Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13

< Previous : Next >









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



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



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),



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


Please note:

The above numbers in red brackets are believed to be more accurate than the numbers in the original text. This is likely due to the methods used in highly complex numbers. A slide rule or tedious logarithms may have been used, which are not as accurate as today's computers. It should also be noted that these corrections do not weaken the arguments favoring the Bible account of creation vs. evolution.



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


Please note:

The above numbers in red brackets are believed to be more accurate than the numbers in the original text. This is likely due to the methods used in highly complex numbers. A slide rule or tedious logarithms may have been used, which are not as accurate as today's computers. It should also be noted that these corrections do not weaken the arguments favoring the Bible account of creation vs. evolution.



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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



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,



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



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



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



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,



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!



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



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



< Previous : Next >