FIVE KINDS OF EVOLUTIONISTS. THE VOICE OF MATHEMATICS ON THE AGE AND POPULATION OF MAN. THE UNITY OF THE RACE, OF THE MAIN RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS, OF MAN'S ORIGINAL HOME, OF MAN'S ANCIENT CIVILIZATION. MENDELISM AND BIOMETRY. NO NEW SPECIES EVOLVED DURING RECORDED HISTORY. MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY. NUMEROUS FACTS CONTRADICT EVOLUTION. AGE OF THE SUN AND THE EARTH. HISTORY AND GEOLOGY. DISTRIBUTION OF PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE. DESIGN IN CREATION. EIGHT GULFS IMPASSABLE BY EVOLUTION. SOME UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS. HYBRIDS. HONEY BEES AND ANTS MORE INTELLIGENT THAN APES. THE MOSAIC CREATION ACCOUNT INSPIRED. EVOLUTIONISTS' ADMISSIONS. ANTI-EVOLUTION TESTIMONIES OF ABLEST SCIENTISTS. EVOLUTION FOUNDED UPON EXTRAVAGANT AND INHARMONIOUS GUESSES. EVOLUTION'S PUERILE ARGUMENTS. ALLEGED MISSING LINKS. ANIMALS PAINTED IN CAVERNS. VESTIGIAL ORGANS. BLOOD TESTS. RECAPITULATION THEORY. INCREASE OF KNOWLEDGE AND INVENTIONS. EVOLUTION CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD. EVOLUTION'S INDICTMENT.

WE WILL devote the last chapter of our book to a consideration of evolution, which is falsely, we believe, held by an ever decreasing number of scientists to be the method of creation. There are various schools of evolution: (1) atheistically materialistic evolutionists, who teach that the universe and its plant and animal life produced themselves by a series of transmutations from one form into another; (2) spontaneous-generation evolutionists, who, having no further use of a Supreme Being than that of making Him the Creator of matter and its forces, claim that out of such matter and forces the universe and its plant and animal life developed themselves by a series of changes from lower to higher forms; (3) Darwinian evolutionists, who hold that God not only created matter and its forces, but also the first form or, less preferably, the first few forms of plant and animal life, which thenceforth developed themselves into ever higher forms, culminating in man; (4) a class of evolutionists who hold with Darwinian

539

540 Creation.

evolutionists up to the highest form of beasts, refusing, however, to believe that man is a creature of evolution; and

(5) those evolutionists who believe that God created, not only the universe, but also every species of plant and animal and that each of these developed or deteriorated into many varieties in each species, e.g., God created man; but man deteriorated into various races, like the Semitic, Japhetic and Hamitic, or into the red, black, brown, yellow and white races. This latter view of evolution or rather devolution is undoubtedly Scriptural and we observe its enactment in various forms of plant and animal life about us, especially under human manipulation. It is especially against the views of the first three of the above classes of evolutionists that we will write in this chapter.

Even among these three classes of evolutionists, who are called monophylitic evolutionists, i.e., those who believe that all plants and animals evolved from but one primeval form, and oligophylitic, i.e., those who believe that these evolved from but a few original forms, there are great differences as to the age of plant life, beast life and human life, e.g., the lowest figure that any of these evolutionists has given for the age of man is 100,000 years, while some set it as high as 2,000,000 years. By mathematics we can clearly prove that the lowest figure—100,000 years—is an absurdity; for it is altogether too short a time for such a method as evolution to bring from apes a being like man into existence and into his present condition. Mathematics also shows that the highest figure—2,000,000 years—is unthinkable. The following is the proof: The 1922 Berlin statistics (latest of such available to us) for the world's population credits the race with a population of 1,804,187,000 in 1922. To reach this population the human race must have doubled itself 30.75 times; for if we raise the number 2 to its thirtieth power, the result is 1,073,741,824; and to its thirty-first power, the result is 2,147,483,648. Hence to have the

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 541

present population of the earth, the race must have doubled itself between 30 and 31 times. Logarithms prove it to be 30.75. According to the Bible chronology, from the flood, which began in the Fall of 2473 B.C., to the Spring of 1922 were 4,393.5 years. Shem (compare Gen. 11:10; 5:32; 7:6) was begotten a few months less than 100 years before the flood; hence about 4,493.5 years before 1922 there was but one human couple whose descendants came this side of the flood to populate the earth anew. Hence in the 4,493.5 years  before  the  Spring  of  1922,  the  race  doubled itself 30.75 times. This would make an average of 146.13 years for a doubling of population, since it is the result of dividing 4,493.5 by 30.75.

That this figure of the race doubling itself every 146.13 years is a reasonable one, we can see from two related facts. First, according to the Jewish year book for 1922, there were then 15,393,815 Jews in the world. According to Biblical chronology, from the death of Jacob until the Spring of 1922 there were 3,734 years. Seventeen years before his death Jacob was 130 years old (Gen. 47:9, 28) and Joseph was 40 years old (Gen. 41: 46; Jacob coming to Egypt in the famine's third year). Hence Jacob was 90 years old at Joseph's birth, and his marriage occurred seven years before (Gen. 31:41; 30:25). Accordingly, 3,734 + 17 + 40 + 7 = 3,798, the number of years from Jacob's marriage to 1922. Raising 2 to its 23.8758th power, we get 15,393,815—the Jewish population in 1922. Dividing 3,798 by 23.8758, we get 159.07, which would be the average number of years for Jacob's descendants to double themselves so as to become from Jacob's marriage until 1922 a population of 15,393,815. Second, Abraham's descendants through Ishmael—the Arabs, not only in Arabia, but in the rest of Asia and in Africa—number approximately 25,000,000. According to the Bible chronology, Abraham entered Canaan when 75 years of age (Gen. 12:4),

542 Creation.

in the Spring of 2045 B. C.; hence 3,966 years before the Spring of 1922. Ishmael was born when Abraham was 86 years old (Gen. 16:16), hence 3,955 years before the Spring of 1922. Hence the Spring before, Abraham and Hagar were a childless couple, which was 3,956 years before the Spring of 1922. But 25,000,000 is the 24.4901th [24.5754] power of 2. Hence, Abraham and Hagar doubled themselves in their descendants every 161.53 [160.9740] years, which is the result of 3,956 divided by 24.4901 [24.5754]. The above investigations show that the whole race doubled itself since Noah and his wife were childless every  146.13  years,  the  Jews  doubled  themselves  every 159.07  years  and  the  Arabs  doubled  themselves  every 161.53 [160.9740] years. Doubtless the reason why the entire race kept doubling itself on an average of about 15 years sooner than the Jews and the Arabs, is due to the fact that it is written both of typical and antitypical Ishmaelites that their hand would be against every man and every man's hand would be against them (Gen. 16:12), with the result that more of them on the average met with untimely deaths and propagating hindrances than the average of the rest of the race, like the starving conditions of Asiatic and African deserts and constant wars and feuds for the Arabs, and among others, the Assyrian, Babylonian and Roman conquests and Gospel-Age persecutions for the Jews. But, with these limitations, that the figures for all three should be practically alike proves that the principle on which they have been obtained is on the average reliable.

But what does this do with the ages of man that the guesses of evolutionists give us, e.g., that our race is 2,000,000 years old? There is no reason for believing that the race would double itself less frequently than the Arabs, the slowest to double itself of the three given above; but let us liberally grant that it doubled itself 10 times less frequently, which would be once each 1,611.53 [1,609.74] years. This would make it

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 543

double  itself  1,240.3  [1,242.4]  times  in  2,000,000 years.

Suppose we drop the .3 [.4] of a time and use 1,240 [1,242] as the times of doubling and then 2 to its 1,240th [1,242] power. The result would be 18,932,139,737,991 [75,727,673,499,673] followed by 360 figures, a set of figures that would reach around a large room. Such multitudes are inconceivable by man's mind. There would be no room for them on earth and they would, if placed on the land surface of the earth, stand on one another's heads miles high. Of course, these considerations completely disprove the claim of those evolutionists who allege that the race has been on this earth 2,000,000 years.

Now, let us take the shortest age of man suggested by any evolutionist—100,000 years, a time far too short for evolution so to work as to produce man in his present condition from one step removed from the ape. Let us suppose that the population doubled one tenth as rapidly as the Arabs, i.e., once each 1,161.53 [1,609.74] years. In 100,000 years the population, accordingly, would have doubled itself 86.1 [62.12] times. Ignoring the fraction, 2 raised to its 86th [62nd] power is 4,660,210,253,138,204,300,    [4,611,686,018,427,387,900] or 2,527,570,733 [2,556,102,010] times as many people as are now on earth! This consideration destroys even the mildest form of evolution on man's age on earth. If man  had lived 10,000 years on earth and there had been no flood, the race, doubling itself at the Arab rate (the lowest of the three examples above), would be 2,000,000,000 [2,556,102,010] times as numerous as it now is, i.e., 3,608,374,000,000,000,000.    [4,611,686,018,427,387,900] If there had been no flood in Noah's day, based upon the race's rate of doubling, i.e., once in 146.13 years, since Noah begat Shem, there would be since the 6,060 years from Adam and Eve's creation 41.35 [41.4699] doublings; and 2 raised to its 41.35th [41.4699] power is 2,583,852,323,274  [3,045,676,814,314],  which  would  be the earth's present population had there been no flood in Noah's day. This is about 2,500 [1,688] times its present population. Hence, we see that mathematics proves the Bible age for man to be correct and requires the

544 Creation.

flood at Noah's time to destroy all except one pair and their direct offspring and the latters' wives. Therefore, mathematics completely demolishes evolution and proves the Bible account of man's age to be true.

All the above calculations are based on the ground that the race sprang from one pair. But, necessarily, according to many evolutionists, many more than one pair of humans evolved from apes. Hence, the figures above based on the age of man as being 2,000,000 or 100,000 or any number of intervening years, would enormously increase to degrees most baffling—especially to evolutionists! Another consideration corroborates their above refutation. If the human race were 2,000,000 years old and had to double itself 30.75 times to reach its present population, it would double itself once in 65,040 years; for 2,000,000 ÷ 30.75 = 65,040. This would mean that there would now be less than 4 Arabs and less than 4 Jews in the world; for they would have to live over 61,000 years yet before the first double would have taken place! These figures prove that man could not have been evoluted from the brute creation. He must be a direct creation from the hand of God and within the time and conditions set forth in the Bible, whose pertinent claims are sound.

A second argument that tells conclusively against certain forms of evolution is the unity of the human family. The Bible puts the argument like this: God "hath made of one blood all the nations of men for to dwell upon the face of the earth." The following facts prove this unity. All races of men interbreed and their offspring are fertile offspring, whereas if evolution were true they could not interbreed and have fertile offspring, even as different species like the horse and ass cannot interbreed and have fertile offspring. If certain forms of evolution were true, there would be many heads of the human family descendent from various species and thus incapable of producing fruitful offspring. Hence, the fertility of descendants of all

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 545

interbred races of men proves the unity of the human race and disproves evolution. Again, the unity of human speech proves the unity of the human race and thus disproves evolution. Prof. Max Miller and other very great students of comparative philology claim that all languages are derived from one basic language, proven by the similarity of their chief roots, words, grammatical constructions and the letters of their alphabets, as well as the order of these letters. Words like father and mother are very similar in many languages of the five groups of human language, which proves the early origin of home and civilization. If certain forms of evolution were true, our present languages could not be reduced to five linguistic groups and these five in turn be reduced to one original language; but they would have to be traced to thousands of non-related languages, such as the thousands of evoluted species of mankind would have invented, had there been such evoluted species of mankind.

The unity of the main religious sentiments of mankind likewise bespeaks the unity of the human race and contradicts evolution, which, if true, would not in its chaotic species of men have developed unity in the basal religious ideas, and doubtless would have developed at least some atheistic races, which races do not exist. Thus all races hold the following religious ideas: a Supreme God surrounded by subordinate gods, i.e., angels; an original state of, and fall from sinlessness; an original golden age; a sense of sin, which in evolution would be impossible, since man would always be bettering himself; sacrifice in propitiation of sin; longing for fellowship with the Supreme Being and a hope for a hereafter. These are basal religious ideas prevalent in all religions and they prove that there was an original Divine revelation made to the head of the race and by him transmitted to his descendants, however much the original Divine revelation may have been corrupted in its long period of transmission. If certain

546 Creation.

forms of evolution were true, such a basal unity in religious ideas would be impossible, for ape-men in their alleged thousands of species would not have arrived at such a unity, the idea of religion being utterly wanting in the highest order of the beast creation. Rather, we would expect completely disharmonious contrarieties—nearly as many as there would be different human species evolved on the earth.

The unity of man's original home also proves mankind's unity. History, archeology and philology, alike, testify to Mesopotamia, a small strip of country between the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers, as man's original home, from which, after the one speech of man became divided, first into three, then into five, then into more, the race, dividing into various nations, began to spread itself abroad over the face of the earth. This strip of country is about 100 miles wide and 125 miles long—12,500 square miles, i.e., 1/4005 of the land surface of the earth. If Moses was not inspired, he guessed this territory as the cradle of the race—one chance in 4,005 of being right. The improbability of such a guess disfavors its truth and favors the truth that Moses was inspired. But the facts of history, archeology and philology prove this territory to have been the original home of the race; while, if certain forms of evolution were true, the thousands of direct offshoots from apes would have been spread out almost everywhere over the surface of the ancient earth.

Ancient civilizations disprove evolution and favor the unity of the race, sprung from a highly gifted parentage. Archeology has uncovered several very ancient civilizations in which great literatures, arts and sciences flourished very fruitfully. Witness this in the finds in Egypt, Babylonia, pre-Judaeic Palestine, etc. The code of Hammurabi, the Amraphel of Gen. 14:1, pre-dated the Mosaic laws by nearly 500 years and it shows very great ability in legislation. Well organized

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 547

governments, social orders and highly educated and gifted people are brought to our attention and show man then to have been a highly developed being. The most ancient traces of man find him well civilized and well developed, giving him more capacity; for the average skull is now 2 inches less in circumference than the average skulls recovered from Pompeii. That man was not so far progressed in some matters as now is not due to evolution, but to the day of preparation in which we have been in the last 140 years; for the great progress of these years cannot be due to evolution, since the progress has been very sudden and terrifically rapid since 1799, when God's day of preparation for the Millennium began. But if evolution were true, the progress would have been gradual from the very beginning. The history of civilization disproves evolution in this respect; for it proves that each nation is like a human being; it goes through a period of childhood, youth, manhood, prime, age, decline and decay, e.g., Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, Rome, Turkey, Spain, etc.; while, if evolution were true, it would be progress throughout, and not decline and decay toward the end. Ancient civilizations, therefore, disprove evolution and prove the unity of the human family, which fact overthrows certain forms of evolution, since they make the race not a unity, but a many-headed medley of unrelated beings.

Several of the recent sciences, e.g., Mendelism and Biometry, disfavor evolution. Mendel, by a vast series of experiments in plant and animal life, has proved several natural laws of heredity. One of these is that the first offspring of a positive (dominant) and a negative (recessive) plant or animal takes after the dominant parent. In the second generation, the dominant one predominates, but the negative one appears. In the third or fourth generation both appear about equally in the descendants. E.g., if a giant variety of peas is crossed with a dwarf variety, the offspring are

548 Creation.

all tall; in the second generation both appear, but the giant variety in the proportion of 3 to 1. In the third or fourth generation they are on the average equal in number; but when these dwarfs are self-fertilized all the successive offspring are dwarfs. Experiments with flowers, rabbits, cats, rats, dogs, etc., etc., etc., proved the same thing. This law applied to man and apes should make the ape appear in some generations among men. So, too, we ought to find some men turn to apes—in the negative characters. But nothing of the kind happens, which shows that there is no taint of the ape in man. Biometry [measure of life] is the science of the statistical study of variation and heredity. It proves that the common ancestor of the English race cannot have lived earlier than 30 generations ago, and that most people are nearer related than that. So, also, other nations have been traced and, as Prof. Conklin of Princeton University, an expert in Biometry, speaking of these, says: "As a matter of fact, most persons of the same race are more closely related than this [30 generations apart] and certainly we need not go back to Adam, nor even to Shem, Ham or Japheth, to find our common ancestor." This science, then, is in line with Noah being the common ancestor of the present race of men. We have not come from the brute creation, but from Noah and Adam. Biometry also teaches that it is a law of nature to eliminate extremes and peculiarities and that throughout nature there is a tendency to the normal and away from the abnormal, which is against evolution; for it implies a constant tendency to the abnormal. Thus, on the average, the extreme peculiarities of parents are toned down in children. Most rarely do parents of genius have children of genius, as the great names in the arts, sciences, inventions, history of nations, etc., abundantly prove. All this is against evolution; and Biometry proves all this to be demonstrable.

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 549

A most telling point against evolution is that there are no new species forming now, nor have there been in the past, so far as records indicate. If evolution were the law of plant and animal existence, then would we see examples of it on all sides. But what is the fact? No one demonstrably has seen one species change into another. There is no record of such an event in the whole past history of the world. There is no present example of such a thing. Evolutionists tell us that there are 3,000,000 species of plant and animal life. According to them these have developed from the first germ some 60,000,000 years ago. At this rate how many species would have arisen in the last 6,000 years? According to the method of figuring given above, again with liberal concessions to the evolutionists, 2,097 species must have arisen in the last 6,000 years, or an average of about one new species each three years. As a matter of fact, it is not proven that even one has arisen in these 6,000 years, which fact evolutionists are forced to admit. Dr. Warren, of the University of California, said in refutation of evolution: "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 evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known." Prof. W. Bateson, of Cambridge University (England), who is generally recognized as the world's greatest biologist, and who at a scientific congress held several years ago at Toronto, Canada, gave its evolutionist members a severe jolt in his arguments against evolution, said: "It is impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin's theory of the origin of species. No explanation whatever has been offered to account for the fact that after forty [now seventy] years [of diligent and world-wide search], no evidence has been discovered to verify his genesis of species." This hits the nail on the head.

550 Creation.

Mathematical probability is unanswerably opposed to evolution as most evolutionists hold it, i.e., that only one pair evoluted from each lower to each higher species. They claim that there are 3,000,000 species of plant and animal life. Is it at all probable that one species could by two of its members evolve into the next higher? Is it at all probable that these two should be male and female, that they were evolved at the same time and at the same place, that they were mutually attractive and thus interbred? The chances against this happening in each species is a matter of compound probability, produced by multiplying the number of males by the number of females in one species, by the number of places where they possibly could have lived and these products by the number of generations in the average species. There would be one chance for this happening in one average species, against untold decillions that it would not happen. Then the probability of its happening from the lowest form of life to man would be the product of the compound probability in the first species multiplied in turn by the compound probability of these things happening in all the other of the 2,999,999 species. This would give us a set of figures represented by about 1,000 digits against its happening to one that it would happen. Such an improbability amounts to a certainty of evolution's falsity. Mathematical probability, therefore, completely refutes evolution.

If evolution were true as a law of nature, why have not all lower species passed out of existence through evolving into higher species until by this time there would be but one species—man, and he on the way of evoluting to some higher species? Why have some species become so large, like the ancient saurians, and our modern elephants and alleged later species than these, e.g., monkeys, become so small, if evolution is true? Why do we not find many beings nearly equal or similar to man, if evolution is true? Why did

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 551

Romanes, while yet an evolutionist, find that the collective intelligence of all species lower than man equals the intelligence of the average child of 15 months, if evolution is true? Why should all males but one and all females but one die as members of the 3,000,000 species, and the two not die as such, but as members of the next higher species? Would not this be as unlikely as if untold decillions of dollars being tossed into the air, should all fall heads down except two? If as Huxley, a leading evolutionist, said, "There is an enormous gulf, a divergence practically infinite, between the lowest man and the highest beast," then why are there not between man and ape many other species in existence, if evolution is true? Surely Huxley's gulf between them is evident when we consider man's immense superiority to the ape in physical and mental respects, letting out of consideration entirely the moral and religious respects, of the latter of which the ape is entirely destitute. Why are the senses of seeing, hearing and smelling on the wane in man, why are people now more nervous than formerly, why do more people now become bald than formerly and why are diseases, physical, mental and moral, increasing, if evolution is the law of existence? Surely such and other like considerations refute evolution as a law of existence. Degeneration is the trend, not evolution.

The earth is not old enough to allow for the millions of years that the evolution theory requires for the development of plant and animal life. Their guesses as to its age differ from 16,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years, and that because they must allow for millions of years after the earth cooled off before their evolution could begin to work on the first life germ and then have sufficient time to produce their 3,000,000 species. The more able of them claim 60,000,000 years for the development from the first germ of life to man. But the earth is not old enough for this, as can be proved by a number of considerations. The ablest scientists,

552 Creation.

like Helmholtz, Kelvin, Young, Todd, etc., claim for the sun on an average an age of 18,000,000 years. It was from gases thrown off from our universe's spiral that the sun and our solar system was formed. The sun is not a lump of coal, else it would have burned to a cinder within a few thousand years. Helmholtz and scientists generally hold that its light and heat are caused by its contracting. They have demonstrated that this contraction, causing a shrinkage of about 300 feet annually in the sun's diameter, would be sufficient to keep up light and heat at their present quantity. Prof. Young in his Astronomy says, "The shrinkage of the sun to its present dimensions from a diameter larger than the orbit of Neptune, the remotest of the [then known] planets would generate about 18,000,000 times as much heat as the sun now radiates in a year. Hence, if the sun's heat has been and still is due to the contraction of its mass, it cannot have been radiating heat at the present rate, on the shrinking hypothesis, for more than 18,000,000 years." This proves that it is not even 18,000,000 years since the gas that was developed into the earth and its sun left their common spiral. This disproves evolution, not allowing it sufficient time to develop its 3,000,000 species.

Millions of years were required before the molten mass that formed the earth cooled off enough to form an adequate crust to permit plant and animal life to be formed and live upon it, which disproves evolution. Lord Kelvin, who calculated the sun's age at 18,000,000 years, calculated the earth's age as 8,302,210 years. If we subtract from these years the immense time necessary for the earth to cool off sufficiently and to form an adequately thick crust to sustain plant and animal life, enough time is not left to allow for the evolution of 3,000,000 species; for several millions of years must have lapsed in this cooling process and in the formation of a crust averaging 25 miles deep over the fiery mass within the earth. So, too, the surface

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 553

of the earth indicates that it was in comparatively recent ages that the earth's surface was water-covered (Gen. 1:2,  9, 10). Geologists claim that the Niagara Falls receded from Lake Ontario within the last 7,000 years, that the Mississippi was 8,000 years in excavating its channel and that man made his appearance on earth within the last 8,010 years, the Bible putting this as a little over 6,000 years. These facts certainly do not allow a sufficiency of time for evolution to have produced 3,000,000 species and, therefore, completely disprove it as a theory.

We have already shown that history contains not one hint of the transmutation of one species into another. We now add that, like history, geology confounds the evolutionist by not furnishing even one fossil showing anything in process of change from one into another species. We have many fossils of plants and animals, but they entirely lack an example of an animal fossil showing a transition from one to another species. If evolution were true, we should have millions of these on earth's strata.

The distribution of plant life and certain animal life disproves evolution. If all plants came evolvedly from an original germ, how came they to be distributed in continents separated by oceans, and that before man appeared on earth, as many fossils of them prove? So, too, we find certain animals whose power of locomotion is but very slight scattered widely. The oyster is found in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia and North and South America. How could they have crossed oceans? Again, if all plant life originated in a single germ, how did it happen that some plants are scattered among all continents, and others when found by civilized man were limited to but one, like Indian corn, tobacco, potatoes, etc.? If these once existed in the eastern hemisphere, as evolution requires, why were they found only in America? Certainly we must accept the conclusion of Agassiz, one of the greatest

554 Creation.

scientists of all times, to the effect that evolution "is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its methods and mischievous in its tendencies."

The arguments against evolution so far presented are aimed against one, or two, or three of the first three kinds of evolution, i.e., (1) atheistic materialistic evolution, (2) spontaneous-generational evolution, and (3) Darwinian evolution. The fifth form of evolution, i.e., changes (upward or downward) limited to each species, is not unbiblical, and our arguments against Darwinian evolution, except those against man's descent from beasts, hold against the fourth form, which is Darwinian evolution with the exception of this: that it denies man's descent from beasts. Hence we are without details passing by in this discussion the fourth and fifth forms of evolution. We will now proceed with our arguments against its first three forms as given above.

Evolution denies design in creation, which is the corollary of a wise purposeful Creator, and must fall back on chance as the line along which the universe and its life manifestations came into being and move. The universe and plant and animal life literally overflow with the expressions of design, which imply a designer. Almost infinite in number are these design expressions. We will set forth but a few: The human body is packed to overflowing with evidence of design and adaptation. The most intricate machine, like the Hoe printing press, shows design decidedly much less markedly than the human body. How multifold is design manifest in the nervous system, with its relations to thought, affection, will, the five senses, our blood and its channels and vital organs! How wonderfully designful are our blood and its channels, our muscles, glands, skin, brain, vital organs, hands, fingers, joints, arms, feet, toes, legs, eyes, ears, nose, tongue, teeth, excretory organs, reproductive organs, etc.! Their locations, their protectors, etc., as well as

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 555

their nature and functions, also evidence design. It would be a million fold more foolish to say that man came by chance than to say that a Hoe printing press came by chance! Marvelously formed is our body. The principles underlying its activities are followed by inventors of dynamos, steam engines, etc., and yet how greatly inferior are such inventions to the human body! Nevertheless, evolutionists would attribute its origin to chance, while denying the possibility of a steam engine coming by chance! Mr. W. J. Bryan pointedly expressed himself on the folly of this chance theory as follows: "According to evolutionists, there was a time when animals had no legs and so legs came by accident. How? Well, the guess is that a little animal was wiggling along on its belly one day, when it discovered a wart—it just happened so—and it was in the right place to be used to aid it in locomotion; so it came to depend on the wart, and use finally developed it into a leg. And then another wart, and another leg at the proper time—by accident—and accidentally in the proper place. Is it not astonishing that any person, intelligent enough to teach school, would talk such tommyrot to students and look serious while doing so?" Nature is a proof that design marked man's coming. Earth's coal, gas, petroleum and electrical power, that no being but man uses, and that are so necessary for him, were stored up in the earth for him long before he came. The metals, so useful to man and useless to all other animals, were on deposit in the bank of the earth for man to check on as needed. Fruits, vegetables, grains and flesh having the chemical elements needed to replace waste tissue in man were prepared for him. The resources of nature needful for man's protection from inclement nature were made abundant for him. Everything in the earth shows design, and that for the most part in anticipation of man's arrival on earth; and in this only a less loud voice in him,

556 Creation.

with the harmonious chorus of the universe and its living creatures, cries out design, as against chance, which the evolutionist, discordantly with the universe, the earth and plant and animal life, with their associated supplies, shouts is the course of nature. Chance, the course of nature in the face of the laws of nature!

Above we showed the almost infinite improbability of the transmutation of species from the lowest of them in plant life through all successive species of plant life into the lowest form of animal life and then through all the successive species of animal life up to man, i.e., through evolution's 3,000,000 species. We now offer an argument against evolution based upon the genera of life as forming eight impassable gulfs, all of which evolution would have to prove to have been passed, if it were to be proven true, and not even one of which has been proven to have been passed by evolution. These eight impassable gulfs separating the genera of being are the following: (1) from the non-living to the living; (2) from the vegetable to the animal kingdom in the lowest form of invertebrates; (3) from the invertebrates to the vertebrates; (4) from marine beings to amphibians; (5) from amphibians to reptiles; (6) from reptiles to birds; (7) from birds or reptiles to mammals; and (8) from mammals to humans. In the above genera, separated by eight gulfs, we have ignored the multitudes of species in each genus, simply giving the classification according to eight genera. We treated previously of the 3,000,000 species that come under these eight genera. But how does evolution fare in its efforts to prove that each one of these gulfs was passed? The atheistically materialistic evolutionist and the spontaneous- generation evolutionist are forced to make the first gulf be passed by the lowest form of plant life after the manner of the Topsy of Uncle Tom's Cabin, who, when asked when she was born, answered that she was not born at all, but just grew!

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 557

For spontaneous generation is a senseless guess that experiments under the most favorable experimental conditions have failed to achieve, these having broken down in complete non-success. Neither of these kinds of evolutionists know how to get life from the non-life; for if anything is scientifically true, the proposition is true that what is in the effect must have been in the cause; hence, non-life could not have produced life. Hence, the first two kinds of evolutionists have found an impassable gulf between the non-living and the living, on the assumption which they make—that a living being did not cause the first form of life.

The hopelessness of the task of getting life from the non-living without the agency of a living being, i.e., passing the first gulf without a creative act of God, forced Mr. Darwin and all Darwinian evolutionists to assume that God created at least one, at most a few, forms of the lowest plant life. Therefore they had to have a God to pass the first gulf; and thereafter, as it were, they mummified Him for all future times. But little good did that do them; for they are equally helpless in bridging the next gulf, i.e., that which lies between the highest form of plant life and the lowest form of animal life, endowed with consciousness and locomotion. How could they overcome this gulf? To this question they have no real answer. The next gulf to cross is that which lies between the highest form of invertebrates to vertebrates. Here again, so far as a real answer is concerned, they are "dumb dogs that cannot bark," though their guttural growls are more or less audible. The next gulf for them to pass is between the highest form of marine vertebrates to amphibians. But here they are as helpless as on the previous points; for they cannot tell how fish, which do their breathing with water, could have been changed to do it with air as well as with water. Another impassable gulf faces them when they meet the question as to how amphibians developed into reptiles. The

558 Creation.

same is true as to the abyss between reptiles and birds and that between reptiles or birds (they do not know which) and mammals. The most unyielding of all these eight gulfs for them to bridge by evolution is that between the highest mammal and man, between which Huxley, as already quoted, admitted that there was a gulf to pass whose passage he could not explain, calling it almost infinite. To pass these eight gulfs separating the eight above genera is impossible of solution by evolution. Only on the basis of an intelligent and purposeful Creator can they be passed; and the impossibility of explaining by evolution the passage of these eight gulfs is a complete refutation of evolution, proving that it is a theory that does not prove and cannot prove what it was invented and invoked to prove.

At the beginning of each one of these genera there are so very many differences to account for that cannot be accounted for on evolutionary grounds, that it should discourage the boldest of evolutionists. E.g., some evolutionists say that mammals are descended from some (unknown) reptiles, and birds from other (unknown) reptiles. But how did the first mammal get breasts, a four- chambered heart instead of the three-chambered heart of the reptile, hair, or fur, or wool and a womb for developing young, all of which reptiles lack? How was the reptile's blood temperature raised from 40° and in the extremest cases from 60° to nearly 100° in mammals? In the transition of reptiles to birds, how was the blood temperature raised from between 40° and 60° to 107°? How were wings and feathers developed? By itches in a serpent's back making him scratch himself and thus cause the itches to grow into feathers and wings? (!) Evolutionists offer for this gulf two fossils of what they call the archaeopteryx, which are nothing but birds with abnormal tails and bills. Of real evidence they have not even one link, whereas millions would be required to fill up

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 559

each of the above-mentioned eight gulfs. These eight genera, to say nothing of their 3,000,000 species, say at each of their separating gulfs with indisputable power to evolution: "Thus far and no farther."

Some of the involved questions in evolution cannot be solved by this theory. How, for example, according to their theory, did sex in plant and animal life originate? Starting with but one or a few germs reproduction must, for awhile, have been by division. If the germ that became the head of a plant life reproduced by division, how and when did it begin to produce seeds and thus reproduce itself by seeds? How could it have stopped the former and adopted the latter mode of reproduction? In animal life the origin of sex life is still more impossible to account for on evolutionary principles. How could the highest form of plant life produce a male and a female in the lowest form of animal life? How could it at the same time produce the power of consciousness and locomotion in these? Even the ablest scientists cannot produce these things from the highest form of plant life. How, then, could blind, non-intelligent plant life create greater things than these scientists? Again, if man descended from the hairy ape, how did he get rid of his hair? Darwin says that it happened by the females refusing to mate with the more hairy males, and by mating with the less hairy ones, and that thus finally their taking such mates resulted gradually in offspring becoming hairless and the hairy ones becoming extinct. But, we ask, how does he know that it so happened? We now see no such thing going on among the entire simian family. Again, we know that as a rule females inherit the traits of their fathers and that males inherit those of their mothers. Hence, on the basis of Darwin's explanations, the females should have become hairless and the males hairy. But aside from this how can evolutionists, on the basis of their theory, account for humans having hair on their heads and on other parts

560 Creation.

of their bodies? Why do men have beards and (apart from abnormalities) women and children have none? If the hair left on the body is the remnant of our alleged ape ancestors, why do we have none left on our backs, where it is most abundant on our supposed ancestors? If we came from monkies, how came we to lose the ancestral tail? Surely evolution has "monkied" with monkies enough to arouse the suspicion that by their monkey-shines they have made monkey-doodles with their monkeyfied theories.

Though we have incidentally alluded previously to hybrids, as an argument against evolution, we desire to do so now in more detail. If evolution were true, hybrids would be indispensable for its functioning. But all hybrids are notoriously sterile, which flatly contradicts evolution. God's law that each should reproduce "after its kind" is proven to be the rule of reproduction by the sterility of hybrids. Thus nature itself destroys evolution by its only possible avenue of operation—preservation of evoluted powers by propagation with other, but kindred species. Species do not change nor unite with others to produce new permanent species. Dogs and cats do not interbreed in producing a new species. A few nearly related species are so much alike that we scarcely know whether they are of different species or varieties of the same species, like the jackass and mare. These frequently interbreed, but their offspring is sterile. The same is true of the zebulon, the offspring of a zebra and a mare. The same is true of all other closely-related species. A human and an ape cannot produce offspring, which proves that they are not even nearly related species. But if evolution were true, we would have much and similar interbreeding with the production of fruitful offspring. Even plant hybrids, according to Darwin's own testimony, are not permanent. All this goes to prove God's law that each kind will bring forth no other species except its own. But even if species

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 561

could interbreed and thus form permanent new species, a thing utterly lacking in proof, genera could not do so by the wildest stretch of imagination. Yet evolution must assume this impossibility. Surely it is a hopeless and helpless theory.

Against evolution the fact tells that some insects have more knowledge and practical ability than apes. We instance the honey-bee and the ant. These have a social organization far superior to the ape and certainly surpass it in constructive ability, government and social life. They have armies, sentinels, police, courts (which decree penalties) and executioners of such penalties. They have a highly organized society with kings, queens, nobles, plebeians, higher and lower slaves, etc. The bee forms a honey cell laid out geometrically along the lines of a hexagonal prism, which the mathematical science, Calculus, proves is the most economical space and material saver known to science. Each of these cells is perfect in itself and is perfectly adjusted to its neighboring cells. A crowd of bees build these, even in the dark, of such exquisite skill that a most efficient mechanic cannot equal their product. If evolution is true, why were these qualities in ever increasing development not transmitted to their alleged descendants in later developed species? The ape cannot in his social life and in his activities approach the degree of excellence attained by the bee and the ant. Yet if evolution were true, the ape, allegedly, being a so very much later evoluted species than the bee and the ant, should be at least as much more highly developed than these, as man is more highly developed than the ape. Further, the bees' and ants' intelligence as to work, etc., does not come from their parents by heredity; for the female workers and the male workers are all sterile. The drones are their fathers and the queens, which do not work, are their mothers. Here, then, is a fact of development which is entirely apart from evolution and for which evolution

562 Creation.

can offer no explanation. Creation is the only solution of this matter, God gifting the bees and ants with intelligence that even the highest of the lower animals lack and that does not appear in the intervening species; whereas if evolution were true all alleged later species would increasingly excel the bee and the ant, which, except man, they do not do.

Evolution denies the special creation of genera and species. The Bible affirms both. But the Bible account of creation comes to us with such evidence as proves its Divine inspiration, which being true proves the truth of the special creation of the genera and species and thus disproves evolution. On eleven points—all the essential ones involved in the subject—the Mosaic account of creation as recorded in Gen. 1 is in perfect harmony with the latest findings of proven science. Admittedly no human being was a witness of the eleven essential points of creation as given in Gen. 1. Scientific knowledge of them is but of recent origin. Hence the record of them in Gen. 1, if true, as we believe it is, must have been inspired. These eleven points in the order of their origin are: (1) chaos everywhere, (2) darkness over the deep, (3) light appears,

(4) an atmosphere (expanse, firmament) forms, (5) elevation of land and formation of seas, (6) vegetation appears, (7) sun, moon and stars appear, (8) marine animals appear, (9) fowl appear, (10) land animals appear and (11) man appears. The latest science and Moses agree on the order of the appearance of these eleven main stages of creation. If Moses was not inspired on these matters or did not get his knowledge from some inspired source, he must, when as yet science on these subjects was non-existent, have guessed this order; for, as said before, no human being was a witness of these eleven steps of creation. Though the first man was the object of the last of these steps, yet in the nature of the case he could not be a witness even of it. How comes it that Moses gives

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 563

the exact order of these steps as the latest findings of proven science give them? If he guessed them in exact order it means that, according to the law of permutations, there was only one chance of his guessing aright in 39,916,800 chances. This disposes of the guessing theory and proves his inspiration. Apart from inspiration how could he, under the circumstances that no human witnessed these eleven steps of creation, have written on matters pertaining to the following sciences without contradicting them: geology, astronomy, zoology, biology, physics, chemistry, archeology, philology, ethnology, anatomy, geography, anthropology, religion, history, phrenology, psychology and ethics. His agreement with the proven truths of these is a proof of his inspiration. Hence his account of creation, asserting special creation of the species as well as of the genera, must have been of Divine inspiration and, therefore, true and, therefore, a proof of evolution's falsity on its very face.

Even evolutionists admit that there are objections to their theory that they cannot answer. They enumerate twenty of these, of which we will give eleven. We will present the main ones that they themselves admit incapable of reasonably answering: (1) innumerable, undiscoverable, transitional forms between each of the species; (2) intelligence in animals and insects, like the honey bee and the ant; (3) sterility of hybrids; (4) non-hereditability of changes resulting from use or non-use; (5) chance as against design; (6) non-universality of imperceptible changes connected with the time element—a bar to their transmittance; (7) non-usability of the first slight changes;

(8) non-explanation of the arrival of the fittest; (9) inadequacy of natural selection as a proof; (10) variations within species no proof, since these variations did not change the species (a giant of ten feet is still human); and (11) the worthlessness of the supporting theory of sexual selection. These are just one

564 Creation.

over one-half of the objections to their theory that evolutionists admit they cannot answer. Why, then, do they contend for its truth? If it were true, no facts would contradict it. When facts contradict a theory, so much the worse for that theory. It is thus proven to be wrong. In human logic and science whenever a theory is proven to be out of harmony with facts, that theory is considered disproven. Why is it, then, that evolutionists insist on their theory, when they admit that facts contradict it? Must this not be due to perversity either of head or heart or of both? Nay, rather, is this not certain proof that Satan  is evolution's author and stubbornly seeks to keep it in men's minds for evil?

Evolutionists never tire of boasting that all scientists endorse it; hence it must be true. This boast is certainly contrary to facts, as we now present the point against evolution that all along the ablest scientists have rejected it, and that for thirty years increasingly the scientific world is rejecting it as "a windy hypothesis," as Vircow, one of the greatest, if not the very greatest scientist of all times, called it. We have collected a number of testimonies of the greatest scientists in their several departments and herewith present them, repeating three of them already given in the preceding part of this treatise: Dr. Ethelridge, of the British Museum, greatest fossilologist, said: "Ninetenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This Museum [the British] is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this Museum there is not a particle of evidence for the transmutation of species." Prof. Owen said, "No instance of the change of one species into another has ever been recorded by man." Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, declares that, "If the theory of evolution is true, then during many thousands of years covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 565

would certainly be known at least a few instances of the evolution of one species from another. No such instance is known." Dr. H. C. Morton said, "Darwinism is dead and soon will be buried without hope of resurrection. But without Darwinism evolution is the mere empty shell of a venerable speculation." Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of the N. Y. Academy of Medicine, declared, "The Darwinian theory is rejected by the majority of biologists as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His [Darwin's] so-called fellow animals, the primates—the gorilla, orangutan and chimpanzee—can do nothing truly human. … Evolution was never the cause of anything." Prof. Bateson, greatest of living biologists, affirmed, "It is impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin's theory of the origin of species. No explanation whatever has been offered to account for the fact that, after forty [seventy] years, no evidence has been discovered to verify his genesis of species." Lord Kelvin, greatest of British scientists, a rejector of evolution, said in an address to the British Association of Science, "I marvel at the undue haste with which teachers in our universities and preachers in our pulpits are restating truth in terms of evolution, while evolution remains an unproven, hypothesis." Prof. Beale, of King's College, who with Lord Kelvin stood at the head of British scientists, declared, "The idea of any relation having been established between the non-living and living by a gradual advance from lifeless matter to the lowest forms of life and so onward to the higher and more complex, has not the slightest evidence from facts of any section of living nature of which anything is known … There is no evidence that man has descended from, 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

566 Creation.

all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not a shadow of evidence."

Prof. Vircow, generally regarded as the world's greatest scientist and physiologist, wrote, "The attempt to find the transition from the animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will. Evolution is all nonsense. It cannot be proven 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." Sir Charles Bell, of the University College of London, says, "Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type." Prof. F. M. Balfour, Cambridge biologist, writes, "All scientific facts contradict the crude ideas of so- called naturalists who state that one species can be transmuted into another in the course of generations." Thomas Carlyle, one of the leading thinkers of the nineteenth century, wrote, "I saw the naturalist [Darwin] not many months ago, and told him I had read his 'Origin of Species' and other books; that he had by no means satisfied me that we were descended from monkeys; but had gone far to persuade me that he and his so-called scientific brethren had brought the present generation very near to monkeys." Prof. Fleischmann, Professor of Zoology in the Erlangen University, first an exponent, and after mature study an opponent of Darwinism, remarked: "The Darwinian theory of descent has in the realm of nature not a single fact to conform it. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination." Prof.

N. S. Shaler, Harvard geologist, says: "It begins to be evident to naturalists that the Darwinian hypothesis is still essentially unverified … It is not yet proven 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."

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 567

Prof. Huxley, one of the three ablest disciples of Darwin, said that evolution is "not proven and not provable." Prof. Agassiz, recognizably one of the greatest scientists of all times, wrote of evolution: "The theory is a scientific mistake, untrue to facts, unscientific in its methods and mischievous in its tendency … There is not a fact known to science tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

The Standard Dictionary in the article on Hybridism states: "Hybridism is one of the greatest obstacles to the general acceptance of the principle of evolution." Sir William Dawson, one of the greatest geologists, said: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolution, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors … Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known of the origin of man except what is told in Scripture." Prof. Le Conte, of the University of California, writes the following: "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 place, apparently by substitution, not by transmutation." Prof. Haeckel, perhaps the ablest of all evolutionists, but later a devolutionist, concedes that "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." Dr. St. George Mivart, late Professor of Biology in the University College of Kensington, ranking in the biological world next to Prof. Bateson, called Darwinism "a puerile hypothesis." Prof. James Orr, of Edinburgh University, says, "The greatest scientists … of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism

568 Creation.

to be absolutely dead." The famous paleontologist, Dr. Traas, asserts: "The idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." Certainly these are weighty testimonies.

Many evolutionists, especially the more shallow of them, boast that "all scholars accept evolution." But the above quotations are from scientists and scholars of the first rank and show that all of these reject evolution. There is not even one of the outstanding scientists of Great Britain that endorses it, as the following statement made after careful investigation by Dr. D. S. Gregory, managing editor of the Standard Dictionary, shows: "It is a strange fact that no great scientific authority in Great Britain in exact science, science that reduces its conclusions to mathematical formulas, has endorsed evolution." After Darwin, the three chief English exponents of evolution, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, after deeper investigation repudiated this doctrine. The German professor, Haeckel, who out-Darwined Darwin himself, became dissatisfied with it and was forced by his observation of degeneration as the trend of all nature, to repudiate evolution as the law of existence. Prof. Townsend, in his book, The Collapse Of Evolution, makes the following remark on the claim of superficial evolutionists that "all scholars accept evolution": "The saying 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. Some of the world's ablest scientists are now assailants of evolution [beside others of them who reject it without entering into controversy over it)." In addition to the continental, English and American scientists named and quoted above, who are confessedly in the front ranks of scientists, we cite the following list of the ablest continental European scientists who rejected evolution wholly or in its essential parts:

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 569

M. de Quatrefrages, Pasteur, Blanchard, Wigand, Wolff, Driesch, Plate, Hertwig, Heer, Von Hartmann, Schilde, Du Bois-Raymond, Mendel, Nageli, Schaafhausen, Fechner, Jacob, Diebolder, Huber, Joseph Ranke, Von Bauer, etc., etc. Ever since 1908, a date Biblically assigned to this turn of opinion on this subject, evolution has been suffering increasingly an eclipse, scientific men increasingly turning against it as, to use Vircow's characterization of it, "a windy hypothesis, in defense of which no fact in nature can be adduced." Before long evolution will be defenderless.

We are not of those who believe that great names as advocates or opponents constitute proof or disproof of a proposition. Nor did we quote and cite the above as a disproof of evolution, but to show the falsity of the claim that "all scholars accept evolution," and to prove that evolution has failed to offer a single real case of the transmutation of species convincing to the ablest scientists that have ever lived. In the exact sciences, like astronomy, physiology, mathematics, physics, etc., completely convincing facts exist and convince all scientists who study them of the truth of the pertinent sciences, e.g., the Copernican system in astronomy. The fact that evolution fails to give even one fact in proof of the transmutation of even one species acceptable to some of the ablest scientists, proves this much, however, of it—that it is a hypothesis destitute of factual proof. So much we can fairly conclude from the quotations and names above given.

Evolution is built on the most extravagant guesses, which are proven to be unreliable by the fact that there is the utmost diversity in evolutionists' guesses necessary for the theory. Some of them guess that the human race has existed 2,000,000 years; others guess it as 100,000 years; and there are almost endless variations between these two figures. Scarcely any two of them agree on these guesses. Some of them guess the age of the earth to be 50,000,000 years and

570 Creation.

others 4,000,000,000 years. Between these extremes the bulk of them fix its age, again scarcely any two of them agreeing therein. Some of them assign the age of plant life 3,000,000,000 years and others about 40,000,000 years, with all sorts of variations on the part of others between these two extremes. Some of them claim that their own manufactured and patented Pithecanthropos (ape-man) lived 750,000 years ago; others claim that this figment of their imagination lived 375,000 years ago. On almost everything connected with the time element they widely and wildly disagree with one another. Of course reasoning people, in distinction from fanciful people, at once see that on these matters they are long on guessing and short on truth, else they would be in reasonable harmony on such essential matters. Mr. Darwin in his two principle works on evolution, in making his inductions, uses terms expressive of guessage 800 times—terms like "we suppose," "if we may assume," "perhaps," "it may have been," etc., i.e., he built his theory on 800 interdependent guesses. Applying the rule of compound probability to this theory so constructed, and very liberally allowing an even chance to his 800 guesses being right, i.e., out of one chance there is a half chance in each case that he was right, the chances that the theory is right is one as against the number of chances that it is wrong represented by 241 digits, the product of two squared 800 times, a set of figures which, allowing for twelve to an inch, would require over 20 inches of line space the size of the type in which this chapter is written, i.e., over 6 of our lines! A theory so extremely improbable should never be taught as science—true knowledge. Rather it should long ago have been assigned to the hades of oblivion as much too improbable to be entertained by sober minds.

The theory of the brute descent of man is an impossible one when submitted to the test of mathematics. Striking an average of the age of animal life

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 571

on earth, as variously claimed by evolutionists, we must put that average at 60,000,000 years. They further claim that the child of their imagination (Pithecanthropos) had two- thirds of the brain capacity now found in the average man. They further assume that it was a normal example of the assumed contemporaneously existing race of ape-man. What does this imply? This—that from Pithecanthropos' time, variously put at 750,000 to 375,000 years ago, one- third of the amount of man's average brain capacity was developed in 750,000 or in 375,000 years, whereas, according to the average age of life on earth according to evolutionists, it took over 59,000,000 years to develop the other two-thirds of the average man's brain capacity—the two-thirds that Pithecanthropos supposedly inherited from his evolutionizing ancestors! This means that the development of brain capacity by evolution was 39.5 times more rapid since Pithecanthropos than before! But if we should take life on earth as having begun 500,000,000 years ago, as many evolutionists claim, and Pithecanthropos as living 750,000 years ago, this rate would increase to 333 times as rapidly as in the preceding 499,250,000 years; while if we took the lowest figure for Pithecanthropos' age—375,000, it would be increased to 660 times as rapidly as in the preceding 499,625,000 years. This increased rapidity of brain development would be enormously enlarged if we should take the extremest figures of evolutionists for the age of life on earth— 3,000,000,000 years.

But actually the higher development of the brain would require a longer time than its lower development, if we reason from analogy; for the more involved and intricate a thing is, the longer does it take to make it, as a thousand examples in the manufacturing world prove. But waiving this and, as a liberal concession to evolutionists, assuming that the last third of the human brain developed as rapidly as the first two-thirds, and taking evolution's average age for life

572 Creation.

on earth—60,000,000 years, Pithecanthropos could not have lived later than 20,000,000 years ago, the time it would have required to develop the last third of man's average brain capacity on the assumption that its first two- thirds began to develop 60,000,000 years ago. But if we should take the extremest figure of evolution on the age of earthly life—3,000,000,000 years, this would mean that Pithecanthropos lived not later than 1,000,000,000 years ago. What would have been left of Pithecanthropos' alleged three teeth, part of top skull, part of a jaw, and thigh bone, none being petrified, had they existed even 20,000,000 or even 750,000 years ago? Again, assuming that Pithecanthropos lived 750,000 years ago and 60,000,000 years is the age of earthly life, then since 750,000 years is 1.25% of 60,000,000, its brain should have been 98.75% of that of the average man now, which is a higher rate than the present rate of many nations and races. This proportion would be increased accordingly as we would increase the age of earthly life—according to the more extreme evolutionists, e.g., it would be 99.85% normal, if earthly life began 500,000,000 years ago. If such a brain capacity had been in existence so long ago, why do we not have some monuments of its inventions and achievements, like the Great Pyramid, etc? This same mathematical principle applied to the so-called Neanderthal, Piltdown and Heidelberg men of evolutionists' imagination would crush their guesses on these as it does their guesses on Pithecanthropos. So will it also do with their other guesses out of harmony with the Bible.

Evolution offers certain things as alleged evidence of its truth. These evidences reveal the poverty-stricken condition of its "proofs." One of these—given by Romanes—is that an instantaneous photograph revealed an "infant three weeks old supporting its own weight for over two minutes." He claims that this proves man's descent from an ape-like ancestor.

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 573

We know of an infant just a week old, whose mother lifted him up by her hands placed under his arms, and then almost unsupported he stood erect, leading his mother to exclaim, "What kind of a prodigy have I here?" Such cases cannot  be connected logically with evolution, but if they have any bearing on this question, are more in harmony with the thought that their first ancestor was a man who  immediately after his creation stood erect. The picture of the former infant and that of another show these infants holding their feet in the same position as a monkey holds his when climbing a tree; and this is supposed to prove that man is descendent from monkeys! These are among the best arguments of evolutionists; but how poverty-stricken they are of real argument! The Philadelphia Bulletin gives the following excerpt of a Darwinian professor's lecture: "Evidence that early man climbed trees with his feet lies [! italics ours] in the way we wear the heels of our shoes— more at the outside. A baby can wiggle its big toe without wiggling its other toes—an indication that it once used its big toe in climbing trees [but monkeys use their other toes also in climbing trees, which proves that we are here dealing with a 'wiggling' argument]. We often dream of falling. Those who fell out of the trees some 50,000 years ago and were killed, of course, had no descendants. So those who fell and were not hurt, of course, lived [How does he know that they had offspring?] and so we are never hurt in our dreams of falling." What brilliant examples of inductive reasoning! What freak ideas! Those using slang would call it piffle! Some professors professing themselves to be wise have become fools! Imagine the laws of chemistry, astronomy, physics, etc., depending for proof on such nonsense as this professor offers in the above quotation. Yet some think him scientific.

Evolutionists have moved heaven and earth in search of the missing links, but have never found an

574 Creation.

undoubted one. Some of them offer us four alleged missing links between man and the ape—Pithecathropos, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man. But these will not bear investigation and most scientists laugh them to scorn. E.g., Dr. Dubois, an ardent evolutionist, in 1892 found in some sand in Java a part of the top of a skull, part of a jaw, and two teeth three feet away from the others; and fifty feet away in some more sand he found another tooth and a thigh bone. He claimed that these belonged to the same animal—"the missing link!" Shortly after their discovery twenty-four of the leading European scientists examined these five fragments. Ten of these said that all of them belonged to an ape; seven said they belonged to a man and seven (evolutionists) said they were the missing link. Prof. Vircow said: "There is no evidence at all that these bones are parts of the same creature." But what did evolutionists do with these two teeth, one thigh bone and very small part of a skull top? They had a "reconstructor" draw on his imagination and construct an entire image of what they thought was the missing link and called this dull figure Pithecanthropos! i.e., ape-man. A very few bones of a creature were found at Piltdown, England, and the same near Heidelberg and Neanderthal, Germany. The bones of all three of these finds combined would not fill a bushel basket, let alone fill up a complete skeleton. Another "reconstructor" formed, out of his imagination, three figures from these few bones. All four of these "reconstructions" are on exhibit in the New York Museum of Natural History. These figures are exact images of evolution—imaginations. They are indeed monuments of infamy to evolution, the laughing stock of biologists; yet, "as per plan," they inoculate immature children and poor-thinking adults with the idea of evolution and of man's descent from brutes. As to the Piltdown, Heidelberg and

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 575

Neanderthal men, their few remaining bones exhibit less abnormalities than can be found in many now living humans, let alone bones of dead humans disfigured by the chemical action of the earth and other effects of nature on undoubted human skeletons, even as many able scientists from the first have claimed that these were bones of abnormal humans, among others not a few evolutionists so holding. Yet partly on such flimsy humbugs shallow- thinking evolutionists claim man's descent from apes as a matter scientifically proven!

Some testimonies of evolutionists, disapproving the claims alleged on these four fakes, will be in place here; and we will, therefore, quote them: Prof. Wassman says: "These are numerous fossils of apes, the remains of which are buried in the various strata from the lower Eocene to the close of the alluvial epoch, but not one connection has been found between their hypothetical ancestral forms and man at the present time. The whole hypothetical pedigree of man is not supported by a single fossil genus or a single fossil species [italics ours]." Darwin says: "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that one species has changed [italics ours]." H. G. Wells, a most fanciful evolutionist, in his history, p. 69, admits: "We cannot say that Pithecanthropos is a direct human ancestor." On p. 116 he gives a diagram showing that none of these four fakes could have been an ancestor of the human race, being the last of his species, hence had no descendants. Dr. Kuth, an English evolutionist, says, that the Piltdown man was not an ancestor of our race, much less a link between the Heidelberg and Neanderthal men. Dr. Osborn, another eminent evolutionist, says that the Heidelberg man "shows no trace of being intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape." Again, speaking of the teeth of the Neanderthals, he says: "This special feature alone would exclude the Neanderthals from the ancestry of the human race." Prof. Cope, a great anatomist, says

576 Creation.

"The thigh bone [of Pithecanthropos] is that of a man; it is in no sense a connecting link." Dr. Orchard declares: "The remains bearing on this issue (these four fakes) which have been found are very few; and their significance is hotly disputed by scientists themselves—both their age and whether they are human or animal or mere [human] abnormalities." Prof. Bronco, of the Geological and Paleontological Institute of Berlin University, affirms: "Man appears suddenly in the Quaternary period. Paleontology tells us nothing on the subject—it knows nothing of the ancestors of man." With these remarks we leave these four fakes to the credulity of those who like to be fooled, while posing as wise—in their own conceits.

Another poverty-stricken argument they offer is this: In certain deep, dark caverns, notably in Altamira, Spain, there are paintings and frescoes of various animals, some of them now not existing. They claim that these pictures are 25,000 to 50,000 years old. But on their own admission, at those times of their ape-men, fire, torches, wicks, etc., were unknown. Then these paintings must have been made in the dark. But who could have done any painting that would reproduce good likenesses of animals in such darkness? Certainly not ape-men! How would apemen have known enough to mix the paints so as to produce the brown, red, black, yellow and white that appears in these paintings? How could ape-men have produced ladders and scaffolding needed for those paintings? How could these colors have remained so clear in those damp caverns for from 25,000 to 50,000 years? Do not these objections overthrow the theory of ape-men doing such painting and point to some modern artist who, using modern equipment, and drawing on his imagination, a thing allowable in art, but not in science, did it? How short of real proof must a theory be that will resort to such non-probative points!

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 577

They resort to the alleged vestigial organs—organs in the human body that they allege have no use—as proofs that they were inherited from non-human ancestors. Their favorite vestigial organ is the appendix. This, they assert, proves that man descended from some animal that had some use for it; but, they claim, it is useless for man (except to the evolutionist who needs it to prove (?) his descent from ancestors that needed it). But as medical science and surgery have advanced; they have found a use for the appendix. Observing that those who have lost their appendix suffer from constipation, eminent medical and surgical authorities, after exhaustive investigation, have concluded that the appendix has its place at the beginning of the large colon in order to assist elimination and thus it serves to prevent constipation. Here, certainly, a very interesting use for this so-called "vestigial organ" has been found, and that to the unhappiness of evolutionists, who are ever anxious to prove their kinship to beasts—at least they have shown their mental relationship to the ass on this point. This argument on the appendix, if it had merit at all, would favor our descent from the rat, rather than from the monkey, for the former has proportionately a larger appendix. Again, our having unused muscles would, if the present argument had force, prove that the horse was our direct ancestor, since he has by far larger and more unused muscles than the ape. Formerly, the thyroid, thymus and pineal glands were by evolution called vestigial organs, and thus proofs of man's descent from the lower animals; but latterly their fine uses, to the heart's grief of distracted evolutionists grasping, like a drowning man, at straws for arguments, have been found, and of course the argument has lost force, if it ever had any. In due time there will be no more "vestigial organs" claimed to be in man, when a use with advancing knowledge will be found for the alleged very few remaining ones. The claim that hair

578 Creation.

is vestigial falls to the ground partly for the reason that there is none on the human back where it is most abundant on the ape, and partly for the reason that it is both an adornment and a protection. Vestigial organs as an argument, therefore, give evolutionists comfort of the kind that a naked man has outside of doors in zero weather— cold comfort indeed!

Blood tests are another argument that evolutionists allege for their doctrine. They put the argument like this: Dog's blood injected into a horse kills the horse; but man's blood injected into an ape does it very little harm. Hence, they reason, the dog and horse are not nearly related, while man is nearly related to the ape. In reply we say: "Dog's blood is poisonous to most animals; while the blood and blood serum of the sheep, goat and horse are not poisonous to other animals and man. Hence serums are usually made from these animals, especially from the horse. But no serums for man have been made from apes, because they do not help man. These facts would prove man more nearly related to the sheep, goat and horse than to the ape, if any weight should be attached to blood tests for the point at issue. If the principle underlying this argument were logical, we would be more nearly related to the mare and milch ass than to our mothers, for their milk nourishes a child more than human milk! Again, the thyroid gland of the sheep better serves man, when it replaces his, than that of the ape, as operations have proved. This also spoils the argument under review. Vaccine matter is taken from cows rather than from apes—another fact against the argument under review. How little reliance can be placed on this blood test argument is evident from the fact that it would prove that the ostrich and the parrot are more nearly related than the wolf and the hyena. The Abrams' Dynamizer, the most accurate of blood testing instruments, proves that the blood reactions of the sheep, goat and horse are nearer that of human

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 579

blood than is that of apes. This disproves the argument under examination. We conclude, therefore, that blood tests do not prove man's descent from apes.

Evolution has invented a theory called the recapitulation theory, according to which evolutionists claim that the human embryo passes, during the first few weeks of its existence, through all the stages of the lower species, i.e., the whole history of evolution is allegedly repeated in the first few weeks of human embryonic life. We ask, How could the alleged changes of the hundreds of thousands of animal species be crowded into a few weeks? It would be physically impossible to make hundreds of thousands of such changes in a few weeks. But if they are made, why should not the alleged changes of all the plant species be reproduced in the few weeks' time alleged for the recapitulation of the species' evolution? Again, changes alleged by evolution as due to environment would have to have that same environment present to make them—a thing impossible in an embryo's environment. Whatever resemblance there is in a human embryo to those of other animals is due to the fact that a wise Creator has in all mammals used the same basal structure which as such must appear in the early stages of all embryonic life, the variations due to differences in such species must come in later, i.e., after the basal mammal structure has been developed. Certainly an inventor would make the basal parts of similar inventions very much alike. So with God. This fact is as far from proving evolution from the standpoint of the similarity of the early stages of the human embryo to other mammalian embryos as the east is from the west. This variation amid similarity we find on all hands— no two leaves, however similar, are exactly alike; nor are two human faces, two mountains, two trees, nor two of any other thing exactly alike. Like evolution, the recapitulatory theory, once widely accepted, is now seriously questioned by the ablest scientists

580 Creation.

and is rejected by not a few of them. The above points certainly show that evolution cannot prove itself by the alleged recapitulation of all animal species in the early weeks of embryonic life.

Finally evolutionists point to the wonderful inventions and increased knowledge of our day as a proof of evolution as working in man, ever lifting him to higher planes of being. To a superficial thinker this seems to be a strong proof in favor of evolution. But under analysis this "proof" falls to the ground. In the first place a very remarkably few individuals are real inventors. So, too, a remarkably few people are real inventors of thought, however widespread knowledge is. If evolution were true, the generality of the race would be such great inventors and thinkers. The greatest works of painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, music, oratory, statesmanship, philosophy, history and religion, do not belong to our day. We, therefore, deny that humans have greater capacity now than in former times. This "brain age" has not in architecture and exact science produced anything that can compare with the Great Pyramid, produced 4,000 years ago. In oratory it has produced no Demosthenes or Cicero; in painting and sculpture no Praxiteles, Phidias, Raphael or Michael Angelo. In poetry it has evolved no Homer, Sophocles, Shakespeare or Milton. In music it has produced no Bach, Beethoven or Schubert. In statesmanship it has produced no Moses, Caesar, Alfred, Cecil, Elizabeth or Burleigh. In philosophy it has produced no Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. None in our times have equaled these in capacity, though they have had wider scope for the use of their smaller capacities. And what shall we say as to their claims on the increase of knowledge and inventions, as a proof of evolution? We reply that these, through their suddenness and rapidity, so contrary to slow-going evolutions' alleged ways, must be due to extraordinary light that God since 1799 has been

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 581

giving to mankind as a preparation for two things: (1) the overthrow of Satan's empire and (2) the needs of God's kingdom soon to be established. The special knowledge of our time was in part designed to expose the rotten foundations of Satan's empire in order to dispose mankind to overthrow its present earthly status. Furthermore, for the purpose of furnishing men with the instruments that will encompass this destruction have in part many special inventions of our time come into existence. The constructive inventions of our time are also Divinely intended to prepare conditions among men for Millennial needs and progress. It is for these reasons that we have such great increase of knowledge and inventions peculiarly marking our times above all others in these respects. Previous knowledge, of course, became the basis of our present knowledge; for previous generations hand on their knowledge to succeeding ones. Thus we stand upon the shoulders of previous generations in our basal knowledge. The special knowledge and inventions of our time did not come in the way that evolutionists claim evolution works, slowly and gradually, but very suddenly and rapidly, compared with those previous to 1799. It is since then, beginning with the first steamboat, that inventions have rapidly gone forward and knowledge has been increased. These facts prove that not man's capacity has increased, but opportunities to use his capacities have greatly, rapidly and suddenly increased since 1799. These facts, therefore, disprove evolution and prove Divine providence since 1799 (according to the Bible—Dan. 12:4) to be working special opportunities to increase knowledge and multiply inventions, as preparations for the destruction of Satan's empire and for the need of God's Kingdom. Hence, not increased capacities, but increased opportunities to use one's capacities, mark our day, which, of course, disproves evolution, which implies enlarged capacity.

582 Creation.

In our discussion of evolution we have used against it arguments drawn from mathematics, science, nature, reason, facts and history, as well as shown the monumental weakness of the reasons alleged in its proof. We will now point out what to a Christian is the strongest argument against it: It is antagonistic to almost everything in our holy religion, which must make it most objectionable to us as Bible believers. In its materialistic form it is entirely atheistic, which proves its folly as well as the folly of those who espouse it (Ps. 14:1; 53:1). In its spontaneous generation form it denies all God's activities subsequent to the creation of matter and its forces. In its Darwinian form, apart from His giving life to one, or at most a few forms, it denies all His later activities. It, therefore, is blasphemously disrespectful toward God in His works of creation; and it denies altogether His works of providence toward the works of His hands. It, therefore, belittles and degrades God, blasphemously ascribing His works to blind nature. It denies our Lord's office work as God's Agent in creation and providence and incidentally casts doubt on, or entirely denies the existence of the spirit beings, whom the Bible calls angels. Accordingly, it belittles and blasphemes our Lord, in its very few representatives who acknowledge His pre-human existence, and it wickedly denies His pre-human existence and hence creative activity in the bulk of its exponents. Of necessity this moves them to deny almost all of the Holy Spirit's work as the expression of God's creative mind and power in the earth. Furthermore, it denies that man originally was created in God's image and likeness, perfect in all his faculties, physical, mental, moral and religious. This denial, of course, brings with it the denial of man's trial for life in a perfect condition and his fall from that perfection into sin and death along physical, mental, moral and religious lines. How could they but deny these Biblical teachings (Rom. 5:12-20; 8:18-21;

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 583

1 Cor. 15:21, 22), since they express their belief on the subject in this way: "If man fell, he fell upwards"? The impossibility of falling upward shows the folly of such a fall and is revelatory of the unclear thinking in the evolutionists who propound such a thought.

Denying man's fall from perfection into sin and death, of necessity they must deny the Bible's antidote for man's fall—the ransom and its effect, restitution. Of course, if the first man was one step removed from the monkey, how could a perfect man—Jesus—be required as a ransom (a corresponding price) for him? Even the most degraded of our race, since its supposed evolution from the ape, would be more than a corresponding price for evolution's first man. Moreover, such a degraded being could not with justice have been put on trial for life. Hence, no ransom in justice could have been required for him. So, too, restitution would be an unspeakable curse to the race; for it means a return to the original estate—the condition of the ape-man a la evolution; whereas the Bible holds out restitution as the hope for the race, i.e., a return to human perfection. Of course, evolution could have no place for the change of the Church from human to Divine nature. To it the sacrificial spirit of Jesus and the Church, leading them to non-resisting sufferings and death, is a proof of their not being of "the fittest" and, therefore, being doomed to extinction as "unfit to survive." The spirit of faith and communion with God is to it also an evidence of the unfitness of their possessors to survive. And as for the Bible, instead of its being an inspired revelation, it is to the evolutionist the product of men not far removed from the ape-man, and is far from being able to meet the evoluted needs of this "brain age." Evolutionists, of course, look upon their literary products as religiously far above the Bible. Instead of the Divine plan of the Ages, evolution becomes to them the planless accident of nature,

584 Creation.

and Mr. Darwin's books' become their Bible, even as he recognized this, proven by his following reminiscent words: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries and suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire [yes, they were indeed figurative wildfire]. People made a religion of them." Here, then, we have the actual result. It rejected the religion of the Bible and itself became a substitute for it with the evolutionist. Hence, no real believer in the Bible can be an evolutionist of the first three classes of these; and no real evolutionist of these first three classes can be a Bible believer. This—its rejection of the Bible, its plan and its Author—is the greatest argument against evolution for the Christian, who in consistency must reject it.

We feel that we should not close our discussion of evolution as a false view of the creative method without a solemn inditement of it. It has had its vogue among "the intelligentsia," though now among the leaders of science it is dead and is undergoing preparation for burial; but among the superficially educated and the shallow thinking it has worked, and will continue to work the direst of evils. It has made atheists, agnostics and infidels of many. It is demoralizing our youth, who by it are made to believe in their superiority to their elders and their kinship to brutes; hence, their growing disrespect for law and order in the home, state, society and church, and their increased indulgence in the lower elements of their nature. From the thought of no God, no responsibility to law, no higher authority, no hereafter and a brute descent, it becomes but a natural step to youthful disrespect of religion and government, disobedience toward parents, immorality as to sex, drunkenness as to intoxicants and a materialistic outlook on and practice in life. A generation of evolutionist professors and teachers has produced the moral, social and religious havoc that we

Evolution Not the Creative Method. 585

behold in so many of our youth. The pessimism and brute instincts inculcated by evolution have in large part produced the collapse everywhere manifest in church and state and contributed largely to producing the World War, as it is also doing a large share in the work of leading the nations to Armageddon and World Anarchy. And when these shall have wrought their unexampled havoc on mankind, it will in great resentment arise and repudiate forever every feature of unbelieving evolution.

* * *

With the conclusion of our discussion of evolution as a false method of creation, we bring this volume to a close. We have traversed a vast field of thought in our study of the main features of creation. We trust that the mental journey on which the reader and the author embarked at the outstart of this study has proven profitable to head and heart. Certainly, the scenery viewed during this trip has been varied, beautiful and sublime. And we trust that, as we have reached the end of this pilgrimage, our knowledge and appreciation of God as Creator have been greatly enlarged by our views of the marvelous scenery with which He adorned the route traversed. May it have been a memorable trip, and may its acquirements and its memories long remain in blessing with the dear voyagers, to whom throughout life's further pilgrimage the author wishes a hearty Bon Voyage.

‍