as ever. Many other species of the lower forms of life have remained
unchanged during the ages. If the tendency is to develop into the
higher forms of life, why do we have so many of those lower forms
which have remained stationary? Growth, development, evolution, is
not, by any means, a universal rule.

Evolution is not universally true in any sense of the term. Why are
not fishes _now_ changing into amphibians, amphibians into
reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and monkeys into man? If
growth, development, evolution, were the rule, there would be no lower
order of animals for all have had sufficient time to develop into the
highest orders. Many have remained the same; some have deteriorated.

And now we have a new amendment to the theory of evolution: We are
told that the huge Saurians (reptiles) overworked the development
idea, and became too large and cumbersome, and hence are now
extinct. Prof. Cope says:--"Retrogression in nature is as well
established as evolution." It seems that man also has, contrary to all
former conceptions, reached the limit of his development, if he has
not already gone too far.

Prof. R. S. Lull says, (Readings p. 95) "Man's physical evolution has
virtually ceased, but in so far as any change is being effected, it is
largely retrogressive. Such changes are: Reduction of hair and teeth,
and of hand skill; and dulling of the senses of sight, smell and
hearing upon which active creatures depend so largely for safety.
That sort of charity which fosters the physically, mentally and
morally feeble, and is thus contrary to the law of natural selection,
must also, in the long run, have an adverse effect upon the race." Too
bad that Christian charity takes care of the feeble, endangering