Christ or Evolution - Which?
Evolution Repudiated by
Great Scientists and Scholars
In their writings and in their public lectures and addresses, the Evolutionists are persistently saying that all scientists now believe in Evolution. Professors in the State Universities and State Normals persistently repeat it to the students; that all scientists and all scholars now believe in Evolution; and these go out and repeat it to our boys and girls in the high schools and lower grades of our public schools. As a sample, H. W. Conn, in "The Methods of Evolution" says:
"We find nowhere today any thought of discussing the truth of the law of gravitation ***** Science regards it (Evolution) as beyond discussion and accepts it as a demonstrated conclusion. ***** It would probably be impossible to find among modern scientists any one who would venture to hold any other opinion."
"The world has been persuaded that Evolution is true."—Professor S. C. Schmucker in "The Meaning of Evolution."
"The thinking man is out of joint with the times when he sets himself against Evolution."—Schmucker, in "The Meaning of Evolution," p 278.
"Now there is not a man of science in the world who does not admit man's descent from an ape-like form; and I do not think there is a bishop in the world who would oppose them."—Joseph McCabe in "The A B C of Evolution."
"The saying often heard, that the scholarship of the world is arrayed on the side of Evolution we do not hesitate to brand as a falsehood whether spoken by a canon, professor or clergyman. The most thorough scholars, the world's ablest philosophers and scientists, with few exceptions, are at the present time not supporters, but many of them are assailants of Evolution.
"We are a little behind the times on these questions in this country as compared with England, France and Germany, though possibly ahead in almost everything else."—L. T. Townsend, Collapse of Evolution, p 48.
It will surprise the reader to read how many great scientists have repudiated the theory of Evolution. And let it be kept in mind that since these men repudiated it, nothing has been added to the evidence in favor of Evolution. Not one species has been found that evolved from a lower species. On the other hand, spontaneous generation has been killed; Natural Selection has been proven false; and it has been shown that acquired characteristics are not inherited.
Hear these great scientists and scholars:
Sir David Brewster, doubtless the greatest scientist the world ever saw: "We have absolute proof of the immutability of species, whether we search in historic or geologic times."
Prof. Lionel S. Beale, who stood with Lord Kelvin at the head of the English scientists, in an address before the Victoria Institute of London, 1903: There is no evidence that man has descended, or is, or was, in any way specially related to any other organism in nature, through Evolution or by any other process. In support of all rationalistic conjectures, concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."
And since he said this, spontaneous generation, Natural Selection and inheriting acquired characteristics, have all been given up.
St. George Mivart of the University College, Kensington : "I cannot truly characterize it but by an epithet I employ with great reluctance. I weigh my words and have present to my mind the many distinguished naturalists who have accepted the notion; and yet I cannot call it anything but a puerile hypothesis."
Louis Pasteur who proved that spontaneous generation was false: "Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the works of the Creator."
Hear two great scholars, not scientists, but who know what science is:
John Ruskin: "I have never yet heard one logical argument in its favor. I have heard and read many that are beneath contempt." The Eagle's Nest, p 256.
Dr. John Clark Ridpath, the great historian: "The eagle was always an eagle, the man always man. Every species of living organism has, I believe, come up by a like process from its own primordial germ."
"It is a strange fact that no great scientific authority in Great Britain in exact science, science that reduces its conclusions to mathematical formulae, has endorsed Evolution,"—D. S. Gregory, Editor, Homistatic Review.
Sir Roredick Murchison: "I know as much of nature in her geologic ages as any living man, and I fearlessly say that our geologic record does not afford one syllable of evidence in support of Darwin's theory."
The great Swiss geologist, Joachim Barronde, quoted by Prof. Winchell in Doctrine of Evolution, p 142: "One cannot conceive why in all rocks whatever and in all countries upon the two continents, all relics of the intervening types should have vanished. ***** The discordances are so numerous and pronounced that the composition of the real fauna seems to have been calculated by design for contradicting everything which the theories (of Evolution) teach us respecting the first appearance and primitive evolution of the forms of life upon the earth."
The pitiable dodge of the Evolutionists on this point is that the geologic record is so incomplete. But there are millions of fossils of the different species, some of the very young of the different species, some even of the embryo, yet not one single fossil has been found of any being between any two species.
Another pitiable dodge is that the multiplied millions of beings, of all the different species, in evolving from one species to another through many generations by numerous very slight variations were so delicate they did not survive. But Evolution teaches "the survival of the fittest." Then these intervening things between the species were more fit than the species below; yet not one of them survived. "The legs of the lame are not equal."
As a matter of fact, if Evolution were true, there would be no species at all; but only very slight variations from one generation to the next above it; only a very slight variation of one being from the one below it and above it, from amoeba to man. The fact of species, and that they are infertile to each other, is itself a proof that Evolution is false.
"If Evolution were the law of progress of the universe, it is manifest that there would be no species orother lines of division. There would be only individual forms, shading imperceptibly one into another, each in the process of becoming something else, so that classification would be an impossibility. The world, that lies before us, composed of clearly marked divisions, orders, classes, species, all sharply defined and separated one from another by impassable barriers, is just the opposite of such a world as the supposed law of Evolution would produce."—Evolution at the Bar, p 21.
Professor Fleischman of Erlanger: "The Darwin theory of descent has in the realm of nature not a single fact to confirm it. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination."
Prof. Haeckel, one of the greatest Evolutionists, bemoaned the fact that he was standing almost alone: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of Evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error and cannot be maintained." And yet in the face of this statement of Haeckel's and in the face of the statements of these great scientists, Professors in Universities and Colleges will stand before our young men and women, boys and girls, and say, "All scientists and scholars agree that Evolution is right," and destroy their faith in God's word and send them to hell when this little life is over.
Then they whine and dodge again and say, "I don't believe in Darwinism Evolution." There is no other kind. It is true, that some of Darwin's theories have been given up; but the central teaching of Darwin was that all species from the first living cell have been evolved up to man "by numerous slight variations through many generations." There is no other kind of Evolution.
"It is utterly unscientific and, if we may speak all our mind, it is downright idiocy for men to parade on the street or in the church or through the press or on the platform these exploded theories of Evolution by natural selection or by the survival of the fittest as if they still were current in the scientific world."—Prof. L. T. Townsend, in Evolution or Creation, p 118.
Cuvier: "That such transformations as are claimed by the Evolutionists are wholly unknown to the realm of nature is a point upon which the most distinguished geologists and anatomists are unanimous." Was Cuvier lying? Was he an ignoramus and did not know what these geologists and anatomists taught? And yet your half-baked scientists and some University and College professors keep on repeating, "All scientists now accept evolution." Has Evolution taken away all their sense of shame?
Professor Francis M. Balfour: "All these facts contradict the crude ideas of those so-called naturalists who state that one species can be transformed into an other in the course of generations."
Dr. Charles Elam: "The hypothesis of natural selection is not directly supported by any fact in the whole range of natural history or paleontology; but on the other hand, every fact which is known with certainty in those sciences, so far as it bears upon natural selection, directly disapproves of it."
"Of the older and honored chiefs in natural science many, unfortunately, are still opposed to Evolution in every form."—Darwin in Descent of Man.
"Our foes are to some extent they of our own household, including not only the ignorant and the passionate, but a minority of minds of high calibre and culture."—Professor Tyndall.
Sir Charles Bell, professor of the University College of London and member of the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh: "Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."
Dr. Traas, the paleontologist who devoted his long life to the study of fossil animals, is likewise pronounced against Evolution: "The idea that mankind is descended from any Simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by man writing on the history of man. It should be handed down to posterity as a new edition of the Memorial on Human Follies. No proof of this baroque theory can be given from discovered fossils."
Professor Elie de Cyon, of Russian-French descent, a member of the faculty of the University of St. Petersburg, in his recent publication, "God and Science" : "The two bases of Darwinism are the natural selection of the fittest and the hereditary transmission of characteristics acquired in the struggle for existence. It is curious to note that these bases have been broken down by two evolutionists, Herbert Spencer and Wisemann. ***** The theory that marvellous operations involved in the transmutation of species, are to be explained solely by the accidents for the struggle for existence is the most preposterous conception that has been brought forward since the days of Empedocles. ***** Let us have the courage to confess that we have not up to the present time advanced a single step toward the solution of this problem."
Professor Wilhelm Max Vundt of Leipsic in his younger days wrote books in support of Evolution. In a later publication he refers to these writings, as "the great crime of his youth that will take him all the rest of his life to expiate."
Dr. Etheridge of the English Museum: "In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of transmission of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of Evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. Men adopt a theory and then strain their facts to support it. I read all their works, but they make no impression on my belief in the stability of species. Moreover the talk of the great antiquity of man is of no value. Some men are ready to regard you as a fool if you do not go with them in all their vagaries; but this museum is full of the proof of the utter falsity of their views."
Dr. Virchow, "the highest German authority in physiology" and "the foremost chemist on the globe," who at first accepted Evolution and wrote much in favor of it, but who afterward repudiated it: "It is all nonsense. It cannot be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal. Since the announcement of the theory, all real scientific knowledge has proceeded in the opposite direction."
Professor E. G. Conklin of Princeton University: "There is no longer any doubt among scientists that man descended from the animals."
H. W. Conn in "The Method of Evolution: "It would probably be impossible to find among modern scientists any one who would venture to hold any other opinion."
Joseph McCabe in "The A B C of Evolution: "Now there is not a man of science in the world who does not admit of man's descent from an ape-like form; and I do not think there is a bishop in the world who would oppose them."
In the face of the above testimonies from scientists and scholars, does that statement take your breath? Don't be surprised; that is about as near as the average Evolutionist ever comes to the truth; that's about as near as the average evolutionist faces facts.
Let it be remembered that Dr. Virchow was one of the greatest advocates of Evolution that it has ever had; and yet he turned against it and the above is his verdict.
Sir J. William Dawson: "Story of the Earth and Man," p 317: "It is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is utterly destitute of proof."
Professor Zockler: "It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its defenders at the outset. A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
Prof. Paulson of Berlin stated that the mechanical theory of Darwinism is rejected by such scientists as Naegeli; Koelliker, M. Wagner, Snell, Fovel, Bunge, the physiological chemist, A. Bracon, Hoffman and Askernazy, botanists; Oswald Heer, the geologist, and Otto Hamann, the zoologist; Carl Ernst von Baer, the eminent zoologist and anthropologist in early years came near accepting Evolution, but at a later date utterly rejected it.
Agassiz: "I wish to enter my earnest protest against the transmutation theory. It is my belief that naturalists are chasing a phantom in their search after some material gradation among created beings, by which the whole animal kingdom may have been derived by successive development from a single germ or from a few germs. I confess that there seems to me a repulsive poverty in this material explanation that is contradicted by the intellectual grandeur of the universe. I insist that this theory is opposed to the processes of Nature, as we have been able to comprehend them; that it is contradicted by the facts of Embryology and Paleontology, the former showing us forms of development as distinct and persistent for each group as are the fossil types of each period revealed to us by the latter; and that the experiments on domestic animals and cultivated plants, on which its adherents base their views, are entirely foreign to the matter in hand."
Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of geology in Harvard University, eminent as a scientist, writing for the International Quarterly, December-March, 1902-1903: "It begins to be evident to naturalists that the Darwinian hypothesis is still essentially unverified. Notwithstanding the evidence derived from the study of animals and plants under domestication, it is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions now inhabiting the earth had been established solely, or mainly, by the operation of natural selection." And not one fact have they discovered since then that proves Evolution.
Professor C. C. Everett, also of Harvard: "If in the past those ranks of beings ever rose and moved in procession along the upward slope, each passing, by no matter how slow a step, out of its own limitations, and in itself or in its posterity entered upon a larger life, it was before the eyes of man were opened to them. No searching of his awakened powers can detect, even among the remains of an unknown antiquity, any glimpse of the great movement while in progress of accomplishment. All, as he looks upon it, is as fixed as the sphinx, that slumbers on the Egyptian sands."
"Our earliest knowledge of man is of a being fully formed and in possession of all the faculties of his kind."—G. Frederick Wright, L.L. D., F. G. S. A., author of "The Ice Age in North America."
Professor August Weisman of the University of Frieburg "demonstrated beyond all question" THAT ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS BY A PARENT CANNOT BE TRANSMITTED TO THE OFFSPRING. Prof. William Bateson of England, the greatest living Biologist, in his address before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Toronto, Canada, December, 1921, admitted and stated it positively, THAT ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED. Elsewhere he said, "AN ORGANISM CANNOT PASS ON TO ITS OFFSPRING A FACTOR WHICH IT DID NOT ITSELF RECEIVE IN FERTILIZATION."
Professor S. C. Schmucker, in "The Meaning of Evolution," p. 261, says: "The blight of the fact that acquired characteristics cannot be transmitted, meets us here." He hits the nail on the head—"the blight of the fact"; for it certainly blights Evolution—how can there be evolution from lower to higher species if there is no transmitting acquired characteristics? "How wide must a chasm be before it becomes visible to an evolutionist?"
Professor Goethe of Strasburg, published a history of Darwinism in the Unschau, 1903, in which he says that it has passed through four stages: "(1) the beginning, when it was received with great enthusiasm; (2) the period where it flourished and found general acceptance; (3) the period of transition and sober second thought when its principles and teachings were called in question; (4) the final period, upon which the scientific world has just entered, and where its days will evidently be numbered."
Here in America we are only in the second period when it is flourishing and finding general acceptance. The third period is beginning and will be followed by the fourth; but alas! while we are waiting for the last two periods to pass, many, many of our sons and daughters will have been swept into hell by it, if we do not arouse ourselves and shut it out of our tax-supported schools, from primary to State university.
Edward von Hartmann gives the same four stages of Darwinism and states that the opposition "gradually swelled into a great chorus of voices, aiming at the overthrow of the Darwinian theory. In the first decade of the twentieth century it has become apparent that the days of Darwinism are numbered. Among the latest opponents are such savants as Einier, Gustav Wolf, DeVries, Hocke, Von Wellstein, Fleischmann Renicke and many others."
Prof. John S. Newberry: "It is doubtful if at any time in the world's history there has been a theory that has gained so great popularity with such an unsubstantial basis as that of Evolution of man from the lower orders."
Dr. William Hanna Thomson, former president of the New York Academy of Medicine: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists as absurdly inadequate, owing to its principle being wholly negative. Selection of any kind does not produce anything, but only chooses between that which already exists. Evolution never was a cause of anything. It is almost pathetic to read how Huxley and Darwin, in their day, fancied that because the primate homo-man was so well in keeping with the evolution of the other primates, therefore they had scientifically accounted for man. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so-called fellow animals, the primates —gorilla, orang and chimpanzee—can do nothing truly human."
W. H. Conn, in "The Method of Evolution": "It would probably be impossible to find among modern scientists anyone who would venture to hold any other opinion." That's just like them! What do you think of that, reader, in view of the testimonies in this chapter? But there are more to follow:
Dr. Leavitt, Ex-President of Lehigh University: "All the facts of the past cycles of the earth are against Darwinism. Protoplasm evolving a universe is a superstition more pitiable than the paganism which worshipped the image of Diana as the mother of creation."
The late Professor Agassiz, in "Methods of Study in Natural History: "As a paleontologist I have from the beginning stood aloof from this new theory of the transmutation of species now so widely admitted by the scientific world. Its doctrines in fact contradict what the animal forms buried in the rocky strata of the earth tell us of their own introduction and succession on the surface of the globe. The theory IS A SCIENTIFIC MISTAKE UNTRUE IN ITS FACTS, UNSCIENTIFIC IN ITS METHODS, AND MISCHIEVOUS IN ITS TENDENCY. There is not a fact known to science tending to show that any being in the natural process of reproduction and multiplication has ever diverged from the course natural to its kind, or that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."
"All geological evidences thus far discovered not only fail to carry man back to a remote antiquity, but bring him down to a date so recent that the hypothesis of Evolution by any nameable natural process is no longer entitled to a moment's consideration."—Prof. L. T. Townsend, in Evolution or Creation, p. 198
There is one claim of Evolution which the Evolutionists constantly make, always stating it as an actual established fact, without which their theory of Evolution from amoeba up through different species to man, has not one square inch of ground to stand on—that claim is that man has been on this earth five hundred thousand years or more. They must have this vast period in order to have any Evolution of man.
"There has been relatively little improvement in the human stock during all the five hundred thousand years of man's occupation of this planet."—Pres. W. L. Poteat, of Wake Forest College. Professor E. G. Conklin, Professor of Biology in Princeton University, in "The Direction of Human Evolution, p. 37: "In the thousands of centuries which separate the origin of the earliest human types from the period of written history mankind has wandered over all parts of the earth."
"Mr. Thomas Sterry Hunt, late president of the British Anthropological Society, announced the extraordinary opinion that man has been on this earth nine million years. M. Lalande declared (1867) that "man is eternal." Dr. A. R. Wallace is of the opinion that five hundred thousand years are sufficient for human history. Professor C. Fuhlrott, a German of note, estimates man's age at two or three hundred thousand years. M. Gabriel de Mostellet, professor of anthropology in Paris, argues that man appeared on the earth two hundred and thirty thousand years ago."—Evolution of Creation, pp. 189, 190.
Professor Arnold L. Gesell, Ph. D., Department of Psychology, Los Angeles State Normal, in "The Normal Child and Primary Education," a book used to train teachers to go out and teach our boys and girls in the public schools:
"The span of man's distinctly human sojourn on the earth measures a half million years. Some would multiply this by two."
Professor S. C. Schmucker, in "The Meaning of Evolution," p. 222: "Its close, occupying the last few hundred thousand years, is known as the Age of Man." Again, p. 253: "Through the last hundred thousand years the development of man has been wonderfully rapid."
These quotations from Evolutionists could be multiplied. Now, reader, keep these bald, unsupported statements in mind, while we consider some facts. AND REMEMBER THAT THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EVOLUTION IF MAN HAS NOT BEEN ON THE EARTH FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. There has been an ice age on the earth, the glacial period. Hear some scientists, as given by Fairhurst, in Theistic Evolution:
"Prof. Alexander Winchell: 'Man has no place till after the reign of ice. It has been imagined that the close of the reign of ice dates back perhaps a hundred thousand years. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS. The fact is that we ourselves came upon the earth in time to witness the retreat of the glaciers.' "
"Professor Holmes says that the great ice sheet spread over Northern Asia and America three hundred thousand years ago and DID NOT DISAPPEAR TILL ABOUT TEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO.
"Prof. George Frederick Wright, one of the highest authorities on the glacial "epoch, has reached the conclusion that it ENDED NOT EARLIER THAN FROM SEVEN TO TEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO.
"Prof. Joseph Prestwich collected much evidence which goes to show that the close of the glacial period falls within the limits of EIGHT TO TWELVE THOUSAND YEARS AGO.
"M. Adhemar and James Croll believed that it closed NOT EARLIER THAN ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO.
"Prof. Rollin D. Salisbury and Dr. Warrem Upham, among the most recent American geologists, think THAT SEVEN TO TEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO IS A FAIR ESTIMATE.
"In a review article (1904) Dr. Upham, speaking of the post-glacial era, says that from the studies of Niagara by Wright and myself, coinciding approximately with the estimate of Winchell and with a large number of estimates and computations collected by Hanson from many observers in America and Europe, it CERTAINLY SEEMS WELL DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS PERIOD (POST-GLACIAL) IS FROM SEVEN THOUSAND TO TEN THOUSAND YEARS."
"Dr. Wm. Andrews thinks that the ice age closed 'NOT FURTHER AWAY THAN FIVE TO SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.'
"Prof. Edward Hall, secretary of the Victoria Institution, London, a specialist on these matters, says: 'NOT IN ONE SINGLE CASE IN THE WHOLE OF EUROPE OR AMERICA HAS A TRACE OF MAN'S EXISTENCE BEEN FOUND BELOW THE ONLY DEPOSITS WHICH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ASSUME WERE DEVELOPED AND PRODUCED BY THE GREAT ICE SHEETS OF THE EARLY GLACIAL PERIODS.' This is fully concurred in by Professors Hayes, LeConte, Boyd, C. H. Dawkins, Dr. Gandry, John Evans, W. H. Holmes, M. Favre and by not a few others."
"Prof. W. H. Haynes, a leading American geologist, says: 'The evidence for the antiquity of man on the hypothesis of evolution is purely speculative, NO HUMAN REMAINS HAVING AS YET BEEN FOUND IN EITHER MIOCENE OR PLIOCENE STRATA.'
"Prof. Joseph Le Conte says: 'THE MIOCENE MAN IS NOT AT PRESENT ACKNOWLEDGED BY A SINGLE CAREFUL GEOLOGIST.'
"M. Reinach, author of 'La Prehistorique,' says:
'THERE ARE NO TRACES OF MAN ANYWHERE IN THE TERTIARY PERIOD WHICH BRINGS US TO THE THRESHOLD OF HISTORIC TIMES.'
"The present teaching of geology is that man is not of nature's making. . . . Independently of such evidences, man's high reason, his unsatisfied longings, aspirations, his free will, all afford the fullest assurance that he owes his existence to the special act of the Infinite Being whose image he bears."—Professor Dana, in Geologic Story, p. 290.
Prof. G. Frederick Wright, LL. D., F. G. S. A., author of "The Ice Age in North America," "Man and the Glacial Period," "Asiatic Russia," "Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History," etc., etc., says of Glaciology: "It has been the subject of my special study for forty years," and refers to "the extreme estimates of man's antiquity WHICH ARE RECKLESSLY MADE BY MANY WITH LITTLE REGARD TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE."
Hear him: "The habit which many anthropologists have of ruling out all evidence which does not support some special theory of development is unworthy of scientific investigators."
"Post-glacial time is to be reckoned by thousands of years, rather than by hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands."—Professor G. Frederick Wright, in Origin and Antiquity of Man, p. 480.
"THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN, THEREFORE, SO FAR AS THE QUESTION DEPENDS UPON HIS CONNECTION WITH THE GLACIAL EPOCH, IS NO PROVED TO BE, EVEN WHEN WE ALLOW A GENEROUS MARGIN, GREATER THAN TWELVE OR FIFTEEN THOUSAND YEARS."—Origin and Antiquity of Man, p. 494.
"A BRIEF REVIEW OF SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES ALREADY DISCUSSED WILL SHOW THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC NECESSITY FOR PLACING THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN RACE MANY THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF HISTORY."—Originand Antiquity of Man, p. 493.
Yet in the face of these scientists, the Evolutionists will continue to say that man has been on the earth "five hundred thousand years." Why? Because it is necessary to their theory, and without it this theory goes to the wall. They have no facts for their "five hundred thousand years"—the facts are the other way; but what do they care for facts? Their unproven theory must stand and the teaching that men have been on the earth hundreds of thousands of years is necessary to save their Evolution. Such misleading, such juggling, is unworthy of a fourth ward politician.
"Dr. J. A. Zahm, the distinguished scholar, says: 'I am disposed to attribute to man an antiquity of about ten thousand years. It seems likely that the general concensus of chronologists will ultimately fix on a date which shall be below rather than above ten thousand years as the nearest approximate to the age of our race.' (The Bible, Science and Faith, p. 311.) He quotes many other authorities.
"Professor Winchell tells us, 'The very beginnings of our race are still almost in sight.' (Sketches of Creation.) Dawson thinks man has been on earth about seven thousand years. GEOLOGY AGREES THAT MAN DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE ICE AGE. The stone age is fixed at about seven thousand years ago by others.
"Prof. George Frederick Wright tells us, 'The glacial period did not close more than ten thousand years ago. This shortening of our conception of the ice age renders glacial man a comparatively modern creature. The last stage of the excessive instability of the earth was not so very long ago and continued down to near the introduction of man.'
"S. R. Pattison, F. G. S., tells us, 'Science shows to us a number of converging probabilities which point to man's first appearance along with great animals about 8,000 years ago.'
"Dr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of natural science in Erlanger, thus sums up the evidence from geology as to man: ' (1) THE AGE OF MAN IS SMALL, EXTENDING ONLY TO A FEW THOUSAND YEARS. (2) Man appeared suddenly; the most ancient man known to us is not essentially different from the now living man. (3) Transitions from the ape to the man, or the man to the ape, are nowhere found.' (Age and Origin of Man, pp. 55, 56.)"
On p. 194 Wright says: "The glib manner in which many, not to say most, popular writers, as well as many observers of limited range, speak of the glacial epoch as far distant in geological time, is due to ignorance of facts which would seem to be so clear that he who runs might read them."
It is generous of Professor Wright to charge the claim by these Evolutionists that man has been on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years to their being "observers of limited range" and to their "ignorance of the facts." They will sneer (as usual) at this; but it was either that or that they wilfully suppress the facts to blind the people—they are welcome to their choice.
Now, reader, these Evolutionists are continually holding those of us who are exposing them up to ridicule as being ignorant and insincere; they even hold William Jennings Bryan up to scorn (not realizing that ''scorn" and "science" are not synonyms, nor that "ridicule" and "reason" are not synonymous) as being ignorant and insincere. Yet these great apostles of Evolution deliberately suppress the facts and state as afact, that man has been on this earth hundreds of thousands of years—why? Because this teaching of Evolution is ruined if man has been on the earth only a few thousand years, and that would mean that the Bible is true, that Christ is Deity and a real Redeemer, and that they must repent and accept Him as Saviour, or go to hell, and they are too "intellectual" to believe in a hell.
"The species have a real existence in nature," says Lyell, "and each was endowed at the time of its creation with the attributes and organs by which it is now distinguished."
"Everything," says Sir Charles Bell, "declares the species to have its origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."
Says Dr. Charles Elam: "The hypothesis of natural selection is not directly supported by any single fact in the whole range of natural history or paleontology; but, on the other hand, every fact which is known with any certainty in those sciences, so far as it bears upon natural selection, directly opposes it."
"And the elder Professor Agassiz, in words highly prized by every thoughtful Christian, puts the case calmly and strongly: "It is evident that there is a manifest progress in the succession of beings on the surface of the earth. This progress consists in an increasing similarity to the living fauna, and, among the vertebrates, especially in their increasing resemblance to man. But this connection is not the consequence of a direct lineage between the faunas of different ages. There is nothing like parental descent connecting them. The fishes of the Paleozoic age are in no respect the ancestors of the reptiles of the Secondary age; nor does man descend from the mammals which preceded him in the Tertiary age. The link by which they are connected is of a higher and immaterial nature; and their connection is to be sought in the view of the Creator Himself, whose aim in forming the earth, in allowing it to undergo the successive changes which geology has pointed out, and in creating successively all the different types of animals which have passed away, was to introduce man upon the surface of our globe. Man is the end toward which all the animal creation has tended from the first appearance of the first Paleozoic fishes."
And remember that nothing has been added since these men wrote, not a single specimen found of one species having evolved from a lower, but spontaneous generation has been killed; natural selection has been proven false; and it has been proved that acquired characteristics are not inherited.
Prof. William Bateson, the greatest living Biologist, in his presidential address at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1914: "We have done with the notion that Darwin came latterly to favor that large differences can arise by accumulation of small differences."
Where were the Evolutionists when that ton of dynamite was exploded under their idol, their goddess, Evolution? What is there left? But they will continue for the space of two hours: "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" Then they will assume a dignified and learned air and try to look as wise as an owl and say, "All scientists now believe in Evolution." And they will spend money by the hundreds of thousands and dig in the earth and sob and cry and pray, "0 Baal, hear us! Let us find the missing link." It's not a missing link they need to find—they need to find a whole chain! Where is there a single link ever found anywhere, by anybody, between two species? Echo answers, "Where?" Listen to Darwin: "When we descend to details we can prove that not one species has changed."—The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210, in letter written to Bentham.
Oh, the Evolutionists will talk learnedly about "the missing link" and all that. In glass case No. 2 in the Hall of the Age of Man, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, is the bust of what they call "the Piltdown man," a "missing link," a "restoration." Prof. Henry Fairfield Osborn, in a letter June 1, 1921, to the Editor of the New York Globe, said: "The American Museum of Natural History and the Hall of the Age of Man, to which Alfred W. McCann refers, scrupulously avoid presenting theories, and rest on the solid ground of well ascertained facts." Keeping that positive statement in mind, consider the facts about "the Piltdown Man": About 1909 or 1910 from a gravel bed on a farm near Piltdown Common, England, a laborer found a small piece of unusually thick human parietal bone and gave it to Mr. Charles Dawson, who, on visiting the same spot "some years later" found "another and larger piece of bone belonging to the frontal region of a skull, including a portion of the ridge extending over the left eyebrow." Both of these fragments, it is said, could be concealed in the palm of one hand. By August, 1913, the Piltdown fragments included two nasal bones and two molar teeth. From those fragments they have reconstructed "the Piltdown man"—just as from one tooth recently found in Nebraska they have "reconstructed" the whole being— wonderful science!
But alas for the swindling tricks of the Evolutionists! Prof. Alex Herdlicka, in Smithsonian report, 1913, pp. 491-552, says:
"The most important development in the study of the Piltdown remains is the recent well documented objection by Prof. Gerritt S. Miller of the United States National Museum to the classing together of the lower jaw and the canine with cranium. According to Miller, who had ample anthropoid, as well as human, material for comparison, the jaw and tooth belong to a fossil chimpanzee." But hold on: "the chimpanzee, according to the evidence, never lived in the British Isles in any age." Who lied and slipped that chimpanzee tooth in as having been found in an English gravel bed, that the "reconstructed" "piltdown man" might appear as "the missing link?"
Sir Ray Lankester, one of the most distinguished English scientists, from the first said that the jaw and the skull had never belonged to the same creature. Prof. David Waterton, University of London, King's College, confirmed the decision of Sir Ray Lankester, saying, "The mandible was obviously that of a chimpanzee, while the fragments of the skull were human in all their characters."
Prof. George Grant MacCurdy of the Archaeological Department of Yale University in Science, February 18, 1916, said:
"Regarding the Piltdown specimens we have at last reached a position that is tenable. The cranium is human as was recognized by all in the beginning. On the other hand, the mandible and the canine tooth are those of a fossil chimpanzee. This means that in place of Eoanthropos Dawsoni (the Piltdown missing link) we have two individuals belonging to different genera." Yet in 1921 Prof. Henry Fairfield Osborn still publishes in his writings pictures of "the Piltdown man." Wouldn't you blush, reader, if thus "caught with the goods"? But these Evolutionists, when exposed, can no more blush than than can a lipstick flapper.
Of this base imposture the scholarly Catholic physician, James J. Walsh, M. D., Ph. D., says:
"Is not such unwarranted piecing together of discrepant material unworthy even of a petifogging attorney? Such juggling bespeaks the mountebank; not the scientist." Had this kind of work been done by a preacher, he would have been looked upon, and rightly, as a slimy hypocrite, but this High Priest of Evolution can get by with it and remain in good standing—for obvious reasons.
If the reader wishes to see every one of the "reconstructed" "missing links" exposed, let him read "God or Gorilla" by Alfred W. McCann, LL. D.
Prof. John Gerard, in "The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer," after quoting Charles Robin (Dictionaire Encyclopedeque des sciences medicales) as saying "Darwinism is a fiction, a poetical accumulation of probabilities, without proof, and of attractive explanations without demonstration," gives a list of continental scholars who have rejected Darwinism altogether or "admit it only with fatal reservations": M. de Quatrefrages, Blanchard, Wigand, Wolff, Harmann, Pauly, Driesch, Hertwig, Plate, Heer, Kolliker, Eismer von Hartmann, Schilde, Du Bois-Reymond, Nageli, Schaaffhausen, Fechner, Jacob, Diebolder, Huber, Joseph Rouke and Von Bauer.
And yet in the face of these scientists and others quoted in this chapter, the Evolutionists with the innocent, lamb-like look on their faces of a six-year-old girl who comes out in her pinafore and recites, "Mary had a little lamb," will continue to say, "All scientists now accept Evolution." Take, as a sample H. W. Conn: "We find nowhere today any thought of discussing this question any more than discussing the truth of the law of gravitation. ... Science regards it as beyond discussion and accepts it as a demonstrated conclusion. (Reader, get that word "demonstrated," will you? When they cannot find a single case!—T. T. M.) ... It would probably be impossible to find among modern scientists any one who would venture to hold any other opinion."
But the High Priest of Evolution, Prof. Henry Fairfield Osborn, Honorary Curator Department of Vertebrate Paleontology American Museum of Natural History, author of "Men of the Old Stone Age," etc., goes Professor Conn one better, and even includes the preachers: "The religious men of all churches accept evolution as a fact"—when right under his nose while he was making this statement, the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, with offices in the Hartford Building, 22-26 East Fourteenth Street, New York City, was publishing in the metropolitan press at regular advertising rates a vigorous denunciation of the so-called scientific theories of man's origin which run counter to the doctrine of creation by God."—God or Gorilla, p. 251. But such base deception, such wilful falsifying as would drive an ignorant preacher from the pulpit, does not hurt the standing of an Evolutionist—for obvious reasons.
But it is claimed that many scientists quoted in this chapter are dead. Fortunate for these Evolutionists that they are dead! Does the fact that they are dead prove that they were not great scientists? Does death prove that they lied ? Have living Evolutionists found one single transitional specimen from one species to another? Hasn't natural selection been killed? Hasn't it been proved that acquired characteristics are not inherited? Hasn't it been proved that man has been on this earth less than 15,000 years? Put here is a live one, a real live one, understand?
Prof. William Bateson of England, the greatest living Biologist, President the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1914: "Darwin speaks no more with philosophical authority. We read his scheme of evolution as we would those of Lucretius or of Lamarck. . . . Almost the last shred of that teleological fustian with which Victorian philosophers loved to clothe the theory of evolution is destroyed. . . . Do we, as a matter of fact, find in the world about us variations occurring of such a kind as to warrant faith in a contemporary progressive evolution? . . . Till lately most of us would have said, 'yes' without misgiving. The appearance of contemporary variation proves to be an illusion. WE HAVE DONE WITH THE NOTION THAT DARWIN CAME TO FAVOR, THAT LARGE DIFFERENCES CAN ARISE BY ACCUMULATION OF SMALL DIFFERENCES. ... Modern research lends not the smallest encouragement or sanction to the view that gradual evolution occurs by the transformation of masses of individuals, though THAT FANCY HAS FIXED ITSELF ON POPULAR IMAGINATION."—Godor Gorilla, pp. 205-208.
"We see no changes in progress around us in the contemporary world which we can imagine likely to culminate in the evolution of forms distinct in the larger sense. By intercrossing dogs, jackals and wolves new forms of these types can be made, some of which may be species, but I see no reason to think that from such material a fox could be bred in indefinite time or that dogs could be bred from foxes."—William Bateson, quoted in God or Gorilla, p. 285.
Mr. Darwin as quoted by William Jennings Bryan: "The Menace of Darwinism," says: "With savages the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a Vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the progress of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; our medical experts exert their utmost skill to save the lives of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who from weak constitutions would have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." That is evolution to a dot—"survival of the fittest." "Might makes right." If Evolution is true, and the Bible is not God's word, and the Saviour not really our Redeemer, where did this building of assyums for the weak, the maimed, the sick come from? Evolution says: "Let them die." Yet Evolutionists now are insistent on the "social gospel," helping the poor, the sick, etc. When did Evolution reverse itself? The efforts of Evolutionists to get around this are pitiable. Their theory in its logical conclusions, was too blood-raw and they stole these higher principles from the Bible they are trying to destroy and from the Saviour their teaching is branding as the bastard, illegimate son of a fallen woman, and are trying to masquerade under these high, noble principles as the fruit of their Evolution!
The old legend: The birds decided on a test flight to test which could fly the highest; when all others had become exhausted and stopped in their upward flight, the eagle soared higher and higher. When at last he stopped in his flight, the little wren, which had remained hidden in the feathers on the back of the eagle, sprang out and flew up a few feet and claimed the victory! Poor little hypocrite! But there is your Evolution! Claiming these higher principles, when Evolution teaches just the opposite.
But the question comes up, Why have so many professors and scientists accepted Evolution if it is untrue? Two other questions: Why have so many of the really great scientists repudiated it? Why have great scientists such as Dr. Virchow and Prof. William Max Wundt of Leipsic, who at first accepted it and wrote largely in its defense, given it up and turned against it ?
Remember that in 1800 there were eighty theories of so-called science that contradicted the Bible and every one of them have been given up as false.
Let some great men explain how and why men are misled:—
Prof. Henry Fairfield Osborn, in "The Origin and Evolution of Life": "In truth, from the period of the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of Evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature."
Francis Bacon, in "Novum Organum," explains: "If the human intellect hath once taken a liking to any doctrine, either because received and credited or because otherwise pleasing, it draws everything else into harmony with that doctrine, and to its support; and albeit there may be found a more powerful array of contradictory instances, these, however, it does not observe, or it contemns, or by distinction extenuates and rejects them."
Rosseau's description of the philosophers of his day is a pen-picture of the Evolutionists:
"I have found them proud, positive, dogmatizing, even in their pretended skepticism, knowing everything, proving nothing, and ridiculing one another. There is not one of them who, coming to distinguish truth from falsehood, would not prefer his own error to the truth that is discovered by another.
"Under pretense of being themselves the only people enlightened, they imperiously subject us to their magisterial decisions, and would fain palm upon us, for the true reason of things, the unintelligible systems they have erected in their own heads, while they trample underfoot all that man reveres."
James Martineau says, "The history of knowledge abounds with instances of men who, with the highest merit in particular walks, have combined with it a curious incompetency."
Prof. G. Schwalbe, the great German anatomist, in "The Early History of Man," puts it truly:
"Probably in no department of natural science is the attempt to draw general conclusions from a number of facts more liable to be influenced by the subjective disposition of the student than in the early history of man. On this subject it often happens that upon a few facts theories are based which are stated with so much conviction as easily to lead those, who have no special knowledge of the subject, to regard them as assured scientific certainties."
Prof. E. G. Conklin, in "The Direction of Human Evolution": "It is not my intention to argue the truth of the general theory of organic Evolution: the day for that is past." How they wish it was really past! The wish is father to the thought. They first said it is possible ; then that it is probable; then therefore it is certain; then, "all scientists now accept Evolution; then "now the day of arguing the truth of it is past." "Me-thinks the lady doth protest too much."
But Prof. Conklin certainly told one truth when he said: "Narrowness of outlook and intense specialization often make 'learned fools.' " But how came him to make such a confession! And what will his co-Evolutionists think of him for having told on them, too!
Professor Graebner: "The warfare of philosophy against Christian faith is readily explained. Man is corrupt. He loves sin. He is conscious of his guilt and fears the penalty. Hence, every avenue of his escape is welcome, if only he can persuade himself that there is no God, no judgment. Man is proud, he desires no Saviour. Hence the effort to prove that no Saviour is needed, that there is no guilt attaching to sin, that there is no absolute right and wrong."
"All satanic methods before this have been crude and coarse compared with this last invention. It is the most subtle and sweeping of all evil methods to ensnare the mind of man. Based on what is called science, promoted by the scholars of the day, taught in the fountains of learning and preached from pulpit and platform, it must have a widespread effect. Heretofore attacks on Christianity have been made from without. This is from within. It is the trusted leaders who are now undermining the fortress in which they live."— The Other Side of Evolution, p. 143.
This author is only partly right; only a part of our trusted religious teachers are undermining the fortress; many of our college men and preachers are standing true; but they are asleep to our danger—many of them. But the great betrayal, the great danger is in the teachers in our tax-supported schools and school books. The great majority of them have gone over to this soul-damning enemy, and they are reaching the great body of our young people at the most susceptible, critical time of their lives.
The President of the American Association of University Professors recently sent out a letter on the "Anti-Evolution" movement, from which Ginn & Co., publishers, in their "What the Colleges Are Doing," for November, 1922, make the following quotation:
"The chief injury is not merely to the professor who loses his position or to the particular institution that sacrifices a permanent aim to a passing fear. It is in the degradation of the office of teachers in the establishment of distrust and suspicion in the public mind toward all colleges and universities." Who is to blame?
Who is to blame, the sheriff who does not carry out his oath but fosters gambling and bootlegging, or the man who exposes him and drives him from office? Who has degraded the office of teacher, the teachers who have prostituted their office to teaching the most insidious, the most dangerous infidelity the world has ever known, and labelling it "science" when it is not science, and calling it "verified knowledge" as this professor calls it in this letter, bringing it into even the Primary Department to poison and doom our children, when they know that no honest man, woman, boy or girl can believe Evolution is true and at the same time believe the Bible to be really the word of God and the Saviour to be real Deity and a real Redeemer; or those of us who are exposing Evolution and these teachers, traitors to their trust, and trying to save our children from hell? Let them go and build their own schools and teach what they please; let them be paid by those who believe in their disguised infidelity; but after taking the hard-earned money from Methodists and thus stealing Vanderbilt University from them, after taking Baptist money and stealing Chicago University from them, and many other great schools, they have now stolen into our State Universities and State Normals and High Schools and on down into the Primary Departments of our public schools and demand that we pay them with our taxes to doom our children and send them to hell; then when they are exposed they turn sissy and whine that they are being persecuted! "the degradation of the office of teacher!" only those who misuse the office of teacher can really degrade it. Even Juvenal, the heathen, taught "Maxima pueris debitur reverentia" ("The greatest reverence is due youth"), but these Evolutionists palm off their unproven theory as science upon our unsuspecting children and sweep them into hell. What do they care ?
This same president says that this fight of "antievolution" "discourages
free discussion and the research for the truth among its professors and
students" —when he knows
that a boy and girl who dare stand up against
Evolution is crushed like an egg-shell, often threatened with failure to
graduate if they do not cease their opposition and believe what is taught;
when he knows
that an untrained boy and girl have little chance
with a trained professor who has all vantage ground; when he knows that
these Evolution teachers never tell their classes of the great scientists
who reject Evolution, but say, "all scientists accept Evolution!"