The Evolution Of Man Scientifically Disproved
by William A. Williams
Previous Part     1  2  3  4     Next Part
Home - Random Browse

We can only note a few of the evidences of design, found in bewildering numbers in every part of God's great creation.

THE HUMAN BODY. Can evolutionists imagine how the human body could be crammed fuller of the clearest proofs of the most intelligent design, indicating a mind of the highest order? Many of the most remarkable inventions of man were suggested by the wonderful contrivances found in the human body. Yet they say this marvelous piece of ingenuity did not come from the hand of the Creator but was developed by blind chance or "natural laws," without a trace of intelligent design by the Creator, or by man or beast. The human body can no more be a product of chance or causo-mechanical evolution than a Hoe printing press, or Milton's Paradise Lost.

On high medical authority, we are told that there are in the human body 600 muscles, 1000 miles of blood vessels, and 550 arteries important enough to name. The skin, spread out, would cover 16 square feet. It has 1,500,000 sweat glands which spread out on one surface, would occupy over 10,000 sq. ft., and would cover 5 city lots, 20 x 100 ft. The lungs are composed of 700,000,000 cells of honey comb, all of which we use in breathing,—equal to a flat surface of 2,000 square feet, which would cover a city lot. In 70 years, the heart beats 2,500,000,000 times, and lifts 500,000 tons of blood. The nervous system, controlled by the brain has 3,000,000,000,000 nerve cells, 9,200,000,000 of which are in the cortex or covering of the brain alone. In the blood are 30,000,000 white corpuscles, and 180,000,000,000,000 red ones. Almost 3 pints of saliva are swallowed every day, and the stomach generates daily from 5 to 10 quarts of gastric juice, which digests food and destroys germs. Two gallons daily! It is easy also to believe that the "very hairs of our heads are numbered,"—about 250,000.

Yet many an upstart, with thousands of the most marvelous contrivances in his own body, is ready to shout that there is no God and no design, or that there has been no interference since creation, and that our bodies have reached the dizzy heights of perfection, without intelligence, purpose or design. Absurd in the highest degree! "We are fearfully and wonderfully made."

THE EYE. Darwin says, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I frankly confess absurd in the highest degree." (Italics ours). After admitting that it "seems absurd in the highest degree," he proceeds, as if it were certainly true. Darwin has been admired for his candor, but not for his consistency. After admitting that an objection is insuperable, he goes on as if it had little or no weight. And many of his followers take the same unscientific attitude. They try to establish their theory in spite of overwhelming arguments.

"Reason tells me," he says, "that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye, to one complex and perfect, can be shown to exist, such gradation being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case" (certainly?), "if further," he continues, "the eye varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case" (most modern evolutionists say certainly not the case; what, if variations are unfavorable?); "And if such variations should be useful, (what if not useful?) to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable to the imagination (Italics ours) should not be considered as subversive of the theory"!! Darwin undertakes a task far too great for his mighty genius. "Believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed" is many moral leagues from proving that it was so formed. We must have stronger proof than sufficient to lead us to believe that such an eye could possibly be so formed. All proof is exhausted in the struggle to prove the possibility of the formation of so marvelous an eye, to say nothing of the probability, much less the certainty required by science. We hold evolutionists to the necessity of proving that the eye was certainly so formed. We demand it. Otherwise, we shall certainly "consider it subversive of the theory." And if acquired by one species, how could it benefit another species? But we must contest the claim that the wonderful eye of man and animals could have been formed by evolution. Darwin's whole theory aims to account for all creation, with its super-abundant evidences of design, by natural selection, which works without design and without intelligence. The theory is founded upon the monstrous assumption that unintelligent animals and plants, can, by aimless effort arrive at such perfection as the organs of the human body, exceeding anything in mechanical contrivance, invented to date by the genius of man. Indeed, that wonderful invention of the telescope is but a poor imitation of the eye, and does not begin to equal it in marvelous design. Who would say that the telescope might have been constructed by chance, or the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, or by natural selection, or any other attempted method of blotting out the great intelligent Designer of the universe? It not only "seems absurd in the highest degree," but certainly is, and is fatal to the theory.

The eye is so wonderful in its powers, and delicate adjustments, that we stand amazed at the evidences of design, and at the wisdom of the Maker of the eye, far exceeding the highest inventive genius of man. To say that this is the result of "natural selection," is absurd and ridiculous. Evolution eliminates design, mind, and an active and ever present God, and substitutes blind chance or natural selection, dubs it "science" and asks the world to believe it!

According to the evolution theory, the gain in the mechanism of the eye causes its possessors to survive, and others to die. Is that true? Are there not many species that survive, whose eyes are less perfect than the eye of man? Indeed, it is claimed that many animals have eyes superior to man. If so, why did man survive and become the dominant species, with eyes less perfect? The compound eyes of some species are superior in some respects, as every one knows, who has ever tried to slip up on a fly. A scientist says that fleas have such perfect vision that the darkness under the bed clothes is to them a glaring light.

Darwin makes a fatal admission, when he says, "To arrive, however, at a conclusion regarding the formation of the eye with all its marvelous yet not absolutely perfect characters, it is indispensable that the reason should conquer the imagination; But I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at others hesitating to extend the principle of natural selection to so startling a length." (Italics ours). No wonder the reason and judgment of mankind revolts against such a theory and that so many evolutionists themselves reject it.

Three or four per cent. of the population are color blind—"red-blind" —and are not able to distinguish the color of the green leaves from that of the red ripe cherries. Can it be possible that the eye becomes more perfect, because those who had less perfect eyes perished, and only those who could recognize colors survive until color blindness is finally eliminated? Is such a doctrine scientific? Is it more reasonable to believe it than to believe that an infinitely wise and powerful God created this organ of marvelous value and beauty? Of course, the ability to recognize color is only one of the many perfections of the eye.

Evolution is made so much more incredible, because it teaches that every permanent improvement in the eye is made at the expense of multitudes of individuals that perished because of the lack of the improvement. The defect perished only because all individuals afflicted with it perished. Is this true?

The bureau of education of the U.S. government reports that, of 22,000,000 school children examined, 5,000,000 have defective eyes; 1,000,000, defective hearing; 1,000,000 have active tuberculosis; 250,000, heart trouble; 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 are underfed; total, 12,250,000,—more than half. Must all these defectives perish in order that man may reach perfection? Less than half are the "fittest" and they only could survive.

LOCATION OF ORGANS. But if the evolutionist could convince the thoughtful student that the marvelous eye could have been so formed, by blind chance or natural selection, how could he account for the advantageous location of the eye and other organs? While we can not well name a fraction small enough to express the mathematical probability of the formation of the eye, the ear, and other organs of the body, we easily can compute the fraction of the probability of their location, though very small. In the passage quoted from Darwin, he begins with the simple eye, but does not say how the eye originated. Hon. William J. Bryan in his book, "In His Image," p. 97, says, "But how does the evolutionist explain the eye, when he leaves God out? Here is the only guess that I have seen,—if you find any others, I shall be glad to know of them, as I am collecting the guesses of the evolutionists. The evolutionist guesses that there was a time when eyes were unknown—that is a necessary part of the hypothesis. And since the eye is a universal possession, among living things, the evolutionist guesses that it came into being,—not by design or act of God—I will give you the guess,—a piece of pigment, or as some say, a freckle, appeared upon the skin of an animal that had no eyes. This piece of pigment or freckle converged the rays of the sun upon that spot, and when the little animal felt the heat on that spot, it turned the spot to the sun to get more heat. This increased heat irritated the skin,—so the evolutionists guess—and a nerve came there and out of the nerve came the eye. Can you beat it? But this only accounts for one eye; there must have been another piece of pigment or freckle soon afterward, and just in the right place in order to give the animal two eyes."

Now assuming, what seems an utter impossibility, that the wonderful mechanism of the eye can be accounted for by chance or natural selection (another name for chance since design is excluded), how can we account for the location of the eyes, and, in fact, of all the other organs of the body? We can easily calculate the mathematical probability on the basis of natural selection. There are from 2500 to 3500 square inches of surface to the human body, a space easily 3000 times the space occupied by an eye. The eye, by the laws of probability, is just as likely to be located any where else, and has one chance out of 3000 to be located where it is. But out, of our abundant margin, we will concede the chance to be one out of 1000, and hence its mathematical probability is .001. For mathematical probability includes possibility and even improbability. The compound probability of two things happening together is ascertained by multiplying together their fractions of probability. Now the probability of the location of the second eye where it is, also is .001. And the compound probability of the location of both eyes where they are, is .001 x .001 or .000,001. In like manner, the probability of the location of each ear where it is, is .001, and of the two ears .000,001. The compound probability of the location of two eyes and two ears where they are, is .000001 x .000001 or .000,000,000,001. The two eyes and two ears have but one chance out of a trillion or a million million to be located where they are. The location of the mouth, the nose, and every organ of the body diminishes this probability a thousand fold. We are speaking mildly when we say that this calculation proves that the evolution of the body, by chance or natural selection, has not one chance in a million to be true. So ruthlessly does the pure and reliable science of mathematics shatter the theory of evolution, which so called scientists claim is as firmly established as the law of gravitation.

Concerning the wild guess of the development of the legs, we again quote from Mr. Bryan, "In His Image," p. 98: "And according to the evolutionist, there was a time when animals had no legs, and so the 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 upon 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?"

Some one has counted that Darwin has used phrases of doubt, like "We may well suppose," 800 times in his two principal works. The whole theory is built up on guesses and suppositions. "Let us suppose" that each guess is 95 per cent certain, which is far higher than the average or any. The compound probability would equal .95 raised to the 800th power which would be .000,000,000,000,000,006,281 which means there are 6 chances out of a quintillion that evolution is true. Since not all of these 800 suppositions are dependent upon each other, we are willing to multiply this result by 10,000,000,000 which still shows that the theory has less than one chance in a million to be true. Darwin himself says, "The belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is more than enough to STAGGER ANY ONE." Yet he and his followers refuse to be "staggered," and proceed to argue as if this unanswerable objection had little or no weight. Any hypothesis is weakened or damaged by every support that is an uncertain guess. Gravitation has no such support.

Mr. Alfred W. McCann, in his great volume "God or Gorilla," shows that H. G. Wells, the novelist alias historian(?), in his "Outline of History," uses 103 pages to show man's descent from an ape-like ancestry, and employs 96 expressions of doubt or uncertainty, such as "probably," "perhaps," "possibly," etc. He does not hesitate to endorse the wildest guesses of the evolutionists, and sits upon the top of this pyramid of doubt, and proclaims, ex cathedra, apparently without a blush, of our ancestors: "It was half-ape, half-monkey [elsewhere, he says the lemur was our ancestor]. It clambered about the trees and ran, and probably ran well, on its hind legs upon the ground. It was small brained by our present standards, but it had clever hands with which it handled fruit and beat nuts upon the rocks, and perhaps caught up sticks and stones to smite its fellows. IT WAS OUR ANCESTOR."!!!

And he does not hesitate to give a picture of our ancestor drawn by an artist 500,000 years after its death. Yet this book so dangerous, so anti-christian, and so untruthful concerning the origin of man, is recommended by careless librarians, by scholars, and even by Christians. It will take a long time to erase from the mind of the youth, the false teachings of this book. It is one of the most cunningly devised plans ever attempted to teach infidelity and atheism in the name of history.

PLANS FOR MAN PROVE DESIGN. All nature is crowded with evidence that God intended to create man. He made great preparation for his coming. He provided many things useful to man but to no other species. Veins of coal, almost innumerable—the canned sunshine of past ages—, are placed near the earth's surface, accessible for man, when needed for his use. Of no value whatever to any other species, because they can not make or replenish a fire. A colored preacher did not miss the mark, when he said, "God stored his coal in his great big cellar for the use of man." The man who fills his own cellar with provisions for the winter exhibits no more foresight or design.

The oil and gas were also evidently stored away in the earth for the use of man. It is worth nothing to animals. Over 41,000,000,000 gallons of oil were consumed in the U.S. in 1924.

All the other minerals likewise were stored in the earth for the use of man alone,—iron, copper, gold, silver, all the valuable minerals,—knowing that man would make use of them. The most precious and most useful minerals are of no value whatever to any species of animals. God foresaw the marvelous inventions of the present and the future, and provided the means ages ahead of time. The universe is crowded so full of design, that there is no room for chance or natural selection.


Evolution harmonizes with atheism and kindred false theories. This raises a presumption against its truth, as falsehood does not agree with the truth. It is reconcilable with infidelity and atheism, but not with Christianity. Many, like Prof. Coulter, of the Chicago University, endeavor to show that evolution is reconcilable with religion—and he does show that it harmonizes with the religion of deism or infidelity. No one doubts that evolution harmonizes with atheism or the religion of Thomas Paine. But why should we be anxious to reconcile it with Christianity, when there is so little truth to support it?

Many evolutionists are atheists. Some believe in the eternity of matter. This can not be. Both mind and matter can not be eternal. Mind controls matter; and not matter, mind. Hence the mind of God created matter.

Some believe the universe came into being by its own power, though that can not be. Power or force cannot create itself. It must be attached directly or indirectly to a person. No force can be disconnected from its cause. Detached force is unthinkable. All force in the universe can be traced to God. Much of the physical power of the earth can be traced to the sun,—storms, cataracts, steam, electricity,—and the sun gets its power from God. Gravitation, extensive as the universe, is but the power of God in each case.

The total force in the universe is beyond calculation. It is a part of the power of Almighty God. It approaches infinity. All heat is convertible into power, and power into heat. Heat, when converted into power, moves the mighty engines. The power of Niagara may be converted into heat and light. The sun had lifted the waters of the whole Niagara River, and the lakes far above the Falls. Its power is enormous. It lifts up over 1,000,000,000,000 tons of water to the clouds every day,—more than all the rivers and streams pour into the seas. The sun equals in size a pile of more than a million worlds like ours. Every square yard of surface of this enormous sphere, has enough heat to push a great liner across the sea,—as much power as in many tons of coal. The amount of heat in the surface of the sun, consisting of more than 2,284,000,000,000 sq. mi., can hardly be imagined. The heat of one sq. mi. (3,097,600 sq. yds.) would drive 3,000,000 ships across the sea,—150 times as many as are afloat. More than 2,200,000,000 times as much heat as the earth receives, goes out into space. And this enormous amount of heat is but a poor fraction of the heat of 400,000,000 suns, few of which are so small as ours.

A single star, Betelguese, has recently been computed to be 215,000,000 mi. in diameter, and therefore larger than 10,000,000 suns like ours. A still more recent computation shows stars even larger. Antares is 390,000,000 mi. in diameter, equal, to 91,125,000 suns, or 136,687,500,000,000 worlds. If our sun were in the centre of this sun, it would extend beyond the orbit of Mars. Alpha Hercules is 300,000,000 mi. in diameter. Some stars are so far away that it takes light 60,000 years to reach us, at the rate of 186,000 mi. in a second. Some say there are 400,000,000 enormous suns. Compute, if you can, the sum total of the power causing the light and heat, and the power of gravitation controlling these vast swarms of stars. All this power is the power of God, and a weak fraction of the total. This power could not originate itself. It could not grow. It could not come by evolution. It could not come by chance.

The doctrine of the Conservation of Force, accepted by scientists, proves that no part of force can be lost. A God of infinite power is required to create, maintain and control this vast universe. Force can no more create itself than matter. God must create and preserve both. It takes almighty power to maintain the universe in existence, as well as to create it.

If atheism be true, then, if there was even one germ to start with, as most admit, it must have created itself, unless the absurd claim that it came from another world, riding on a meteorite, be entertained. If such a foolish assumption were possible, it would require a God to create it in another world.

"The fool hath said in his heart, 'No God'." Some translators would supply the words omitted by the Hebrew, and make it read: "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." Others, "The fool hath said in his heart, 'I wish there were no God'." It is hard to tell which is the bigger fool, the man who refuses to see the countless evidences of design, proving His existence; or the man who refuses to see the terrible wreck of the great universe, and the awful chaos that would result if there were no God. We can imagine only one greater fool than either: The man who thinks he can get the world to believe, under cover of evolution, that there is no God, and that all things were evolved by chance, even though it be camouflaged by the terms "natural selection" or "natural law."

Atheism implies spontaneous generation, which is entirely without proof. Indeed, if spontaneous generation were possible at the beginning of life, it is possible now, and has been possible during all the ages. But no proof of it has been given. On the contrary, all efforts to secure, by chemistry, the lowest forms of life from dead matter have been without avail. Dr. Leib, of Chicago University, made earnest efforts to do so. He failed utterly. If nature, aided by the genius of man, can not now produce the lowest forms of life from matter, how could it ever have been done? Prof. Huxley filled jars with sterilized water, and placed in it sterilized vegetation, and sealed them up, and after 30 years, no life was seen, disproving spontaneous generation. Pasteur proved that, if milk were sterilized, there would be no development of life by spontaneous generation. This discovery was of immense practical value, making milk safe to use. Prof. Tyndall, the distinguished physicist, said: "If matter is what the world believes it to be, materialism, spontaneous generation, and evolution, or development, are absurdities too monstrous to be entertained by any sane mind." Dr. Clark Maxwell, another distinguished physicist, says, "I have examined all [theories of evolution] and have found that every one must have a God to make it work." L'Univers says: "When hypotheses tend to nothing less than the shutting out of God from the thoughts and hearts of men, and the diffusion of the leprosy of materialism, the savant who invents and propagates them is either a criminal or a fool." Even Darwin seems to be conscious of a designing mind when he says, "It is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature. But I mean by nature only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws." A futile effort to exclude God. Who made these laws?

Can a theory that is consistent with false theories, like chance and atheism be true? Truth is consistent with truth, but not with falsehood. We can judge a theory by the company it keeps. Evolution naturally affiliates with false theories rather than with the truth. It favors infidelity and atheism. A theory in perfect harmony with manifest error, raises a presumption against its truth. Evolution seems to have a natural attraction for erroneous hypotheses and manifests the closest kinship with impossible theories. This is not a mark of a true theory.

So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven hypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and atheism. Prof. James H. Leuba, of Bryn Mawr College, Pa., sent a questionaire to 1000 of the most prominent scientists teaching sciences relating to evolution. The replies indicate that more than one-half do not believe in a personal God, nor the immortality of the soul,—beliefs almost universal even in the heathen world. So pernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half of the professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels and atheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen. And while we are happy in the conviction that the great majority of professors and teachers of other subjects are Christians, yet one or two atheists or infidels are sufficient to make havoc of the faith of many, in a great college or university.

A doctrine so abhorrent to the conscience, so contrary to the well nigh universal belief, and so fruitful of evil, certainly can not be true. Small wonder is it that students are fast becoming infidels and atheists, and we shudder as we think of the coming generation. A great responsibility rests upon the authorities who employ such teachers.

The answers of the students in seven large representative colleges and universities to Prof. Leuba's questionaire, show that while only 15% of the Freshmen have abandoned the Christian religion, 30% of the Juniors and over 40% of the Seniors have abandoned the Christian faith. Note the steady and rapid growth of infidelity and atheism as a result of this pernicious theory.

Will Christian parents patronize or support or endow institutions that give an education that is worse than worthless? What the colleges teach today the world will believe tomorrow.

Atheism, under its own name, has never had many to embrace it. Its only hope is to be tolerated and believed under some other name. In Russia, no man is allowed to belong to the ruling (Communist) party unless he is an atheist. It will be a sorry world when "scientific" atheism wins, under the name of evolution.

No one has a moral right to believe what is false, much less to teach it, under the specious plea of freedom of thought.

It is the privilege and duty of parents to send their children to institutions that are safe.

Nathan Leopold, Jr., and Richard Loeb kidnapped and cruelly murdered Robert Franks. Both were brilliant scholars and atheists. Both graduates of universities, though minors, and both were taking a post-graduate course in the University of Chicago. It is asserted and widely believed that they were encouraged in their atheistic belief by the teaching of evolution and modernism, and were thus prepared to commit a crime that shocked the world.

Most of the writers who advocated evolution became atheists or infidels; most of the professors who teach it, believe neither in God nor the immortality of the soul; and the number of students discarding Christianity rose from 15% in the Freshman year to 40% in the Senior. What more proof is needed?


According to Prof. R. S. Lull and other evolutionists, "The skull of the pithecanthropus is characterized by a limited capacity of about two-thirds that of a man." Assuming that this skull is that of a normal creature of that age, as is done in all the arguments of "our friends, the enemy," then the pithecanthropus must have lived 20,000,000 years ago, one-third the period assigned to life. They claim the pithecanthropus lived 750,000 years ago; later the guess is reduced to 375,000. Does any one in his senses believe that an ape-human animal developed one-third of the normal human brain in 375,000 or 750,000 years, when it took 59,250,000 years to develop two-thirds of the brain? If one-third of the normal brain developed in the last 750,000 years, the rate of development must have been 39.5 times as great as in the preceding 59,250,000 years. If one-third developed in the last 375,000 years, the rate of development must have been 78 times as rapid as in the preceding 59,625,000 years. This is incredible. If life began 500,000,000 years ago, and one-third the brain developed in the last 750,000 years, the rate must have been 332 times as rapid as in the preceding 499,250,000 years; and 666 times as rapid in 375,000 years as in the preceding 499,625,000 years. All these guesses are clearly impossible.

But the agile evolutionist may try to escape the death sentence of mathematics and the condemnation of reason, by saying that the brain developed more rapidly than the rest of the body. But he is estopped from that claim, by the statement of this same Prof. R. S. Lull: "The brain, especially the type of brain found in the higher human races, must have been very slow of development." If so, the pithecanthropus must have lived more than 20,000,000 years ago! So swiftly does inexorable mathematics upset this reckless theory.

This calculation has been made upon the basis of the estimate of 60,000,000 years since life began, taken from Prof. H. H. Newman in "Readings in Evolution," p. 68. But, seeing that even this great estimate of the period of life is not sufficient for evolution, in a private letter to the writer, Prof. Newman raises his guess to 500,000,000 years. In that case, the pithecanthropus must have lived one-third of 500,000,000, or 166,666,666 years ago. And, if we are reckless enough to admit the "moderate estimate" of 1,000,000,000 years, gravely suggested by Prof. Russell, of Princeton University, it must have lived 333,333,333 years ago. These reckless estimates seem removed, by the whole diameter of reason, from even a respectable guess. Every new guess seems to make their case more hopeless. And any guess that they can make, out of harmony with the Scripture statement, can be disproved by cold mathematics. In like manner, if the Piltdown man had the estimated brain capacity of 1070 c.c., instead of the normal 1500 c.c., this fabricated creature must have lived about 17,200,000 years ago, if life began 60,000,000 years ago; and 143,333,333 years ago, if life began 500,000,000 years ago; (c.c. = cubic centimeters).

Prof. Schaaffhausen, the discoverer, estimated the capacity of the Neanderthal man at 1033 c.c. Then he must have lived 18,680,000 years ago, if we accept the 60,000,000 year period; and 311,333,333 years ago, if we accept Prof. Russell's guess of 1,000,000,000 years.

And in all these long ages, fragments of only four skeletons of very doubtful character have been found, and upon this flimsy proof, the youth of our land are expected by self-styled "scientists" to believe it, even though it leads them into infidelity and atheism, and causes the loss of their souls.

Let us take another view. Let us assume that the pithecanthropus really lived 750,000 years ago, as claimed, which is 1.25% of 60,000,000 years. Therefore, its brain capacity then should have been 98.75% normal, or 1481.25 c.c. or 18.75 c.c. less than the normal 1500 c.c. Also 750,000 years is only .15% of 500,000,000 years; hence in that case, the brain should have been 99.85% normal, or 1497.75 c.c. In either case, the intelligence must have excelled that of many nations and races. All these calculations prove positively that no such creatures as these four alleged ape-men ever could have lived in the age assigned to them; or, if so, that none could have had, at that time, the low brain capacity claimed. Q. E. D.

Is it not plain that for the last 2,000,000 years out of 60,000,000 years, the developing human race must have been over 29/30 or 96 2/3% normal, in intelligence, morality, and spirituality? This is greater than that of many peoples today. With this high degree of intelligence, man was capable of great inventions and discoveries. Not a single monument remains. We would expect some great monument like the pyramids of Egypt. A race with such advancement, for so many years would have been able to reach the heights of invention, discovery, and learning of the present age. Not a whit of evidence comes down to us.

If 2,000,000 years ago, man had the same skull capacity as the ape, 600 c.c., he has gained 900 c.c. in 2,000,000 years, and only 600 c.c. in 58,000,000 years. His improvement in the last 2,000,000 years, must have been 43.5 times as rapid as during the preceding 58,000,000 years; or 373.5 times as rapid as during the preceding 498,000,000 years. How was that possible?


The evolution theory, stretching from matter to man, is impossible, because of many impassable gulfs. Some of these impassable gulfs are:—

1. Between the living and non-living or dead matter; 2. Between the vegetable and the animal kingdoms; 3. Between the invertebrates and the vertebrates; 4. Between marine animals and amphibians; 5. Between amphibians and reptiles; 6. Between reptiles and birds; 7. Between reptiles and mammals; 8. Between mammals and the human body; 9. Between soulless simians and the soul of man, bearing the image of God.

There is not a scrap of evidence that these gulfs have ever been crossed. In the scheme, the material must become living by spontaneous generation; some plants must become invertebrate animals; some invertebrates must become vertebrates; some marine animals must become amphibians; some amphibians must become reptiles; some reptiles must become mammals; some mammals must become humans; some senseless, soulless simians must acquire a soul and become spiritual enough to bear the image of God.

There is no convincing proof that any of these great and incredible advances were ever made. If we estimate the probability of each transmutation at 10%, which is too high, then the probability that all these changes up to man were made is .1 raised to the 8th power, .00000001. Therefore, there is not more than one chance out of 100,000,000 that these 8 changes were made. And if we estimate the probability of each great change at .001, which is doubtless still too high, the probability that man took these 8 great steps of evolution is one out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or a million, million, million, million. If we estimate the probability of each change even at 60%, which is far above all reason, the probability of man's evolution through these 8 changes is only 1 out of 60, which marks an improbability close to an impossibility. The highest estimate we can reasonably make, destroys all hope that man or even any other species could have come by evolution. Few persons realize how improbable an event is made which depends upon a number of possibilities or even probabilities, until calculated by the rule of Compound Mathematical Probability.

Imagine the Copernican or the gravitation theory depending on a number of possibilities or probabilities! No true theory is built on such an uncertain foundation.

But, if the evolutionists could prove that 7 out of 8 of the great changes certainly did occur, but failed to prove the 8th, they would lose their case. But they have failed in all. They must prove all to win. There is not the slightest probability that any one of these changes ever occurred. Hence, the evolution of man from this long line of alleged ancestors is an absolute impossibility. Q. E. D.

None of these changes is now occurring. There is no spontaneous generation now. Darwin himself said that spontaneous generation in the past was "absolutely inconceivable." No reptiles are becoming mammals, none becoming birds, no apes or monkeys are becoming men. No species is now transmuted into another, no new species arises. Is not this proof enough that such great changes never occurred?

Moreover, if dead matter caused one living germ, why did it not cause more? If some reptiles developed into mammals, and birds, why not all? If one family of simians became human, why not others? Why not at least become anthropoids? Why did all other members of the simian family not become at least part human? Why have they remained stationary?

Besides, we have with us yet the invertebrates that have not yet become vertebrates; marine animals that have not become amphibians; amphibians that have not become reptiles; reptiles that have become neither mammals nor birds, and a multitude of simians that have not become human, and are not moving toward man either in bodily form or intelligence or spirituality. We have the one-celled amoeba, the microscopic animals, and the lowest forms of animal life. If the great law of progress and advancement to higher forms has prevailed for so many million years, there should be none but the highest species. All should have reached the status of human beings and there should be none of the lower forms of life which are so abundant. Changes so radical and vast, stretching through so many ages, would require millions of connecting links. If reptiles became hairy mammals, we would expect fossils of thousands, if not millions, in the transition state. If some reptiles were changed into the 12,000 species of birds, we would expect countless fossils, part reptile, part bird. Only one is claimed, the archaeopteryx (ancient bird), two specimens of which are known, which had a feathered tail, and which is only a slight modification of other birds. Many other birds have departed farther from the normal. There should be millions of fossils in the transition state if the theory were true. We have proven elsewhere that there is no credible evidence of links connecting man with the monkey family. There would have been many millions. We have shown, at length, that some of these great changes, especially the Evolution of man from the brute, could never have occurred. No one of these nine great advances was ever made, but it will suffice to examine now, as examples, two alleged great changes, reptiles into mammals, and reptiles into birds.

1. Evolutionists say that mammals are descended from some reptiles, unknown, of course, and birds from others, also unknown. Mammals differ from reptiles in having breasts (Latin, mammae), a four chambered heart instead of three, a coat of hair or fur or wool, and a womb for the young. The temperature of the blood of reptiles is as low as 60 and even 40 degrees, since the temperature of the blood is about the same as the environment, sometimes approaching the freezing point. But mammals have a temperature approaching 100 deg.. We are to believe that one progressive branch of reptiles, which passed through the sieve of natural selection, during the Permian Ice Age, was capable of being adapted to the colder climate. But this mighty chasm between reptiles and mammals was crossed unaided by any external interference, unaided by God; then the mammals groped their way, without intelligence or design, up to man! The difficulties are too great to satisfy the serious student. No satisfactory explanation has been given. No fossils, part reptile, part mammal, have been found. We would naturally expect millions of them. Evidently none ever existed. How could such radical changes be brought about? What caused the development of hair, fur and wool? The change in the heart, and the temperature, the formation of the mammae and of the womb? There is no evidence of such change. But it is necessary to the scheme.

2. Some reptiles became birds, they say; whether a pair for each of the 12,000 species of birds or one pair for all, we can not learn. For nobody knows. They would like for us to believe that these cold-blooded reptiles with a temperature of 40 to 60 degrees became birds with a temperature as high as 107; that wings and feathers were developed, which must have been perfectly useless through the long ages during which they were developing; that the wonderful contrivances in the wings and feathers were made by senseless reptiles that did not know what they were doing. Reptiles have a three-chambered heart, making them cold-blooded. Birds have a four-chambered heart, and a temperature higher than that of man. Reptiles left their eggs to hatch in the sun. Birds, by a fine instinct, built their nests with care. Some reptiles have 4 feet, some 2, some none. All birds have two feet. The bird's structure is so well suited for flight and shows the marks of design so clearly, that the clumsy aeroplane is but a poor imitation. Yet to link the 12,000 species of birds to their unknown reptilian ancestors, they show us two fossils of the archaeopteryx, as the sum total of the evidence showing the transition from reptiles to birds. The fossil varies slightly but not essentially from other birds. It has a feathered tail, some teeth and claws. It is probably not a connecting link at all, and if it were, we would expect a million fossils of connecting links. All these nine transmutations are devoid of a single sure connecting link, when we would expect millions in every case. These facts prove that evolution is a delusion and an absurdity.


Many have taught that man was descended from an ape or monkey. Evolutionists, ashamed of a doctrine so repugnant to all reason and so revolting to mankind, vainly imagine they can escape the odium of such a view, by declaring that man is not descended from an ape or monkey, but that all the primates including all monkeys, apes, and man, sprang from a common ancestor. Of this alleged ancestor not a single fossil remains. Dr. Chapin, Social Evolution, page 39, says: "When the doctrine of the descent of man was first advanced, superficial and popular writers immediately jumped at the conclusion that naturalists believed that man was descended from the monkey. This, of course, is quite absurd, as man obviously could not be descended from a form of life now living. The ape and the monkey family, together with man are probably (?) descended from some generalized ape-like form long since perished from the earth." Suppose this absurd and unsupported guess to be correct. Then the gorillas, chimpanzees, gibbons, orang-outangs and other apes; the baboons and other monkeys; and the lemurs and man were brothers and sisters, or otherwise closely related, and all were descended immediately or nearly so from a common ancestor lower than any. Where is the comfort or gain? Moreover, all the members of this primate family must have inter-breeded for ages, until, according to the theory, they became distinct species. Therefore, the ancestors of man, for ages, must have been descended from all these members of the primate family, and are thus the offspring of all these repulsive brutes, and the blood of them all is in our veins! In attempting to rescue us from the ape as our ancestor, they have shown that we are descendants of the whole monkey family and every species of ape and of many of their more disreputable relatives also. Great is evolution!

It certainly would be impossible for one single pair to have become the ancestors of the human race, without mixing and interbreeding with their kindred primates. Where are the descendants of these mongrel breeds, part monkey and part man? We would expect all gradations of mixed animals from monkey to man. "Two or three millions of years ago an enormous family of monkeys spread over Europe, Asia and Africa." All related, many our ancestors.

Why did not some other species of the primates equal or excel man or advance part way between man and the brute? Why are they not now becoming human? It is plain to the sincere student that the evolution of man from the brute is only the product of the imagination of those who wish to deny special creation and exclude God from his universe.

The slight external resemblance between man and the ape family is more than offset by structural differences which deny kinship. Alfred McCann in his great book "God—or Gorilla" says, p. 24, "Man has 12 pairs of ribs; the gibbon and chimpanzee, 13; man has 12 dorsal vertebrae; the chimpanzee and gorilla, 13; the gibbon, 14. The gorilla has massive spines on the cervical vertebrae above the scapula"; and, like the other quadrumana (4-handed animals) has an opposable thumb on the hind foot. There are wide differences in the shape of the skull, thorax, femur, and even the liver. The skeleton of the brutes is much more massive. On the tips of the fingers and thumbs of the human hand are lines arranged in whorls, for identification. In monkeys, the lines are parallel on the finger tips, but whorls on the palm. Is it possible that man and such brutes came from the same parents?


The theory that all plants and animals have descended from one primordial germ, is staggering to the mind. If so, how was it? Did this original germ split in two, like some disease germs, one of them the beginning of plant life, and the other the head of all animal life? Or, did vegetation only, grow from this first germ for ages, and then some of it turn into species of animals? As if the guess were worthy of attention, some are ready to assert that early vegetation Algae turned into animals. Did plants become animals somewhere along the way? Or did animals, somewhere along the way, turn into plants? How long did they interbreed before the gap became too wide? Where are the descendants of the union between plants and animals? If animals were first developed from this first germ, what did they live on while there was no vegetation? What folly is like the folly of the evolutionist who claims that such weird speculation is science?

Great gaps between the principal divisions of the animal world are fatal to this speculation, which rests upon nothing but the wish that it were so. Links are lacking between marine and amphibian animals; reptiles and birds; reptiles and mammals; between apes and man. Of course, we would find fossils of millions of these links if there were any. The missing links are necessary to the scheme. Is there one chance in a million that evolution is a true hypothesis?

20. SEX

Can the evolutionist explain the origin of sex? Starting with one germ or even a few germs, reproduction must have been by division for a time. If the germ that became the head of all plant life, reproduced by division, when did it begin to reproduce by seeds?

It is still more difficult to explain when sex life began in animals. There could have been no sex life at first, and perhaps for ages. They can not tell us when the animals, by chance, acquired the wonderful adaptation of the sexual life. They have no evidence whatever. Their guess is no better than that of others. It passes credulity to believe that the sexual life, with all its marvelous design, was reached by the invention of irrational animals, when man, with all his powers of reason, invention, and discovery, is helpless even to understand the great wisdom and power that brought it about.

Can blind chance, or aimless effort by senseless brutes, accomplish more than the amazing design of an infinitely wise and powerful God?

How was the progeny of mammals kept alive, during the ages required for the slow development of the mammae?


How did man become a hairless animal? is a hard question for evolutionists. Any scientific theory must be ready to give an account of all phenomena. A hypothesis to explain the origin of man must explain all the facts. How did man become a hairless animal? Darwin's explanation is too puerile for any one professing to be a learned scientist to give. He says that the females preferred males with the least hair (?) until the hairy men gradually became extinct, because, naturally, under such a regime, the hairy men would die off, and, finally only hairless men to beget progeny would survive. What do sensible, serious students think of this "scientific" explanation? If we try to take this explanation seriously, we find that the science of phrenology teaches that females, as a rule, inherit the traits of their fathers, and males the traits of their mothers. Hence, not the males but the females would become hairless by this ridiculous process. How do evolutionists account for the hair left on the head and other parts of the body? Why do men have beard, while women and children do not? If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did not believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from the back, while it is very abundant and useful on the backs of the monkey family. If there was any good reason why the human brute should lose his hair, why for the same reason, did not other species of the monkey family lose their hair? Can it be explained by natural selection? Was the naked brute better fitted to survive than the hairy animal? Did man survive because he was naked, and the hairy brute perish? Evidently not, for the hairy brute still exists in great abundance.

The best way to get rid of the hair of the brute is for some reconstructing artist, like Prof. J. H. McGregor, to take it off. In a picture widely copied by books in favor of evolution, photographed from his "restorations," the pithecanthropus, the Neanderthal man, and the Cro-Magnon man are represented almost without hair on the body or even without beard. Only the Neanderthal man has a tiny Charlie Chaplin mustache. Their hair had not been combed for 1,000,000 years; yet we could not detect it. A sympathetic artist can make a "restoration" suit his fancy and support any theory.

If we are descended from simian stock, how did we come to lose our tails? Would not the same causes, if any, cause all the species to lose their tails? According to the laws of biometry, ought we not to find a retrogression of sections of the human race, who would sport simian tails and be clothed with simian hair? Or, could natural selection explain the loss of the tail on the ground that all the monkeys with tails died off, while the tailless ones survived, and developed into human beings? In that case, a tail must have been a fatal imperfection.


"Hybrids would seem to be nature's most available means of producing new species." Yet the sterility of hybrids defeats that possibility, and rebukes the untruthful claim of the formation of new species. Nature, with sword in hand, decrees the death of hybrids, lest they might produce a new species. Moses wrote the rigid unchanging law of nature, when he said that every living creature would bring forth "after its kind."

Species are immutable. One does not become another, or unite with another to produce a third. Dogs do not become cats, nor interbreed to produce another species. A few species, so nearly related that we can scarcely tell whether they are species or varieties, as the jackass and the mare, may have offspring, but the offspring are sterile. The zebra and the mare may produce a zebulon, which is likewise sterile. And so with the offspring of other groups intermediate between species and varieties. A human being and ape can not beget an ape-human, showing that they are not even nearly related species.

If evolution be true, we would expect a frequent interbreeding and interchanging of species. Even Darwin admitted that species are immutable. God declared it in his word, and stamps it indelibly on every species. "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after its kind'."-Gen. 1:24. How did Moses know this great truth, unless he was told by inspiration of God?

Even plant-hybrids are not permanent. Darwin himself says: "But plants not propagated by seed, are of little importance to us, for their endurance is only temporary."

Even if it could be proven that species, like varieties, are formed by development, it does not follow that genera and families and classes are so developed. But it has not been proved that a single species has been added by development, much less orders, families and genera. Evolution must account for every division and sub-division to plant and animal life. Darwin answers the objection to the sterility of hybrids by saying, "We do not know." "But why," he says, "in the case of distinct species, the sexual elements should so generally have become more or less modified, leading to their mutual infertility, we do not know." But God knows.


The instinct of animals is not due to their own intelligence. It is unerring, unchangeable, without improvement or deterioration. It implies knowledge and wisdom of the highest order. It is beyond the wisdom of man. It comes direct from God. It is not learned nor gained by experience. It is found in many species of animals, and even in a child, until knowledge and reason make it unnecessary.

One of the most familiar illustrations is the instinct of the honey bee. It builds its cells in exact geometric form and we compute, by Calculus, that the form it uses produces the greatest capacity in proportion to the amount of material used. Who taught the bee to build its cell, displaying greater knowledge than that of many a college graduate? Darwin says (Origin of Species), "It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely those of the honey bee, could not possibly have been acquired by habit." We quote from Granville's Calculus, p. 119: "We know that the shape of a bee cell is hexagonal, giving a certain capacity for honey with the greatest possible economy of wax." This is demonstrated by the solution of a problem in this same Calculus. Darwin again says (Origin of Species, vol. I, p. 342), "We hear from mathematicians, that bees have practically solved a recondite problem, and have made their cells of the proper shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey, with the least possible consumption of precious wax in their construction. It has been remarked that a skilful workman, with fitting tools and measures, would find it very difficult to make cells of wax of the true form, though this is effected by a crowd of bees, working in a dark room. Each cell, as is well known, is a hexagonal prism, with the basal edges of its six sides, beveled so as to join an inverted pyramid of three rhombs. These rhombs have certain angles, and the three which form the pyramidal base of a single cell on one side of the comb, enter into the composition of the bases of the three adjoining cells on the opposite side."

Can any one suggest an improvement or show an imperfection? If this intelligence is the bee's own, which is far superior to that of the ape, why did not the bee develop a human brain?

Yet in spite of Darwin's admission, he labors hard to show that "There is no real difficulty under changing conditions of life, in natural selection accumulating to any extent slight modifications of instinct which are in any way useful"! How could the working bee conserve the gains accumulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father and the queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neither parent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit their knowledge or their habits to the working bee? Every new swarm of bees would not know how to build their cells. There is no improvement from generation to generation. Even if instinct in other animals could be accounted for, evolution can not account for the instinct of the working bees, since they are not descendants of other working bees, from which they might inherit habits or instinct.

Is not the instinct of the bee the intelligence of God, disproving the heresy of an absentee God? Here again we get a glimpse of the unerring wisdom of God.

The immoveable oyster, the bee alive with divine intelligence, and the sterile progeny of the jackass, are enough to upset the whole theory of evolution.


Evolution can not be true, because it contradicts the inspired word of God. We do not speak arbitrarily and say, without proof, that whatever contradicts the revealed word of God can not be true, although such an attitude could be easily defended. Disregarding all the many other cogent and legitimate arguments in support of a divine revelation, we will appeal to the remarkable harmony between the story of Creation in Genesis and the modern sciences. This could not be, if God had not revealed to Moses the story of creation. Moses personally knew nothing revealed by the sciences of today. And the man of that day who would invent the story of creation, would be sure to conflict with one or more of the following modern sciences: geology, astronomy, zoology, biology, geography, chemistry, physics, anatomy, philology, archaeology, history, ethics, religion, etc. There is not one chance in a million that a writer of a fictitious account would not have run amuck among many of these sciences, if, like Moses, he had no personal knowledge of them.

Although the Babylonian account may have had some foundation in fact, from a tradition of a prior revelation, it plainly bears the marks of error. "The Babylonian stories of creation are full of grotesque and polytheistic ideas, while those of the Bible speak only of the one living and true God." "All things," the Babylonian legend says, "were produced at the first from Tiamat." "The gods came into being in long succession, but, at length, enmity arose between them and Tiamat, who created monsters to oppose them. Merodach, a solar deity, vanquished Tiamat, cut her body in two, and with one-half of it made a firmament supporting the upper waters in the sky, etc., etc." The Babylonian gods, like even those of the classics, were criminals fit only for prison or death.

Alfred Russell Wallace, who, with Darwin, devised the evolution theory, says: "There must have been three interpositions of a Divine and supernatural power to account for things as they are: the agreement of science with Genesis is very striking: There is a gulf between matter and nothing; one between life and the non-living; and a third between man and the lower creation; and science can not bridge them!"

This "striking agreement" between science and Genesis I, is shown by the fact that at least 11 great events are enumerated in the same order as claimed by modern science: 1. The earth was "waste and void"; 2. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep"; 3. Light appears; 4. A clearing expanse, or firmament; 5. The elevation of the land and the formation of the seas; 6. Grass, herbs and fruit trees appear; 7. The sun, moon and stars appear; 8. Marine animals were created; 9. "Winged fowls" were created; 10. Land animals were created; 11. Man was created.

The chance of guessing the exact order of these 11 great events is ascertained by the law of permutations-the product of the numbers from 1 to 11, which is 39,916,800. Therefore, Moses had one chance out of 39,916,800 to guess the correct order of these 11 great events, as revealed both by science and revelation. If, for example, the first 11 letters of the alphabet were arranged in some unknown miscellaneous order, any one would have but one chance out of 39,916,800 to guess the order. If Moses did not have the order revealed to him, he never could have guessed it. Therefore, he was inspired and was told the order.

This mathematical demonstration annihilates the contradicting theory of evolution. At once it proves that the account was divinely inspired, and man came by special creation and not by evolution. The fact that the language of Genesis is in remarkable harmony with all proven modern scientific theories, and manifestly confirmed by them, is a proof in favor of the creation story, decisive and final.

This harmony is manifest whether the Heb. yom, day, be taken to mean a long period, as advocated by many biblical scholars, or a literal day of 24 hours, followed, it may be, by years or ages of continuance of the work, before the next day's work of 24 hours began.

Believing that this interpretation does no violence to the text, and that it is especially in harmony with the statements in the fourth commandment and elsewhere in the Bible, it is here briefly presented as one interpretation, showing the marvelous harmony between revelation and the proven, and even the generally accepted, scientific theories. The stately procession of events is the same, no matter which interpretation is accepted, and doubtless will remain, even if both must yield to another and better interpretation. This majestic divine order, in harmony with both science and revelation, removes all doubt of special creation.

Another interpretation, advocated by many scholars, is that all geologic ages may have intervened during the time indicated between the 1st and 2nd verses of Gen. I.

The following is a possible, and, it would seem, a probable interpretation of the inspired creation story. The words of Scripture, whether from the American Revision, or marginal rendering of the original Hebrew, or other translation, are put in quotation marks:—


"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," including the sun, moon and stars, and all other matter in any form.


"And the earth was waste and void," literally "desolation and emptiness." And, on account of the thick vapors in the hot atmosphere, "darkness was upon the face of the deep," and doubtless had been for ages.

"And the Spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters," and perhaps was calling into being the lowest forms of marine life.

The First Day's Work. Light Appears.

"And God said, 'Let the light appear'," through the thick vapors. And the light appeared, so that the day could now be distinguished from the night. "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day." This day did not need to be an age or even 24 hours for God's work. How long did it take light to appear? Many years, and even ages, may have followed between each day's work as the "days" were not necessarily consecutive, and it is not so stated.

Second Day's Work. A Clearing Expanse.

"And God said, 'Let there be a clearing expanse (called heaven) dividing the waters which were on the earth from the waters in the thick clouds above, firmly suspended in the air'." This may have continued a long time, though begun in 24 hours.

Third Day's Work. Land, sea and vegetation appear.

"And God said, 'Let the waters under the expanse be gathered together into one place (seas and oceans), and let the dry land appear'." The contraction of the cooling earth caused the elevation of the land, and the draining of the waters into the seas. The geologist Lyell says, "All land has been under water." Hitchcock says, "The surface of the globe has been a shoreless ocean." "And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind." Though the sun was not yet visible on account of dense clouds and vapors, the warm, humid atmosphere was suitable for the grass, herbs, and fruit trees,—three great classes which represented the vegetable kingdom. Ages may have again intervened.

The Fourth Day's Work. Sun, moon and stars made visible.

"And God said, 'Let lights be seen in the open expanse of heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years'." "And God made the two great lights to appear," since neither had been seen through the thick clouds, "the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also to appear." Though created first, the stars would appear last. Ages more may have intervened.

The Fifth Day's Work. Animal life in sea and air.

"And God said, 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heaven'." "And God created great sea monsters, and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kinds, and every winged fowl after its kind." Geology and Moses alike testify that swarms of animals filled the seas. The ages rolled on while they "filled the waters of the seas and fowl multiplied on the earth."

The Sixth Day's Work. The creation of land-animals and man.

"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beast of the earth after its kind'." The fifth day animals began to swarm the seas; the sixth day, to cover the land. "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'," in "knowledge after the image of him that created him," (Col. 3:10) and "in righteousness and true holiness," (Eph. 4:24). Yet a professor in a great university was so dense as to insist that the Scriptures taught that the likeness was not in "knowledge, righteousness and true holiness," but in the bodily form. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." The last of all creation as both revelation and science testify. The image is mental and moral and spiritual. No such image in any other species.

The body chosen was higher and better than the form of any animal. It resembles the bodies of mammals of the highest type. Why should it not? The vast number of animal species, of almost every conceivable size and shape, could not furnish a form so well adapted to the use of man as that which the Creator gave him. Would it have been better if man had been created in the form of a fish, a lizard, a serpent, a dog, or a horse, or a bird? How could the body have been created without bearing resemblance to some form of the million species of animals? A resemblance can be traced through the whole creation, the material as well as the animal, but it does not follow that one species is descended from another, but that there was one general plan, and one God. The existence of man, who can not be otherwise accounted for, proves the existence of the Creator.


Analogy raises a presumption against evolution. Analogy is not a demonstration. It is an illustration that strengthens and confirms other arguments. Both the science of mathematics and all physical laws must have come into being in an instant of time. Evolution is not God's usual method of creation.

1. MATHEMATICS.—There is no evolution in the science of mathematics. There is no change or growth or development. God is the author of all mathematical principles. The square described on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares described on the other two sides, because he made it so. The circumference of a circle is approximately 3.1416 times the diameter because he made it so. The wonderful calculations by logarithms, whether by the common system with a base of 10, or the Napierian system with a base of 2.718+ a decimal that never terminates, are possible and reliable only because God made them so. Think what great intelligence is required by the Napierian system, to raise a decimal that never terminates, to a decimal power that never terminates, in order to produce an integral number. Yet God has computed instantaneously every table of logarithms, and every other mathematical table,—no matter how difficult. Thus we have positive proof of the presence everywhere of a great intelligent Being, and we catch a glimpse of that mind that must be infinite. He created the whole system of mathematics, vast beyond our comprehension, at once. A part could not exist without the whole. No growth; no change; no evolution; no improvement, because the whole system was perfect from the first. Reasoning from analogy, is it not reasonable to say that the God who flashed upon the whole universe, the limitless system of mathematics in an instant, also created man as Moses said? Analogy supports the doctrine of the special creation of man in a day.

The great system of mathematics which could not exist without a creator, is so extensive that 40 units are taught in a single university. New subjects are added, new text books written, new formulas devised, new principles demonstrated,—and the subject is by no means exhausted. He, by whose will this fathomless science came into existence, knows more than all the mathematicians of the past, present and future, and possibly all the evolutionists of the world.

2. PHYSICAL LAWS.—All physical laws, prevailing throughout the universe, came into being by the will of God, in an instant of time. No growth, no change, no development, no evolution. The presumption is that God created all things in a similar way. If it was wisest and best to bring into being the great science of mathematics and fix all physical laws,—all in a moment of time, why should he consume 60,000,000 or 500,000,000 years in bringing man into existence? Evolution is all out of harmony with God's other methods of work.

Gravitation was complete from the first. No growth; no evolution. The laws of light, heat, electricity, etc., remain unchanged. Light travels with the same unvarying velocity, as when, 60,000 years ago, it started from the distant star-cloud. Some estimate our universe to be 1,000,000 light years across. Yet in all these limitless reaches, the same perfect and complete laws prevail, touching light, heat, electricity, gravitation, etc. God makes no mistakes and no evolution is needed. Does not this furnish a presumption that God could and did create man complete and full grown with a wonderful body, and a soul in his own image?

In this discussion, we have spoken of the "laws" of nature, after common usage. But laws are only a record of God's acts. An unchangeable God makes unchangeable laws. There is a rigid fixity written over the face of nature. Every law and principle is complete and perfect and finished, and there is no room for evolution.

Matter did not create itself, nor evolute nor grow. It must have been created instantaneously by the power of God, whether in a nebulous condition or not. So enchanting is their theory, that many profess to believe that not only were all species of animals and plants evolved from a single germ, but that even matter itself was evolved out of nothing. This theory of evolution as wide as the universe, as ponderous as the stars, is supported only by the weak stork legs of wistful possibility.


Many arguments gravely given in support of evolution, reveal a great poverty of facts and logic. An instantaneous photograph of an "infant, three weeks old, supporting its own weight for over two minutes," is given by Romanes as a proof that man is descended from a simian (ape-like) ancestor. As this same picture is widely copied in evolution text books, they must have failed to get the picture of any other infant performing a like feat. Just how this affords any convincing proof that man is a monkey, we leave the reader to figure out. Our attention is called to the way this child and another child, whose picture is likewise generally copied, hold their feet (like monkeys climbing trees) showing they are little monkeys. Though we fail to see the force of this argument, it must be among their best from the emphasis they give it. Prof. H. H. Newman, of Chicago University, a leading evolutionist actually writes as follows, (Readings): "The common cotton-tail rabbit raises its white tail when it runs. This is interpreted [by whom, evolutionists or rabbits?] as a signal of danger to other rabbits."

The following absurd speculation, by a lecturer in the "University Extension Course," was printed in the Philadelphia Bulletin: "Evidence that early man climbed trees with their feet lies 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. 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, and so we are never hurt in our dreams of falling"! While we read these feeble arguments, which the newspapers would call piffle, how can we escape the conviction that evolution is in desperate need of argument? Imagine the Copernican theory relying on such piffle for support. Is there a freak idea without a freak professor to support it?


Evolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and Prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "Readings in Evolution." Among them are:—

1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.

2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians."

4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.

5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.

6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.

7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." If the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.

8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "What would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"

9. Even if Darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the arrival of the fittest, which is far more important.

10. Darwin says, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." Many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.

11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." Growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles Darden, of Tenn., was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of Augustus.

12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." Overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?

13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of historical interest."

14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.

In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?

And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.


Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said:—"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness?

Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist, said: "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 all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."

Prof. Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: "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 be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."

Prof. Fleishman, of Erlangen, who once accepted Darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."

Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, 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."

Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of N. Y. Academy of Medicine, said: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates—gorilla, orang and chimpanzee—can do nothing truly human."

Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, 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 about the origin of man except what is told in Scripture."

The foremost evolutionists, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, repudiated Darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.

Dr. St. George Mivert, late professor of biology in the University College of Kensington, calls Darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."

Dr. James Orr, of Edinburg University, says: "The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead."

Dr. Traas, a famous palaeontologist, concludes: "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." Does this apply to H. G. Wells?

Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of Geol., in Harvard University, said: "It is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."

Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained."

Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."

Sir Charles Bell, Prof, 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."

These testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in Prof. Townsend's "Collapse of Evolution," McCann's "God or Gorilla," Philip Mauro's "Evolution At the Bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred McCann, in his great work, "God or Gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept Darwinism. Yet they say, "All scholars accept evolution"!!


Agents for this 20,000 edition may show these selections, culled from a mass of warm world-wide testimonials, by able critics, authors, professors, editors, magazines, reviews, governors of states, and rulers of nations. "Unanswerable;" "an absolute demonstration;" "masterful;" "true to title;" "clear and convincing;" "scholarly and logical;" "timely;" "terse;" "interesting;" "best I ever read;" "costs $1, worth $5;" "fully disproves evolution;" also:—

"I finished your book today at two sittings. It is the most effective polemic on the subject, I have yet seen. You have marshalled the evidence of mathematics against the delusion of man's descent from brute ancestry, with telling effect."—PHILIP MAURO, Noted Attorney and Author.

"Evolution Disproved is not only a strong book from the scientific and argumentative viewpoint, but is also unique in many ways. We wish everybody would and could read it, especially those who are enamored with Evolution."—PROF. L. S. KEYSER, D.D., in the Bible Champion.

"Evolution Disproved is a sober, fully sustained and very remarkable book vindicating its title. It surely is one of the most conclusive of books, tearing to shreds Evolution pretensions. Absolutely unanswerable; in the very front rank of masterly books."—THE METHODIST.

"I have, for a third of a century, made Evolution a study, but Evolution Disproved really refutes the fallacy more completely than any other that I have seen. Some rich man should give it to 20,000,000 families."—REV. C. W. BIBB, N.Y.

"You certainly have given a masterful treatment of this subject."—C. L. HUSTON, Chairman Com. on Evangelism, Pres. Church, U.S.A.

"Interessante" (French).—President of the Swiss Confederation.

"Filled with valuable matter systematically arranged; cogent."—S.S. TIMES, Philadelphia.

"He shows the evolution of the soul to be impossible."—W. R. MOODY, in Record of Christian Work.

"Unexcelled for brevity, clarity and intensity. A compendium of facts."—W.C.F.A., which accordingly rewarded the author with honorary membership.

"The arguments amount to a demonstration."—LUTHERAN, Phila.

"The greatest book of its kind."—PROF. M. F. LARKIN, head of the International Textbook Co., Scranton, Pa.

"A very informing book."—Bp. NUELSEN'S, Sec., Zurich.

"A most remarkable book."—THE LUTHERANEREN (Danish)

"A vigorous book; a lively volume."—BELFAST (Ireland) NEWS.

"A strong argument."—GUERNSEY PRESS, Eng.

"A very remarkable and provocative book; shows patent evidence of large research and shrewd thinking."—COURIER, Dundee, Scotland.

"I congratulate you on this scientific work so full of thought."—H. SEIPEL, Chancellor of Austria,

"An excellent book."—Librarian of Ravenna University, Italy.

"An interesting attack on evolution."—Teachers World, London, Eng.

"A very excellent book."—REV. D. D. MARSH, Ont., Can.

"The best I ever saw."—R. A. McKINNEY, G. A. Com. of 100.

"Irrefutable; displays unusual information."—Dr. D.S. Clark. Phila.

"He writes from a new angle with great ability."—Luth. Church Her.

"Should do much good."—REV. F. HAMILTON, Pyongyang, Korea.

"I count your book a remarkably strong one. It clearly disproves every claim of Darwinism."—DR. H. B. RILEY, President W.C.F.A.

"Of all books against evolution, the most unique. Its arguments are effective and deadly, cumulative and convincing."—Bibliotheca Sacra.

"Our first order, 60 copies."—BIBLE UNION, Cape Town, S. Africa.

"Thanks" for EVOLUTION DISPROVED have been received from HUNDREDS of foreign librarians and national rulers. Write what YOU think!




1. The PITHECANTHROPUS, which is a high sounding name for an ape-man (from Grk. pithekos, ape, and anthropos, man) was found by Dr. Dubois, an ardent evolutionist, in 1892, in Trinil in the island of Java. It lived, it is said, 750,000 years ago. He found, buried in the Pleistocene beds, 40 feet below the surface in the sand, the upper portion of a skull, a tooth and a thigh bone. "It was fortunate," says Dr. Chapin, "that the most distinctive portions of the human (sic) frame should have been preserved, because from these specimens, we are able to reconstruct (?) the being, and to say with assurance (!) that his walk was erect in manlike posture, that he had mental power considerably above the ape, (it will not do to be too definite) and his powers of speech were somewhat limited. (A string of guesses wholly unwarranted.) This man stood half way between the anthropoid and the existing men."—Social Evolution, p. 61.

A high authority declares,—"Shortly after this discovery, 24 of the most eminent scientists of Europe met. Ten said that the bones belonged to an ape; 7, to a man; and 7 (less than one-third) said they were a missing link." Some of the most eminent scientists say that some of the bones belong to a man, and some to an ape, baboon, or monkey. The great Prof. Virchow says: "There is no evidence at all that these bones were parts of the same creature." But such adverse opinions do not weigh much with modern evolutionists determined to win at all hazards.

The small section of the brain pan, weighing but a few ounces, was found about 50 feet from the thigh bone. One tooth was found 3 feet from the fragment of skull, and one near the thigh bone, 50 feet away. Since the small section of the brain pan belonged to a chimpanzee, and the thigh bone is that of a man, is it likely that these scattered bones belonged to the same creature? Even if they did, is it likely that these bones would be preserved in the sand 750,000 years, or even 375,000 years according to a later estimate? We know that petrified skeletons, encased in rock, may be millions of years old, but where are the unpetrified skeletons of men who lived even 5,000 years ago? If unpetrified skeletons could last 750,000 years, there would be millions of them. Without a doubt, this skull of a chimpanzee, and femur of a man, belong to a modern beast and a modern man, buried by floods or earthquakes, or some other convulsion of nature, or by slow accumulations. It is said that the Jerusalem of Christ's day is buried 20 feet under the surface, by the quiet accretions of the dust of 1900 years. Rome also has been covered up in recent centuries. It would be easy for 40 feet of sand to accumulate over the bones of a modern man or chimpanzee in a valley, in a few centuries, if 20 feet of dust accumulated on the mountain city of Jerusalem in 1900 years.

Elsewhere we have shown that an ape-man with a cranium of two-thirds normal capacity must have lived at least 20,000,000 years ago,—one third the period of animal existence; or even 166,666,666 years ago, if we accept a later claim that life has existed 500,000,000 years. It is absolutely impossible that a normal creature of the alleged mental capacity could have lived 750,000 years ago, much less 375,000, according to a later estimate cutting in two the first one. But the quickest way to disprove these wild guesses is to check them up by a mathematical test. If these bones are normal, such an ape-man could not have lived at the time assigned. If they are not normal, they prove nothing whatever for evolution. They can be duplicated now.

We are asked to believe that these scattered bones,—some the bones of a modern brute, some the bones of a modern man—were preserved in the sand 750,000 years and belonged to an ancestor of the human race, while of the millions of his generation and of the generations following for many thousands of years, we have not a trace! We are asked upon such a flimsy pretext to accept a theory, unsupported by a single compelling argument, and irreconcilable with numerous facts,—a theory which takes away man's hope of immortality, destroys faith in God and his inspired word, and in the Christian religion itself. There is a limit. How much more truthful and majestic is Gen. 1:27: "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him."

One distinguished evolutionist has said, "We might as well be made out of monkey as out of mud. It is mud or monkey." Most of us would retort, "I would rather be created a human being out of the filthiest mud by Almighty God than owe my existence to the brainiest monkey that ever lived." Please note, "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground," not mud. The evolutionists are as wild in their exegesis as in their guesses.

2. THE HEIDELBERG JAW. The second relic, in the order of time, relied upon by the evolutionists to prove the brute origin of man, is a "human jaw of great antiquity, discovered in the sands of the Mauer River, near Heidelberg." Hence, it is called the Mauer jaw, or the Heidelberg Jaw, or Heidelberg man, or the high sounding Latin name of Homo Heidelbergensis. It needs all the names that can be given to it, to elevate it to the dignity of an ancestor. "This jaw was found in undisturbed stratified sand, (sand again) at the depth of about 69 feet from the summit of the deposit." Dr. Schoetensack, the discoverer, says, "Had the teeth been absent, it would have been impossible to diagnose it as human."

They say it is 700,000 years old, preserved in sand. A later estimate says 375,000 years. (Any wild guess will do.) It resembles the jaw of an ape, and the tooth of a man. Was it not likely the abnormal jaw of a modern man, in historic time swept into the sands by the freshets and floods of a few centuries? It is only fair to say that many scientists of the evolutionary school, do not believe the Heidelberg man an ancestor of our race. "These remains," says one, "show no trace of being intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape." Some claim it a connecting link. Others deny it. Some say the find is of the utmost value; others say it is worthless. All are guesses, wild guesses at that. They hopefully reach out their hands in the night, and gather nothing but handfuls of darkness.

Since a modern Eskimo skull has been shown by a distinguished scientist to have the same appearance and peculiarities as the Heidelberg jaw, it is easy to believe that this jaw can be duplicated in many graveyards. Greater abnormalities, in great numbers, can be found in the skeletons of modern man. Without doubt, this jaw belongs to modern man, and has no evidential value at all in favor of evolution.

Previous Part     1  2  3  4     Next Part
Home - Random Browse