calif.

Printed in U. S. A. FROM THE PLANT OF GLENDALE PRINTERS, RELIGIOUS BOOKLET PUBLISHERS. GLENDALE, CALIF.

i Skeleton of the Human Fetus at Five and a Half Months (Prom the Author's private collection.)

2 EMBRYOLOGY AND THE RECAPITULATION THEORY

The battle cry of the hordes of defenders of the theory of organic evolution long has been: "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phytogeny!" This has been shibboleth of this school of philosophy for so long that the general public recognises the adherent of the cult by the glib references to the science of embryology that fall so aptly from the lips of those who conform to the dogma of evolution. It is a difficult matter for the average layman to answer the arguments of the evolutionist when he retreats behind the rampart of embryology, as the subject is so technical the experts have great difficulty in making their meaning plain to the average listener. The technique of embryological research is so complicated, the material is so hard to obtain, and the equipment for research in this field so expensive, that the ordinary man of affairs is logically excluded. Therefore it is only reasonable that the layman should accept in perfect faith all that the "expert" has had to say on this subject. It is a sad truth that the "expert" has not always dealt fairly with his credulous followers, as we shall clearly demonstrate in the body of this paper. Many times the ardent disciple of evolution has been far more anxious to establish his theory, even at the expense of fidelity to the truth, than he has been to disseminate scientific knowledge. Facts have been twisted out of their logical setting, dogmatic theories have been stated as proved facts, and the most impossible assumptions have been advanced as proof, time and time again. 3 Even more serious than this, facts of biology have literally been suppressed, and students deliberately taught antiquated and disproved fancies in place of true data, simply because the prejudiced instructor was not willing to have his classes know that "Ontogency does not Re- capitulate Phylogeny!" This phrase has now lost its power to stupefy the student of biology into acquiesc- ence with the dogma of organic evolution. Let us examine this slogan that has done such yeoman service in the past, and see what it really means. Is it evidence of the truth of evolution? "Ontogeny," according to the Century Dictionary, is the entire development, or metamorphosis, or life history, of a given organism. Ontogeny, then, is a science consisting of the proved and demonstrated facts concerning methods of organic formation and functions of any given individual during the process of that individual's embryological development. From the time the ovum is fertilised until the new life is completely formed, and the young emerges, all the history is included in ontogeny. With facts we have no dispute; we accept every fact of every science known to man. Our argument is with the interpretation of those facts, and it does not follow that because we accept the facts in any given field of research we are constrained to accept all the theories based on those facts. We recognise a certain morphological resemblance between individuals of various unrelated species; with that fact we have no controversy. But the statement that those resemblances denote relationship through a common ancestry is an interpretation of the fact of resemblance we are at liberty to accept or reject. Possessing a more logical explanation of this fact of resemblance; namely, the evidence of design in an orderly and intelligent creation that uses a modified plan in varying forms of cre- 4

4 ation, we are not obligated to the evolutionary inter' pretation of this or any other fact. So with the facts of ontogeny: we accept them all. But while we definitely recognize ontogeny as a science, the reverse is true of "Phylogeny," if the Cen' tury Dictionary is consulted. We read there that "Phylogeny" is that branch of biology that attempts to deduce the ancestral history of an animal or plant from its ontogeny, or individual developmental meta' morphosis. We must insist that "an attempt to deduce" is not a science! The word "recapitulate" means "to enact or live over again," and the battle slogan of the entrenched organic evolutionists clearly expressed is the claim that "the development of the human em' bryo re'enacts the entire evolutionary history of the human family." Before making a scientific inquiry into the truth of this theory, or slogan, let us clearly and fairly set forth the claims of the evolutionists to a proof or demonstration of their theory in the science of em' bryology, by way of sc^called recapitulation. Does the attempted demonstration stand, in the light of undis' puted facts? The basis of the theory of recapitulation is the manner in which the embryo develops from the single cell, known as the reproductive cell, to the marvelous structure of the amazingly complex individual. When this new creature finally issues after the process of na' ture it is a Metazoan that is conceded to be the highest creature in the scale of life this world, as yet, has ever seen. This is the greatest miracle of nature: that a single fertilized cell should have the power to draw from nowhere the twentysix trillion cells of the vivi' parous human, with all the necessary structures and organs that make up the complex body called Man! In the symposium entitled "The Evolution of Man" 5

5 that was issued by the Yale University Press, Harry Burr Ferris, Professor of Anatomy at Yale, is the auth- or of the chapter on embryology. He also is struck by the amazing miracle of reproduction, and finds that his only accepted theory has broken down, and left the materialist without any crutch upon which he may lean. On page 42 of the above cited volume, Ferris says: "As a result of fertilization the egg cell has the power of almost indefinite multiplication and the still more marvelous power of differentiation so that its de' scendants are not all alike, but some form nerve cells, others gland cells, still others muscle cells, et cetera. This differentiation in structure is accompanied also by a corresponding functional differentiation. It may be possible to explain many of the processes of life on the mechanistic, or physico-chemical basis, but it is difficult, at present, to explain reproduction on this theory." (Emphasis mine). It is indeed "difficult" to explain reproduction on the basis of mechanism! If you have ever watched the marvel of cell division and the process of mitosis you must have been struck with the evidence of design and creative ingenuity contained in this amazing process. A single cell divides and there are two cells, these twain divide and there are four cells, then there are in turn eight cells, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, one-hunx dred and twenty-eight, and so by a process of doubling the number until the entire new body is formed. The wonder is further deepened by the fact that while all the cells started from the one fertilized cell called the ovum, which was itself neither muscle, nerve, organic, blood or bone cell, each separate colony of cells produced by this process of division becomes an organ whose cells all have a ponderable and demonstrabledif - 6

6 ference between them and the cells of any other organ in the same body! Consider also the further fact that while all mammals reproduce this way, the rabbit cells while differing among themselves functionally, are ever and always rabbit cells: the chicken cell may divide to form many organs, but they will inevitably be chicken organs; and that every separate order, genus and species living on all the face of the earth refuses to reproduce by this process any other kind than its ancestors have always been. Carefully considered, the ridiculous im- possibility of the theory of organic evolution is demonstrated in that unalterable fact alone with sufficient force to obviate its biological possibility. Yet it is in this process of cell-creation that the evolutionist sees "recapitulation!" And that, in spite of the fact that an embryo never contains a single cell that may be confused with any cell of any other embryo of another species, or that could ever belong in any embryo of another species! What, then, is the basis of this "recapitulation?" It is based entirely on the suppositions of resemblance. Resemblance, however, does not imply relationship! Similarity is not scientific evidence. Resemblances are superficial, and if there is anything that science is not, it is above all else, not superficial. In the West we have a mineral (iron pyrites) called "fool's gold." It bears such a dose resemblance to the precious metal that the ignorant and unlearned have been confused, and imag- ined relationship upon the sole basis of similarity. But the "fool's gold" is worthless, even though it resembles the precious metal. If we are to discuss a scientific demonstration, let us stick to evidence that may be called scientific, and score such mental immaturity as 7

7 similarities! But since this is the sole basis of the argil' ment of the recapitulationist, let us fairly set forth his position, that we may consider its strength or weakness. THE THEORY OF RECAPITULATION has five strong points, or general divisions. Every student is familiar with them, but for the purpose of clar- ity we will set them forth in order, so that we may thus consider them. As expressed by the school of organic evolution, these points are: 1. The human embryo begins life as a protozoan. 2. The human embryo lives as a fish, in an aqueous environment. 3. The human embryo, at one stage of development, has gills like a fish. 4. The human embryo, at one stage of development, has a tail like a puppy. 5. The human embryo, prior to its birth, bears a confusing and close resemblance to the embryos of other mammals; in some instances so close it is difficult, and even impossible, to distinguish between them. In order to demonstrate the fallacies of these five premises, we will consider them in order and examine their scientific truth and value. That the human embryo begins life as a protozoan is an absolute mis-statement, and is not a fact. In this case the wish is parent to the thought. The contention of the organic evolutionist makes this necessary, as the theory is based on the supposition that the various or- ders of life with which we are familiar today began in the womb of time with a common ancestor, such as the amoeba. To establish the theory of recapitulation it is necessary, then, to start the embryo the same way. But the human embryo does not begin its career as a pro- 8

8 tozoan, or single-celled animal. It is true that the em' bryo is at first two single cells, but these cells are not protozoa, they are the reproductive cells of the genus Homo Sapiens. A protozoan is a single-celled animal whose life processes are contained in that one cell, and whose entire organic functions, if we may refer to them as such, are consummated in that single cell. These protozoa are legion; but marvelous and diversified as they are, there is not a single individual protozoan in the category of nature that any trained scientist would ever confuse with a human ovum or spermatozoon! Not even the most superficial observer would ever classify any of the many known protozoa as a human spermatozoon or ovum, or vice versa! Such an ignorant proceeding would bring down on the perpetrator the scorn of the entire scientific world, and that justly. For the human sperm is not a protozoan. It is a flagellate cell, and may never be confused as other than it is, the reproductive cell of the chief mammal—man. The same of course, is true of the female reproductive cell, the ovum. The spermatozoon is composed of two main divisions, the flagellum, or tail and the cell proper, which is the head end. The flagellum is simply the motor that drives the sperm on its way, and the head of the spermatozoon contains all of the major divisions of the cell structure; the nucleus, the chromosomes, the centro- some, etc. It is a true and complete cell. The same may be said of the ovum, the female reproductive cell. Both of these individual cells contain all the elements of a complete cell of the human kind, none of which are found in any protozoan. Fundamentally the two ord- ers, the protozoa and the sperm of any mammal are as unrelated and unlike as chalk and cheese. We note that the protozoan is a complete organism that becomes 9

9 an adult of its own kind, that it eats, ingests, and repro- duces vital young of its own kind. It is born through a process of "embryology" of its own and after the law of its own nature, and dies exactly as any other living creature. The spermatozoon, however, cannot be in" eluded in any such category as this. It cannot be said to be "bom.'" It neither eats nor grows to maturity, but in its cycle of life functions only by the energy imparted by its creation in the gonads, and dies without repro' ducing any progeny like itself. Its sole function is the fertilization of the ovum of its own kind, and it is sheer folly, or crass ignorance, to label it a protozoan, or compare it with that order of individuals. The human individual begins its life cycle not as a protozoan, but as a fertilized human cell. Equally fallacious is the second proposition of re' capitulation; that the embryo passes through a stage when it is comparablet o a fish, living in an aqueous en' vironment. It is literally childish nonsense to so speak of the fetus of any mammal known to science. It is true that the fetus is enclosed in a sac that is filled with fluid, but this fact cannot be interpreted to demon' strate a fish ancestry without making the demonstra' tor ridiculous. The wall of this sac is made up of two membranes, the inner of which is called the "amnion." The process by which the amnion is produced necessitates some at' tention here before we make a close analysis of this fish argument, so we must digress for a few lines to re' mind the reader of this process. After fertilization, the rapid division of the cells, as we noted above, soon pro' duces a solid round colony of cells known as the mor' ula. There is an uneven development that causes rapid growth on one side to exceed the development on the opposite side, and in this extra mass two cavities form. 10

10 One of these becomes the yolk sac at first, and the alimentary canal in the fully matured fetus, but the other cavity becomes a sac that entirely surrounds the embryo later, which last sac is called the amnionic cavity. This is the housing of the embryo, its protection, and its dwelling place. So we see that the fertilized ovum not only produces the embryo itself, but also by cell or- igination actually provides the house in which the embryo dwells in safe security. But before these two sacs are fully formed, some of the cells of both sacs branch off and differentiate into two layers, called the ectoderm and the endoderm. From this layer called the ectoderm, there are then developed the cells that form the primitive streak, the first prophetic forecast of the vertebral structure layer so essential to the adult individual. Then a third layer of cells is created along the primitive streak, between it and the outer or ectoderm layer, and this third layer is called the mesoderm. Note this amazing wonder: two cells have united in the process of fertilization, the ovum and the sperm. These have now developed three distinct types of cells, each with typical characteristics that mark, it as different from the other two classes. These three, the primary germ layers, produce all the organs, muscles, bones and various parts of the body in the bewildering process of embryological development. The first of the cell layers, the ectoderm, forms in time the skin, hair, sweat glands, teeth enamel and the sensory parts of the sense organs. The middle layer, the mesoderm, forms the skeleton, the muscles, the tissues and the tendons, the blood distributing system and the sex apparatus. The third layer, the endoderm, develops into the cells of the thyroid and kindred glands, the lungs, the liver, the pancreas, etc. Each has its own function and contributes the equally essential parts to 11

11 the developing individual, but all owe their origin to the same fertilised cell, of which we must not lose sight in our present brief and simple study. Again we pause to wonder how any sane mind can see in this stupendous process anything but the out" working of an inwrought design! Carefully planned on a sound mathematical basis that never alters, continu' ing age after age with no help from any outside source, this process has ceaselessly functioned in obedience to the command of the Creator whose mind and intelli" gence planned it all. Never losing any of the inexhaust' ible power its every ancestor possessed, the vast order of mammals continues to witness in this process to the truth of the greatest sentence ever written in biology: "Each after its own kind!" All of the above differentiation takes place in that sac mentioned above, the amnion. In this encasing bag the fetus dwells in safety and shelter, literally floating in a cushioning fluid that is called the amnionic fluid. This is the fact upon which the second statement of the recapitulationist is based; the fetus does dwell in an aqueous environment. But not as a fish! for no fish could ever exist in the environment which is absolutely essential to the life of the embryo, as there is no free oxygen present there in the amnionic fluid. Note that carefully; life would be impossible for anything but the fetus in this amnion, and each fetus must be in the amnion of its own kind. The necessity for this we shall see in the analysis of the amnionic fluid. Before proceeding further with the question of the fish stage, we must pause to introduce the fallacy of the gills that have been so widely advertised as proof positive that the embryo of man is re-enacting its ancient experience of organic evolution. Carefully, calmly, and forcefully I desire to assert that the hu- 12

12 man embryo does not possess gills; and the teacher who so asserts is either a deliberate falsifier, or is woefully ignorant of what is commonknowledg e among research biologists today. I am scarcely able to conclude which is the graver charge to make against the teacher who clings to this outrageous falsehood; -ignorance or lack of integrity! Either is bad enough, and it is impossible to escape the stigma of one or the other if falsehood is taught in the place of truth! Even in past days, when our modern biological knowledge was not in the possession of the teaching profession, it was never correct to say that the embryo had gills. The most that any careful and truthful con' tender could say was that the fetus was in possession of branchial arches, which are the bony ridges that sup' port the gills in the fishes. But even that much cannot be said now, as these so-called branchial arches are now accepted as pharyngeal arches instead of branchial. Branchial arches, and gills, have to do with the process of respiration, and thus would be absolutely useless to the developing fetus, which has no need to breathe. All the processes of the embryo are consurn' mated in the blood stream of the mother through the marvelous specialized organ, the placenta, and the fetal blood is kept vital by the lungs of the mother. But while the embryo has no need of respiration, it does have pressing need of nutrition! And thus we have the pharyngeal arches. The pharynx is that part of the alimentary tract that joins the aesophagus, and the pharyngeal arches of the embryo are the rudimentary feeding device for the early stages of gestation, when there is no physical union between the embryo and the blood stream of the mother. It is at this stage that the amnion forms villi, which form a dendritic conjunction with the fetal villi, and all the substance that can be 13

13 transferred from the mother to the embryo is limited to the volatile. That is to say by the process of osmosis alone, can these amnionic and fetal villi function, and the embryo must be fed! At this stage we make an analysis of the amnionic fluid, and we find it is pure food! It is composed of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, etc., all in solution. Food in a liquid form is the immediate environment of the embryo and some special apparatus is essential for the appropriation of this food. For this reason the pharyn' geal arches appear. It is evident that food is absorbed through this apparatus, and after the development of the method of nutrition through the fetal blood stream in the placenta, these arches disappear. Also, the am' nionic fluid changes so in character that it is no longer fit for food, as after the arches disappear, the fluid has a high content of uric acid. The purpose of these arches, then, is the feeding of the embryo. They are not gills in any sense of the word, and differ from gills as much as the organ called the stomach does. They are there at this stage of embryonic development for the sole purpose of nutrition; and it is only ignorance or dishonesty that will refer to them as gills. There is not a single function or organ or development in the embryo that does not have a very definite purpose in the growth of the fetus, and these arches are just a case in point. Yet it is here that so much disx honesty is practiced that we cannot help but conclude that the devotee of the theory of organic evolution is more concerned in advancing that theory, even at the expense of truth, than he is in teaching the facts of science. Let me cite an instance bearing on this state' ment. Some time ago I was lecturing on these and kindred subjects in a Southern California city near my home, 14

14 when I was questioned at some length by students pres' ent from some several colleges and two universities. The result of the conversation was a visit from a group of the boys, who came to my laboratory to observe some things I had promised to show them. We began with methods and patterns of mitosis, and ended with cross sections of the human embryo, especially of the head region. They left with several antiquated ideas forever discarded, and one or two left in some heat be' cause they had been kept in ignorance, and literally misdirected in their thinking. The following week one of these lads was in his class of comparative anatomy, where he was taking a post-graduate course. He began telling his teacher some of the things he had observed, and concluded by saying he had been convinced the embryo did not have gills like a fish, or any other kind of gills. He said further that Rimmer had showed him that the so-called gills were not even branchial arches, but pharyngeal arches. The professor smiled and asked, "Did Rimmer advance this as a new or original discov ery of his own?" The student replied, "I am not sure, but perhaps he did. Why do you ask?" To which the professor replied, "Well, if he did, please inform him that I knew that two years ago!" The student was surprised and asked, "You mean you knew that these developments on the embryo were pharyngeal arches, and not gills, and knew this two years ago?" "I mean exactly that," said the professor. In some surprise the lad enquired, "Then, if you knew that two years ago, why did you tell us last Fri- day that the human embryo has gills like a fish?" To which the professor replied, "I do not care to discuss this further!" A cornered liar rarely does! At the very beginning of this paper I stated that the expert did not always 15

15 deal fairly with the credulous layman, and this is a most striking case in point. And it is not an isolated or un' usual case, for I could multiply this illustration many times over. I recently had the privilege of debating this question before one of the largest medical associa' tions in the United States, and the evolutionists are so well aware of the weakness and falsehood of their posi' tion that fourteen "eminent authorities" lacked courage to debate the evidence of evolution from the standpoint of embryology before such a technical audience. The fifteenth man, a man of splendid scholarship and with the courage of his convictions, debated with me there, but on the general field of biology, and not the specific field of embryology. The case for organic evolution has collapsed in this field more woefully than in any other branch of the biological sciences. The "proof has gone with the gills! In the first stages of my own research on this sub' ject I was profoundly amazed to discover that the hu' man embryo had been so tremendously misrepresented, not only in the matter of the gills, but in the matter of a tail as well! I thought I had an anomaly when I saw one that did not have a tail, and even today students as far advanced as medical college are still talking about the tail on the human embryo. Which same does not really exist! A tail, you know, is a caudal appendage. In physi- ology the term has exact significance, which definite meaning must not be obscured by poetical or careless references that call a rudimentary or developing leg a tail. The tail has a definite structure that is never found in the embryo, the text-books to the contrary notwithstanding. There is this basis of truth alone in the argument of recapitulation: at one stage of the development of the embryo when it has about the shape 16

16 of an adult lima bean there is an unusual activity at the posterior region of the primitive streak that may be strained to resemble a tail in mounting the embryo, but these cells later become the legs. There is no animal known to man whose tail develops into legs, and the contention that this is true in the embryo is a pitiable evidence of the weakness of the case for recapitulation. Even more strikingly unscientific is the fifth contention, that the embryos of various mammals so closely resemble one another that the eye can scarce determine the difference between that of a man and that of a pig, or sheep, or rabbit, or monkey. Almost every text' book of biology that deals with the question of em' bryology has a page of pictures with the various embryos in parallel columns, showing their striking simi' larity! As I write I have such a text'book here, with the embryo of a rabbit in one column, a pig in the next, an ape in the next, and a human in the fourth. And in the pictures these various embryos do so closely re' semble each other that the name at the top is essential to differentiation. But in the picture only: in life, the student or the scientist would not be confused, in spite of what ignorance would like to contend. For these pictures are all "schematised!" That is a wonderful word, coined by the chief priest and foremost prophet of the organic evolution cult, even the eminent Haeckel himself. After he was accused of falsifying the delinea' tion of certain embryos he stated that he had "schema' tized" them to conform to his argument, as that was customary in such cases, and they have been "schema' tized" ever since! But an honest photograph, or the physical embryo itself, tells a far different story! It is still a common fallacy, to say that the human embryo is so similar to the embryos of the various animals that it is difficult to determine which is human and 17

17 which is animal. When I was engaged some time ago with Dr. Edward Adams Cantrell, then Secretary of the Science League of America, debating the theory of organic evolution, he stated that when he was in school the professor came into the laboratory one day with several embryos, and said that they had neglected to mark them when they arrived at the laboratory, and although they were aU from the different species, and only one of them was human, there was no way to tell one from the others! And this supposed fact was ad' vanced by the doctor as evidence of the close relation' ship of man and the beast, and also as proof of the theory of recapitulation. That the world of science in general is capable of recognizing the pitiful fallacy of such a contention is clearly illustrated in the following quotation from "Critique du Transformisme," by Professor Vialleton, as quoted by Christabel Pankhurst in "Seeing the Fu' ture." Speaking specifically on this subject, Prof. Vial' leton says: "....Instead of recapitulation, what really takes place is a succession of forms, which is necessary to the devel' opment of the embryo and is not at all an ancestral rep' etition. The first forms of the embryo (called ebauches) cannot represent ancestral organs, because no ancestral organ could exist with the known constitution of these ebauches. They are absolutely incapable of function' ing otherwise than as constituent parts of the embryo, playing, as such, a part necessary to the development of the whole. The embryonic ebauches are parts nee' essary in the embryonic to the anatomical development of living beings, and are not ancestral forms repeated in souvenir of the past. "The young embryos of superior animals resemble only the young embryoso f inferior animals, and do not 18

18 at all resemble the adult state of the lower animals. In other words, all the vertebrates have common OP ganic rudiments during a very short stage of their embryonic life, and they resemble each other at that moment by these ebauches, regarded separately, though not by their form as a whole, which is already different in the divers types of embryos and forbids any confusion between them. But in consequence of a defec- tive interpretation of the ebauches, considered separately, a confusion has arisen which has led to the making of an unwarranted genealogical rapprochement between them. Thus embryonic mechanism has been con- founded with supposed ancestral repetitions." I desire to say, first of all, that there is a method by which any embryo may be classified according to its true species, and that method is available even to a child of six years of age. That method is let it alone! By that I mean to say that no matter whether we know what the embryo is to become or not, the embryo is never in any doubt about the matter, and will always develop into just exactly what its parents and its ancestors always were! There is also the scientific method of cytology. It wearies the possessor of even a rudimentary education to hear all this talk of similarity being a scientific evidence of relationship, when we know that science pays utterly no attention to similarities. These, I repeat, are superficial, and scientific research is "the investiga- tion of the fourth decimal place!" There are several deadly poisons which resemble common table sugar, but that resemblance does not prove relationship. It is a fact of science, that the embryo of one species does not resemble the fetus of another species so closely as to confuse the investigator. There are scientific methods of cell analysis that determine the species 19

19 of the cell structure under consideration and these methods are all available as checks on the question of recapitulation. Their answer is unanimous: the hu' man embryo does not recapitulate an animal ancestry. Even a superficial consideration will manifest the empty mockery of the slogan of the evolutionist, for again we see that Ontogeny does not recapitulate Phy logeny. This is a tremendous contention, that the hu' man embryo lives over, or re-enacts, or recapitulates its entire evolutionary ancestry of multiplied millionso f years in nine brief months! And all of the recapitula' tion must be crowded into the first three of these, as by the end of the third month all the structure and organs are completely formed in the embryo. The case is further complicated by the fact that in addition to the millions of years, there are literally billions of forms to recapitulate. There have been approximately one hundred and twenty-five million species on the face of this planet in the vital life period of the earth's history, and according to Wassman the transmutation (evolution) of a closely related species into its next higher or subsequent species would require at least seventeen hundred mutants, or variants, commonly called links. One hundred twenty five million species multiplied by seventeen hundred mutants, gives the stupendous number of two hundred and twelve billion, five hundred million definite life forms that must have existed to transmute the amoeba into man, and the human embryo only passes through fourteen stages of change all told! Can this be "recapitulation," that re-enacts just one form in every fifteen billion, one hundred seventy-eight million, five hundred forty-one thousand, four hundred and twenty-eight different ancestral types? The idea is so preposterous we can conceive of it only as the wildest dream of a disord- 20

20 ered intellect, and not as an established fact of science. Which latter it most certainly is not! Consider these further and positive facts, all of which are scientifically established: First—The ova, or female reproductive cells differ in every species. There is a positive identification to be made of the ova of various cats as cat ova; the ovum of a dog may never be confused with that of some other species, and the human ovum is a type separate to the human species alone, and so for every species. Second—The spermatozoa of all creatures differ from those of all other creatures, not of that same species. It is as easy for the trained eye, aided by the microscope, to tell the spermatozoa of one species from those of another as it is for a sailor to tell the difference between a battleship and a ferry boat. Third—Fertilization is possible only between the ova and the spermatozoa of the same species. There is an ectoderm, chemically impregnated, that covers the ovum of a given species, and only the sperm of that same species carries in its apical head the correct solution to penetrate that protective ectoderm. Thus it remains today as it ever has been in the past: kind re- produces after its own kind, and only with its own kind. Fourth—In the carrying bodies called chromosomes the chromatin differs materially according to species. As it is this chromatin that bears all the tendencies to inheritance that have come down through innumerable generations in each species, the whole process of embryology depends upon this chromatin. Differentiation is constant, and never even slightly confused in the entire fetal stage of each species, because of this individ- ualized distinction of chromatin. Fifth—The very foundation of the process of embryology, the process of mitosis, differs materially in 21

21 the mitotic pattern in various species, so that there is a check on the group history even here. Sixth—At any stage of their fetal development, a cytological examination of the embryo of any species will clearly show its startling differences from the embryo of any other species in the vast realm of biology. To the honest investigator there is never any moment of doubt. Each embryo is so distinctly an embryo of that particular kind, and no other, that to the scientist there is never any shadow of question as to its ancestry or its destiny, as an individual of a specific species. Finally—As the developing embryo always and in' evitably turns out to be an individual of the same spe' cies its fixed ancestry has always been since the begin' ning of time, it is evident that the organic evolutionist is again wrong, and that the theory of recapitulation is so thoroughly disproved we may today say—On- togeny does not recapitulate Phylogeny, and in the place of this unfounded contention, put the old, old truth, which Moses stated in such clear terms: "Each after its own kind:" as the Creator ordained.