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

We count these relics normal, in our arguments, because evolutionists do. If they are not normal, they are the remains of modern man and brutes and their whole argument falls to the ground.

3. THE PILTDOWN MAN (OR FAKE). The next fragments of bones, in chronological order, upon which evolutionists rely to prove their impossible theory, has been called the Piltdown man. It has been more truthfully called the Piltdown fake. Dr. Chapin gravely tells us (Social Evolution, p. 67): "During the years 1912, a series of fragments of a human skull and a jaw bone were found associated with eolithic implements and the bones of extinct mammals in Pleistocene deposits on a plateau, 80 feet above the river bed, at Piltdown, Fletching, Sussex, Eng.....The remains were of great importance. The discoverers regard this relic as a specimen of a distinct genus of the human species and it has been called Eoanthropus Dawsoni. This extinct man lived in Europe hundreds of thousands of years ago." We have passed over 200,000 to 300,000 years since the Heidelberg man, that have not yielded a scrap of bone, though according to the theory, countless millions of ape-men must have lived in various stages of development, in that great stretch of time. Why were not some of them preserved? Simply because there were no ape-men. There are countless relics of apes, but none of ape-men. Even Wells says: "At a great open-air camp at Solutre, where they seem to have had annual gatherings for many centuries, it is estimated there are the bones of 100,000 horses." Would we not expect as many bones of ape-men? While Wells says the bones of 100,000 horses were found in a single locality, Dr. Ales Hrdlicka says that the bones of 200,000 prehistoric horses were found in another place. Why should we not find, for the same reason, the bones of millions of ape-men and ape-women in 750,000 years? Instead of millions we have the alleged fragments of 4, all of which are of a very doubtful character.

The bones of this precious Piltdown find consisted, at first, of a piece of the jaw bone, another small piece of bone from the skull, and a canine tooth, which the zealous evolutionists located in the lower right jaw, when it belonged in the upper left; later, two molar teeth and two nasal bones,—scarcely a double hand full in all. An ape-man was "reconstructed" made to look like an ape-man, according to the fancy of the artist. The artist can create an ape-man, even if God could not create a real man! But scientists said the teeth did not belong to the same skull, and the jaw could not be associated with the same skull. Ales Hrdlicka says, "The jaw and the tooth belong to a fossil chimpanzee." Conscientious scientists said that the pieces of the jaw and skull could not belong to the same individual. They constructed a scarecrow from the bones of an ape and of a man, and offer this, without the batting of an eye, as a scientific proof of the antiquity of man. The great anthropologist of world-wide reputation, Prof. Virchow, said: "In vain have Darwin's adherents sought for connecting links which should connect man with the monkey. Not a single one has been found. This so-called pro-anthropus, which is supposed to represent this connecting link, has not appeared. No true scientist claims to have seen him." Sir Ray Lancaster, writing to H. G. Wells, concerning the Piltdown find, says, "We are stumped and baffled." Yet in spite of all this, nearly 1,000,000 persons annually pass through the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and view the "reconstruction" according to the artist's fancy, of the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, the "ancestors of the human race;" and the multitude of high school students and teachers, as well as the general public, are not told how dubious and unscientific the representation is.

The brain capacity of the Piltdown individual (man or ape) is set down by his discoverers at 1070 c.c., which is 28 2/3% short of the normal skull capacity, 1500 c.c. Therefore, he must have lived 17,200,000 years ago, if we accept the estimate of 60,000,000 years since life began; or 143,333,333 years ago, if we accept the later guess of 500,000,000 years. It could not have lived near the time assigned. In short, no guess of the origin of man that differs materially from the time assigned in the word of God, can be harmonized with the facts.

4. THE NEANDERTHAL MAN. The next slender prop is the Neanderthal man, claimed to be 40,000 to 50,000 years old, although we are told that that is very uncertain.

Dr. Chapin says, "The first important discovery of the existence of an early example of mankind differing markedly from any living (?) and of a decidedly lower type, was made in 1857, when a part of a skull was found in a cave near Dusseldorf, Germany. The bones consisted of the upper portion of a cranium, remarkable for its flat retreating curve, the upper arm and thigh bones, a collar bone, and rib fragments." From these fragments, an ape-man has been created (by the artist), about 5 ft. 3 in. high, strong, fierce in look, and having other characteristics created by the artist.

Dr. Osborn assigns to the Neanderthal skull a capacity of 1408 c.c., which would indicate that he lived 3,680,000 years ago, if life began 60,000,000 years ago; or 30,666,666 years ago, if life began 500,000,000 years ago.

From the first, many naturalists claimed that these bones belonged to an abnormal specimen of humanity. They can be easily duplicated. Naturalists have maintained many divergent opinions: an idiot, an early German, a Cossack, a European of various other nationalities, a Mongolian, a primitive ape-man, an ancestor of modern man, and an impossible ancestor of man. Not very reliable evidence to support the stupendous scheme of evolution!

Now these four finds are the weak props supporting the desperate claim of the brute origin of man. Dr. Chapin says (Social Evolution, p. 68): "Other skulls and bone parts of prehistoric man have been found, and preserved in museums, but the specimens described (the four above mentioned) are sufficient to illustrate the type of evidence they constitute." The later finds measuring close to normal capacity, doubtless are the bones of the descendants of Adam. Even by the admission of this text-book author, the evidence from other remains is no more convincing than that from these four types.

Some evolutionists say that the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, form an unbroken line of descent from the ape, each in turn becoming less like the ape, and more like man. Others claim that the pithecanthropus was the end of a special branch of the apes; the Heidelberg man the last of another extinct branch; the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man, likewise the last of other extinct species. In this case, all four finds have no evidential value whatever. All these confusing guesses from evidence so scant and uncertain, stamp evolution a "science falsely so called."

If these branches, species, or races of ape-like creatures ended, as claimed, in the age to which these alleged remains belonged, they could not have been the ancestors of the human race, and these alleged links were not links at all. Some evolutionists say that the Neanderthal race became extinct 25,000 years ago. If so, they were not our ancestors. We are curious to know what caused the extinction of all these races. Prof. R. S. Lull confesses, "However we account for it, the fact remains that ancient men are rare." Most unbiased students would say such men never existed. The entire absence of human remains during the 750,000 years and more is a demonstration against the brute origin of man, and a proof of special creation.

It will be remembered that there is no complete skeleton among all the remains, nor enough parts to make one altogether, nor to make any large part of a skeleton,—not even an entire skull. What bones are found are not joined together, and some of them scattered so widely apart, that no one can be certain they belong to the same individual. Some of the bones belong to an ape, and some to man,—doubtless modern man. Ardent evolutionists, with a zeal worthy of a better cause, have taken a fractional bone of a man, and a bone of an ape, and fashioned a composite being, and called it an ape-man, and their ancestor.

Every one of these finds is disputed by scientists, and even by evolutionists. And all these doubtful relics would not fill a small market basket. Yet some are ready to say that evolution is no longer a guess or a theory, but a proven fact. Text books like Chapin's Social Evolution are placed in the hands of pupils giving only the arguments in favor, and the student, even if disposed to question this flimsy and unsupported theory, is helpless in the hands of an adroit professor. Dr. Gruenberg's high school text book teaches that man is descended from the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg, the Piltdown and the Neanderthal man, without the slightest intimation that such descent is at all disputed or questioned. What right has anyone to teach this false and unproved theory as the truth?


The claim that the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, were the ancestors of man, collapses under the admissions of evolutionists themselves. The eminent Wassman says: "There are numerous fossils of apes, the remains of which are buried in the various strata from the lower Eocene to the close of the alluvial epoch, but not one connecting link has been found between their hypothetical ancestral forms and man at the present time. The whole hypothetical pedigree of man is not supported by a single fossil genus or a single fossil species" (all italics ours). Darwin says: "When we descend to details, we can prove that not one species has changed." How, then, can man be descended from the brute?

Even H. G. Wells, who seems ready to endorse the most extravagant views, says (Outline of History, p. 69), "We can not say that it (the pithecanthropus) is a direct human ancestor." On p. 116, is a "Diagram of the Relationship of Human Races," showing that neither the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, nor the Neanderthal man, could have been an ancestor of the human race, because each were the last of their species, and therefore had no descendants.

Dr. Keith, a London evolutionist, says that the Piltdown man is not an ancestor of man, much less an intermediate between the Heidelberg man and the Neanderthal man. Sir Ray Lancaster confesses he is "baffled and stumped" as to the Piltdown man. Dr. Keith says the "Neanderthal man was not quite of our species."

Dr. Osborn says that the Heidelberg man "shows no trace of being intermediate between man and the anthropoid ape." Again, speaking of the teeth of the St. Brelade man, Dr. Osborn says, "This special feature alone would exclude the Neanderthals from the ancestry of the higher races."

Prof. R. S. Lull says, "Certain authorities have tried to prove that the pithecanthropus is nothing but a large gibbon, but the weight of authority considers it prehuman, though not in the line of direct development in humanity."

Prof. Cope, a distinguished anatomist, says, "The femur [of the pithecanthropus] is that of a man, it is in no sense a connecting link."

In his "Men of the Old Stone Age," Dr. Osborn puts the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, on limbs which terminate abruptly as extinct races. They can, in no sense, then, be the ancestors of man, or connecting links. Why, then, do they cling so desperately to these alleged proofs, when they admit they have no evidential value? Only sheer desperation, just as a drowning man will clutch a straw.

Dr. W. E. Orchard says: "The remains bearing on this issue, which have been found are very few, and their significance is hotly disputed by scientists themselves,—both their age, and whether they are human or animal, or mere abnormalities."

Since these four creatures (of the evolutionists) can not be the ancestors of the human race, where are their descendants? Evolutionists are obliged to say they were the last of their kind. Strange! But there is no other way of escape.

Prof. Bronco, of the Geological and Palaeontological Institute of Berlin University, says, "Man appeared suddenly in the Quaternary period. Palaeontology tells us nothing on the subject,—it knows nothing of the ancestors of man."

As fossils must be imbedded in rock, there is not a single fossil of an ape-man in the world.


To bolster up the hypothesis, that some of the scraps of bones belonged to ape-men; who lived about 50,000 years ago, we are told that, in many caverns there are paintings of animals, some of which are extinct, proving that the artists were ape-men of advancing intellect, living in that day. These drawings are rude, and inexact, and the resemblance to extinct animals rather fanciful. If the writer were to try to draw a picture of a horse on the stone walls of a dark cavern, with no light, it would be just as likely to resemble an extinct animal, or possibly an animal that never did live and never will. Many of the paintings are found in the depths of unlit caverns, often difficult of access. How could they paint any picture in the dark, when even fire was unknown, and the torch and lamp-wick had not yet been invented? And how could they make a ladder, or erect scaffolding of any sort in that rude age, before there were inventions of any kind? Yet they tell us that the frescoes on the ceiling of the dark cavern of Altamira, Spain, were made 25,000 to 50,000 years ago, when fire was unknown, and they ask us to believe that several colors are used, brown, red, black, yellow, and white; and that these drawings and colors have remained undisturbed and unchanged through these long ages. Is it easier to believe this, than to believe that these drawings were made by modern man, using modern inventions? A theory left to such support, must be poverty-stricken in argument indeed.


The claim is made that the so-called rudimentary organs in the human body such as the appendix, are the remnants of more complete organs inherited from our animal ancestors. It is a strange argument that a once complete and useful organ in our alleged animal ancestors, when it becomes atrophied in man, causes such an improvement and advance, as to cause man to survive, when his ancestors with more perfect organs became extinct. Man with less perfect organs became the dominant species. If the perfect organ were better than the rudimentary organ, how can man be the "survival of the fittest"? If rudimentary organs are a proof of descent from animals with more extensive, if not more perfect, organs, then both man and monkeys must be descended from the rat, which has the longest proportionate appendix of all. If unused muscles speak of our ancestry, the horse has the strongest claim to be our ancestor.

But many organs, such as "the thyroid gland, the thymus gland, and the pineal gland," formerly classified as rudimentary organs, are found to be very useful and necessary.

Physicians have found the appendix very useful in preventing constipation, which its removal usually increases. If we only knew enough, we would, no doubt, discover a beneficial use for all the so-called vestigial organs. Our ignorance is no argument against the wisdom of their creation. The claim that human hair is vestigial is spoiled by the fact that there is none on the back where most abundant on simians.


They tell us that the blood of a dog injected into the veins of a horse, will kill the horse, whereas the blood of a man injected into the veins of an ape results in very feeble reaction, which proves that the dog and the horse, they say, are not related by blood, while the man and the ape are so related. But a distinguished authority says, "The blood of the dog is poisonous to other animals, whilst, on the other hand, the blood and the blood serum of the sheep, goat and horse, have generally little effect on other animals and on man. It is for this reason that these animals and particularly the horse, are used in preparation of the serums employed in medicines."

It is also stated as a fact that mare's milk more nearly resembles human milk than that of any other animal save the ass, a nearly related species—to the mare, let us hope, not to us. Because of this resemblance, it is reported by Dr. Hutchinson that, "One of the large dairy companies in England now keeps a stock of milch asses for the purpose of supplying asses' milk for delicate human babes."

These well-known facts would prove the horse and the ass a nearer relative than the ape, since serums are not made from the blood of the ape. We prefer the innocent sheep to the ape as our near relative, and will allow the evolutionists to claim the goat.

Dr. W. W. Keen, Prof. Emeritus of Jefferson College, Phila., in his book, "I believe in God and in Evolution," on p. 48 says, "Here again you perceive such identity of function, that the thyroid gland of animals, when given as a remedy to man, performs precisely the same function as the human thyroid. Moreover, it is not the thyroid gland from the anthropoid apes that is used as a remedy but that from the more lowly sheep." Again the force of Dr. Keen's argument goes to prove, so far as it has any weight, that we have a nearer kinship to the sheep than the ape. Children are nourished by the milk of the cow, the ass and the goat, not of the ape. Vaccine matter is taken from the cow and serums from the horse, not from any species of monkey, to which we do not seem to be related at all.

The conclusions of the blood tests are unreliable and uncertain. W. B. Scott, an expert evolutionist, says, "It must not be supposed that there is any exact mathematical ratio between the degrees of relationship indicated by the blood tests, and those which are shown by anatomical and palaeontological evidence.... It could hardly be maintained that an ostrich and a parrot are more nearly allied than a wolf and a hyena, and yet that would be the inference from the blood tests."

Prof. Rossle, in 1905, according to McCann, presented evidence to show that the blood reaction does not in any manner indicate how closely any two animals are related; and that evidence based on resemblance of blood is not trustworthy in support of a common relationship. In many cases, transfusions of the human blood into apes have positive reactions. We do not make pets of the ape, baboon or chimpanzee, but of the dog whose traits are far more nearly human. If any brute ancestor is possible, have not the evolutionists guessed the wrong animal?


Embryology, or the Recapitulation Theory, is the last, and perhaps the least important of the claims advanced in favor of evolution. It is claimed that the whole history of evolution is briefly repeated in the early stages of embryonic life. W. B. Scott, in the "Theory of Evolution," says, "Thirty years ago, the recapitulation theory was well nigh universally accepted. Nowadays it is very seriously questioned, and by some high authorities is altogether denied."

It is hard to see why the history of the species should be repeated by the embryo. It is difficult to crowd the history of ages into a few days or weeks. It must be enormously abbreviated. It is a physical impossibility. Changes caused by many environments must take place in the same environment, contradicting the theory of evolution. So many exceptions must be made that there can be no universal law. Such general similarity as we find in embryonic life, may be accounted for, on the ground that the Creator used one general plan with unlimited variation, never repeating himself so as to make two faces or two leaves or two grains of sand exactly alike.

"Embryology is an ancient manuscript with many of the sheets lost, others displaced, and with spurious passages interpolated by a later hand." It is hard to construct a syllogism, showing the force of the argument from Embryology. Try it.

Various other evolution arguments are answered in PART ONE, and completely refuted by UP-TO-DATE SCIENTIFIC FACTS. No one has yet noted an error, nor answered an argument. If all students, teachers, ministers, etc., had this book (pp. 116-7), evolutionists could no longer conceal the "unanswerable arguments," nor answer them by ridicule or abuse.




Evolution fails to account for the origin of the body of man. Still more emphatically, does it fail to account for the origin of the soul, or spiritual part of man. This is part of the stupendous task of evolution. Its advocates give it little or no attention. We are not surprised. If they could show the evolution of the human body probable or even possible, they can never account for the origin of the soul, save by creation of Almighty God. We can not release evolutionists upon the plea that they cannot account for the faculties and spiritual endowments of man. This is a confession of complete failure. Though invisible to the eye or the microscope, they are positive realities. They can not be dismissed with a wave of the hand or a gesture of contempt. We have a right to demand an explanation for every phenomenon connected with the body or soul of man. The task may be heavy, and even impossible, yet every hypothesis must bear every test or confess failure. They have undertaken to propose a scheme that will account for the origin of man, as he is, soul and body, and if they fail, the hypothesis fails.

How do we account for the existence of each individual soul? It can not be the product of the arrangement of the material of the brain, as the materialists do vainly teach. It can not be the product of evolution, nor a growth from the father or mother. The soul is not transmitted to be modified or changed. It is indivisible. The soul of the child is not a part of the soul of either parent. The parents suffer no mental loss from the new soul. It must be created before it can grow. God creates each soul without doubt, and so God created the souls of Adam and Eve. If creation is possible now, it was possible at the beginning of the race. If God creates the soul now, analogy teaches strongly the creation of the souls of Adam and Eve. If evolution be true, there was no creation in the past, and is none now. This is contradicted by the facts every day and every hour.


An evolutionist writes: "We do not undertake to account for personality." We reply, "That is a part of your problem. You have undertaken to solve the riddle of the universe by excluding all evidence of an existing and active God, and we can not release you because a feature of the problem may be unusually difficult or embarrassing, or even fatal to your theory. It is a fight to the death in the interest of truth; and we purpose to use every weapon of science against a theory so unscientific, so improbable, so far reaching, and so baneful in its effects. It takes faith, hope and comfort from the heart of the Christian, destroys belief in God, and sends multitudes to the lost world."

Personality is consciousness of individuality. When did personality begin? When did any members of the species become conscious of personality? When did they begin to realize and to say in thought, "I am a living being." What animals are conscious of personality? Any of our cousins of the monkey tribe? Is the horse conscious of personality, or the ox, the cat or the dog? If so, does the skunk have personality, the mouse, the flea, the worm, the tadpole, the microscopic animal? If so, do our other cousins have personality,—the trees, the vines, the flowers, the thorn and the brier, the cactus and the thistle, and the microscopic disease germs? If so, when did personality begin? With the first primordial germ? If so, were there two personalities when the germ split in two, and became two, animal and plant? You can not split a man up into two parts with a personality to each part. Personality is indivisible. It is a consciousness of that indivisibility. If personality began anywhere along the line, where, when, and how did it originate? Was it spontaneous, or by chance, or was it God-given? Beyond all question, it was the gift of an all-wise and all-powerful Creator, and in no sense the product of evolution. God made man a living soul.

But if no plant or animal ever had personality, when did man first become conscious of his individuality? There is no evidence, of course, but the evolutionist must produce it, or admit failure. The evolutionist is short on evidence but long on guesses that miss the mark.

If all animals and plants came from one germ, why do animals have the senses, sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing, while plants are utterly devoid of them? They had a nearly equal chance in the race. Why the great difference?


The activity and energy of the soul are shown in the intellect, the emotions and the will. What evidence of these do we find in the animal world? Do we find intellect in the lobster, emotions in a worm, or will in an oyster? Whence came these elements of spiritual strength? If developed by evolution, where, when, and how?

Have the most advanced species of animals an intellect? Do they have the emotions of love, hate, envy, pity, remorse or sympathy? Has a worm envy, a flea hate, a cat pity a hog remorse, or a horse sympathy? If these existed in so-called pre-historic man, when, where, and how did they begin? No one can answer, because there is not a trace of proof that they ever existed.

Will natural selection explain the development of the mental faculties? Was art developed because those who lacked it perished? Do we account for the musical faculty, because those who could not sing perished? Some still live who ought to be dead! Do we account for humor because they perished who could not crack a joke? Will all eventually perish but the Irish, who will survive by their wit? Is anything mentioned in science quite so ridiculous as natural selection?

Not an animal has a trace of wit, or humor, or pathos. Not an animal has ever laughed, or spoken, or sung. The silence of the ages disproves evolution.


When did reason begin? Do we find it in any species of plant or animal life, save man? The highest order of animals can not reason enough to start a fire or replenish one. A dog, or a cat, or even a monkey, will enjoy the warmth from a fire but will not replenish it, although they may have seen it done many times. Animals may be taught many interesting tricks; many can imitate well. But they do not have the power of reflection or abstract reason. They live for the present. They have no plans for tomorrow,—-no purpose in life. They can not come to new conclusions. They can not add or subtract, multiply or divide. They can not even count. Some animals can solve very intricate problems by instinct, but instinct is the intelligence of God, and never could have come by evolution.

If reason came not from God, but from evolution, should we not expect it well developed in evolutionary man, since for the last 3,000,000 years he must have been 95 to 100 per cent, normal. If we grant the estimate of 500,000,000 years, he would have been 99.4% normal for the last 3,000,000 years. Would we not expect in that time a world of inventions and discoveries, even surpassing those of the last 100 years? The Chinese claim a multitude of inventions and a race so nearly normal as ape-men, ought to have invented language, writing, printing, the telegraph, phonograph, the wireless, the radio, television, and even greater wonders than in our age.

There is no trace of intelligence in man in all the 3,000,000 years, prior to Adam.

We should have many works excelling Homer's Iliad, Vergil's Aeneid, and Milton's Paradise Lost. We have no trace of a road, or a bridge, or a monument, like the pyramids. That no race of intelligent creatures ever lived prior to Adam is proven by lack of affirmative evidence. If it be true, as Romanes declared, that the power of abstract reason in all the species was only equal to that of a child 15 months old, then each species would possess less than one millionth of that.


If the origin of the mental faculties can not be accounted for by evolution, much less can the moral faculty, the religious nature and spirituality be accounted for.

The most confirmed evolutionist will not claim that the tree or the vine or the rose, or perhaps any animal, has a conscience. If, however, conscience is a growth or development, why should it not exist in some measure in both the animal and the vegetable kingdoms? Has any brute any idea of right or wrong? Has a hog any idea of right or wrong, of justice or injustice? What animal has ever shown regret for a wrong, or approval of right in others? If conscience is a development within the reach of every species, many of the million or more, no doubt, would have shown some conscience long ago.

But if man developed conscience, why have not our near relatives of the monkey family developed a conscience? They had the same chance as man. Why should man have a conscience, and monkeys none?

Why is there no trace of conscience in the animal or vegetable kingdom? Because it is the gift of God.

What sign of regret, repentance, or remorse, do we find in the cat or the dog, the rat or the hog? If a bull gores a sheep to death, does he express regret? Is a horse sorry if he crushes to death a child or a chicken under his hoof? Can any animal be sorry for stealing food from another? Will it take any steps to undo the wrong?

Man, according to evolution, is a creature of environment. He is a victim of brute impulse. He has no conscience, no free will, he can commit no crime. Killing is not murder. It is not sin. Man can not be responsible. Without conscience, a victim of circumstances, rushed on into crime, sin, and injustice, responsible to no God!

The heart sickens at the brightest picture evolution can paint. The difficulty of showing the evolution of the body is insuperable, but the evolution of the soul, with all its mental, moral and spiritual equipment, is an absolute impossibility. Small wonder that evolutionists are unwilling to discuss the origin of the soul.


Does any plant or animal worship God? How much theology does a cow know? What does the horse think about God? What animal lives with an anxious desire to please God? How many are desirous of obeying God? How many species trust Him? How many love Him? How many pray to Him? How many praise Him for his goodness? Evidently no animal knows anything about God, or ever thinks of worshiping Him.

Man alone worships God. When did he begin? The idea of God seems to be in the hearts of all except the dupes of evolution, and the Bolshevists of Russia. The great problem to explain is how the worship of God began, and why man alone now worships Him.

Personality, reason, intellect, emotions, will, conscience, spirituality, and all the faculties and equipment of the soul, are naturally and easily explained upon the basis of creation, but evolution can not account for them at all.

About 2,000,000 years ago, we are told, man and the monkey family were children of the same parents. These children headed species with an even start. Yet man alone developed personality, consciousness, intelligence, and all the equipment of the soul; all the others remained stationary. This is incredible. It is inconsistent with mathematical probability. Is it likely that one species and one alone out of a million, with similar environments, would reach these high mental and spiritual attainments? No! "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him,"-Gen. 1:27. This declaration explains all the difficulties which are insuperable to the evolutionist.

"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him." This likeness was not a physical likeness as a learned (?) university professor asserted, but a likeness in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. No animal is made in the image of God. There is not the trace of a soul in all animal creation. How could the soul of man develop from nothing?

God is still creating new creatures in Christ Jesus, in righteousness and true holiness, which can not come by evolution, for sinful creatures can only grow in sinfulness, until the creative power of God makes them new creatures, as the following study in Eugenics will show: Elizabeth Tuttle, the grandmother of Jonathan Edwards, the eminent scholar and divine, was, according to H. E. Walter, a "woman of great beauty, of tall and commanding appearance, striking carriage, of strong, extreme intellectual vigor, and mental grasp akin to rapacity, but with an extraordinary deficiency in moral sense. She was divorced from her husband on the ground of adultery and other IMMORALITIES. The evil trait was in the blood, for one of her sisters murdered her own son, and a brother murdered his own sister, As Richard Edwards, his grandfather, had 5 sons and 1 daughter, by a second wife, but none of their numerous progeny rose above mediocrity, and their descendants gained no abiding reputation, Jonathan Edwards must have owed his remarkable mental qualities largely to his grandmother rather than his grandfather. He was evidently a new creation in Christ Jesus and was cured by grace of all inherited immoralities, so that he became the ancestor of one of the most remarkable families in the history of the world, as follows:—

"Jonathan Edwards was born in 1703. He was strong in character, mentally vigorous and fearlessly loyal to duty. In 1900, of the descendants of Jonathan Edwards, 1394 had been located and the following information in regard to them had been gathered: College presidents, 13; college professors, 65; doctors, 60; clergymen, missionaries, etc., 100; officers in the army and navy, 75; eminent authors and writers, 60; lawyers, over 100; judges, 30; holders of public offices, one being vice-president of the United States, 80; United States senators, 3; managers of railroads, banks, insurance companies, etc., 15; college graduates, 295; several were governors and holders of important state offices."

The claim is also made that "almost if not every department of social progress and of public weal has felt the impulse of this healthy and long-lived family."

"The 'Jukes' family was founded by a shiftless fisherman born in New York in 1720, Since that time the family has numbered 1200 persons. The following facts are quoted from the records: Convicted criminals, 130; habitual thieves, 60; murderers, 7; wrecked by diseases of wickedness, 440; immoral women, fully one-half; professional paupers, 310; trades learned by twenty, ten of these learned the trade in prison.

"How much of this expense to the state was due to bad blood we can not say. If the original Jukeses had become Christians we have no doubt that the majority of their descendants would have been humble, but orderly, and possibly useful citizens."

Aaron Burr, a grandson of Jonathan Edwards, lacked but one electoral vote to become president of the U.S. His intellectual standing in Princeton was not equaled by another for 100 years.

Jonathan Edwards was a new creation, as is every other regenerated person.

According to evolution, there can be no new creation. According to the word of God, and the experience of an innumerable host, God is continually creating souls anew, who become "new creatures". Evolution is not in harmony with the Bible nor the experience of the children of God.

Whenever it can be shown that men become more spiritual when they accept the theory, and become more devoted to saving souls as their zeal for the theory increases, the theory will be worthy of more serious consideration. We await the evidence.

Evolution can not account for the spirituality of man, but tends to destroy it where it exists.


The belief in the immortality of the soul has been well nigh universal, in all ages, and among all nations, and is taught by all religions. Without it, life and death are insolvable mysteries. A doctrine so universal, so well established by reason, ought not to be set aside without the most convincing reasons and the most compelling evidence. Either this universal belief is due to revelation, or the abundance of proof appealing to reason, or both.

A child is born, suffers agonies for weeks and months, and dies. If no future, who can solve the mystery? John Milton writes his immortal "Paradise Lost," and dies. Must his great soul perish? Nero murdered his brother, his sister, his wife and his mother, and multitudes of Christians and lastly himself, and was guilty of a multitude of other shocking crimes; while many of the best men and women this world ever knew suffered persecution and martyrdom for doing good and blessing others. Will they all alike meet the same fate—annihilation—at the hands of a just God?

The immortality of the soul is supported by science. Science teaches the indestructibility of matter. Not all the power that man can bring to bear, can destroy the minutest portion of matter, not a molecule, not an atom, not an electron. The smallest particle of dust visible to the eye contains, we are told, about 8,000,000,000 atoms, and each atom, as complex as a piano,—1740 parts. Not one of these atoms or parts could be annihilated by all the power of a thousand Niagaras.

In all the multiplied chemical changes everywhere in the world, not a single particle, the most worthless, is lost or destroyed. Dissolve a silver dollar in aquafortis, and then precipitate it to the bottom, and not a particle need be lost. If God takes such scrupulous care of the most worthless particle of matter, will he suffer the immortal soul to perish? If he preserves the dust, how much more so the highest of all his creations, the mind that can write an epic, compose an oratorio, or liberate a race. Evolution crushes out of the heart the hope of immortality, and makes man but an improved brute, while Jesus Christ "hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."

If evolution be true, when did man become immortal? At what period did he cease to be a brute, and become an immortal soul? Was it before the days of the pithecanthropus, the Piltdown fraud, the Heidelberg man, or the Neanderthal man?

The change was ever so slow and gradual; could the parents, anywhere along the line, be mere brutes and the children immortal human beings? Would it not be impossible to draw the line? Is it not evident that the ape-man could never grow into immortality, or into the image of an infinitely great and glorious God?

If evolutionists could give us any convincing evidence that the body of man developed from the brute, they can not prove that the soul grew from nothing to the high mental, moral and spiritual attainments, into the very image of God, and by its own efforts become as immortal as God himself.

After all, did any theory as ridiculously untrue as evolution ever masquerade as science, or ask to be accepted by thoughtful men? Has it as much to support it as the false sciences of alchemy and astrology?

The brute origin of man, infidelity, agnosticism, modernism, atheism and bolshevism, are in harmony, and cooperate in robbing man of heaven and the hope of immortality.

If man believes that he dies as the brute dies, he will soon live as the brute lives, and all that is precious to the heart of man will be forever destroyed. We recoil from such a fate, but live in the serene assurance that such a thing can never be.

42. SIN

Sin is a great fact. It can not be denied. It can not be explained by evolution. It is universal. Every race all nations, with all grades of intellect and culture, civilized or uncivilized, are cursed with sin. All the wrongs, all crimes in the world, all immoralities, are due to sin. Sin causes tremendous destruction of life, property, and character. Why is it universal? When did it originate? Did it originate in all the members of the brute-human race at one time? Did some become sinners, and others remain without sin? Sin must be developed, since brutes have no sin. Why not some of the ape-humans without sin? Does natural selection explain the universal sinfulness of man, on the ground that those who did not have this "improvement" perished? They all died and only sinners were left, hence all survivors are sinners! Sin makes men more fit, and hence sinners only survive! Is evolution simply ridiculous, or a crime?

When in the "ascent of man" did he become a sinner? A million years ago? Judging from the pictures of fierce alleged ape-men, it must have been a long, long time ago. Did all become sinners then? What became of the progeny of those who had not secured the attainment of sin? Why have not other members of the monkey family become sinners? Why do we not hang them for murder? Will they yet attain unto sinfulness?

H. G. Wells, the alleged historian, says, p. 954, Outline of Hist., "If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden and no Fall. And, if there had been no Fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin, and the reason for an atonement upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapses like a house of cards."

Evolution claims that man fell up and not down. It denies almost every truth of religion and the Bible, as well as of experience. "Man is falling upward, he is his own Savior, he is ever progressing, and has no need of a Savior." Contrast this with the sublime statements of the word of God concerning the creation and the fall of man.

Evolution is charged with explaining all phenomena pertaining to man,—soul and body. It exhausts itself in trying to show that the body of man may possibly be developed from the brute. It fails miserably. The problem of accounting for the soul of man with all its equipment is so much more difficult, that little or no effort is made to account for it, virtually confessing that the much-exploited theory of evolution can not possibly be true, when applied to the soul as well as the body.


Evolution does not account for sin. Much less does it have any cure for sin. If sin marks progress or advancement, of course, its cure would be retrogression. But how can sin be cured? What answer has evolution? Culture, education, refinement, favorable environment. These are all desirable, but no cure for sin. Some of the most cultured, educated and refined, were the greatest monsters that ever lived. Wholesale murderers like Nero, Alexander and Napoleon, had a good degree of education and culture. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, who murdered Robert Franks in Chicago, were among the most brilliant graduates of universities. Friends say they were led on to atheism and crime by the reading of modernist books. No doubt, the doctrine of evolution, taught so zealously in the universities, played a large part.

Human efforts and human devices have utterly failed to cure sin. The human will is too feeble to resist its power.

The Bible, which evolution undermines, teaches us there is a cure for sin. The divine Son of God saves us from our sins, cleanses and purifies our natures, and fits us for happiness and service in both worlds. Jesus offers the only practical plan of salvation from sin. The Bible plan of redemption is the only plan that works.

Paul, a murderer, with his heart full of malignant hate, and his hands stained with blood, greedy to imprison men and women, "breathing out threatening and slaughter," looks to Jesus by simple faith, and is changed into a gentle and loving Christian, rejoicing in suffering and persecution. He rose to such heights, by the help of Jesus, that he loved his enemies, and was willing to be damned, if that would save their souls. What glorious men the apostles became by the transforming power of Christ! What grand men and women the long line of martyrs were. The men and women who have blest the world most, have been believers in the Bible, and not in evolution. Perhaps a million martyrs have died for Christ. Where are the martyrs for evolution?

Augustine was redeemed from a life of vice and dissipation, blessed the world with his writings, and became one of the greatest leaders of thought in all ages. John Bunyan was so profane that the most vicious would cross the street to avoid him. The gospel made him one of the holiest of men. His Pilgrim's Progress has been translated into hundreds of languages, and read by millions. John G. Woolley was a maudlin drunkard, intent on taking his own life,—friends, money, character, and reputation lost,—but was converted and preached, with burning eloquence, the gospel of temperance and prohibition around the world.

Elijah P. Brown, a zealous infidel, heard Mr. Moody preach on the love of God, found the Savior, and became a brilliant defender of the faith.

Chundra Lela, the daughter of a Brahman priest, spent a fortune and lived a life of self inflicted torture, seeking salvation at all the great shrines of India, but found none, until she heard the simple story of Jesus from the lips of a missionary. That matchless name gave her victory over sin, and transformed her into a saint and soul-winner for Christ. Maurice Ruben, a successful Jewish merchant of Pittsburgh, rejected Christianity and the Jewish religion as well. He was converted, ostracised, persecuted, thrust into an insane asylum unjustly, and told he must give up Christ or his wife and child. He chose Christ. His family soon became Christians and joined him in the great Jewish mission in Pittsburgh.

In a single night, the mountain floods in India caused the death of the six children of Rev. D.H. Lee,—only one living a short time to tell the story. They were all musicians. Out of the awful silence of that home, Mrs. Lee sent to American papers, a triumphant pean of praise to God. She was sustained by the power of God, so that she could kiss, in loving devotion, the hand that smote her. The Lee Memorial Orphanage, of Calcutta, stands as their monument.

Holy Ann, of Canada, was so profane and such a terror, that this name was given her in derision. Touched by Christ, she became so sweet a saint, that all regarded her as holy indeed.

Geo. Long, a denizen of the underworld, a victim of strong drink, cocaine, opium and morphine, ruined in body and soul, was redeemed and freed from these desperate vices, and made a successful soul-winner for Christ.

These are a few of that "multitude that no man can number" who have been delivered from the power of sin, and have overcome by faith in Jesus.

If evolution be true it should be no hindrance but a great help. How many drunkards have been saved by a belief in evolution, and how many have been greater soul winners by such belief? How many criminals have been saved by acceptance of the theory? Many have been made criminals, unbelievers, infidels, agnostics and atheists by it; how many have been made Christians? Can any one be named who has been made a more earnest and successful soul winner, or a sweeter saint, by espousal of the doctrine? If one blank page were set aside for a list of all victims of sin and vice and crime, who were redeemed by faith in evolution, the space would be wasted. Is there any comfort in it to the dying, any help to the living? Would any evolutionist preacher read to the dying, the so-called classic passage from Darwin, showing that every living thing on the tangled bank came from one germ without any assistance from God? Is there any choice passage in all their books, fit to be read to the dying, or to a man in trouble, or in need of salvation? Is there anything to put hope in the breast, or inspire a man to a holy life? Anything to lift up a man sodden with sin, and redeem him from the fetters that bind him?

To give up the tested power of the gospel and to accept instead, the worthless guesses of evolution, ruinous in life and powerless in death, would be a sorry exchange indeed.


Many evolutionists frankly declare that the purpose of evolution is to destroy belief in God, or his active control of his creation. Prof. H. F. Osborn, of N. Y., a leading evolutionist, says, "In truth, from the period of the earlier stages of Greek thought, man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature." Other evolutionists openly announce their antagonism to the Bible and Christianity. Clarence Darrow, in the Tenn. trial, called Christianity a "fool religion."

Darwinism has been declared an attempt to eliminate God and all evidence of design and to substitute the old heathen doctrine of chance. With this announced purpose in view, we are not surprised to learn from Prof. J. H. Leuba that one-half the professors teaching it did not believe in God nor the immortality of the soul; and that there is a rapid increase in the number of students who have discarded Christianity as they progress in their course,—Freshmen, 15%; Juniors, 30%; Seniors, 40 to 45%. Children of Christian homes, taught to believe in God and Jesus Christ, are led into infidelity and atheism rapidly, as they progress in their course. It makes one shudder to think what the future will be, if atheism and infidelity are taught in the guise of science. And the statistics show that evolution is one of the most fruitful sources of unbelief. What the students are taught today, the world will believe tomorrow. How great the havoc caused by a comparatively few infidel or atheistic professors!

Dr. C. W. Elliott, a Unitarian, announced with apparently great glee, that already the young men and young women do not believe the story of the creation of Adam and Eve. The leaders of Bolshevist Russia said to Dr. Sherwood Eddy, with brutal frankness, "The Communist party, the only party allowed in Russia, is 100% atheistic. If a man believes in God, he can not be a member of the party." Russia is an example of a country where atheism is taught in the public schools, and we are moving all too fast in the same direction. The Red Army shot to death 500,000 men in Russia. The horrors of the French Revolution may be outdone, if we do not awake to our danger. Russia is cursed with a doctrine offensive alike to the Christian, the Jew, the Mohammedan and even the deist. In America the same condition may be brought about, more stealthily and more effectually in the name of science. Indeed, the Russian atheists feel the necessity of adopting the American method as more effective. An Associated Press dispatch of Dec. 24, 1924, states that Zinovieff, a Soviet leader, admitted that the Communists had gone too far in their efforts to establish atheism by force, but he adds, "We shall pursue our attacks on Almighty God in due time, and in an appropriate manner. We are confident we shall subdue him in his empyrean. We shall fight him wherever he hides himself.... I have been informed that not only young Communists, but Boy Scouts, are mocking people who are religious. I have also been told that groups of Boy Scouts have even imprisoned whole congregations in church while they were worshipping! Our campaign against God and religion must be carried out in a pedagogic way, not by violence or force." Do we want such a situation in America? We are drifting that way.

Evolution has no quarrel with atheism, agnosticism, modernism, or any other species of infidelity. Its quarrel is with Christianity and the Bible. Why should we wish to harmonize Christianity with evolution, when the theory can not possibly be true? Prof. Newman says, "Readings in Evolution," p. 8, "Contrary to a widespread idea, evolution (in what sense?) is by no means incompatible with religion (Christianity?).... The majority of thoughtful theologians (whew!) of all creeds are in accord with the evolution idea."

Dr. W. W. Keen says, "I believe in God and evolution." An infidel, a deist, even a heathen can say that. To harmonize evolution with Christianity is quite a different problem. Prof. Coulter, of Chicago University, endeavors to show where "religion and evolution meet." But the "religion" is the religion of the infidel, not of the Christian. How can a theory which denies the creation of Adam and Eve and any intervention and control by the Creator, be harmonized with Christianity?

Rev. F.E. Clark, President of the World C.E., says, "The Darwinian theory, whatever it may be called today, has doubtless unsettled many minds. A hazy agnosticism has often taken the place of strenuous belief." He is in a position to know.

A beloved friend, president of a prominent college, an evolutionist and a modernist, in a letter to the writer, claimed that evolution is nearest the truth, and those who believe it are nearest to "Him who is the Way, the Truth and the Life." If this is true, how many evolutionists are more spiritual, more earnest, and more successful on that account, in winning souls to Christ?

No doubt many have been made infidels and atheists. How many souls have been won to Christ by Osborn, Newman, Conklin, Darrow, Lull, Shull, Scott, Coulter, Metcalf, Kellogg, Nutting, Thompson, Castle, Chapin, and all other prominent evolutionists? If evolution is nearest the truth, the number of their converts to Christ should be greatly increased. We await the information, which we do not have at hand, to see if the contention of our friend is correct.

Mrs. Aimee Semple McPherson preaches daily in the Angelus Temple, Los Angeles, Cal., which seats 5300 people. Often standing room is at a premium. Many souls are saved (over 14,000 in 1924), and thousands are healed in answer to prayer. What a tremendous loss to humanity, if the gospel of Christ had not saved her from the infidelity and atheism of evolution! She writes as follows of her conversion: "The writer went to one of the services being held in my home town, by the Irish evangelist, Robert Semple, and entered the meeting practically an infidel, having studied Darwinism, atheistic theories until faith in God's word was shaken. Never will those moments be forgotten. One could feel the power of God, the moment one entered the building. Such singing, hands uplifted, faces radiant, such Amens and Hallelujahs, such power and fervor back of every word that was spoken, such exaltation of the deity of Christ, the necessity and power of the atoning blood, the second Coming of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit to energize and get the believer ready for his coming, gripped and stirred the heart.... Never, never, can the writer forget that hallowed hour, when, kneeling by a Morris chair in the home of a friend, early in the morning, with uplifted arms, she prayed and felt for the first time, the tremendous inflowing power of the Holy Ghost." Behold, the power of evolution to ruin, and of Christ to save!

Evolutionists are, as a rule, modernists; and modernists are evolutionists, and are reckless in their zeal to destroy the faith of the young committed to their care. We select the following 3 illustrations from a single article in the PRESBYTERIAN:

1. "A father sat in this office, a minister above middle life, his eyes full of tears, and his soul full of groans, as he told how he had sent his son, who had been an orderly Christian boy, to a supposedly Christian college. When the boy returned home, after graduation, he informed his father that through instruction received, he had lost his faith, and believed none of those things he had been taught at home. The father was so shocked and overcome he could make no reply, but asked his son to kneel and pray with him as they used to do. The son refused, and said he no longer believed in prayer."

2. "A good Christian father desired to give his young daughter the best educational advantages. She planned to be a missionary. He sent her to a well-known college, considered Christian. This college had a Bible chair, but of the destructive, critical type. The young student absorbed what she was taught. She lost all reverence for the Bible and rejected it. She entirely lost her faith which she had learned from her father and mother. She gave up her mission plans, and developed into a Socialist. When about to graduate, she wrote her father frankly, that she had given up the faith he had taught her, and she was going to live with a man without marriage, as she did not believe in marriage; The father visited her and protested. She smiled and called him an old fogy. She only consented to marriage when threatened with the civil law."

3. "Another case reported to us by another father:—His son, attending a so-called Christian college, reported that one of the professors declared that they and himself were hypocrites, because they attended chapel every morning where they were told that if they believed and did such things, they would some day go to another world and play on a harp. But if they did not, they would burn. This he declared was all bosh. Then he called attention to the teachings in the college, that man in his body developed from a lower animal, but that man had no soul."

Yet some colleges and universities ask Christian people to give large sums, with no guarantee that evolution, infidelity and atheism will not be taught. Is it any wonder that Christian parents tremble while their sons and daughters run the gauntlet of infidel professors?


Evolution leads to infidelity and atheism, and is therefore a foe to Christianity. It denies the doctrine of special creation, and opposes the religion of the Christian, the Jew and the Mohammedan. Why should not all these religions unite against the false and unsupported theory that would make havoc of them all?

If evolution could be shown reconcilable with Christianity it would be lifted into respectability, but what would be the gain to Christianity? The Christian religion is reconcilable with all true science, and hails every true science with joy. The church loves true science, but hates a lie that poses as the truth. Christianity is readily reconcilable with the true sciences of Astronomy and Chemistry, but we do not try to reconcile it with the corresponding false sciences of astrology and alchemy. Why should we be concerned about such a reconciliation, since all the evidence offered in favor of evolution is not worthy of serious consideration? The facts hotly contest every guess. There is no conflict between Christianity and science. But evolution is not science. It is not knowledge. It is not truth. It is not proved. It is not certain. It is not probable. It is not possible. How can the serious student escape the conviction that evolution has not one chance out of a thousand, or even out of a million, to be a possible theory, and none whatever to be a probable or proven theory? It offers not one convincing argument. The evidence against the theory shows that it has not yet been proven and never can be.

The present population of the globe shows the unity of man in the days of Noah, and that the human race could not have begun 2,000,000 years ago, nor 1,000,000, nor 100,000, nor even 10,000. And no evidence that the evolutionist can bring to bear now or hereafter can ever set aside this mathematical demonstration. This one argument is sufficient to shatter evolution, if there were no more. But the whole fifty arguments in this book rush to the support of this one. They all harmonize with the Bible statements, but not one of them with the false and baneful theory of evolution. And no erroneous guess that they can make will escape mathematical detection. Why should we gratify the clamor of evolutionists, and seek to reconcile Christianity with a theory so manifestly false? To be worthy of acceptance, it must satisfactorily answer every one of the fifty arguments in this book and many more. Can it do so?

Evolution carried to a logical conclusion would destroy every thing precious to the heart of a Christian. It denies the real inspiration of the Bible. It makes Moses a liar. It denies the story of creation, and substitutes an impossible guess. It denies miracles, the providence of God, the creation of man and beast, and God's government and control of the world. It laughs at the Virgin Birth and makes Christ a descendant of the brute on both sides. It denies his deity, his miracles, his resurrection from the dead. It joins hands with agnosticism, modernism, and other forms of infidelity and atheism and gives them the strongest support they have ever had. All these hail evolution's advent with exceeding great joy. It has the closest affinity with the wildest and worst theories ever proposed.

Its writers and proponents turn infidel and atheist. Its teachers and advocates lose their belief in God and the immortality of the soul. The young men and women who are taught, abandon the faith of their fathers and join the forces of unbelief. To be sure, some are saved by inconsistency, and still maintain their faith, but the havoc is great. It would strip Christ of his Deity, reduce him to the dimensions of a man, and make his religion powerless to save. The men who tore the seamless coat from the dying Christ did a praiseworthy act, in comparison to those who would strip him of his deity and glory, for these are the garments of God!

The ruffians at the foot of the cross gambled for a mere human garment, but there are evolutionists who would "trample under foot the blood of the Son of God, and count it an unholy thing." Those who would rob the world's redeemer of his power and divinity, while speaking patronizingly in praise of his human traits, do but insult him with the vilest slander, which makes the derision of Calvary seem like praise.

We were not surprised to learn that, in the Tenn. trial, evolution was defended by agnostics, who made their chief attack on the Bible and revealed religion; and the school, the home and religion were defended by men of high Christian character. Had Mr. Darrow as earnestly defended Christianity and Mr. Bryan as earnestly opposed it, millions would have held up their hands in astonishment. But the alignment was natural, and opened the eyes of multitudes to the fact that evolution is a friend to infidelity and a foe to Christianity. Their objection to prayer during the sessions of the Court shows that they hated what God loves.

Christianity withstood ten fiery persecutions, lasting 300 years, at the hands of the Roman Empire, the mistress of the world. The church was purified, and grew and multiplied. Numerous heresies arose but all yielded to the truth. Sin and corruption, formality and worldliness, failed to hinder the triumphant march of the church of God.

Infidelity made a fierce attack in the eighteenth century in its own name, and lost. But the most dangerous attack ever made is on, by evolution claiming the name of science and modernism claiming the name of religion. This f. a. d. is truly for a day. God will win. Truth will live and error will die. But too many precious souls will be lost unless the world awakes to see its danger soon.

Mr. Bryan, in his last message, said: "Christ has made of death a narrow starlit strip between the companionship of yesterday and the reunion of tomorrow. Evolution strikes out the stars, and deepens the gloom that enshrouds the tomb.".... "Do these evolutionists stop to think of the crime they commit when they take faith out of the hearts of men and women and lead them out into a starless night?"

Evolution wars with the religion of the Jews also. It attacks the Old Testament, dear alike to Christian and Jew. The Jews were the chosen people of God, and have played a large part in the history of the world. We gladly clasp hands with them against the common foe. David speaks for Jews and Christians in the 8th Psalm. In contrast to evolution, which degrades man to the level of the brute, he declares that man is but a little lower than God, (Heb. Elohim). The revisers had the courage so to translate it. David under inspiration wrote better than he knew, and in absolute harmony with modern science:

"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained, what is man (how great must he be) that thou are mindful of him (among thy great and marvelous works)? And the son of man that thou are a companion to him? For thou hast made him but little lower than God, and crownest him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet; all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." All animals confess the dominion of man since the strongest and fiercest flee from his face. Who would prefer the "string of stuff" that would place man below the brute, to the lofty description of the Hebrew Psalmist placing him a little lower than God?

Hon. William J. Bryan, when attending the Presbyterian General Assembly in Columbus, Ohio, in 1925, enclosed, in a letter to the writer, a copy of his address in John Wanamaker's Church, Philadelphia, on evolution and modernism, from which we select the following:

"All the modernists are evolutionists and their hypothesis of creation gives man a brute ancestry and makes him the apex of a gradual development extending over millions of years. This hypothesis contains no place for, and has no need of, a plan of salvation. It is only a step from this philosophy to the philosophy of the atheist who considers man 'a bundle of tendencies inherited from the lower animals,' and regards sin as nothing more serious than a disease that should be treated rather than punished. One of the gravest objections to the doctrine of the modernists is that it ignores sin in the sense in which the Bible describes sin. Modernists ignore the cause of sin, the effects of sin, and the remedy for sin. They worship the intellect and overlook the heart, 'out of which are the issues of life.' No evangelical church has ever endorsed a single doctrine of the modernists.

"Evolution is the basis of modernism. Carried to its logical conclusion, it annihilates revealed religion. It made an avowed agnostic of Darwin (see in his 'Life and Letters' a letter written on this subject just before his death); it has made agnostics of millions and atheists of hundreds of thousands, yet Christian taxpayers, not awake to its benumbing influence, allow Darwinism to be injected into the minds of immature students, many of whom return from college with their spiritual enthusiasm chilled if not destroyed.

"When we protest against the teaching of this tommy-rot by instructors paid by taxation, they accuse us of stifling conscience and interfering with free speech. Not at all; let the atheist think what he pleases and say what he thinks to those who are willing to listen to him, but he cannot rightly demand pay from the taxpayers for teaching their children what they do not want taught. The hand that writes the pay check rules the school. As long as Christians must build Christian colleges in which to teach Christianity, atheists should be required to build their own colleges if they desire to teach atheism.

"With from one to three millions of distinct species in the animal and vegetable world, not a single species has been traced to another. Until species in the animal and vegetable world can be linked together, why should we assume without proof that man is a blood relative of any lower form of life? Those who become obsessed with the idea that they have brute blood in their veins devote their time to searching for missing links in the hope of connecting man with life below him; why do they prefer a jungle ancestry to creation by the Almighty for a purpose and according to a divine plan? Why will they travel around the world to find a part of a skull or remnants of a skeleton when they will not cross the street to save a soul?

"How can intelligent men and women underestimate the Christ? He is no longer a wandering Jew with a few followers; He is the great fact of history and the growing figure of all time—there is no other growing figure in all the world today. Men—the greatest of them—rise and reign and pass away; only CHRIST reigns and remains. They shall not take away our Lord. The Christian Church will not permit the degrading of its founder; it will defend at all times, everywhere and in every way, the historical Christ. It believes that 'there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.' No diminutive Messiah can meet the religious need of the world today and throughout the centuries. Christ for all and forever, is the slogan of the church. There has been apostasy in every age; attacks upon Christianity have been disguised under cloaks of many kinds, but it has withstood them all—'The hammers are shattered but the anvil remains.' The church will not yield now; it will continue its defense of the Bible, the Bible's God and the Bible's Christ until 'every knee shall bow and every tongue confess.'

"While it resists the attacks upon the integrity of God's Word and the divinity of the Saviour, it will pray that those who are now making the attack may come under the influence of, and yield their hearts to, Him whose call is to all, whose hand is all power and who promises to be with His people 'always, even unto the end of the world,' The Apostles' Creed which has expressed the faith of the Christian Church for so many centuries shall not be emasculated by modernism.

"'Faith of our fathers! living still In spite of dungeon, fire and sword; O how our hearts beat high with joy Whene'er we hear that glorious word— Faith of our fathers! holy faith, We will be true to thee till death'!"


During the late world war, objects were concealed and the enemy deceived, by "camouflage." Many undertake to deceive or to hide their meaning by a camouflage of terms. These terms are chosen to conceal or deceive. Terms that suggest advance, improvement, learning, science, etc., are used to describe unworthy theories, beliefs and movements. It is an unfair trick to win and often meets with undeserved success.

EVOLUTION in the sense of growth and development, is true of a part of animal and plant life, and in this sense is undisputed. Some speak of the growth of a child and of all progress, as evolution. In the sense at issue, it means the development of all the 3,000,000 species of animals and plants, from one or a few primordial germs, without design or intelligence, or the aid of a Creator. A distinguished surgeon declares that evolution from the monkey is mere non-sense but that life is a constant evolution,—two senses in the same sentence. Such confusion of meaning brings science into disrepute. The meaning is shifted to suit.

SCIENCE means knowledge. We are glibly told that science teaches the evolution of man when it teaches nothing of the kind. A mere theory is not science until proven. A man does not become a scientist by advocating an unproven theory, but by making some notable contribution to knowledge. These self-appointed scientists recklessly declare that the "consensus" of science favors evolution. We oppose evolution not because it is science, but because it is not science. There is no conflict between Christianity and real science, but a fight to the death with "science falsely so called."

RELIGION is often taken to mean deism, or infidelity as well as Christianity. They show us "where evolution and religion meet," provided deism or infidelity is religion, but not, if Christianity is religion,—an inexcusable confusion of terms.

LAW is sometimes spoken of as if it had intelligence and power. Sometimes as a subordinate deity, or agent of God, or an indefinite principle. Darwin says:—"Plants and animals have all been produced by laws (?) acting around us." That is impossible, since "laws" can produce nothing. He evidently gives to laws the credit that belongs to God.

NATURE, in like manner, is often used as a substitute for God, to avoid the mention of His name.

MODERNISM is a fine sounding word, suggestive of learning and culture and the last word in science, but doubts or denies many of the essential doctrines of the Christian religion. It is infidelity pure and simple and of the most dangerous kind, camouflaged under this attractive name. Who can deny the statement that the only thing modern about modernism is its hypocrisy? It is ancient infidelity pretending to be a Christian view. Bearing the Christian flag, it attacks Christianity. Modernists are evidently ashamed of a name which fitly describes their views, and seek another. Infidels have tried to win under their own name. They have failed. Will they succeed under the camouflaged name of modernism? Camouflaged under an attractive name, modernists doubt or deny the real inspiration of the Bible, the Virgin birth of Jesus, his deity, his miracles, his bodily resurrection, the resurrection of the dead, and his personal second coming to judge the quick and the dead. Some modernists reject a part of these great truths, and some reject all.

LIBERAL is another term stolen by infidels ashamed of their own name. They are no more liberal in a good sense than others.

A RATIONALIST is not entitled to the term, because he is often more innocent of reasoning than his opponents. Reason is not opposed to revelation. We believe in an inspired revelation, because it is reasonable to do so. Rationalism is another camouflage for infidelity. We can have some respect for an honest professed skeptic, but how can we respect a man who insists on adding hypocrisy to his infidelity, that, by so doing, he may make greater havoc of the church? Modernists give such a diluted interpretation to inspiration, to the statements of Scripture, and the Apostles' Creed, and the creeds of the churches, that all may mean little or nothing, and the floodgates of infidelity and atheism are opened wide.

It has been truly said, "If the Bible is not really inspired, it is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind; for, from lid to lid, it claims to be the word of God." Likewise, if Moses was not inspired, he was the greatest liar of history.

Every variety of infidel and species of atheist will rejoice, if evolution be accepted,-whether modernists, liberals, rationalists, or simple unbelievers on their way to the bottomless pit. If evolution wins, Christianity loses and the church fails.

We hope that scientists will consign to innocuous desuetude their camouflaged sesquipedalian vocabularies, and tell us what they mean in short words, so we all may know what they say.


Some would have us believe there is no God; or that matter is eternal; or that matter was evolved out of nothing; or that all things came by chance; or that there is nothing but matter,—no God, no spirit, no mind, no soul.

Some would have us believe that God created nebulous matter, and then ceased to control the universe; that life developed spontaneously; that species developed by chance, or natural selection, or by a powerless "law," from one primordial germ. Others say that all the countless exhibitions of design by a matchless Intelligence, are to be explained by a causo-mechanical theory, which means the theory of blind unintelligent chance, without purpose or design or interference of God. Some say that God may have created one germ or at most 4 or 5, and that 3,000,000 species of plants and animals developed from this microscopic beginning. We are asked to believe that some plants became animals, or some animals became plants, or that all plants and animals came from the one germ they allowed God to create. They say that all species developed by growth, but do not explain why we still have the one-celled amoeba, the microscopic bacilli of plant life, and the microscopic species of animal life. Many geologic species are largest at the beginning; many ancient animals were much larger than their successors; and the reptilian age was noted for animals of enormous size. Yet they want us to believe that growth is universal.

They ask us to believe, without proof, that some marine animals evoluted into amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, some reptiles developed hair and became mammals, and some reptiles developed feathers and wings and became birds; some mammals became monkeys, and some monkeys became men. For evidence of this, there is not a single connecting link to show the transformation. Geology furnishes no fossils of the millions and billions of connecting links that must have existed. For the scheme would require not only millions of links between man and the monkey, but also millions between each of the 8 great changes from matter to man. Yet we are asked to accept these fantastic and impossible speculations as "science," though it lead to infidelity and atheism and bolshevism and anarchy and chaos, wreck religion, make havoc of the church, and send countless souls to the lost world. What wonder that the soul recoils with horror from such an atheistic theory.


Evolution, leading to infidelity and atheism, is taught in many universities, colleges and high schools, and even in the lower grades of the public schools. It is taught also in some theological seminaries. It is proclaimed in some pulpits. Some of its devotees, who have slipped into places of power and influence, urge it with a zeal worthy of a better cause. The public libraries are crammed with books teaching it, with few, if any, opposed. Strange to say, it is advocated by some religious newspapers, along with modernism and other varieties of infidelity. Some secular newspapers seem eager to publish, on the front page, attacks on orthodoxy, and articles favoring the wildest claims of evolution. They call evolution science! What are we going to do about it? Shall we supinely submit, or do all in our power to oppose, check and suppress so pernicious a theory? What can we do?

We can refuse to patronize or endow such institutions as teach this or other forms of infidelity and atheism. We can aid those only that are safe. Much money that was given by devout Christians to colleges and seminaries, has been prostituted to teach what the donors hated, and to do great harm. The faculty and trustees can do much to eliminate false teaching, if they will. Use all possible pressure to bring this about.

Evolution is taught in many high schools supported by the taxpayers' money. This should not be tolerated. Text books declare that man is descended from the brute, as if there were no doubt about it! Laws should be enacted and courts appealed to, to protect the youth. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Oregon case, gives strong hope that the teaching of evolution would not be permitted, if a case were carried up to the highest court. It should be done. If Christianity cannot be taught in the public schools, must we submit to the teaching of infidelity and atheism in the name of science? Intolerable outrage! In New York 15,000 people, on a recent Sunday, shouted for atheistic bolshevism, and condemned the United States government. A theory that encourages such a belief should not be taught. When the people awake to see the baneful effects, they will smite the fraud to the earth. Protests should be made to Boards of Education, superintendents, and all in authority. The power of public opinion should be brought to bear. Two states already have forbidden such instruction, and others will, no doubt, follow. The Associated Press, in this morning's papers, calls the struggle a contest between religion and science, and thousands of shallow thinkers will believe that evolution is really science!

We quote from Mauro's "Evolution at the Bar," p. 71: "A parent writing to a religious periodical, tells of a text book brought home by his seven-year-old boy, the title of which was, 'Home Geography for Primary Grades.' Discussing the subject of birds, this text book for primary grades says: 'Ever so long ago, their grandfathers were not birds at all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings nor feathers. These grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long tail, and jaws with teeth. After a time feathers grew on their bodies, and their front legs were changed for flying. These were strange looking creatures. There are none living like them now.'" Would any one who would teach a little child, the extremely improbable story that reptiles became birds, hesitate to teach that monkeys became men and that the story of creation was false?

Much can be done by the church authorities in refusing to license or ordain men who believe in any species of infidelity, or who have attended heretical seminaries. They should give their consent for candidates to attend only colleges, universities or seminaries that can be trusted. Congregations should know, before they call a pastor, that he is orthodox. Ministers are to preach the Gospel not infidelity.

Taboo all heretical religious papers; support those that defend the truth. Let infidels maintain infidel papers and build infidel colleges. Not one dollar to propagate infidelity! Make your one short consecrated life count for truth and righteousness. Many Christians are guilty of the great sin of indifference. In this greatest of all contests in which the Church was ever engaged, no one should be a slacker.

Many public libraries have 20 to 50 books in favor of evolution, and but one or two, if any, opposed. If dangerous books, like Wells' "Outline of History", McCabe's "A. B. C. of Evolution", and the works of Darwin, who doubted his own theory, and of Romanes, who renounced evolution and embraced Christ, can not be eliminated, libraries, in all fairness and in the interest of truth, should have an equal number in reply. Insist that librarians get a copy of this book, and other anti-evolution books, especially those mentioned herein; also other good books.

The author and publisher of this book will give 50% commission for selling it, and will mail two copies for $1.00 to all who will become agents. If you can't be an agent, you will do great good by securing another. A copy should be in the hands of every student, so he can discuss evolution with his teacher; and in the hands of every teacher, lawyer, doctor, minister, lawmaker or other professional man, of every parent whose children are liable to be taught the dangerous doctrine. It will be useful in removing error and in promoting the truth. Agents should canvass every school, college, university, seminary; every convention, conference; every religious and educational gathering. A copy should be in every library.

Every dollar of profit from the sale of this book will be given to Missions, to be loaned perpetually to help build churches, and to preach the Gospel in the secular newspapers of the world, and to distribute this book free. Every $1000 so loaned to churches at 5% compound interest, in 300 years, will, together with the accrued interest, aid in building 8,229,024 churches, by a loan of $1000 each for 5 years, and the new principal at the end of 300 years will be $2,273,528,000.

After four struggles, the writer was led to give the one-tenth, then the unpaid or "stolen" tenth (Mai. 3:8), then to consecrate the nine-tenths, and, lastly, to give all above an economical living. Many another consecrated Christian, on fire for God and burning with fury against all forms of infidelity, can do incalculable good by sending this book free to as many libraries, students, teachers, ministers, lawyers and doctors as possible. For this purpose, the publisher will mail the book to large numbers, for 20c each; your $1 sends a $1 book to 5. For $2000, for example, a copy will be mailed to the 10,000 ministers of the Presbyterian church, U.S.A.; for $4,000, to the 20,000 pastors of the Methodist Episcopal church; for $1000, a copy to 5000 public libraries in the United States and elsewhere; or to 5000 students, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, lawmakers, etc. Smaller sums in proportion. What great good a heroic giver, in every land, could do with $1000 or $10,000 or $100,000! With 1,000,000 copies, we would wake the world!

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