Christ or Evolution - Which?
Evolution Is Not Science
Let some facts be kept in mind:
FIRST. This is not a fight between Evolutionists and the preachers. Alas! some preachers, on this terrible issue, have sold themselves to the devil for the sake of popularity, for the sake of being considered "learned" and "up-to-date." Even if it were a battle between the preachers and evolutionists, that would not change the seriousness of the issue. In 1800 there were eighty teachings of science, falsely so-called, that contradicted the Bible, and everyone of them have been proved false and given up. Yet when the terrible teachings of Evolution are exposed, some so-called scientists and college presidents and professors, instead of standing up like men and facing the issue, try to arouse prejudice by trying to make it a fight of the churches against science, and they cry that they are being persecuted, and turn sissy and whine, "They burned Servetus at the stake," "they made Galileo recant!"
But Hon. W. E. Gladstone, England's greatest statesman, was in this fight; so is Sir. Robert Anderson of England; so is our great American statesman, William Jennings Bryan; so are the New York lawyers, Philip Mauro, author of "Evolution at the Bar," and Alfred W. McCann, LL. D., author of "God or Gorilla"; and many of the world's greatest scientists have opposed and fought it, as will be shown in the next chapter.
Second. It is not a fight against science. Where is the church or the preacher who fights against real science? Where is the church or the preacher who fights against the science of astronomy?, or the sciences of chemistry, physics, physiology, electricity? The Bible and real science never conflict, for God is the God of both. It can be easily shown that the Bible is in advance of science. In my young manhood I taught science in one of our colleges and I have studied it closely for thirty-five years.
Third. The issue is, shall an unproven theory, that is not science at all, that was repudiated by England, that was taken up by Germany who was damned by it, and has been repudiated by her leading scientists, and which has now been taken up by a lot of half-baked scientists in America who are college presidents and professors, which destroys faith in God's word and robs the people, the boys and girls in our public schools and the young men and women in our State Universities and State Normals of a real Saviour and real Redeemer, be taught in our schools that are supported by the taxes of the people, simply because they call it "science," when it is not real science ?
Evolution is not science. Face the facts: Science is knowledge, classified knowledge.
"Science is not speculation, but knowledge; not half truths, but whole truths; not hypotheses which may explain the phenomena of nature, but principles which do explain them and at the same time are verified by them. . . . The opinions of a scientific man, however plausible, nay, however probable, are not science, not even though they prevail so generally as to make dissent from them seem a mark of an illiberal and narrow mind. There have been many such opinions thus dominant at former periods, but now obsolete and even objects of ridicule."—Professor Andrew P. Peabody, LL. D., Harvard University, "Christianity and Science," p. 3.
A great scientist lays down the principle: "Directly a fact refuses to be pigeon-holed, and will not be explained on theoretical grounds, the theory must go, or it must be revised to admit the new fact."—Sir William Crooks, "Living Age," Vol. 238, p. 318.
Let us see if Evolution is real science.
Charles W. Elliott, President Emeritus of Harvard University, recently was asked: "Is Cope's statement that Evolution is the science of creation correct?" and he answered: "Evolution does not seem to me to be a science of creation or of anything else. It is merely a hypothesis." (A guess.—T. T. M.) Again he was asked: "Is not Evolution a universal process, beginning in the organic world and flowing as a continuous stream through the ages, including all material and psychological changes that have taken place or will take place in the future?" He replied: "Evolution is a hypothesis (a guess—T. T. M.) and not a science at all." Again he was asked: "Is Evolution to be regarded as a science or only as a theory?" He replied:, "Evolution is only a theory."
President Hadley of Yale University was asked: "Is Evolution a universal process beginning in the inorganic world and flowing as a continuous stream stream through the ages?" He replied, "It is possible that it may be, but it has not been proved, and the proof is very difficult. It is not a universal science because it is no science at all."
"The flimsy evidence upon which Darwinites build their fate, would not be sufficient to convict a person of petty larceny in any court in the civilized world."— William Jennings Bryan.
Mr. Darwin said: "There are two or three million of species on earth—sufficient field, one might think for observation. But it must be said today that in spite of all the efforts of trained observers, not one change of a species into another is on record."—Life and Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.
Since then for over fifty years the Evolutionists have called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon saying, "0 Baal, hear us! But there was no voice nor any that answered." They have compassed sea and land, the dead, among the fossils of the world, and the living, and not one single case of a change of one species into another. And then they have the face to come out and say that Evolution is "Science!"
"Nothing has been positively proved as to the question at issue. From its very nature, Evolution is beyond proof.... The difficulties offered to an unhesitating acceptance of Evolution are very great, and HAVE NOT GROWN LESS SINCE THE appearance of Darwin's 'Origin of Species', but have in some respects grown greater."—Prof. W. H. Conn in "Evolution of Today" pp 107-203.
"All these theories have not passed beyond the rank of hypothesis."—Dr. Rudolph Schmidt in "Theories of Darwin," p 61.
"We cannot think the theory yet converted into a scientific fact, and those are perhaps the worst foes to its success who are over-hasty to take it and use it as a proved fact."—Prof. Whitney of Yale University, in "Oriental and Linguistic Studies," pp 293-4.
"Those who hold the doctrine of Evolution are by no means ignorant of the uncertainty of their data, and they only yield to it a provisional assent."—Prof. Tyndall in "Fragments of Science," p 162.
"The great stubborn fact which every form of the theory encounters at the very outset is, that notwithstanding variations, we are ignorant of a single instance (italics mine—T. T. M.) of the derivation of one good species from another."—Prof. Winchell, in "The Doctrine of Evolution," p 54.
Professor Vernon Kellogg of Leland Stanford University in "Darwinism Today," p 18: "Speaking by and large we only tell the general truth when we declare that no indubitable cases of species-forming or transforming, that is, of descent, have been observed, and that no recognized cases of natural selection really selecting have been observed."
"It is true enough that naturalists have been unable to find a single unquestioned instance of a new species.... It will be admitted at the outset on all sides, that no unquestioned instance has been observed of one species being derived from another."—Prof. Conn, in "Evolution of Today," p 23.
"After much consideration, and with assuredly no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear conviction that as the evidence now stands it is not absolutely proved that a group of animals, having all the characteristics exhibited by species in Nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether natural or artificial." —Prof. Huxley, "Lay Sermons," p 295. And yet they call it "Science!"
Professor Huxley again: "In the present condition of our knowledge and our methods one verdict, 'not proven and not provable' must be recorded against all grand hypothesis of the paleontologist respecting the general succession of life on the globe."
"Evolution also tells us how legs originated. The earliest animals were without legs. Some animal in this legless state found on his body some slight excrescences or warts, which aided materially its progress as it wiggled along, and thus it acquired the habit of using these warts. This habit it transmitted to its posterity and they increased the habit until the excrescences, lengthened and strengthened by use, became legs of a rudimentary kind, which by further use developed a system of bones and muscles and nerves and joints such as we have ourselves. (But it is now demonstrated that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited and Herbert Spencer admitted "either there has been inheritance of acquired characteristics or there has been no evolution."—T. T. M.)
"Eyes originated from some animal having pigment spots or freckles on the sides of its head, which, turned to the sun, agreeably affected the animal so that it acquired the habit of turning that side of its head to the sun, and its posterity inherited the same habit and passed it on to still other generations. The pigment spot acquired sensitiveness by use and in time a nerve developed which was the beginning of the eye. From this incipient eye came the present wonderful combination of lenses, nerves and muscles, all so accurately adjusted that, of the sixteen possible adjustments of each part, only once in a hundred thousand times would they come together, as they now are, by chance.
"Land animals began thus, according to Evolution : In a time of drought some water animals, stranded by the receding waters, were obliged thenceforth to adopt land manners and methods of living. Although, strangely, the whale by the same cause was forced to the water, for it was once a land animal, but in a season of drought was obliged to seek the water's edge for the scant remaining herbage, and, finding the water agreeable, remained there and its posterity also, and finally, the teeth and legs, no longer needed, became decadent and abortive as we see them now. Darwin inferred the history of the whale's marine career from seeing a bear swimming in a pool and catching insects with his wide-open mouth as it so skimmed the water's surface.
("In North America, the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely-open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by Natural Selection more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."—Darwin in Origin of Species, First Edition, p 214.)
"The same drought produced another and wonderful change, for it is to this that the giraffe owes his long legs and neck. The herbage on the lower branches withering up, he was obliged to stretch his neck and legs to reach the higher up branches. (Evolutionists say the elephant, to reach the ground for food and water, stretched his nose till it became his proboscis. Why did not the giraffe stretch his nose like the elephant instead of his neck and forelegs?—T. T. M.) This increased, as all such changes increased, in his posterity, and finally after many generations produced the present immense reaching powers of the giraffe. (But it has been proven that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited and "either there has been inheritance of acquired characteristics or there has been no evolution. Herbert Spencer. And they call that "Science!" And yet, that is the best they can do to get rid of the Bible as God's word, the Saviour as Redeemer, and get rid of Hell and doom our children.—T. T. M.) So that the same drought deprived the whale of its legs and Conferred them upon the giraffe."—The Other Side of Evolution, pp 32-34.
And they call that "Science!!" And they force us to pay taxes to have this taught to our children and thus lead them to give up the Bible as God's word and to give up the Saviour as our Redeemer, and we submit to it like dumb-driven cattle.
"We cannot prove that a single species has changed."—Darwin's son in the Biography of his father.
"That the claim that the hypothesis of descent is secured scientifically must most certainly be denied."— Professor Zoeckler, University of Greifswald.
"A survey of the field shows that Darwinianism in its old form is becoming a matter of history, and that we are actually witnessing its death-struggle."—Dr. E. Dennert.
Even from Chicago University there comes a voice: "(1) It is generally believed that acquired characteristics are not inherited. (That is the death knell of one species evolving into another—it is absolutely impossible for one species to evolve into another if there is no inheriting acquired characteristics.—T. T. M.) (2) The slight variations used by the theory of natural selection cannot be continued by continuous selection beyond the boundary of the species (That kills Evolution again.—T. T. M.) (3) Forms preserved by artificial selection revert. (4) The selection among such slight variations is one that can have no decided advantage." (Where is any ground for Evolution left? —T. T. M.)—Professor Coulter, University of Chicago.
"Either there has been an inheritance of acquired characteristics or there has been no evolution."—Herbert Spencer.
"It is evident that if a species forms a variety that becomes a new species, certain things must occur during the process: First, that a favorable variation should occur in nature; second, that the individual possessing the variation should be separated from the other individuals of the species to prevent merging by mingling with forms that do not possess the variation; third, that a number of the individuals possessing the variation should get together in order that the variation might be propagated; fourth, be cross-sterile with the parent forms, but be fertile with each other. I need not remark that these difficulties have not been overcome by means of very slight changes through many generations."—Alfred Fairhurst, A. M., D. Sci., in "Theistic Evolution," p 91. That alone is enough to hill Evolution with any clear thinking man.
Here is another crushing witness against Evolution : Collapse of Evolution, p 1: "If species do not acquire new faculties, it is absolutely impossible to evolve one species from another. If acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, which is now admitted by the leading Evolutionists, it is absolutely impossible to evolve one species from another."
Why don't the Evolutionists answer Sir William Dawson's question—"When we find abundance of examples of the young and old, of many fossil species, and can trace them through their ordinary embryonic development, why should we not find examples of the links which bound species together?"—Modern Ideas of Evolution, p 35. Not one has been found, though there should be multiplied millions of them if Evolution is true.
"Nothing is more evident in the history of fossil animals and plants of past geological ages than that persistence or degeneracy is the rule rather than the exception ***** We may almost say that all things left to themselves tend to degenerate."—Modern Ideas of Evolution, Appendix.
Dr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of natural sciences in the University of Erlanger: "Nowhere in the older deposits is an ape that approximates more closely toman, or man that approximates more closely to an ape, or perhaps a man at all. The same gulf which is found today between man and the ape goes back with undiminished breadth and depth to the tertiary period. This fact alone is sufficient to make its unintelligibleness clear to every one who is not penetrated by the conviction of the infallibility of the theory of the gradual transmutation of, and progressive development of, all organized creatures. If, however, we now find one of the most man-like apes (gibbon) in the tertiary period and this species is still in the same low grade, and side by side with it, at the end of the ice period, man is found in the same high grade as today, the ape not having approximated more nearly to man, and modern man not having become further removed from the ape than the first man, every one who is in a position to draw a right conclusion can infer that the facts contradict a theory of constant progression, development and ceaseless, increasing variation from generation to generation, as surely as it is possible to do."—Age and Origin of Man, p 52.
Prof. Joseph Le Conte, of the University of California, says: "The evidence of geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly, and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the term of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their places apparently by substitution not by transmutation."
"Most living forms of plants and animals are also found as fossils; but there is no possible way of telling that one kind of life lived and occupied the world before others, or that one kind of life is intrinsically older than any other or than the human race."—Q. E. D. by Professor G. M. Price, p 125.
"It is, however, now universally admitted that in nature the chronological succession of rocks, as determined by fossil remains, is local and not universal."— Prof. H. Alleyne Nicholson, "Manual of Paleontology" General Introduction, pp 47, 52, Third Edition.
Notice, "the chronological succession of rocks,"— "the ages of the different strata," is "determined by fossil remains" and yet they determine the succession of the fossil remains by the ages of the different strata of the rocks!—Simply arguing in a circle—and they call that Science!
"No one kind of fossil can be proved to be really older than another, or than the human race."—Professor George McCready Price, Fundamentals of Geology, p 39. And they call that science!
"As there is often no perceptible mineral distinction between many clays, sands, and gravels, it is only by their imbedded fossils that geologists can determine the tertiary or Post-tertiary Character."—David Page, Intro. Text book, p 189. And yet Evolutionists depend on the different ages of these rocks to decide which fossil is the oldest. And they call that science!
"The life succession theory has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of Nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination and an imagination ignorant of a thousand facts, which are now matters of common knowledge.'' —Professor George McCready Price, in Fundamentals of Geology, p 144.
The Canadian geologist, Sir William Dawson: "The records of the rocks is decidedly against Evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under separate specific types, and without apparent predecessors ..... So we shall find in the progress of organic being, that every grade of life was in its highest and best estate when first introduced, and before it was made subordinate to some higher type. This is, in short, one of the great general laws of creation suggested in Genesis and worked out in detail by geology. ***** No case is certainly known in human experience where any species of animal or plant has been so changed as to assume all the characteristics of a new species. ***** In tracing back animals and groups of animals in geologic times, we find that they always end without any link of connection with previous being, and under circumstances which render any connection highly improbable. ***** The introduction of animal types must have been abrupt and by some influence quite different from that of evolution. ***** Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another; the drift of its testimony is to show that species come per saltum (by a leap). ***** Nothing is known about the origin of man except what we are told in Scripture—that God created him with a rational and moral nature, of which there is no trace in the animal kingdom."
In a book entitled "No Struggle for Existence; No Natural Selection," by Dr. Geo. Paulin, a scientist and writer of recognized ability: "It has been the habit of Darwinians to speak confidently of the unbroken chains of life from Paleozoic forms up to the appearance of man. But in truth there is no such chain. The geological record reveals today many times the number of finished forms which it contained when Darwin wrote, yet it still remains a tabula rasa in regard to intermediate forms. Nothing intervenes between the Molluscs and Crustaceans to help us to understand whence and how the first fish forms were evolved. Nothing between the fishes and the first bird forms and the first mammals to indicate how they were built up."
Species of great organic beings, plants and animals, appear suddenly in fossils, with no graded antecedents behind them, but great chasms. All of them have the next lower species after them in line, or with them, never after them. Evolution cannot explain this.
Hence Professor Sedgewick one of England's most eminent geologists said: "Geology—not seen through the mists of any theory, but taken as a plain succession of monuments and facts—offers one firm cumulative argument against the hypothesis of development." (Evolution).
To call it a scientific theory is to slander the word "science." Professor Alfred Fairhurst, A. M. D. Sci., author of "Organic Evolution Considered," "Theistic Evolution," etc.
"No one has stated ascertained facts touching the origin of man more succinctly and more clearly than Dr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of natural science in the University of Erlanger. He shows conclusively that the age of man is comparatively brief, extending only to a few thousand years; that man appeared suddenly; that the most ancient man known to us is not essentially different from the now living man, and that transitions from ape to man, or from man to ape are nowhere to be found. The conclusion he reaches is that the Scriptural account of Man, which is one and self-consistent throughout, is true; that God made Man in His own image, fitted for fellowship with Himself, a state from which Man has indeed fallen, but to which restoration is possible through Him who is the brightness of His Father's glory, and the express image of His person." —Evolution at the Bar, p 57.
"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and, this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."— Darwin in Origin of Species, Murray 1859, p 280.
"I do not pretend that I should have ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory."—Darwin, Origin of Species, p 302.
Isn't that pitiable! Isn't that puerile! Among the millions of fossils of the multiplied thousands of species there is not one of a transitional form, an intermediate, a link, between any two species, and Mr. Darwin's only explanation is "the extreme imperfection of the geological record." To any man whose brains have not gone on a vacation, that is the death-knell of Evolution ; but "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" Mr. Darwin saw the force of this: He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." But as Wainwright puts it: "How wide must a chasm be before it is visible to an Evolutionist?"
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species."—Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p 200. In the face of that admission how can men have the face to call Evolution "science?"
Here is a sample of Evolution: "I can indeed hardly doubt that all vertebrate animals having true lungs have descended by ordinary generation from an ancient prototype of which we know nothing (a pure guess, then.—T. T. M.) furnished with a floating apparatus or service bladder" * * * * * It is conceivable (a pure guess, then.—T. T. M.) that now utterly lost branchiae might have been gradually worked in by natural selection from some quite distinct purpose" ***** It is probable (a pure guess.—T. T. M.) that organs which at a very ancient period served for respiration have been actually converted into organs of flight."
(That is Evolution, to a dot—not facts, for they have not one single case of one species evolving from another. Not one fossil in the millions of fossils in existence has been found of a transitional specimen; but "it is possible," "it is conceivable," "it is probable"—and they call that science!" and that is what they are using to cause our young people to give up the Bible as God's word and the Saviour as real Redeemer and we are paying for it to be done with our taxes.—T. T. M.) —Origin of Species, p. 101. Over 800 times Mr. Darwin uses such expressions, and they call it "science."
"No one can at present say by what line of descent the three higher and related (not a particle of proof that they are related.—T. T. M.) classes, namely, mammals, birds and reptiles, were derived from either of the two lower vertebrate classes, namely amphibians and fishes."—Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p 212. Is that science ? How do you know they descended at all from either?
"Without any doubt a long series of extinct worms were our dead ancestors."—Prof. Haeckel in Anthropogenies, p 399. No wonder we are called "poor worms of the dust!" And yet not one case of actual evolution from one species to another.
Dr. Elam in Contemporary Review, Vol. 29, p 131: "On a general survey of the theory, nothing strikes us more forcibly than the total absence of direct evidence of any one of the steps. No one professes to have ever seen a variety (producing fertile offspring with other varieties) become a species (producing no off-spring or no fertile off-spring, with the original stock.) No one knows of any living or extinct species having given origin to any other, at once or gradually." And that is yet true, and still they call it "science."
"Evolution cannot account for wings, either by Natural Selection or by any other supposed method of working. Many able evolutionists have admitted this (Herbert Spencer among them); yet they cling to Evolution, notwithstanding the impossibility of proposing a method by which it could work. Is it because they cannot bear the alternative of recognizing Creation and the Creator?"—Evolution at the Bar, p 41.
The reason they hold on to Evolution, even when they cannot explain things is, that if wings were not produced by Evolution, it would mean design is proven by their existence; and design would mean a Designer, or God; and that would mean a revelation from God; and that would mean a Saviour, a real Redeemer; which would mean repentance and faith in the Redeemer or hell—and they just can't believe in a hell, you know!
Dr. Robert Watts says: "The record of the rocks knows nothing of the evolution of a higher form from a lower form: ***** Both nature and revelation proclaim it as an inviolable law, that like produces like."
Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, said recently: "If the theory of Evolution be true, then, during the many thousands of years covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there would certainly be known at least a few instances of the evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known."
Prof. Owen declares that "no instance of change of one species into another has ever been recorded by man."
George Ticknor Curtis, in a recent book, "Creation or Evolution," says: "The whole doctrine of the development of distinct species out of other species makes demands upon our credulity which is irreconcilable with those principles by which we regulate, or ought to regulate, our acceptance of any new matter of belief."
Here is Evolution: Schmucker, "The Meaning of Evolution," p 250: "Our only means of judging relationship between animals is by the similarity of structure;" that is, that because of the similarity in planfor the fin of the fish, the wing of the bird, the flapper of the whale, the leg of the animal, the arm of the man, therefore they evolved one from, the other, the higher from the lower. Then by parity of reasoning a wheelbarrow hatched out a bicycle, a bicycle hatched out a tricycle, a tricycle hatched out a buggy, a buggy hatched out a wagon, a wagon hatched out an automobile, an automobile hatched out a railroad engine! A lead pencil hatched out a goose quill, a goose quill hatched out a steel pen, a steel pen hatched out a fountain pen! Because a fish bears some resemblance to a reptile, therefore the fish is the father of the reptile; because the reptile bears some resemblance to the bird, therefore the reptile is the father of the bird. By that course of reasoning, because the little house bears some resemblance to a big house, therefore the little house is the father of the big house; because the baby shoe bears some resemblance to the father's shoe, therefore the father's shoe came from the baby shoe; because the mocking bird's voice bears some resemblance to the voices of the other birds, therefore the mocking bird is the offspring of all the other birds. And they call that "science!" And you are not a "modern mind" you are not of the "intellectual classes" if you don't accept this.
As Mr. Bryan says, the Evolutionist can see slight similarities, but ignores gigantic differences."
"Similarity of structure proves only uniformity of design."—Patterson. Any one but an Evolutionist can see that—if man and the lower animals are to live in the same world, eat largely the same food, under the same conditions, in the same climate and propagate the same way, why should not God make them on a similar plan?
Dr. Howard Kelly the great physician and scientist of Johns Hopkins: "The Great Artificer may easily, in creating a vast number of forms, destined to live under similar conditions as to food and environment, have adopted one common structural plan for all, even embryologically developing each individual from the simplest expression to the more complex by causing all to pass through identical phases until each in turn arrived at that stage at which it was destined to stop. The strong obvious argument here is for unity of purpose in the Creator's mind."
The whole Evolution theory is based on taking similarity to mean succession; that because two species are somewhat similar, therefore one evolved out of the other. Because an Ingersoll watch and a Waltham or Elgin are somewhat similar, that does not prove that the Ingersoll had in it the germ of the Waltham. or the Elgin, that it "hatched out" the Waltham or the Elgin, that they evolved out of the Ingersol. Because the wheel-barrow has one wheel and the bicycle has two and the motorcycle has two, and the three-wheeled tricycle has three, and the buggy four, and the wagon four, and the automobile four and the railroad engine has more, that does not mean that the germ of the wheel-barrow evolved into the railroad engine, that the railroad engine is the actual offspring of the wheel-barrow. It does mean that there has been some similarity of design. But the Great Designer is what the Evolutionists are against, and against the Bible being really God's word and against the Saviour being real Deity and our real Redeemer and against there being any hell.
A leading Editor of the South referring to the review by Dr. Howard Kelly, the noted physician and scientist of Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, of a recent book on Evolution, says:
"Dr. Kelly points out the most serious results of belief in the evolutionary theory, namely, the rejection of other parts of the Bible than the creation account. Here we have the heart of the whole question. No one can accept the theory of Evolution with all of its implications, and at the same time accept literally as inspired of God, the Genesis account of creation. There is no conflict between true science and the Scriptures, but we are asked to substitute unproven hypothesis for the inspired Scriptures."
And yet, in the face of this, they have the face to call Evolution "Science!" They have the gall to demand that we pay them salaries from our taxes to teach this to our children and through it turn them from faith in God's word and from the Saviour as their Redeemer and send them to hell; and if we dare expose them they whine "persecution," "the church is fighting science!" "they burned Servetus at the stake!"
"An incredible number of shells and corals, sometimes silicified, have been preserved in perfect condition in the limestones, but the connecting forms, which, if they existed, vastly outnumbered the known forms and were of similar materials, are not found. It is evident that the conditions for preserving connecting forms were as favorable as for preserving known forms.
The only conclusion that we draw from this is that the so-called 'missing links' never existed."—Alfred Fairhurst, in "Theistic Evolution." That fact alone is enough to show that Evolution is not science, but is false.
No theory is science which does not account for all the facts which the theory covers. Here are some facts (and there are many others), which Evolution has not explained and will never explain:
The eye. The effort of Evolutionists to account for the eye, is by saying that before there were eyes, a pigment spot or freckle came on some animal (how came it to come there?) and the animal turned that spot to the sun to get more heat, and that irritated the skin and a nerve came there, and at last that produced the eye. No wonder Wm. Jennings Bryan asks, "Can you beat it?" The sun still shines—why don't some eyes come that way now? Why don't they come on different parts of the body of some species? But it would take many generations to evolve the eye, and Evolutionists now admit that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited; the positively developed eye of one generation would be an acquired characteristic; it could not be inherited. No wonder Mr. Darwin said the eye made him shudder—this wild guess was the only thing that could save his theory from going to the wall—and it is unworthy of a ten-year-old school boy.
Fins of fishes. On the theory of Evolution fishes evolved from lower species. How did fins first come? No Evolutionist will claim that fins came in one generation; they could not have come gradually through many generations, for that would mean inheriting acquired characteristics, and that has been given up by the leading Evolutionists. "Either there has been inheritance of acquired characteristics or there has been no evolution." — Herbert Spencer.
Legs from fins. Evolution teaches that reptiles came from fishes, legs from fins. No one claims that legs came from fins in one generation; they could not have come by gradual changes through many generations; for that would mean inheriting acquired characteristics, which has been given up by the leading Evolutionists. And remember, "either there has been inheritance of acquired characteristics or there has been no Evolution." — Herbert Spencer.
Wings from legs. Evolution claims that birds come from reptiles. The Evolutionists don't even claim that the change from legs to wings came in one generation, but that it came through many generations. But that would mean inheriting acquired characteristics which they have now given up.
Feathers. If birds evolved from reptiles, how did they ever get feathers? How could the scales of reptiles ever become feathers? No Evolutionist claims that the scales changed to feathers suddenly, in one generation; for them to have evolved gradually, through many generations, would mean inheriting acquired characteristics and that has been given up by the leading Evolutionists.
Electric fish. Mr. Darwin says, "Origin of Species", p 181, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Yet hear him just three pages further — p 184: "The electric organs of fishes offer another case of special difficulty; for it is impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs have been produced." If they were evolved it had to be "by numerous, successive, slight modifications;" but that means inheriting acquired characteristics, which has been given up by the leading Evolutionists. And remember, "either there has been inheritance of acquired characteristics or there has been no Evolution."—Herbert Spencer.
Sex. All animals are divided into two classes, those that are produced from a germ-cell, by division of the nucleus, and second, those produced from eggs, the result of sex. As there is no sex in the lower species that came by division of the muscles, how could sex have been evolved? No one claims that it was evolved suddenly; that is not Evolution; but by "numerous, successive, slight modifications through many generations ;" but that means inheriting acquired characteristics, and that is not true; it has been given up by the leading Evolutionists; and "either there has been inheritance of acquired characteristics or there has been no Evolution." — Herbert Spencer.
Mammals. The lowest species are not mammals, milk-giving; they do not suckle their young. How was it possible to pass from the reptilian to the mammalia type? The answer is that the mammae, the teats, were gradually formed by the persistent efforts of the young through many generations. But again that would have been inheriting acquired characteristics, which has been given up as untrue. But what would have caused the young to persist in trying to nurse in the absence of mammae, and in the absence of all nourishment? The Evolution of milk glands from reptiles is impossible without inheriting acquired characteristics. Where did these animals learn how to make the chemical combinations to form milk from the food eaten? Whence their ability to make these chemical combinations ?
Rudimentary mammae, or teats, of males. From reptiles? But that would only be "by numerous, successive, slight modifications through many generations," and that would be inheriting acquired characteristics which is no longer taught by leading Evolutionists. Were these rudimentary mammae or teats of the male formed by the persistent, fruitless efforts of the young, through many generations? Of all the mammals of the earth we find none of the young that foolish now. When they had persisted through many generations in trying to suckle, to get nourishment from the males, after they had, according to Evolution, succeeded in producing the rudimentary mammae or teats, why, after that much encouragement, did the young cease their efforts? For none of the young mammals now try to get nourishment from the males. Have they evolved out of that foolishness? And this is dumped on us as "Science!"
The whale. The Evolutionists deny that the whale swallowed Jonah, but the whale has certainly swallowed the Evolutionists. Where did the whale come from? The Evolutionists say that the birds evolved from the reptiles. From what species did the whale evolve? Mr. Darwin, from a man seeing a bear swim around in the water for hours catching insects in its open mouth, makes the supposition that through many generations this could have continued till "by numerous, successive variations" the whale could have evolved? That, at least, is a whale of a guess! And they call that "science!" But that would mean inheriting acquired characteristics, which has been given up as untrue. "Either there has been inheritance of acquired characteristics or there has been no Evolution."—Herbert Spencer.
The giraffe. Evolution teaches that in a time of drought, the lower branches having withered up, the giraffe had to reach up to higher branches, and so stretched his legs and neck. This increased in succeeding generations, and after many, many generations, the long legs and long neck was evolved. My! that was a mighty long drouth! But this would mean inheriting acquired characteristics, which has been given up by leading Evolutionists. It was impossible, therefore, for the giraffe to thus evolve. If the drouth caused the giraffe to thus reach up and stretch its legs and neck, why did not the cow, the horse, the deer, the antelope, the sheep, the goat, in the drouth thus stretch their legs and necks? On this point the Evolutionists maintain a "dignified silence."
The bee. The marvellous instincts of a swarm of bees could not have evolved from some other species in a single generation; for them to have evolved by numerous, slight variations through many generations, would have meant inheriting acquired characteristics, which the Evolutionists admit does not now occur. And remember, "either there has been inheritance of acquired characteristics or there has been no evolution."—Herbert Spencer.
There are three classes of bees in the hive, the drones which are males, the queen, a fertile female, and the workers which are females, sex really undeveloped —they are sterile. The working bees with their marvellous instincts, have no offspring; the queen, the mother of the working bees, does not have the instincts of the working bees. The instincts of the working bees could not come by inheritance, for the queen, the mother, does not have these instincts; hence Evolution cannot account for those instincts. Besides, acquired characteristics cannot be inherited.
Further, from what lower species could the bee have evolved? Into what higher species did it evolve?
Remember, that a theory that cannot explain all the facts included in its field, is not science.
There are many facts, there are many species, that Evolution cannot possibly explain. Take two, a large species and a very small one:—
First, the camel. The Credulity of Incredulity, pp 8-11:
"This animal seems to have been the first used in the service of man, and to have been made for service where not even the ass which alone compares with it for patient endurance of fatigue and privation, could be of use. In arid plains, in dreary deserts, where only stunted, acrid and bitter herbs grow, and where water is found only in rare cases, there the camel may march heavily loaded and for days and weeks survive without food or water. He is to the natives of these wilds, the one indispensable possession, and is called, poetically "the ship of the desert."
"No more complete instance of design with relation to human wants can be found in the whole realm of nature. No part of the camel's structure, from the bony framework of his awkward skeleton to the external hair of his coat, could be left out without essential defect, or could be changed with improvement, or indeed, without injury to the creature's general adaptability to man's need. Nay, his seeming defects or deformities are also absolutely necessary to his well-being and his intended service.
"Even the hump and the callosities, which at first seem positive disfigurements, become beauties when intelligent design is their artistic interpreter. There are seven callosities upon which the pressure of the body's weight and the load on the back must be thrown when the animal kneels and rises up. Born as the camel is for the desert, these callosities keep the skin from cracking and becoming irritated and sore, when the parts which they thus protect rest heavily upon the coarse and burning sands. Some have accounted for these huge corns by the usage to which the beast is subjected; but the flaw in this philosophy is found in the fact that these callosities have been observed on the newly born camel. However developed afterward, they exist from the first.
"Again, the strong, nipper-like upper incisor teeth are exactly fitted to crop desert pasturage, cutting through the tough plants and dry shrubs that are found here and there on those wild wastes. The nostrils are so constructed that when the stifling sandstorm sweeps over the desert, the camel can effectually close them and exclude the suffocating dust. The elastic cushions that line the spreading feet with pads help him to "float" rather than step, moving easily and noiselessly, as if shod with rubber sandals; and whether the path lies over sand or rock or paved stones, no sound of the footfall of those spongy feet is heard.
"Again, the structure of the stomach is a marvel of design. It not only enables him to digest the coarsest vegetable tissues, but it makes them agreeable to his taste, so that he prefers, to the finest and most delicate pasture, plants which the horse would not touch; and should even then hard fare be lacking, the hump secretes a store of gelatinous fat, which, taken up and absorbed by the digestive system, sustains the beast until an oasis is reached. As he carries his own supply of provisions for an emergency, so he has his own reservoir of water. A cavity peculiar to the camel, and which has been inaccurately called a 'fifth stomach,' is not only used as a receptacle of remasticated food, but contains a system or series of cells fitted to contain water, and most curiously provided with a reticulated apparatus for closing the cells while the dry food is in the water-bag. From this false stomach, which thus holds water as well as undigested food, Captain Lyon saw water drawn out of the belly of a dead camel, sufficient to quench the thirst of an almost perishing caravan.
"Again, the very build of the Arabian camel, shows that he was meant for burden and not for draught. The deep chest and strong forelegs enable him to carry easily the heavy load placed on them, but the narrow loins and the long, ungainly hind legs do not supply the energy and force necessary for the strain of dragging heavy wagons or weights. There is in the hind legs an additional joint, by which he is enabled to kneel down and assume the exact posture suitable for receiving burdens on his back and readily arising with them when the caravan marches.
"Such are a few of the many marks of 'destiny' in this 'ship of the desert'. Who so adapted this beast of burden for the exact life he is to lead, and impressed this stamp of design on the camel's new born foal? Admit an intelligent Creator, and the problem presents no difficulty; but deny a Creator, and to all this curious maze we have no clew. Accident must be left to account for a perfection of adaptation that is one of Nature's miracles. Chance will not answer as a solution. As Rufus Choate said, this is "like dropping the Greek alphabet and expecting to pick up the Iliad."
"But we are told that animals are themselves intelligent and can adapt themselves to their 'environment'. We do not stop to discuss this unsatisfactory philosophy, that leaves unexplained the original mystery of all—how the first camel came to form himself for such a destiny, and whence came, in a beast, a discrimination and invention so marvellous."
The efforts of the Evolutionists to explain the evolution of the camel are even more childish, more pitiable and absurd than their explanation of the whale. From what species, next below, did the camel evolve? Into what species, next above, did he evolve?
"If it could be demonstrated that any complete organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin, Origin of Species, p 189. First Edition. Very well; not only the camel, but the bee, the spider, the water spider, the beaver, sex, mammals, teats of mammals, teats of the male mammal, the Saviour. Evolution cannot explain any one of these.
Yet in three pages of where Mr. Darwin said the above he said, p 192, speaking of the electric battery of the electric fish, "it is impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs have been produced." Let him who can reconcile this with his statements on page 189.
Take the case of the spider, as given in Orton's Zoology: "Spiders are provided at the posterior end with two or three pairs of appendages called spinnerets, which are homologous with legs. The office of the spinnerets is to reel out the silk from the silk glands, the tip being perforated by a myriad of little tubes, through which the silk escapes in excessive fine threads. An ordinary thread, just visible to the naked eye, is the union of a thousand or more of these delicate streams of silk. These primary threads are drawn out and united by their hind legs."
Let the reader now consider the comments of Philip Mauro, the brilliant author of "Evolution at the Bar," p 46:
"Here we find a marvellous coordination of special organs: (1) the silk glands, capable of secreting a fluid which has the remarkable property of hardening upon, exposure to the air; (2) Spinnerets having each more than a thousand perforations of microscopic size, without which the silk-glands would be worse than useless; (3) hind legs having the wonderful function of forming the thousands of invisible filaments into a thread, without which function both glands and spinnerets would be a serious detriment to their possessor. It is simply impossible that these three organs should have developed gradually, and independently of each other, to the stage of perfection in advance of which stage they could not cooperate in the slightest degree to the one end for which they all exist.
"Let it be noted that, if the spinnerets had but one aperture, or a dozen, or even a hundred, the liquid material would not have the required area of exposure to the air to effect that instant solidification which is absolutely essential to the success of the entire operation. It required at least a thousand apertures to produce the desired result. Who knew, or could have known, the need of such a number of orifices? or could have formed them in a tube the size of a spider's leg? And in what imaginable way could several legs, intended for locomotion be evolved into organs so radically different in function? It is not too much to say that those thousands of orifices are just so many witnesses that Evolution is a huge delusion, which has made foolish the wisdom of the wise, and has exposed to deserved ridicule the gullibility of the brightest minds."
From what did the spider evolve? Into what did he evolve?
Let the reader now consider the utter impossibility of the water spider evolving from the ordinary spider. Here is the account as given by Philip Mauro, pp 43-45:
"Like other spiders, the water spider is an air breathing animal, yet, unlike other spiders, it lives under water. How did it evolve the extraordinary changes in its organism, and in its habits of life, whereby it acquired first, its set purpose to live under water; and second, its special organs and instincts whereby it is enabled to give effect to that strange purpose and to live, thrive and rear its young in such an unnatural environment?
"Of course, if the water spider was always a water spider, and was by its Creator endowed with just the organs and instincts that are suited to the manner of life appointed to it, the matter is very simple and intelligible. But we are inquiring how the water spider and its ways could have come about through Evolution. Surely those who press that theory upon their fellow mortals, and who ask them to cast aside the belief in Creation and the Creator—with all that that involves— should at least be required to tell us How Evolution worked, or could have worked in such a case. Was ever such a thing heard of, as that we should be asked to believe, on the ground of 'reason' and 'science' in a thing so preposterously unreasonable that the imagination can conceive of no possible way in which it could be accomplished?
"Upon examining the water spider, and acquainting ourselves with its ways, we find that its body is covered with hairs in such a way that it does not become wet when in contact with water. In order to live under water, and rear its young there, it must construct a water-proof cell, capable of containing enough air for breathing purposes; it must have means for renewing the supply of air from time to time; and it must have the instincts to guide it in the performance of these necessary operations. And we may confidently add that the very first water spider must have been fully equipped for the purposes indicated. It spins under the water an egg-shaped envelope open underneath for entrance and egress. This envelope, which is water-proof, is securely attached to some object so that it will remain submerged. Having constructed its house, the little creature next proceeds to fill it with air. For this necessary operation its hind legs are covered with hair and so constructed that they can take hold of a large bubble of air, and carry it down into the water, and to the opening of its house. There the air is released, and it rises to the top of the envelope, expelling the corresponding quantity of water. This operation is repeated until the cell is sufficiently filled with air. The eggs are then laid in the upper part of this house and are surrounded by a cocoon.
It is manifest that this extraordinary manner of life, and the highly specialized organs, which are vital to it, could not possibly be the outcome of a long and slow process of development. Before the life of a water spider could even begin, it must be equipped with first, the means for secreting a water-proof material; second, the means for spinning that material into a water-tight cell; third, protective hairs to keep it from becoming wet; fourth, the peculiar apparatus for filling its house with air; fifth, the several instincts which prompt the doing of these remarkable things.
"That there is no trace of the evolution of the water spider (or of any other creature) is reason enough why the theory should be rejected. But we confidently submit that the facts briefly set forth above and the conclusions which necessarily follow for them, constitute proof positive that Evolution is not only an impossibility but an absurdity."
There are said to be two or three millions of species on the earth; yet after all the searching by all the Evolutionists, not one change of one species into another has been found. And yet Evolution means that all these species evolved one from another from the first living cell, from amoeba, to man—without one single case on record of one species evolving from another; they call it science, and demand that we pay their salaries with our taxes for them to teach this to our children, when it means for them to give up their faith in God's word which says that everything "brought forth after its kind," and to send our children out into eternity without a Saviour.
About 800 times in his two books Mr. Darwin uses such expressions as "one may suppose" or "it seems," and then bases his conclusions on these assumptions, and H. G. Wells in his "Outlines of History," Vol. 1, uses one hundred and three pages telling of man's descent from the ape, and yet he uses such expressions ninety-six times. It is little wonder that Prof. Dyson Hague, Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada, says: "To read the opening sections of Wells' 'Outline of History,' is to make one marvel at the gullibility of the modern mind. It is monstrous to think that such stuff should be exploited in the name of science or history." Their only course of reasoning is, "This thing is possible; therefore, it is probable; therefore it is certain."
"Could it be shown that but one species originated otherwise than by slight modification of the structure of pre-existent species, that would suffice to overthrow the theory of evolution. But the science of paleontology presents us with clear evidences of thousands of species coming suddenly into existence: and on the other hand there is not the faintest indication that there was ever a species that came into being in any other way."— Evolution at the Bar, p 37.
Before that crushing fatal fact what will the Evolutionists do? Come
out and confess that their theory is not science, that it is wrong? Never!
Find an Evolutionist who will confess that he is wrong, will you? Having
said that the horse is sixteen feet high, instead of sixteen hands, they
will die and go to hell and carry our young people to hell with them with
their Evolution, rather than admit that they are wrong. When faced with
such fatal facts, they simply say, "so much the worse for the facts," and
cry "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" for the space of two hours, and
then whimper, "They burned Servetus at the stake!" and "you are persecuting
us!! you will not pay us our salaries to damn the souls of your children;"
or with haughty arrogance they will say, "All Scientists now believe in
Evolution." We will see about that in the next chapter.