Hell and the High Schools
Christ or Evolution - Which?
by T.T. Martin, Evangelist  1923
<<  PREV
What Is Being Taught in Our Schools?
NEXT  >>

THE cry is raised, "Why disturb the common people about this? They don't know about Evolution; they cannot understand it." They can't? The Evolutionists do use high-sounding big words apparently to befog the people, and keep them in the dark. Philip Mauro, the New York lawyer, puts it pungently: "The exponents of science and philosophy usually adopt a style and vocabulary which effectually hide their meaning from 'the common people,' and which are well calculated to produce the impression that the subjects they discuss are too mysterious and profound to be understood by any but the few who (like themselves) are gifted with intellects of a superior order and possessed of knowledge unattainable by the ordinary man." Here is a sample: Herbert Spencer tells us what Evolution is:

"Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from a relatively indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a relatively definite coherent heterogeneity and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation."

Take as another example: their word for long-headedness is "dolicocephaly," and their word for round-headedness is "brachycephaly"!

No wonder "the common people" think that they cannot understand the thing!

And yet while the pussy-footing apologists for the Evolutionists are raising such a hue and cry that we who are trying to protect the people cannot understand Evolution, and that the "common people" ought not to be disturbed, that they cannot understand Evolution, the Evolutionists are making it plain to our children, even in the public schools, and are filling their minds with it and damning their souls.

Here are two simple lessons taught the little tots in the Primary Department -- not in the State Universities, mind you -- that is bad enough to poison and damn our young men and women, taking advantage of them at the age when they are romantic and easily take to things that are new and startling and out of the ordinary, at the age when they are skeptical and wish to throw off restraint and not be considered "old fogey," but "up-to-date" -- to take them at that age, and under the cloak of a learned, dignified Professor lie to them (that is strong language, but see if I do not make good in Chapter V) and say that "all scientists now believe in Evolution" -- that is bad enough; but stealthily, like the slimy copperhead moccasin, not like the rattler that at least gives warning of its poison, sting with their deadly, damning poison the little trusting child in the Primary Department. You know the trusting heart of the child in the Primary Department, how.it thinks that what the teacher says is so! and it sinks into the little soul that what is in its books is so! and it goes into its soul. Listen to these two lessons:

From "Home Primary Geography," by Harold W. Fairbanks, Revised Edition, published by the Educational Publishing Company, p. 124:

"Seals and whales are among the most interesting of the ocean animals. They are not fish, for they have to come to the surface to breathe air. What a strange story these animals can tell! Their grandfathers lived upon the land ever so long ago. (There is not one particle of proof of this, simply a wild, hair-brained theory. -- T. T. M.) They had four legs and walked around like other animals (No particle of proof for this. -- T. T. M.). They used to go into the water for food (no particle of proof for this. -- T. T. M.) and at last spent the most of their time there. Their bodies and legs became changed (no particle of proof for this. -- T. T. M.) so that they could swim or paddle through the water. Now they are at home in the water, and very quick and graceful in their movements." Now this is put in the book for the primary department as actual truth and fact, and is taught to the trusting, unsuspecting child. Then the child hears the preacher read, "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, "after their kind," and the thought comes, "the Bible does not tell the truth; for my book in school says that whales were once animals on the land and had four legs and walked around on the land; and my teacher says it, too. The Bible does not tell the truth." Then the child hears the preacher read that Jesus said the Scriptures are true, are the word of God, and it says: "Jesus does not tell the truth; for my book in school says that the Bible does not tell the truth, for it says that whales were once animals on the land and had four legs; and my teacher says it is so." And the faith in the Bible as God's word and in the Saviour as God's Son is gone. It does not dare tell its father and mother so, but its soul is wrecked.

But further, from the same book, p. 143: "If birds could talk, what stories we might hear. We might learn of a time, ever so long ago, when their grandfathers were not birds at all (not one particle of proof for this; simply a wild, hair-brained theory. -- T .T. M.). Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings nor feathers (not one particle of proof for this. -- T. T. M.). These grandfathers of our birds had four legs (not one particle of proof for this. -- T. T. M.) a long tail and jaws with teeth (not one particle of proof for this. -- T. T. M.). After a time feathers grew upon their bodies, and their four legs became changed for flying. These were strange looking creatures. There are none living like them now." The simple, trusting child reads this; the teacher, trained in the State University or State Normal, backs it up and teaches it; the child hears the Pastor read: "And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" (Gen. 1:21), and the child says: "That is not so, because my school book and my teacher say that whales grew from animals with four legs and birds grew from animals with four legs; the Bible does not tell the truth!" Then the child hears the pastor read that the Scriptures are God's word, and the child says: "That's not so, for God's word would tell the truth, and that Bible does not tell the truth about whales and birds; and if Jesus had been God's Son he would not have said that the Bible that does not tell the truth is God's word." And those children go out into Eternity without a real Redeemer. And their fathers and mothers pay the taxes for this teaching and stand by and see their children damned.

The Germans poisoned the wells of Belgium and Northern France, that the children who came to drink might be poisoned and die. They were angels, compared to the men who put such poison as this in the wells and springs from which our children come to drink a little learning.

The Germans filled aeroplanes with poisoned candy and flew over Belgium and Northern France and poured it out that the poor starving Belgian and French children might eat it and die -- they were angels, compared to those who, paid by our taxes, stand as teachers and feed such poison to our children.

A German officer, a physician, was quartered in a French home, the husband being away in the army. The night the little French woman was to become a mother, the German officer agreed to wait upon her as her physician. The next morning as the little French mother, in the gray dawn, came to consciousness with her wee babe lying by her side, she began pouring out her heart's gratitude to the German officer, and said she could never repay him. The heartless German said that he was already repaid; and the little French mother asked how? The German said that he put out the babe's eyes when it was born and that it would never aim a gun at a German. He was an angel compared to these who blind the souls of our children and send them into outer darkness for Eternity while they are being fed from our hands by our taxes, these Christianity sucked soul-murderers. And we stand by in indifference!

From an other school book: "His (man's) structure indicates descent from ancestors of ape-like habits, living in trees and on fruits." -- High School Geography, by Charles R. Dryer, p. 255, published by the American Book Company, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Boston and Atlanta.

At once the High School boys and girls, on seeing that, see that if that is true (and to them, of course, it is true because it is taught in their school book, and the teacher teaches it) the Bible is a lie and Jesus was not Deity at all, or he would not have endorsed the lie as the word of God.

Edward's Sociology, p. 33: "Thus we cannot except even man from the theory of Evolution, and suppose that he was especially created."

"Man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the old world." -- "Descent of Man," Vol. 2, p. 389.

"The early progenitors of man were no doubt well covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were pointed and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail having the proper muscles." -- "Descent of Man," Vol. 1, p. 206.

From "Principles of Botany," by Bergen and Davis. Ginn & Co.:

"In the times of Linnaeus, who lived in the eighteenth century, almost all naturalists believed that the species or kinds of animals and plants had never changed in their characters during their long history on the earth. They believed that new kinds could only arise by special acts of creation. This doctrine of special creation gave way to the present belief in organic evolution." (p. 153.)

"It seems clear that sex arose with the development of a type of zoospore smaller and apparently weaker in its power of vegetative growth than the normal zoosport." (p. 223.)

"The origin of the bryophytes is a mystery. They have, of course, arisen from the algae, but there are no living   algae   that   resemble the bryophytes at all closely."    (p. 302.)

"The pteriodophytes undoubtedly arose from a bryophyte ancestry." (p. 342.)

"We shall never know exactly when and how seed plants arose, for that important event in plant evolution probably took place earlier than the Carboniferous Age. We can, however, form some idea of the chief factors that brought about the seed habit." (p. 389.)

"It is easy to understand why a good many kinds of plants have taken to catching insects and absorbing the digested products. Carnivorous, or flesh-eating, plants belong usually to one of two classes as regards their place of growth; they are either bog plans or air plants. In either case their roots find it difficult to find much nitrogen-containing food -- that is, much food out of which protein material can be built up. Animal food, being itself largely protein, is admirably adapted to nourish the growing parts of plants, and those which could develop insect-catching powers would stand a far better chance to exist as air plants or in the thin, watery soil of bogs than plants which had acquired no such resources." (p. 412.)

Reader, for the top of tom-foolery, commend me to this. Consider: First, that these plants had intelligence to realize that they needed proteins; second, that they had knowledge of the chemical composition of the bodies of insects, that these bodies of insects contained the proteins that they themselves needed (what wonderful chemists away back there in the beginning of time, these bog and air plants were!); third, that they had intelligence to plan schemes for catching insects; fourth, that they had power to invent and construct insect-catching mechanisms; fifth, that they had the omnipotent power of carrying these proteins into their own systems and digesting them, and then of carrying the proteins to the different parts of their bodies. Can't you see, reader, that these men make veritable gods out of these bog and air plants. Yet this is done throughout their book. But the deadly danger of it -- it brands Genesis as a lie and, the Saviour having endorsed Genesis, it brands Him as a liar, and, therefore, not Deity but as the bastard illegitimate son of a fallen woman, and leaves your sons and daughters who believe this book, without any Saviour at all, and, hence the final result of the teaching of this book is simply Hell for your children.

"How Plants Protect Themselves from Animals." (p. 413.)

Notice, reader, first, that these plants have knowledge that they need protection; second, that they have reason to plan protection; third, that they have the ability of God to provide the protection, and this is being taught to your children as "science."

Again: "There are plenty of instances of structures, habits, or accumulations of stored material in their tissue which plants seem to have acquired mainly or entirely as means of defense. Some of the most important are: 1. The habit of keeping a bodyguard of ants. 2. Forming tough, corky, woody, limy, or flinty, and therefore nearly uneatable, tissue. 3. Arming exposed parts with cutting edges, sharp or stinging hairs, prickles or thorns. 4. Accumulating unpleasant or poisonous substances in exposed parts." (pp. 413, 414.)

Reader, will you consider: God did not do these things, for that would mean design in creation, and it is beneath the dignity of these high-brow pseudo-scientists to admit such a thing, and would lead your boys and girls to believing in God and in the Bible, and in Jesus Christ as a Saviour, and would leave these hell-agents out of a job, and prevent them being looked upon as learned, and as being above the common herd who believe in a Creator and a real hell and a Redeemer. Get it: these plants "protect themselves from animals." God didn't design it, God didn't do it; that these things, these plants "have acquired mainly or entirely as means of defense." Consider these things: First, keeping a bodyguard of ants. There are plants, such as a species of Acacia which have thorns in which ants live, and these plants have little growths at the ends of the leaflets which the ants use as food. Now these pseudo-scientists say that these plants, to protect themselves from being eaten by animals, planned to grow these thorns, to have ants live in them, and to grow these tender growths for the food of the ants, in order to keep the ants as a bodyguard, and this is rammed down the throats of your children, in the name of Science, and you pay the taxes to have it done. Consider, -- first, these plants have intelligence, and feeling, and dread to be eaten by animals; second -- they have knowledge, that ants will make a bodyguard; third -- they have knowledge of the fact that an animal chewing ants would get a bad stinging taste in their mouths, and yet these little plants have never chewed an ant or eaten one; fourth -- they have knowledge of the fact that the ant can sting and inject a poison, and yet they have never been stung nor poisoned by an ant; fifth -- they have knowledge of what kind of little growths would be suitable as food for ants; sixth -- they had the intelligence to know how to grow out these little growths for the ants (what chemists they were!) ; seventh -- they had the omnipotence to grow these new growths, and to grow these thorns, in which the ants should make their home. Can't you see, reader, that these pseudo-scientists simply have a multitude of little gods, hence are really polytheists and, inevitably, will lead your children in the same direction, and to reject Jesus Christ as a Saviour, and hence to spend eternity in hell ? And yet, these pseudo-scientists can not believe in a real God with real design and in the Bible and in Jesus Christ as a Saviour!

Second -- "Forming tough, corky, limy, or flinty therefore nearly uneatable tissue," that such plants as the horsetail, to prevent being eaten by animals, planned to grow an outer coating composed of deposits of silica and other uneatable substances, to protect themselves; that such plants as the tough rushes, chaparral, etc., planned to grow their coating to protect themselves from being eaten by animals!

Third -- "Arming exposed parts with cutting edges, sharp or stinging hairs, prickles or thorns." Get it, reader, that these once tender plants had intelligence and feeling and dreaded to be eaten and so, "have acquired" to "protect themselves from animals cutting edges, sharp or stinging hairs, prickles or thorns," such as the barberry, night shade, locust, nettle, etc. Why didn't the oaks, and timothy, and clover and bluegrass have that much sense, and ability to grow thorns and stinging hairs and saw-edges, and barbed margins to protect themselves? Consider, reader: these once tender, delicate plants had feelings and intelligence; they dreaded to be eaten; they had intelligence to know that animals had feelings, that they could suffer, that a thorn, or stinging hair, could produce the suffering; they had the omnipotent power, to plan and grow these thorns and stinging hairs; they had the omnipotent power and the chemical knowledge, to put into some of these stinging hairs a poison. What wonderful intelligence! What wonderful design! What wonderful ability! And yet your sons and daughters are taught this in the name of science, rather than to allow them to believe in a God of design, who has laws, who will punish the violation of those laws in hell; and yet, who, in pure love and mercy has provided a Redeemer in the person of His own Son, who died for our sins. And yet you, reader, pay the taxes, to thus have your own children sent to hell. Yet this book, and others like it, are taught in Baptist, Catholic, Congregational, Disciple, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and other religious colleges, with the tacit endorsement of their Presidents and Boards of Trustees. And if anyone dare protest the only answer they have is "They burned Servetus at the stake"!! And then the denominational cat-o-nine-tails is laid on the quivering back of the one who dares protest, while our sons and daughters are being sent to hell in the name of religion by these pseudo-scientists.

Fourth -- "Accumulating unpleasant or poisonous substances in exposed parts." Understand, reader, tender plants, with feelings and intelligence, dreading to be eaten by animals, "have acquired" to "protect themselves from animals, unpleasant or poisonous substances in exposed parts." Bergen and Davis' own illustrations are the dog fennel, the hound's tongue, the jimson weed (they certainly did a good job there), the tomato plant, the poisonous hemlock, red peppers, horse radish, etc.  Consider, patient reader, that these tender plants had feelings, had intelligence, had design, had wonderful chemical knowledge, had power and ability to carry those designs into execution.    What splendid smelling ability they had! They knew that animals did not like certain smells; they knew how the dog fennel would smell, and that animals would not like it; they knew how the jimson weed would smell; they knew how red pepper would taste to an animal; they knew how horseradish would taste to an animal; they knew the marvellous chemical combination to produce the dog fennel smell; they knew the marvellous chemical combination to produce the jimson weed smell; they knew the marvellous and varied chemical combinations to produce the worm-wood taste, the red pepper taste, the horse-radish taste, and, mirabile dictu! they had the ability to produce all these chemical combinations and to grow them!   And yet, these intellectual high-brows, these pseudo-scientists, can not believe in a real God of design, that He has laws, that the violation of those laws will be punished, and that in love and mercy and righteously, He has provided a real Redeemer, to protect and save those who have violated those laws.   And these public school teachers who teach this, and these denominational colleges who teach it, with their presidents and Boards of Trustees, pretend that they haven't sense enough to see that this teaching absolutely contradicts the teaching of Genesis, and that, the Saviour having endorsed Genesis, it makes Him no longer Deity, but the bastard, illegitimate son of a fallen woman, and therefore no Redeemer at all, but leaves our sons and daughters to go to hell.

"Many insects depend mainly or wholly upon the nectar and the pollen of flowers for their food.   Such insects usually visit during any given trip only one kind of flower, and therefore carry but one kind of pollen. Going straight from one flower to another with this, they evidently waste far less pollen than the wind and water must waste.   It is therefore clearly advantageous to flowers to develop such adaptations as fit them to attract insect visitors, and to give pollen to the latter and receive it from them." (p 422.)   Were this given as God's design, how wonderful!, how sublime!  But no, reader, the flower without eyes or ears, knows that these insects on any given trip go only to one kind of flower; they know that  these  insects  take pollen from one flower and give it to another flower; they know what kind of color, what kind of smell or odor will attract these insect visitors, they have the chemical knowledge and omnipotent ability to make such chemical combinations as "to develop such adaptations!"  Can't you see that these books being taught to our boys and girls in the high schools, written by polytheistic-pantheists and taught by teachers who are paid by our taxes and tacitly endorsed by the presidents and boards of trustees of some of our religious colleges, simply make gods out of flowers, dethrone the God of creation, make Genesis a book of lies, and the Saviour who endorsed it the bastard, illegitimate son of a fallen woman, leaves the world in sin without a Redeemer, and our boys and girls to die in their sins and go to hell?

"Regular flowers with radical symmetry usually have no special adaptations to make them singly accessible to insects, but lie open to all comers. They do, however, Make themselves much more attractive and afford especial inducements in the matter of saving time to flower-frequenting insects by being grouped. This purpose is undoubtedly served by dense flower clusters." (p 425.) (Italics mine. -- T. T. M.)

Will you notice, reader, that the teaching here is that the flowers "make themselves much more attractive;" that they "afford especial inducements in the matter of saving time to flower-frequenting insects by being grouped?" Do you notice that this "purpose" of the flowers is "undoubtedly served by dense flower clusters?" Consider -- These flowers have intelligence; they know that insects admire attractive flowers; they are as scheming as twentieth century flapper girls -- they "make themselves much more attractive;" they are even superior to the flapper girl, for the flowers succeed, and the twentieth century flapper girl makes a dismal failure; they know how to make themselves attractive, and they have omnipotent ability to make such chemical combinations as will produce this attrac­tiveness ; they have all the far-sightedness and schem­ing of the head of a great twentieth century corporation ; for they see that by "being grouped" into "dense flower clusters" they "afford especial inducements in the matter of saving time to flower-frequenting insects!"  And they have the design and the ability to carry this plan all into effect!   Reader, this is not a nursery tale; this is palmed off on your sons and daughters as real science,  and you pay your  hard-earned money in taxes or to your religious schools to have this taught to your boys and girls and damn their souls! For it does away with a God of design and makes gods out of flowers, and brands the Saviour who endorsed Genesis, as, not God's Son, but the bastard, illegitimate son of a fallen woman, and leaves the world without a real Redeemer -- then only hell is left.

"The practice of shedding the leaves before the arrival of severe freezing weather, when it becomes almost impossible to draw moisture from the earth, or before the culmination of the severest drought of summer, may be regarded as a habit gradually acquired by decidous trees and shrubs for their own protection." (pp 467, 468.)

Reader, these pseudo-scientists et id omne genus, and their willing tools, or dupes, in the form of your public school teachers and some professors in religious schools, who are backed by your boards of trustees, cannot believe in a God of design, and laugh at the argument from: design, as being out of date, a back-number, and yet they give to these trees the intelligence and the omniscience of almighty God; and yet you tax payers, who could have every one of these books removed from the schools as well as every one of your public school teachers who are aping these authors and trying to ap­pear learned, who are joining hands with these men, these pseudo-scientists, to throw your Bibles on the scrap-heap, and do away with the Saviour as the Redeemer of your children, drift on in careless indifference while your children are being robbed of their Saviour and sent to hell, or bow as abject slaves before these high-brows who live off of your money and then damn your children's souls; and you Baptists, Congregationalists, Disciples, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and others, cringe like slaves before your denominational cat-o-nine-tails and don't dare protest lest you be scourged to bleeding by some of your denominational leaders, and, like dumb-driven cattle, go on producing the means to support these professors who are thus damning and dooming your children. In the name of God, where is your Christian manhood ? Where is the spirit of those who came over in the Mayflower? Where is the Spirit of 1776? The rule of England over the colonies was child's play, compared to this God-dishonoring, God-defying, Christ-dethroning, Saviour-destroying, soul-dooming curse of Evolution that now has us by the throat. "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him, but if Baal, then follow him." "Where is the Lord God of Elijah?"

Be it said to the credit of the Catholics that they are at least making some fight against this terrible curse of infidelity under the guise of Evolution, that, with all the slickness of the slimy serpent, has crept into our public schools and is nestling in the bosom of our denominational colleges.

To all this, reader, they do not dare try honestly to reply. They have just two replies:  First -- "They burned Servetus at the stake!"  Second -- They will play the sissy and say we believe in Theistic Evolution. There isn't a Theistic Evolutionist on this earth that can reconcile his Theistic Evolution with the ten-times-repeated statement in Genesis that "Everything brought forth after his kind," nor can they reconcile these  statements with  the Saviour's  endorsing Genesis as the  Word of God, nor can they reconcile the Saviour's endorsing these statements  as endorsing Genesis as the Word of God, nor can they reconcile the Saviour's endorsing these statements as the Word of God with His Deity.   If they can, why don't they do it?  To drill into our young people in public schools and colleges that Evolution is true, means, inevitably, for those who think honestly, to give up the Bible as really God's Word and Jesus Christ as being Deity, and to leave our young people, therefore, without a Redeemer, and to spend Eternity in hell.

The difference between Atheistic Evolution and THEISTIC Evolution is simply that Atheistic Evolution teaches that the first protoplasm came into existence by chemical combinations; and Theistic Evolution teaches that God created the first amoeba and put within that first amoeba all the abilities, the potentialities, to evolve from one species to another up to man, or that God having created the first amoeba constantly worked through Evolution to evolve from that amoeba all species up to man. One is just as much Bible-denying, Christ-dethroning, and soul-destroying as the other. Scratch under he skin and you will find that the Theistic Evolutionists no more believes in the Bible's hell than the Atheistic Evolutionist, and, could the reader look in on every one of them as he reads this book, he would see a suppressed sneer at every reference to Evolution in our schools as sending our boys and girls to hell; and yet, not one of them will come out in the open and even attempt to reconcile his Theistic Evolution with Genesis, saying that everything brought forth after his kind, and with our Saviour endorsing Genesis as the Word of God, and with the Deity of our Saviour. An Irishman came over to this country and got stung by a yellow-jacket. Some days afterwards a hornet came flying around Pat and old Pat said, "And now, faith, you go on away from here. You've changed your coat, but I know your voice." There is as deadly a sting for the human soul in Theistic Evolution as was ever in Atheistic Evolution.

When this great issue is on that goes to the bottom of the question of the eternal destiny of human souls, hell is almost too good for the whining hypocrite in pulpit or school room who will talk about Evolution and make it mean simply the development of the embryo into the full grown species, as the development of the full grown stalk of corn from the grain, through the blade up to the full grown ear and stalk, or as the development of the egg into the chicken, or who will talk of the improvement of the species as Evolution. If that is Evolution, why all this parading of Evolutionists as being learned? Every old farmer believes in the development of a stalk of corn from a grain of corn, of the development of the egg into the full grown chicken; every one of them believes in the improvement of the species. No, reader, that is not Evolution, AND THE LAST ONE OF THEM KNOWS IT, and they stoop to this miserable, hypocritical camouflaging in order to save their faces and continue to be supported by our taxes, or the hard-earned money of Christian people in our religious colleges; or others stoop to this miserable, hypocritical camouflaging, in order to protect these pseudo-scientists from the wrath of the people and help keep them in their positions

Here are further samples:

"For example, in the course of ages it became conventional for civilized people to wear clothes which on most occasions cover most of the body." . . . Blackmar and Gillin, Outlines of Sociology, p 229, quoted in Principles of Sociology With Educational Applications. by Frederick Clow, p 136.

"Man began his career as a brute; he may end it as a moron." Principles of Sociology With Educational Applications. (Clow, p 296.)

"It was so, even when our anthropoid ancestors rose to the erect position; that was 'progress' and it gained us the use of hands. But it lost us our tails, and much else that is more regrettable than we are always able to realize." Ellis, Task of Social Hygiene, pp 7, 8, quoted in Clow's Principles of Sociology With Educational Applications, p 396.

"Instincts are built up by evolution in the race and transmitted to the individual by inheritance." .... (Human Psychology, by Howard C. Warren, p 27.)

"While the presence of consciousness in sub-human animals is not demonstrated, the evidence indicates that the mental life of man is merely a higher or more complex form of the same sort of phenomena which appear in lower species. The evolution process is gradual, and starts at least with the protozoa." (Hu­man Psychology, by Howard C. Warren, p 218.)

"Moreover, there are forces in the environment for the reception of which no special organ has evolved." (Human Psychology, Warren, p 218.)

"The emotions, more than any other kind of mental states, represent by-gone conditions of life. Many of them may be regarded as fossil remains of our pre­human ancestors." (Human Psychology. Warren, p 300.)

Evolution makes a god out of nature; hence it is really "scholastic paganism." Notice: Prof. S. C. Schmucker, Ph. D., Professor of Biological Sciences in the West Chester State Normal School, West Chester, Pa., in "The Meaning of Evolution" (pp. 104, 105) : "Accordingly nature has concocted many devices by which she assists her favored children in escaping this relentless persecution." Notice, reader, not that God has designed these plans for protection for His creatures, but "Nature has concocted many devices by which she assists her favored children." "Nature" has intelligence; "Nature" knows "her favored children are persecuted"; "Nature" has feeling for her persecuted children and desires to protect them; "Nature" has wisdom to know what devices will protect; "Nature" has power, ability to concoct "many devices." This is making a Deity out of Nature. And this professor trains teachers to go out and teach our children and with Evolution destroy their faith in the Bible as God's word, in the Saviour as real Deity and in Him as real Redeemer.

Again, from the same author, pp. 116, 117: "Nature is very versatile. So many of her apparently chance ventures have proved successful that she has retained many devices by which her children may be safe." Here again "nature" has intelligence, and has "retained many devices" "by which her children may be safe," and makes "ventures"; but she hasn't as much sense as before, for many of her "ventures" are "apparently chance ventures" -- she doesn't know just the thing that ought to be done!

Again, same author, p. 120: "Under conditions like these nature is more than commonly careful of her children." "Nature" again has intelligence and has concern," more than commonly careful," for her children.

Again, same author, p. 124: "These are only a few of the numberless devices Nature has evolved for fostering the success of her children." Here again the Evolutionist makes a god out of "nature." "Nature" has intelligence; knows the need of "numberless devices"; has wisdom and ability to plan and to execute these "devices" and "numberless" ones, a God-work; knows what "success" of her children is and desires it and plans for it.

Again, same author, p. 126: "Nature is full of devices by which those who have proved their original endowment by winning out in the struggle shall hand on this endowment to a subsequent generation. In other words, Nature is anxious that they may successfully mate."

Notice, reader, "Nature is full of devices"; yet this Evolutionist cannot believe in a God of design -- no, no, that would be "orthodox," "old-fashioned," not "up-to-date," not "scientific"; "Nature is anxious" -- has plans, desires, yearnings, has intelligence, then -- "that they may successfully mate." Well, God said, "Be fruitful and multiply." But that is not "scientific"; that is not "up-to-date"; that is "old traditions." Evolution says that "Nature is anxious that they may successfully mate." They make a god out of "nature" and that is -- heathenism! And this and other Evolutionists thus train the teachers in the Normal Schools to go out and teach this to your boys and girls and destroy their faith in the Bible as God's word and the Saviour as Redeemer and wreck their souls and send them to hell, and your taxes pay for it to be done.

That is Evolution.  Now listen:

Pres. W. H. P. Faunce of Brown University: "Probably every teacher of physical science in every college and high school in the Northern States agrees with this declaration of the American Association for the Advancement of Science -- undeviating belief in Evolution as the method by which the world as we know it acquired its present form. Every boy or girl attending High School north of Mason and Dixon's line is now being taught some form of the doctrine of Evolution."

The Editor of the Baptist Standard of Texas, who quotes Pres. Faunce, adds: "Unwittingly Pres. Faunce pays a high compliment to the South. Let this statement, whether or not he has been misinformed, be a warning to our people in the South. Let us keep this heresy out of our schools."

Prof. E. G. Conklin of Princeton University, in "The Direction of Human Evolution," p. 14:

"His actual origin goes back, not to Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, 6,000 years ago, but to more primitive races of men, and then to pre-human ancestors, and in the end to the earliest forms of life upon the earth. Between us and these earliest forms there has been an unbroken line of descent."

H. G. Wells' "Outline of History" speaks on p. 57 of an animal "half ape and half monkey" and says, "It was our ancestor." On pp 68 and 69 he tells of "the walking ape-man" and says "our ancestor was a beast of like kind."

As samples, Evolution is taught in "Elements of Geology" by W. H. Norton on pp. 407, 408, 410, 412, 414 and 443. "Essentials to Biology," by Geo. W. Hunter, teaches Evolution on pp. 83, 145, 310, 312, 315, 316, 319 and 329. "The First of Science," by J. C. Hessler, teaches Evolution on pp. 329, 333 and 334. "Introduction to Physical Geography" by Gilbert and Brigham teaches Evolution on pp. 345 and 346.

"The New Student's Reference Work," edited by Beach & McCurry -- "The doctrine of Evolution is regarded as established beyond controversy."  "The general theory of Evolution had a long conflict with religious and philosophical dogma, over which it finally triumphed."

When Mr. Bryan published it broadcast that "with something like a million species of life they have not yet been able to prove that a single species came from another," every Evolutionist on earth stands dumb before the challenge; for, though, according to their wild theory, there have been billions of generations as the lower species slowly evolved into a higher species, in all the fossils of the world not one proven transitional fossil has been found. And they call that science! Oh, Science! what vagaries and rottenness have been palmed off on an unsuspecting world in thy name!

But as Mr. Bryan puts it, "When a College Professor winds his intellectual tail around a limb of Darwin's family tree (and swings head downward) he naturally looks down with contempt upon ordinary people who walk on the ground and were made in the image of God. But while this gives amusement to the 'tree man,' it does not disturb the people, except when such men take charge of the educational system of the country and undermine the faith of those entrusted to their care."

<<  PREV
NEXT  >>