The moral nature which, according to Darwin, is also developed by
natural selection and sexual selection, repudiates the brutal law
to which, if his reasoning is correct, it owes its origin. Can that
doctrine be accepted as scientific when its author admits that we cannot
apply it "without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature"? On
the contrary, civilization is measured by the moral revolt against the
cruel doctrine developed by Darwin.

Darwin rightly decided to suspend his doctrine, even at the risk of
impairing the race. But some of his followers are more hardened. A few
years ago I read a book in which the author defended the use of alcohol
on the ground that it rendered a service to society by killing off the
degenerates. And this argument was advanced by a scientist in the fall
of 1920 at a congress against alcohol.

The language which I have quoted proves that Darwinism is directly
antagonistic to Christianity, which boasts of its eleemosynary
institutions and of the care it bestows on the weak and the helpless.
Darwin, by putting man on a brute basis and ignoring spiritual values,
attacks the very foundations of Christianity.

Those who accept Darwin's views are in the habit of saying that it need
not lessen their reverence for God to believe that the Creator fashioned
a germ of life and endowed it with power to develop into what we see
to-day. It is true that a God who could make man as he is, could have
made him by the long-drawn-out process suggested by Darwin. To do either
would require infinite power, beyond the ability of man to comprehend.
But what is the _natural tendency_ of Darwin's doctrine?