Ancient Skulls Refute the Doctrine of Descent.

Coming back, however, more immediately to the subject—we would observe that the question of man's antiquity has only one bearing upon the doctrine of evolution, and by general confession of the Darwinians that has so far gone against them. It is of no great importance whether man has been 6,000 or 20,000 years on the earth; it is, however, of importance to know whether the earliest human skulls bring us any nearer to a brute type; and scientific accuracy compels even ardent believers in Darwinism to confess that they do not. The two most celebrated skulls are the English skull found in a Belgium cave, with the remains of the mammoth, and the Neanderthal cranium. Mr. Huxley has carefully recorded his observations on these discoveries, and it is sufficient to give his conclusions. Of the English skull he says:—"It is, in fact, a fair average human skull, which might have belonged to ft philosopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brains of a savage." Of the Neanderthal remains, though of lower page 17 type, he says with equal emphasis:—" In no sense can the Neanderthal bones be regarded as the remains of a human being intermediate between men and apes." Summing up his observations on the most ancient human remains yet discovered, Professor Boyd Dawkins says: "There is no evidence that the palæolithic people were inferior in intellectual capacity to many of the lower races of the present time, or more closely linked to the lower animals. The traces which they have left behind tell us nothing as to the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of evolution."^* Professor Owen adds his testimony that the several human skulls that have been found show no characters whatever indicative of an inferior or transitional type; while ultra-Darwinists, like Oscar Schmidt, candidly admit that there is no more possibility of the hard, bony, ox-like skull and powerful brute jaws of any species of existing ape, being transformed into the human head than the human head could be transformed into that of a monkey.^†

What refuge, then, is found in this unfortunate dilemma? The evolutionists offer a twofold reply. First of all they tell us that though the caves of Europe and America have been ransacked in vain for the "missing link," there are still those of Asia and Africa—the cradle of the human race—left to them. And next they answer that it is not incumbent upon them to produce transitional forms, that inasmuch as their theory has, in their opinion, more inherent probability than the theory of special creation, they are warranted in believing it. Very true; there is no limit to a man's rights of belief, but pray do not let us have private beliefs and opinions thrust upon us in the name of science. If the doctrine of Descent is true, we know there must have been transitional forms; and not only have those forms never been found, hut the earliest human remains directly controvert their existence by extorting from the apostles of Darwinism an admission that the size and form of skull exhibits no trace of transition or evolution during a period which, according to Darwinian calculations, extends ages beyond the theological limit, six thousand years.