Every year, the world's most learned people meet in congresses to discuss the causes, spread and cure of rapidly spreading diseases or phenomena; but as experience shows, often with little success. We think, for example, of cholera, smallpox, etc., which have recently been prevalent with no little vigour. It is only strange for our age of "enlightenment" that almost all the assumptions of these "most learned" prove to be useless and contradictory to the facts; indeed, one often encounters the coy confession between the lines: "We don't really know anything for sure." But if one hears such "luminaries of science" lecturing on their pulpits in liberal associations and journals about "prehistory", they know how to develop such a wealth of "science" about the origin of the world and man that one would be tempted to assume that these scholars must have watched the "becoming of things" hidden in the "primeval fog" with opera gurus, but working their way out of the "primeval mud" into their notebooks to record their research, observations, measurements and the like. so precisely do they know everything from the time when there was still nothing. Similar thoughts occurred to me when I read the contents of the speech given by Rector Magnificus Prof. v Vinschgau in the auditorium of the university, where on the one hand the fact of the self-evolution of plants and animals in the present time is proved to be impossible, and on the other hand the assumption is defended that in the dark prehistoric times lower beings had developed from inorganic substances. To present such assumptions to the listener and reader as real gold without proof is at least a dubious imposition. (A professor commented on this speech: he liked it very much, because the rector had proved in the first part that the second part need not be believed).

Darwin claims credit for the discovery of the descent of man from lower animals, from apes. Darwin does not, however, give an explicit explanation of the descent of man, but in his research he comes to the conclusion that all animals can be traced back to 4 or 5 original forms, all plants to just as many, but at the same time expresses the conjecture that a further reduction may be possible and that all animal and plant species that exist now and have ever existed "could descend from a single original form, into which life was first breathed". So even if he says nothing about man, his silence means that he does include him among the animals, and his disciples have clearly stated this. (Man, Bible and Nature.) In order to illuminate Darwin's conceit, some evidence will be presented here so that readers can form a judgement on the "height of German science". The matter should be thought of as the "Kempter N. Nachrichten" showed in an earlier article.

Once upon a time - when there was nothing at all - there was a primordial mist and a primordial ooze. Of course, nobody asked where they both came from. Both the primordial mist and the primordial ooze were very intelligent; they were also very good friends, if only because of their close relationship. The primordial ooze was nothing other than a hard condensed primordial nebula and called the latter his father. The very intelligent primeval mist now wondered whether it could produce a living being in addition to the lifeless primeval mud. He gathered all his strength, condensed himself as much as he could and a living being - the snake, for example - was ready. Due to the great condensation, the newborn daughter had gained more weight than her daddy, so it was impossible for her to remain suspended in the primeval fog; instead, following the law of gravity, she fell down into the primeval mud. However, the sister was very kindly received by her loving brother. A few modifications to her physique soon proved to be very necessary and after they had been happily carried out, the snake, now transformed into a fish, waddled around quite happily in the waters of the primeval mud. However, rolling around in the primordial mud all the time is not that pleasant, and it is understandable that the intelligent fish finally got fed up with this and changed its mind and headed for dry land.

Here he had to make the discovery that a fish could not live on dry land. The fish, however, was intelligent, and an intelligent fish knows how to help itself just as well as an intelligent person. He simply took the "s" out of the middle of his name and put it at the end. Thus the "Fichs" was finished, and it was now easy for him to transform himself into a "fox".

At that time there were only non-existent trees. These scattered their seeds on the firmer primeval mud, where the seed found good soil, began to germinate, sprouted and grew, and so, in addition to the non-existent trees, existing trees also grew, which soon became very large due to the abundance of food, began to blossom and bore fruit. The fox, who was sitting at the foot of one of these trees, looked up and saw the fruit. "They couldn't be bad," he thought to himself; "how about trying to taste them"? The desire was all the greater because meat prices were also very high at the time and the fox was therefore unable to buy what he needed. Nor were there any communal, central or communal-detail market halls selling meat at that time, where he could at least have got stinking meat for a cheap price. What was there to do? The tempting fruit was upstairs, the lecherous fox downstairs. In order to eat, the fruit had to come down to the fox, or the fox had to go up to the fruit. But because the latter did not want to make themselves comfortable with the former, the former had to make themselves comfortable with the latter. But that had its difficulties. The fox could not think of inventing the balloon. So he thought of wings, but they would not have been easy to attach. Climbing up? Yes, that was once a practical idea. Thought, done! But not done as quickly as he thought. He didn't have a gymnastics master at hand and therefore had to rely on his own study and practice. The feet proved to be impractical at the very first attempt and were immediately replaced by hands. This meant that the other limbs had to be brought into line again, and once this was done, the first four-handed man climbed the tree with bold leaps and feasted on its fruit. The food worries had come to an end. Reineke Fox I, or rather Monkey Baboon I, was thus able to devote all his free time to bringing his intelligence to a higher level of perfection. He realised that it was not good to be a monkey all the time, so he shed his tail and hair, decided to give his thumbs the opposite direction to the other fingers for the future, cultivated his blue furrowed face with a red nose and lemon-yellow beard with various toiletries still present in the primordial sludge, tried some singing exercises and began to speak English, German and French fluently, thus becoming an intelligent human being.

Our opponents regard this "science", which could also be called Urnebulistics or Urschlammistics, as the pinnacle of their progress to date. We do not need to refute this learned nonsense, as it has long since been refuted by scholars such as Dr Balzer ("On the Origins of Organisms"), Dr Knauer ("Karl Vogt and his Auditorium") and many others, and has also been rejected by the latest meetings of natural scientists. We are dealing here only with the consequences. If such a doctrine, e.g. Darwin's, Vogt's, Ofen's, were founded on truth, then all barriers of morality would fall and everyone could do as he pleased. The "feelings of pleasure and displeasure", which were put forward in a meeting of natural scientists (1874) as the motive of morality, are not sufficient for ordinary human children to be educated to become morally good people. If we are only potentised apes, then we may live like animals, be foul-mouthed and lewd like apes, steal like cats, rob like wolves, murder like tigers, and all social coexistence would cease. What our opponents call civilisation, science, is tantamount to ethnisation. By the way: de gustibus non est disputandum.